While you're being pedantic, you should note that I didn't claim (atleast not intentionally) NAT performed all of those actions. If I did, then I must have been rushing as I was trying to highlight the kep concepts for your benefit.
While you claim that NAT "only does address translation", you're technically right, but you're conclusion is also technically useless (a moot point). Let me explain.
While the NAT technology (a component of a larger system) only provides address translation, a NAT enabled router/modem (the whole system) definitely transmits and retransmits, clearly qualifying for that specific clause, which is designed to be broad.
Secondly, I didn't claim the primary purpose of NAT (a technology component of many devices) is to provide unauthorized telecommunications service. I SPECIFICALLY said a NAT enabled DSL/Cable modem's (See how I didn't include ALL NAT equipment) purpose is to provide unauthorized telecommunications service (to additional computers).
This unauthorized used of additional computers is enabled by a NAT enabled modems address translation and retransmission capabilities, not to mention the fact is obscures the origin which is a clear violation of sub-paragraph (ii).
In other words: This law considers NAT benign, a NAT router benign, but it clearly states that a NAT device specifically designed to provide unauthorized access for additional computer (a NAT enabled modem) is in violation of the law.
I've already corrected a number of your assertions, which I'm assuming giving your lack of rebuttle you've agreed, so why don't you give me a little consideration for this point? I'm not asking you agree and abandon your critical thinking skills, I'm just asking for your consideration.
When dealing with legislation (especially legislation), you need to be very careful with the specifics of the language used. It's like a lot like software insofar as a small adjustment in semantics, defintions, clauses, logical precident here and there can affect the outcome dramatically.
You concluded with: And next time, don't start a discussion with ad hominem attacks. You really bring out the worst in people with that sort of approach.
I can't remember using an ad hominem attack. I asserted your research skills were poor, your interpretation skills obtuse, and probably harshly critisized your other critical thinking skills.
...and technically, YOU started the ad hominem attacks when you wrote: All this does is make owning or selling phone freaking equipment illegal. It ha nothing to do with George Bush being the second coming of Hitler or any such thing.
Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't have responded if you hadn't resorted to an ad hominem attack.
I did intend to make your post look stupid so to make it appear as if I was punishing you. While I understand my "punishment" would probably do nothing to curb your behavior, I hope that my criticism turns your original post into an example of what not to do.
I never use ad hominem attacks as a substitute for a rational argument. Ad hominem attacks are much more suited for influencing attitudes, not opinions.
Laws are often redundantly written. You'll find that Section 750.540c and 750.219a are not exception.
If you read the bill a little closer, you'll note that not only does the bill apply to unlawful telecommunications devices, but it ALSO applies to LAWFUL telecommunications devices
A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device OR (assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device (THAT INCLUDES NAT ROUTERS AND EVEN PIN CODES. )) intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
From my prior post, we know that a PIN code is considered a telecommunications device. Modems are routers are DEFINITELY fit under the definition. Now, if NAT fits ONE of these sub-paragraphs, then NAT fits the bill...
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a. (NAT may technically fall under this because it provides access to more than one computer by avoiding charges However, I'll be nice and not count this one.)
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service. (This is how NAT works, it conceals the existances and origin by proxying a connection... That's #1)
(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider. (Wow... Other than disrupting, decrypting, NAT does all of these other things WITHOUT the express authority of actual consent of the Telco. That's #2 )
BONUS INFO
I thought I would copy + paste the definition for an "unlawful telecommunications access device" while we're at it.
(e) "Unlawful telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
This one targets subcription violations (i) A telecommunications access device that is false, fraudulent, unlawful, not issued to a legitimate telecommunications access device subscriber account, or otherwise invalid or that is expired, suspended, revoked, canceled, or otherwise terminated if notice of the expiration, suspension, revocation, cancellation, or termination has been sent to the telecommunications access device subscriber.
This targets unauthorized phone use (ii) Any phones altered to obtain service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider, a clone telephone, clone microchip, tumbler telephone, tumbler microchip, or wireless scanning device capable of acquiring, intercepting, receiving, or otherwise facilitating the use, acquisition, interception, or receipt of a telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
This one looks interesting... (iii) Any telecommunications access device that has been manufactured, assembled, altered, designed, modified, programmed, or reprogrammed, alone or in conjunction with another device, so as to be capable of facilitating the disruption, acquisition, interception, receipt, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of a telecommunications service without the actual consent or express authorization of the telecommunications service provider, including, but not limited to, any device, technology, product, service, equipment, computer software, or component or part, primarily (Think: Primary pu
I hope when you decide to become a lawyer that you'll do more for your client than skim the legislation and hope for the best, because your research skills SUCK.
Note the following line in the ammendment.
(b) "Telecommunications access device" shall have the same meaning as in section 219a.
(b) "Telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
(i) Any instrument, device, card, plate, code, telephone number, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, counterfeit number, or financial transaction device as defined in section 157m that alone or with another device can acquire, transmit, intercept, provide, receive, use, or otherwise facilitate the use, acquisition, interception, provision, reception, and transmission of any telecommunications service.
(ii) Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology, or software that facilitates telecommunications or which is capable of transmitting, acquiring, intercepting, decrypting, or receiving any telephonic, electronic, data, internet access, audio, video, microwave, or radio transmissions, signals, telecommunications, or services, including the receipt, acquisition, interception, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of all telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services provided by or through any cable television, fiber optic, telephone, satellite, microwave, data transmission, radio, internet based or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, or any part, accessory, or component, including any computer circuit, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, pager, cellular telephone, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, modem, electronic mechanism or other component, accessory, or part of any other device that is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, decryption, acquisition, or reception of any telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services.
Note that telephone numbers, PINs, and account numbers are considered telecommunication access devices....AND YOU DON'T THINK THESE BROAD DEFINITIONS DON'T INCLUDE MODEMS AND ROUTERS THAT HAVE NAT???
What color is the sky in your world?
BTW, This has nothing to do with being anti-George Bush, anti-corporation, anti-war, or anti-republican. This is about EVERYDAY corruption that's been happening in this and EVERY OTHER country since the dawn of civilization that infects EVERY political party.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not going to be so presumptuous to say I know what should be done with Iraq. The only thing I know is that almost everybody else is full of shit. (That John Denver's full of shit...)
Having said that, I'd like to point out that this is the same EFFECTIVE logic used by gang leaders, warlords, and other criminal elements to incite their people to war. You're probably asking, "How can I use this exploit this logic on my own band of thugs?" Maybe I want to use this sort of logic to have people unwittingly agree to unfair circumstance, by using an engineered scenario. How do we do it?
Here's how it works
1. Create a specific situation that's "impossible" to disagree with... (This is a good situation) 2. Explain the situation so the listener doesn't pay attention to the specific circumstances of the situation. 3. Exploit this lack of attention to details so that your situation seems analogous to the argument you REALLY want to make.
Let's see how it works in this situation. Let's engineer a scenario.
SCENARIO: Total Pacifism exercised by a single person will NEVER stop total tyranny in another single person. (How can you argue with that?)
1. Use neo-violent slapstick humor to engage the reader into a funny scenario with a stupid pacifist, and a clever "realist" posing as a tyrant. 2. Let reader assume this is anecdotal of ALL pacifist/tyranny interactions. 3. Demonstrate it. *PUNCH* 4. Reader should be laughing. THAT was unexpected! 5. Have the clever "realist" recite worn out rhetoric used by the pacifist. 6. Demonstrate the moot point of the rhetoric with an unprovoked *PUNCH* 7. Ha! Ha! What a boob! 8. DON'T mention the availability of Economic, Political, and other disincentives against an unprovoked attack. 9. Follow up humor with dramatic effect. Quickly changing to a serious tone tends to accentuate the seriousness of the moral. 10. Do not provide in-depth analysis, numerical data, or cite further information to allow reader to explore the complicated dynamics of full scale wars, gang wars, political wars, economic wars, family conflicts, feuds, the nature of fear, tactics, etc.
Allow the reader to conclude the most primitive obtuse rules-of-thumb: The less information you provide, the dumber the conclusions.
HAPPY (GANG/POLITICAL/ECONOMIC/FULL SCALE/FEUDAL) WAR MONGERING!
I think there's a little miscommunication going on here. Apparently, when someone mentions "rights" to you, your definition isn't inclusive enough that it includes protection from the government. You seem to be equating rights (n. 6a-6b) with freedom.
In this case: We're talking about legal rights (Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature) AS protections which were designed to protect citizens corrupt government officials wielding their power unjustly.
Our friend "OneEyedApe" listed the protections (RIGHTS) and freedoms that we lost.
First of all, I'm all for hunting terrorists, and I'm even for the invasion of Iraq. I'm also for the protesting (not their goals, just their protests) as I think I believe they are playing a key part in showing the world that not all Americans are daemons. If it weren't for them, I believe we would truly be having an undeclared holy war much like Israel/Palestine.
You're not talking to a liberal hippie who's just following the crowd chanting anti-corporate ideology. If you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm consistently for free market and free society but most of all I believe that these things can only be achieved by continuing the tradition of limited authority and transparency in government positions.
I understand the government is an integral institution that needs to crack down on organized crime, corruption, terrorism, and everything else that plagues society and prosperity. I also understand that organized crime, corruption, money laundering, and other illegal activity can easily permeate itself WITHEN the institutions which are supposed to protect us from crime and corruption.
Laws, Regulations, and Rights are all subject to circumvention. Criminals, Politicians, and Industry have been circumventing these protections for years. It doesn't necessarily mean politicians and industry is bad (sometimes criminals aren't bad). What it does mean is that we need to give them incentive to keep honest people honest, and make life more difficult for people who wish to not abide by the law.
I suggest you take another look at OneEyedApe's list of lost rights we lost, and then consider how as a criminal, corrupt politician, or lobbyist group could abuse these circumstance.
I invite you to take an active roll researching newspapers for past stories about corrupt politicians, criminal organizations, whistle-blowers, blantent lobbying, and read how they circumvent existing protections, let alone with when the protections are gone.
Having lived in the third-world, where politicians respect rights about as much as you seem to respect them, I can personally attest as to how thier lack of rights and protections from corrupt government officials stagnates any chance for prosperierity.
I thought I would include a brief example of how one MAY lose your rights (There are many ways of taking peoples rights away).
1. Someone finds an exception to the rule. (Pinky inserted into anus) 2. Others test exception, try variations of the exception. (Index finger inserted, followed by Middle finger, and Thumb) 3. People start testing things that appear to be exceptions, which aren't exceptions. (Two fingers) 4. Person discovers form of exception which circumvents the purpose of the rule entirely. (Three fingers) 5. Everybody uses this unique exception. (Anus is fisted and bleeding at this point)
...and that's how the exception becomes the rule...
I understand that many of hippies don't understand the complexity of the situation, but don't throw away this orthodoxy just because they can't explain why it's necessary.
Again, tell me a right you have lost. You listed a number of things the Government changed, but you have yet to mention a right you have lost.
What were you expecting? Lost your right to take walks after 10:00 PM, or use Linux as an operating system?
The right to privacy and due process is not so much about the freedom to do things, it's mostly about protecting the public from corrupt government officials who abuse thier powers.
Traditionally, wisely, and conservatively, power has been balanced with accountability and/or transparency. Every official must be either accountable for thier actions. To ensure that an officials actions can be held accountable, they must be transparent to a third-party/public to prevent an official from concealing corruption.
I feel like a mother telling her son that we live in a dishonest world. "You NEVER give your money to a stranger, even if he says he'll give it right back with 100% interest." (Do you know how many people STILL fall for that kind of scam?)
My response isn't just to you, but to others who don't think losing freedoms aren't that big a deal.
Imagine one day you were arrested for being a terrorist (I know the idea is silly, but bear with me) planning on performing a terrorist act.
Given the current state of affairs, President Shrub could label you, an American Citizen, an "enemy combatant" and throw you into military detention indefinitely without the right to talk to an attorney to plead your case.
He did it with Jose Padilla (The Dirty Bomber).
*EVEN* South Africa allowed Nelson Mandela to talk to his attorney.
Realistically, You're not a terrorist, and I doubt people have a personal vendetta against you. After all, you're no rabble rouser. Even if you were, I doubt President Shrub would throw you into military detention for being a rabble rouser. He still has to justify it to the apathetic masses. He wants to get re-elected, right?...but when he threw Jose Padilla in military detention, not many people batted an eye. He actually got away with throwing an American in miltary detention, which would have been difficult to impossible a couple of years ago, EVEN if he was a terrorist.
People who aim to take away your personal liberties aren't stupid. They either do it by justifying it with special circumstances (exception to the rule). If they persist with special circumstances long enough, the exception to the rule tends to become the rule.
I don't consider myself THAT informed, but I came up with "due process rights" pretty quickly , which wasn't even LEGISLATED. Let me repeat that: They took away your due process rights without legislating anything, let alone ammending the constitution.
Is it REALLY unlikely they won't abuse the Patriot Act and Patriot II legislation if they clearly don't respect due process?
By all means, Love your Country, NEVER Trust Your Government
First, I'm not making claims this is uncrackable, but you have no problem making claims that not only is it crackable, but it will be cracked, because you're under the delusion that everything has been cracked.
I'm not going to bother making a huge list of things which haven't been cracked, instead I'll give you one: RSA Encryption
RSA isn't uncrackable. It's not designed to be uncrackable. Instead, it's designed in such a way that cracking it will take a VERY VERY long time with today's technology. (Hundreds or thousands of years, depending on the key size?)
RSA will probably be cracked on some level in the future, but it realistically it won't be cracked in this decade or two or five, which is good close enough for most applications.
Maybe this won't be technically uncrackable, but what will one have to go through to crack it? Cracking Hardware isn't like cracking Software.
Listen, I don't know through what kind of unholy alliance of homosexual practices and family connections that allows you to live apart from the rest of the world that you come to your conslusion, but let me assure you that most people are suffering out there.
I didn't say people weren't suffering, or that people have lost thier jobs.
You obviously didn't get my point, and I doubt you'll stop being obtuse long enough to figure it out.
Business magazines are written for people that buy into the business lifestyle and don't see it as a necessary evil. For those people, who latch onto the cocks of their managers in a lamprey-esque way, the future in business is always bright. For those of us with minds, the future usually sucks. Such is the way of america.
Let me get this straight. Thier magazine's quantative analysis (they published thier data and method of analysis) is wrong because the people who read it suck thier bosses dick, and your lack of prospects is caused by your analytical skills?
I'm overwelmed to see my fellow Americans using thier critical thinking skills to spread insightful and informed opinions! Yay!
REMEBER THIS: The GPL Uses Copyright Law to Enforce It's Terms
Licensing software with unusual terms and conditions isn't a new thing, which is what is happening in this case.
1. GPLed software is copyrighted, and in this case is being LICENSED to Company A under the conditions that Company A will release thier code after taking in X dollars in revenue.
2. Company A can't relicense or give its license to Company B because it would violate its license. In the event Company A or B tries a fast one they'll be slapped with a copyright infringement suit and then Company A and B will be worrying about paying thier lawyers and an inflated settlement.
This sort of thing (unusual licensing terms) has been well thought out and is probably well supported with many legal precidents.
I think you guys presented a good case as for trade-offs.
MySQL - Fast, Well Supported, Good for Simplier Problems PostgreSQL - Limited Support, Needs more Attention, Suited for Complex Problems
Why "real DBAs" whine
I think the problem is that many DBAs and developers have really come to rely on JOINS, stored-procedures, triggers, etc. I've been using these features very actively for the past 4 years and wondered what I did without them all these years.
In the past year alone, I've written almost 300 stored-procedures, about 1/4 of which are 4 or more pages of code that would have run like a dog has it been written on the client side.
Having done a lot of 2-tiered, 3-tiered, n-tiered design, I've come to realize that the middle tier (business rules) doesn't have to outside the database in Perl code. If you can implement your middle tier inside the database, you'll almost always see a significant performance advantage and not have to worry about writing engine code to handle issues like concurrancy and multiple users.
While MySQL is capable of handling a number of problems, it's very ill-suited for most enterprise business problems.
You should notice that these "Real DBAs" mostly have a fit when people start making claims that MySQL can compete with Oracle. They're afraid some pointy haired boss is going to believe these claims, and is going to ask them to convert thier Oracle databases to MySQL.
As for myself, I see MySQL as a nice step forward as far as performance is concerned, but it's a HUGE step backwards as far as functionality.
In other words, It's a great engine for storing/retrieving lots of data, but it doesn't have the tools for manipulating/querying the data.
For a lot of people, that means not cutting the muster.
Views? They are for people who don't know how to write queries. Triggers? They are for people who like mysterious things to happen to their data. Foreign Keys? They are for people who don't like to delete their data. Interval Datatypes? They are for people who are iffy. Full Outer Joins? They are for people who like lots of data. Subqueries? They are for people who can't program simple loops. Set operations? They are for people who can't relate.
shall I add???
Programming Languages They are for people who can't read machine code in hex.
(I realize you're kidding, but there are some people who might take you seriously)
What about integrity constraints, foreign keys, interval datatypes, full outer joins, subqueries, set operations, VIEWS for god's sake, and triggers? Too hard?
For cryin' out loud, half of these missing features put the "relational" in "relational database"!
First of all, kudos to the MySQL team for atleast getting as far as they have. Just because I'm not fond of thier product, doesn't mean they don't deserve credit.
I've been banging my head a little on this one too trying to figure out why so many people are pushing MySQL and not something stable and complete like PostgreSQL? After all, PostgreSQL has triggers, stored-procedures, functions, referential integrity, and tons of other features to make your life easier. You may not need all of these features now, but can you honestly say your app won't expand and require advanced features?
Is it the MySQL marketing engine? Does PostgreSQL sound intimidating? Are there actually technical advantages that MySQL have over PostgreSQL? If so, what are they?
The most common argument I've heard in defense of MySQLs lack of basic features is: "It's good enough for 90% of the problems out there." However, everytime they implement a basic feature that every other RDBMS has had for decades (like UNION), people respond as if MySQL is getting close to be taken seriously.
Secondly, In my experience, I've found that 90% of the applications I've worked on end up using those advanced features sooner or later. Those features usually save a tremendous amount of time I would have otherwise had to spend writing code to make my database jump through hoops. In addition to saving time, there a lot of features which simply allow me to make my applications more useful or intuitive to the end user, which is the whole point.
Am I missing something here, or is the Emperor not wearing any clothes?
Isn't HDTV happening because of the FCC? The incumbent broadcasters had no interest in switching to DTV untill forced to.
Exactly, the FCC has regulated a technology the incumbant broadcasters has no interest in, because television viewers aren't that interested in HDTV in the first place. If viewers were interested, they would watch stations who broadcast HDTV more than non-HDTV stations enough to justify the investment.
Eventually the demand will have risen enough, and the cost of investment would have come down where they would have met in a market equilibrium.
So why regulate something as superfluous as HDTV that has a little interest in the first place?
If the FCC unregulate radio spectrum you would very quickly be unable to recieve anything.
You mean like 802.11??? The FCC mostly deregulated that spectrum. Seems to be working fine...
I think you underestimate the market's tendency to co-operate, especially when there's a buck to be made. If you don't believe me, ask your trade association or standards body what they think.
Don't you find it ironic that you're critisizing Martus' website for making a blanket statement (human rights violations exists because nobody knows about them) with your own blanket statement (most people are apathetic, so nothing can be done if you don't change most people)?
Personally, I think you're severely underestimating the people involved with the Martus project. In my experience, voluteers are almost always very aware of the apathy factor. It's usually assumed that everybody is aware of the apathy factor.
A lot of people don't give a shit, and each for thier own different reasons. However, there *are* a lot of people who do care and actually dedicate thier time to make a change. While thier work doesn't make the problems go away, contributions like this help.
While apathy/involvment can be a big factor in fighting issues like these, you're also forgetting political/commercial factors. For every political/commercial interests abusing human rights, there are usually opposing political/commercial interests who would love to expose thier opponent's corruption/evil to topple thier regime. Documenting human rights abuses, especially if it can indict key political figure can be extremely useful.
If Martus's system can make the process of gathering/distributing of key evidence more effective, kudos to the Martus team.
While everything I might have said may not be true, atleast I have enough imagination to realize my own ignorance and shortsightedness.
I think you're just beginning to stumble on the very harsh reality of this world.
War is all about using innocent people to fight/shield for evil people.
Virtually ALL leaders, generals, dictators, tyrants exploit the concept of human shields, and like sheep, we usually go along with it. If people were smart, we would come to an agreement with our "enemies" and mutually kill the leaders who are using us as thier shilds.
Reality shows us that there no simple answers, let alone perfect answers, to this type of problem. However, History shows us that ignoring/playing into tyrants who use human shields is a big mistake.
From what I've seen, usually the best bet is try to kill/harm as few innocents as possible, but make sure you get the tyrant. In this case, I think it's worth pissing off a few Aussies is worth the benefits to force thier ISP to play by the rules.
If we lived in a perfect world, we would killed Bush, and the Middle East would kill the terrorists
Any twelve year old with a mind dirty enough to go searching for albino midget porn on google was already corrupt to begin with.
Either you've never surfed for porn or you're hiding something, because 90% of the porno websites I've visited usually offer various links for different tastes, including: Teen, Ebony, Gay, Anal, Japanese, Mature, Midget Fucking, Dog Fucking, etc. I don't know about you, but it's almost seems impossible to only surf tasteful porn without being bombarded with some seriously henious shit.
Fortunately, Most 10-12 year olds will probably laugh at people fucking dogs, but there will be some (I remember growing up with fucked up kids) who's interest might be piqued. Some of those kids will have grown up to be dog fuckers anyway, but would ALL of those kids have grown up to be dog fuckers if they hadn't been exposed to it at a vulnerable age? Obviously not...
Most kids are more impressionable the younger they get while other kids will always be inpressionable well into thier adult years. So far, we've been talking about 10-12 year olds. I remember being interested in sex when I was 5-6 (I knew what a dick and a cunt was...) So who's to say that 7-10 year olds AREN'T looking at porn (when they can get away with it). If they're surfing the same porn sites I'm surfing, I'm pretty sure they've been exposed to a lot. By the time a kid is 12, he knows that dog fucking is pretty fucked up. At 7-9, I'm not so sure.
A kid at that age will pretty much do any stupid thing if it interests them and they can get away with it.
So, Do you want to keep making stupid blanket statements?
OR
Are you willing to ask tough questions, investigate carefully, and accept the answers even if you don't like the answers?
Oh yeah, if I believe in censoring *my* kids, should I shut the fuck up, or does that just apply to gov't censorship?
Ok, I'm going to assume that you're having a bad day or something, rather than leaping immediately to the conclusion that you're a flaming asshole who comes here because he likes insulting people and doing a lot of nay-saying.
First, You call me confused, suggest I have no imagination, and suggest I'm acting like a flaming asshole? (Or am I just having a bad day?) That's real subtle...
Note: I never insulted you
Apparently you still don't think I understand Prevayler and what it does. It's not that complicated. (I looked through the code, I've written similar code myself, and other than a couple of the ideas, it's really nothing new.
If you really think that finding and indexing your objects is the hard part of development, and that having somebody do that for you is what really matters, then Prevayler probably isn't for you. Personally, in the systems I build, it hasn't been a big deal.
It doesn't seem like you appreciate a really well thought out queries with optimized joins or the inner workings of fulltext engines.
I also haven't assumed much about your competitence, but you apparently have no problem suggesting I don't understand design patterns or can't write my own searching/indexing code. Having worked on shrinked-wrapped, full-text engine for CD-ROMs, to embedded (plastic card printers), device-drivers, web apps, and enterprise systems, I'll save you some speculation.
I don't think you appreciate the hundreds of pages of SQL92 stored-procedures/triggers people like myself have written to support systems consisting of hundreds of tables, many with relationships that require very unique indexing/sorting/searching capabilities beyond the scope of what's included in java.util.*
Do you REALLY appreciate/understand what a good query engine is capable of, or are you going to keep assuming I'm a code monkey?
Slashdot Mirror
While you're being pedantic, you should note that I didn't claim (atleast not intentionally) NAT performed all of those actions. If I did, then I must have been rushing as I was trying to highlight the kep concepts for your benefit.
...and technically, YOU started the ad hominem attacks when you wrote:
While you claim that NAT "only does address translation", you're technically right, but you're conclusion is also technically useless (a moot point). Let me explain.
While the NAT technology (a component of a larger system) only provides address translation, a NAT enabled router/modem (the whole system) definitely transmits and retransmits, clearly qualifying for that specific clause, which is designed to be broad.
Secondly, I didn't claim the primary purpose of NAT (a technology component of many devices) is to provide unauthorized telecommunications service. I SPECIFICALLY said a NAT enabled DSL/Cable modem's (See how I didn't include ALL NAT equipment) purpose is to provide unauthorized telecommunications service (to additional computers).
This unauthorized used of additional computers is enabled by a NAT enabled modems address translation and retransmission capabilities, not to mention the fact is obscures the origin which is a clear violation of sub-paragraph (ii).
In other words: This law considers NAT benign, a NAT router benign, but it clearly states that a NAT device specifically designed to provide unauthorized access for additional computer (a NAT enabled modem) is in violation of the law.
I've already corrected a number of your assertions, which I'm assuming giving your lack of rebuttle you've agreed, so why don't you give me a little consideration for this point? I'm not asking you agree and abandon your critical thinking skills, I'm just asking for your consideration.
When dealing with legislation (especially legislation), you need to be very careful with the specifics of the language used. It's like a lot like software insofar as a small adjustment in semantics, defintions, clauses, logical precident here and there can affect the outcome dramatically.
You concluded with:
And next time, don't start a discussion with ad hominem attacks. You really bring out the worst in people with that sort of approach.
I can't remember using an ad hominem attack. I asserted your research skills were poor, your interpretation skills obtuse, and probably harshly critisized your other critical thinking skills.
All this does is make owning or selling phone freaking equipment illegal. It ha nothing to do with George Bush being the second coming of Hitler or any such thing.
Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't have responded if you hadn't resorted to an ad hominem attack.
I did intend to make your post look stupid so to make it appear as if I was punishing you. While I understand my "punishment" would probably do nothing to curb your behavior, I hope that my criticism turns your original post into an example of what not to do.
I never use ad hominem attacks as a substitute for a rational argument. Ad hominem attacks are much more suited for influencing attitudes, not opinions.
Laws are often redundantly written. You'll find that Section 750.540c and 750.219a are not exception.
If you read the bill a little closer, you'll note that not only does the bill apply to unlawful telecommunications devices, but it ALSO applies to LAWFUL telecommunications devices
A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device OR (assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device (THAT INCLUDES NAT ROUTERS AND EVEN PIN CODES. )) intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
From my prior post, we know that a PIN code is considered a telecommunications device. Modems are routers are DEFINITELY fit under the definition. Now, if NAT fits ONE of these sub-paragraphs, then NAT fits the bill...
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a.
(NAT may technically fall under this because it provides access to more than one computer by avoiding charges However, I'll be nice and not count this one.)
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
(This is how NAT works, it conceals the existances and origin by proxying a connection... That's #1)
(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
(Wow... Other than disrupting, decrypting, NAT does all of these other things WITHOUT the express authority of actual consent of the Telco. That's #2 )
BONUS INFO
I thought I would copy + paste the definition for an "unlawful telecommunications access device" while we're at it.
(e) "Unlawful telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
This one targets subcription violations
(i) A telecommunications access device that is false, fraudulent, unlawful, not issued to a legitimate telecommunications access device subscriber account, or otherwise invalid or that is expired, suspended, revoked, canceled, or otherwise terminated if notice of the expiration, suspension, revocation, cancellation, or termination has been sent to the telecommunications access device subscriber.
This targets unauthorized phone use
(ii) Any phones altered to obtain service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider, a clone telephone, clone microchip, tumbler telephone, tumbler microchip, or wireless scanning device capable of acquiring, intercepting, receiving, or otherwise facilitating the use, acquisition, interception, or receipt of a telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
This one looks interesting...
(iii) Any telecommunications access device that has been manufactured, assembled, altered, designed, modified, programmed, or reprogrammed, alone or in conjunction with another device, so as to be capable of facilitating the disruption, acquisition, interception, receipt, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of a telecommunications service without the actual consent or express authorization of the telecommunications service provider, including, but not limited to, any device, technology, product, service, equipment, computer software, or component or part, primarily (Think: Primary pu
I hope when you decide to become a lawyer that you'll do more for your client than skim the legislation and hope for the best, because your research skills SUCK.
...AND YOU DON'T THINK THESE BROAD DEFINITIONS DON'T INCLUDE MODEMS AND ROUTERS THAT HAVE NAT???
Note the following line in the ammendment.
(b) "Telecommunications access device" shall have the same meaning as in section 219a.
Here's the URL for Section 219a.
Section 219a
(b) "Telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
(i) Any instrument, device, card, plate, code, telephone number, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, counterfeit number, or financial transaction device as defined in section 157m that alone or with another device can acquire, transmit, intercept, provide, receive, use, or otherwise facilitate the use, acquisition, interception, provision, reception, and transmission of any telecommunications service.
(ii) Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology, or software that facilitates telecommunications or which is capable of transmitting, acquiring, intercepting, decrypting, or receiving any telephonic, electronic, data, internet access, audio, video, microwave, or radio transmissions, signals, telecommunications, or services, including the receipt, acquisition, interception, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of all telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services provided by or through any cable television, fiber optic, telephone, satellite, microwave, data transmission, radio, internet based or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, or any part, accessory, or component, including any computer circuit, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, pager, cellular telephone, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, modem, electronic mechanism or other component, accessory, or part of any other device that is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, decryption, acquisition, or reception of any telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services.
Note that telephone numbers, PINs, and account numbers are considered telecommunication access devices.
What color is the sky in your world?
BTW, This has nothing to do with being anti-George Bush, anti-corporation, anti-war, or anti-republican. This is about EVERYDAY corruption that's been happening in this and EVERY OTHER country since the dawn of civilization that infects EVERY political party.
Grow up and stop being naive.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not going to be so presumptuous to say I know what should be done with Iraq. The only thing I know is that almost everybody else is full of shit. (That John Denver's full of shit...)
:
Having said that, I'd like to point out that this is the same EFFECTIVE logic used by gang leaders, warlords, and other criminal elements to incite their people to war. You're probably asking, "How can I use this exploit this logic on my own band of thugs?" Maybe I want to use this sort of logic to have people unwittingly agree to unfair circumstance, by using an engineered scenario. How do we do it?
Here's how it works
1. Create a specific situation that's "impossible" to disagree with... (This is a good situation)
2. Explain the situation so the listener doesn't pay attention to the specific circumstances of the situation.
3. Exploit this lack of attention to details so that your situation seems analogous to the argument you REALLY want to make.
Let's see how it works in this situation. Let's engineer a scenario.
SCENARIO: Total Pacifism exercised by a single person will NEVER stop total tyranny in another single person. (How can you argue with that?)
1. Use neo-violent slapstick humor to engage the reader into a funny scenario with a stupid pacifist, and a clever "realist" posing as a tyrant.
2. Let reader assume this is anecdotal of ALL pacifist/tyranny interactions.
3. Demonstrate it. *PUNCH*
4. Reader should be laughing. THAT was unexpected!
5. Have the clever "realist" recite worn out rhetoric used by the pacifist.
6. Demonstrate the moot point of the rhetoric with an unprovoked *PUNCH*
7. Ha! Ha! What a boob!
8. DON'T mention the availability of Economic, Political, and other disincentives against an unprovoked attack.
9. Follow up humor with dramatic effect. Quickly changing to a serious tone tends to accentuate the seriousness of the moral.
10. Do not provide in-depth analysis, numerical data, or cite further information to allow reader to explore the complicated dynamics of full scale wars, gang wars, political wars, economic wars, family conflicts, feuds, the nature of fear, tactics, etc.
Allow the reader to conclude the most primitive obtuse rules-of-thumb
The less information you provide, the dumber the conclusions.
HAPPY (GANG/POLITICAL/ECONOMIC/FULL SCALE/FEUDAL) WAR MONGERING!
I think there's a little miscommunication going on here. Apparently, when someone mentions "rights" to you, your definition isn't inclusive enough that it includes protection from the government. You seem to be equating rights (n. 6a-6b) with freedom .
In this case: We're talking about legal rights (Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature) AS protections which were designed to protect citizens corrupt government officials wielding their power unjustly.
Our friend "OneEyedApe" listed the protections (RIGHTS) and freedoms that we lost.
First of all, I'm all for hunting terrorists, and I'm even for the invasion of Iraq. I'm also for the protesting (not their goals, just their protests) as I think I believe they are playing a key part in showing the world that not all Americans are daemons. If it weren't for them, I believe we would truly be having an undeclared holy war much like Israel/Palestine.
You're not talking to a liberal hippie who's just following the crowd chanting anti-corporate ideology. If you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm consistently for free market and free society but most of all I believe that these things can only be achieved by continuing the tradition of limited authority and transparency in government positions.
I understand the government is an integral institution that needs to crack down on organized crime, corruption, terrorism, and everything else that plagues society and prosperity. I also understand that organized crime, corruption, money laundering, and other illegal activity can easily permeate itself WITHEN the institutions which are supposed to protect us from crime and corruption.
Laws, Regulations, and Rights are all subject to circumvention. Criminals, Politicians, and Industry have been circumventing these protections for years. It doesn't necessarily mean politicians and industry is bad (sometimes criminals aren't bad). What it does mean is that we need to give them incentive to keep honest people honest, and make life more difficult for people who wish to not abide by the law.
I suggest you take another look at OneEyedApe's list of lost rights we lost, and then consider how as a criminal, corrupt politician, or lobbyist group could abuse these circumstance.
I invite you to take an active roll researching newspapers for past stories about corrupt politicians, criminal organizations, whistle-blowers, blantent lobbying, and read how they circumvent existing protections, let alone with when the protections are gone.
Having lived in the third-world, where politicians respect rights about as much as you seem to respect them, I can personally attest as to how thier lack of rights and protections from corrupt government officials stagnates any chance for prosperierity.
I thought I would include a brief example of how one MAY lose your rights (There are many ways of taking peoples rights away).
1. Someone finds an exception to the rule. (Pinky inserted into anus)
2. Others test exception, try variations of the exception. (Index finger inserted, followed by Middle finger, and Thumb)
3. People start testing things that appear to be exceptions, which aren't exceptions. (Two fingers)
4. Person discovers form of exception which circumvents the purpose of the rule entirely. (Three fingers)
5. Everybody uses this unique exception. (Anus is fisted and bleeding at this point)
...and that's how the exception becomes the rule...
I understand that many of hippies don't understand the complexity of the situation, but don't throw away this orthodoxy just because they can't explain why it's necessary.
Again, tell me a right you have lost. You listed a number of things the Government changed, but you have yet to mention a right you have lost.
What were you expecting? Lost your right to take walks after 10:00 PM, or use Linux as an operating system?
The right to privacy and due process is not so much about the freedom to do things, it's mostly about protecting the public from corrupt government officials who abuse thier powers.
Traditionally, wisely, and conservatively, power has been balanced with accountability and/or transparency. Every official must be either accountable for thier actions. To ensure that an officials actions can be held accountable, they must be transparent to a third-party/public to prevent an official from concealing corruption.
I feel like a mother telling her son that we live in a dishonest world. "You NEVER give your money to a stranger, even if he says he'll give it right back with 100% interest." (Do you know how many people STILL fall for that kind of scam?)
Not a flame.. an honest question
...but when he threw Jose Padilla in military detention, not many people batted an eye. He actually got away with throwing an American in miltary detention, which would have been difficult to impossible a couple of years ago, EVEN if he was a terrorist.
My response isn't just to you, but to others who don't think losing freedoms aren't that big a deal.
Imagine one day you were arrested for being a terrorist (I know the idea is silly, but bear with me) planning on performing a terrorist act.
Given the current state of affairs, President Shrub could label you, an American Citizen, an "enemy combatant" and throw you into military detention indefinitely without the right to talk to an attorney to plead your case.
He did it with Jose Padilla (The Dirty Bomber).
*EVEN* South Africa allowed Nelson Mandela to talk to his attorney.
Realistically, You're not a terrorist, and I doubt people have a personal vendetta against you. After all, you're no rabble rouser. Even if you were, I doubt President Shrub would throw you into military detention for being a rabble rouser. He still has to justify it to the apathetic masses. He wants to get re-elected, right?
People who aim to take away your personal liberties aren't stupid. They either do it by justifying it with special circumstances (exception to the rule). If they persist with special circumstances long enough, the exception to the rule tends to become the rule.
I don't consider myself THAT informed, but I came up with "due process rights" pretty quickly , which wasn't even LEGISLATED. Let me repeat that: They took away your due process rights without legislating anything, let alone ammending the constitution.
Is it REALLY unlikely they won't abuse the Patriot Act and Patriot II legislation if they clearly don't respect due process?
By all means, Love your Country, NEVER Trust Your Government
First, I'm not making claims this is uncrackable, but you have no problem making claims that not only is it crackable, but it will be cracked, because you're under the delusion that everything has been cracked.
I'm not going to bother making a huge list of things which haven't been cracked, instead I'll give you one: RSA Encryption
RSA isn't uncrackable. It's not designed to be uncrackable. Instead, it's designed in such a way that cracking it will take a VERY VERY long time with today's technology. (Hundreds or thousands of years, depending on the key size?)
RSA will probably be cracked on some level in the future, but it realistically it won't be cracked in this decade or two or five, which is good close enough for most applications.
Maybe this won't be technically uncrackable, but what will one have to go through to crack it? Cracking Hardware isn't like cracking Software.
Listen, I don't know through what kind of unholy alliance of homosexual practices and family connections that allows you to live apart from the rest of the world that you come to your conslusion, but let me assure you that most people are suffering out there.
I didn't say people weren't suffering, or that people have lost thier jobs.
You obviously didn't get my point, and I doubt you'll stop being obtuse long enough to figure it out.
Business magazines are written for people that buy into the business lifestyle and don't see it as a necessary evil. For those people, who latch onto the cocks of their managers in a lamprey-esque way, the future in business is always bright. For those of us with minds, the future usually sucks. Such is the way of america.
Let me get this straight. Thier magazine's quantative analysis (they published thier data and method of analysis) is wrong because the people who read it suck thier bosses dick, and your lack of prospects is caused by your analytical skills?
I'm overwelmed to see my fellow Americans using thier critical thinking skills to spread insightful and informed opinions! Yay!
IANAL
REMEBER THIS: The GPL Uses Copyright Law to Enforce It's Terms
Licensing software with unusual terms and conditions isn't a new thing, which is what is happening in this case.
1. GPLed software is copyrighted, and in this case is being LICENSED to Company A under the conditions that Company A will release thier code after taking in X dollars in revenue.
2. Company A can't relicense or give its license to Company B because it would violate its license. In the event Company A or B tries a fast one they'll be slapped with a copyright infringement suit and then Company A and B will be worrying about paying thier lawyers and an inflated settlement.
This sort of thing (unusual licensing terms) has been well thought out and is probably well supported with many legal precidents.
I think you guys presented a good case as for trade-offs.
MySQL - Fast, Well Supported, Good for Simplier Problems
PostgreSQL - Limited Support, Needs more Attention, Suited for Complex Problems
Why "real DBAs" whine
I think the problem is that many DBAs and developers have really come to rely on JOINS, stored-procedures, triggers, etc. I've been using these features very actively for the past 4 years and wondered what I did without them all these years.
In the past year alone, I've written almost 300 stored-procedures, about 1/4 of which are 4 or more pages of code that would have run like a dog has it been written on the client side.
Having done a lot of 2-tiered, 3-tiered, n-tiered design, I've come to realize that the middle tier (business rules) doesn't have to outside the database in Perl code. If you can implement your middle tier inside the database, you'll almost always see a significant performance advantage and not have to worry about writing engine code to handle issues like concurrancy and multiple users.
While MySQL is capable of handling a number of problems, it's very ill-suited for most enterprise business problems.
You should notice that these "Real DBAs" mostly have a fit when people start making claims that MySQL can compete with Oracle. They're afraid some pointy haired boss is going to believe these claims, and is going to ask them to convert thier Oracle databases to MySQL.
As for myself, I see MySQL as a nice step forward as far as performance is concerned, but it's a HUGE step backwards as far as functionality.
In other words, It's a great engine for storing/retrieving lots of data, but it doesn't have the tools for manipulating/querying the data.
For a lot of people, that means not cutting the muster.
Thanks for the comment
Your reasons especially helped give me a little insight as to why people are choosing MySQL over PostgreSQL and Firebird.
*phew*, I had almost submitted a lengthy piece of text before I saw that last line. :-)
:)
Me too...
I guess you an me are easily trollable...
Now, I'm not sure if the middleware/library support is the same, but PostgreSQL runs pretty well on Windows.
Views? They are for people who don't know how to write queries.
Triggers? They are for people who like mysterious things to happen to their data.
Foreign Keys? They are for people who don't like to delete their data.
Interval Datatypes? They are for people who are iffy.
Full Outer Joins? They are for people who like lots of data.
Subqueries? They are for people who can't program simple loops.
Set operations? They are for people who can't relate.
shall I add???
Programming Languages They are for people who can't read machine code in hex.
(I realize you're kidding, but there are some people who might take you seriously)
What about integrity constraints, foreign keys, interval datatypes, full outer joins, subqueries, set operations, VIEWS for god's sake, and triggers? Too hard?
For cryin' out loud, half of these missing features put the "relational" in "relational database"!
First of all, kudos to the MySQL team for atleast getting as far as they have. Just because I'm not fond of thier product, doesn't mean they don't deserve credit.
I've been banging my head a little on this one too trying to figure out why so many people are pushing MySQL and not something stable and complete like PostgreSQL? After all, PostgreSQL has triggers, stored-procedures, functions, referential integrity, and tons of other features to make your life easier. You may not need all of these features now, but can you honestly say your app won't expand and require advanced features?
Is it the MySQL marketing engine? Does PostgreSQL sound intimidating? Are there actually technical advantages that MySQL have over PostgreSQL? If so, what are they?
The most common argument I've heard in defense of MySQLs lack of basic features is: "It's good enough for 90% of the problems out there." However, everytime they implement a basic feature that every other RDBMS has had for decades (like UNION), people respond as if MySQL is getting close to be taken seriously.
Secondly, In my experience, I've found that 90% of the applications I've worked on end up using those advanced features sooner or later. Those features usually save a tremendous amount of time I would have otherwise had to spend writing code to make my database jump through hoops. In addition to saving time, there a lot of features which simply allow me to make my applications more useful or intuitive to the end user, which is the whole point.
Am I missing something here, or is the Emperor not wearing any clothes?
What's an order of magnitude among friends?
Sigh... You mean 3 orders of magnitude?
You're obviously not with us today. (sniff) You must have forgetten to shower with your caffienated soap again.
Who was the brain that assumed if a geek doesn't have time to get his caffiene from soda, he's going to make time for a shower?
Isn't HDTV happening because of the FCC? The incumbent broadcasters had no interest in switching to DTV untill forced to.
Exactly, the FCC has regulated a technology the incumbant broadcasters has no interest in, because television viewers aren't that interested in HDTV in the first place. If viewers were interested, they would watch stations who broadcast HDTV more than non-HDTV stations enough to justify the investment.
Eventually the demand will have risen enough, and the cost of investment would have come down where they would have met in a market equilibrium.
So why regulate something as superfluous as HDTV that has a little interest in the first place?
If the FCC unregulate radio spectrum you would very quickly be unable to recieve anything.
You mean like 802.11??? The FCC mostly deregulated that spectrum. Seems to be working fine...
I think you underestimate the market's tendency to co-operate, especially when there's a buck to be made. If you don't believe me, ask your trade association or standards body what they think.
Don't you find it ironic that you're critisizing Martus' website for making a blanket statement (human rights violations exists because nobody knows about them) with your own blanket statement (most people are apathetic, so nothing can be done if you don't change most people)?
Personally, I think you're severely underestimating the people involved with the Martus project. In my experience, voluteers are almost always very aware of the apathy factor. It's usually assumed that everybody is aware of the apathy factor.
A lot of people don't give a shit, and each for thier own different reasons. However, there *are* a lot of people who do care and actually dedicate thier time to make a change. While thier work doesn't make the problems go away, contributions like this help.
While apathy/involvment can be a big factor in fighting issues like these, you're also forgetting political/commercial factors. For every political/commercial interests abusing human rights, there are usually opposing political/commercial interests who would love to expose thier opponent's corruption/evil to topple thier regime. Documenting human rights abuses, especially if it can indict key political figure can be extremely useful.
If Martus's system can make the process of gathering/distributing of key evidence more effective, kudos to the Martus team.
While everything I might have said may not be true, atleast I have enough imagination to realize my own ignorance and shortsightedness.
I think you're just beginning to stumble on the very harsh reality of this world.
War is all about using innocent people to fight/shield for evil people.
Virtually ALL leaders, generals, dictators, tyrants exploit the concept of human shields, and like sheep, we usually go along with it. If people were smart, we would come to an agreement with our "enemies" and mutually kill the leaders who are using us as thier shilds.
Reality shows us that there no simple answers, let alone perfect answers, to this type of problem. However, History shows us that ignoring/playing into tyrants who use human shields is a big mistake.
From what I've seen, usually the best bet is try to kill/harm as few innocents as possible, but make sure you get the tyrant. In this case, I think it's worth pissing off a few Aussies is worth the benefits to force thier ISP to play by the rules.
If we lived in a perfect world, we would killed Bush, and the Middle East would kill the terrorists
What if it wasn't a troll?
I know people who are this stupid and stupider.
Any twelve year old with a mind dirty enough to go searching for albino midget porn on google was already corrupt to begin with.
Either you've never surfed for porn or you're hiding something, because 90% of the porno websites I've visited usually offer various links for different tastes, including: Teen, Ebony, Gay, Anal, Japanese, Mature, Midget Fucking, Dog Fucking, etc. I don't know about you, but it's almost seems impossible to only surf tasteful porn without being bombarded with some seriously henious shit.
Fortunately, Most 10-12 year olds will probably laugh at people fucking dogs, but there will be some (I remember growing up with fucked up kids) who's interest might be piqued. Some of those kids will have grown up to be dog fuckers anyway, but would ALL of those kids have grown up to be dog fuckers if they hadn't been exposed to it at a vulnerable age? Obviously not...
Most kids are more impressionable the younger they get while other kids will always be inpressionable well into thier adult years. So far, we've been talking about 10-12 year olds. I remember being interested in sex when I was 5-6 (I knew what a dick and a cunt was...) So who's to say that 7-10 year olds AREN'T looking at porn (when they can get away with it). If they're surfing the same porn sites I'm surfing, I'm pretty sure they've been exposed to a lot. By the time a kid is 12, he knows that dog fucking is pretty fucked up. At 7-9, I'm not so sure.
A kid at that age will pretty much do any stupid thing if it interests them and they can get away with it.
So, Do you want to keep making stupid blanket statements?
OR
Are you willing to ask tough questions, investigate carefully, and accept the answers even if you don't like the answers?
Oh yeah, if I believe in censoring *my* kids, should I shut the fuck up, or does that just apply to gov't censorship?
From what I read in the Economist, the US is only projected to have a population of 500,000 million in the next 30-40 years.
How many generations will the US have to ignore birth control before it's comparable to India and China combined?
A lot can change in 40 years let along 10's of generations.
Ok, I'm going to assume that you're having a bad day or something, rather than leaping immediately to the conclusion that you're a flaming asshole who comes here because he likes insulting people and doing a lot of nay-saying.
First, You call me confused, suggest I have no imagination, and suggest I'm acting like a flaming asshole? (Or am I just having a bad day?) That's real subtle...
Note: I never insulted you
Apparently you still don't think I understand Prevayler and what it does. It's not that complicated. (I looked through the code, I've written similar code myself, and other than a couple of the ideas, it's really nothing new.
If you really think that finding and indexing your objects is the hard part of development, and that having somebody do that for you is what really matters, then Prevayler probably isn't for you. Personally, in the systems I build, it hasn't been a big deal.
It doesn't seem like you appreciate a really well thought out queries with optimized joins or the inner workings of fulltext engines.
I also haven't assumed much about your competitence, but you apparently have no problem suggesting I don't understand design patterns or can't write my own searching/indexing code. Having worked on shrinked-wrapped, full-text engine for CD-ROMs, to embedded (plastic card printers), device-drivers, web apps, and enterprise systems, I'll save you some speculation.
I don't think you appreciate the hundreds of pages of SQL92 stored-procedures/triggers people like myself have written to support systems consisting of hundreds of tables, many with relationships that require very unique indexing/sorting/searching capabilities beyond the scope of what's included in java.util.*
Do you REALLY appreciate/understand what a good query engine is capable of, or are you going to keep assuming I'm a code monkey?