isn't that what "flamebait" is for? if you're getting it wrong, no matter how much you try to be interesting or honest... you'll get flamed. yes, that modding is just a 'prophecy' of sorts... but... close enough?
maybe you don't remember this from the '25 worst moments in computer gaming', posted on slashdot a few days ago... but the US courts have upheld that it doesn't take much look & feel difference to make games different enough to not be violating each others' copyright turf. why do you think we got so many street-fighter-esque games? same idea, often same rules, slightly different characters... and in this case, does freecraft copy the data, or just let you use any data you like? i hadn't really cared to look into it...
it's not about whether or not it's legal. it most likely is, despite blizzard's attempts to state otherwise. (change the name slightly, and i'm sorry, but everyone and their mom has made RTS's on these themes, with their own sucky isometric pre-drawn sprites.)
it's about innovation -- it's pointless, except for personal edification, to rebuild these same games over and over again. i don't even understand why companies bother with so many FPS' -- no amount of upgraded visuals is going to make it -that- much more interesting. (have to admit, i appreciated red faction's geo-mod.) i want new ideas, new kinds of games -- not new settings for the exact same thing.
do note that, at least in theory, a database (file-wise) should never be in a state where it's unusable. at all. ever. it's called careful-write, and no, it's not the fastest thing around... but if your system crashes in the big middle of a transaction (whether you're inserting thousands of rows, or transferring a file) that database should come back up with that transaction rolled back, basically invisible. you shouldn't notice the difference. (might take a few extra seconds while the re-booted system cleans out the wasted space.)
well, that's the theory. i trust firebird (the database project, not the browser) with my data... and i know that power failures, system crashes, and lightning... won't make my database unloadable unless they destroy the drive(s).
of course, we're talking about microsoft... so yeah.
as to having the "whole os up"... how much does it take in order to read an ext2 partition? or anything else requiring a driver? you have to prime the pump one way or another -- something has to be up so the rest of the system can read the files and load.
uhm,... don't they already -anyway-? seems anonymous cowards can normally post replies to just about anything (so long as it's not archived)... so, for free, they can post their replies themselves, exactly where appropriate (as a reply to the offending post)... which is actually ideal. and/. does the 'slash-back' thing where, often, they actually do link to rebuttals. got a problem with that?
i'd really rather people not had kids. i'm hoping not to. and just think -- your neat, show-off-to-the-coworkers kid might wind up rejecting your religion of choice... better not to have one, right? (damn, i wish that had worked on some families i know...)
sadly, i've found that the less-free-thinking families tend to have the most kids. they may not even be idiots... they just -must- have the traditional family (2.x kids, etc.)... even worse, they seem to think they have to do this each time they get married, if that's several times (a marriage just isn't right if you don't have kids to prove it's working out)...
(btw, the part about killing the jews... that's just a straw-man argument. it's funny, sorta, yes... but not necessary. after all, we could just -sterilize-... )
http://www.raisethefist.com/news.cgi?artical=und er seige
or have we forgotten that we can no longer dessiminate the "Jolly Roger Anarchist's Cookbook"? not protected under freedom of speech, apparently. and it doesn't even suggest what to do with the info. just technical stuff. on putting thumbtacks on people's windshield wipers...
as others have already done a fine job of pointing out -- movies like the matrix, any of the star wars movies, etc. do in fact depict terrorism in good light -- as the fight against some tyrrany. we tend to assume that it's an acceptable revolution if it leads to a world like ours -- supposed freedom of expression, etc. anything else is wrong. but in -all- cases, we are imposing our view of the "right" world to the rest of the population -- people who deal, every day, with living under the tyranny you despise. any revolution is diruptive to the daily lives of citizens: bystanders get killed, homes are destroyed, food and water become scarce as roads are blocked for military reasons... to the innocent civilians just trying to live each day in peace, any conflict is bad. but we cheer as luke skywalker destroys the death star -- regardless of the countless engineers, janitors, or cooks employed there, just making a living! all revolutions are messy, no matter the cause. all revolutions harm the general population. there's no escaping it. you want to give freedom to people, because you think it's the "right way to live"? go ahead. you'll probably kill a few of them in the process, and i'm sure they'll thank you.
as to israel -- would you say that helicopters firing missiles into cars in the middle of a crowded street is covered as "rule of law"? would you say that's justice? would you want that to be the every-day method of keeping the peace in -your- country? then realize that the hate and anger go both ways, and all are to blame. bystanders died. their families are grieving. do you think they praise israel for ridding them of those criminals? maybe between the tears. but it wasn't their choice, it wasn't their way. and now people are dead.
i'm just curious, for all those millions of lines of code, how SCO might have found this copyright/patent/secret violation, unless they planted it?
i don't find myself browsing cvs respositories across the world, seeing how many lines of code i can match up between my own private stash, and all previous versions of code in the world... the algorithms for running that kind of check are nasty, speed-wise. it'd be more trouble than breaking a lot of encryption algorithms, and take at least as long. and even then, i'd just be looking for trouble: even if i do match up a bunch of lines of code, that's barely a hint at a problem. most code looks the same to me, especially low-level code. there's no reason to get really creative with it or re-invent the wheel. i wouldn't be surprised to find someone else had written very similar code (note that the article says the code looked "strikingly similar", not identical bit-for-bit. that makes it even harder to find, and even harder to prove to be stolen property.)
unless they were tipped off by someone 'in the know' about the code-migration? unless that was an anonymous tip... methinks someone's going to be testifying about their sources of information.
As the tech-lead on a project, and now an independent contractor working on that same project, I agree. Our project started because the previous guys had left, leaving behind a mess that really couldn't be fixed. When we left, after training replacements, we found that they just couldn't handle it. No amount of free phone calls and chat helped them take charge of the project -- we had left a long list of important things to do... and wound up doing most of them ourselves when we were re-hired as contractors four months later because so little development had actually gotten done in the mean time. One of our replacements still works there, in person, and is rather useful. On his own, however, the project would be "simmering" at best.
Original designers, no matter how much documentation and training they leave with the newcomers, are hard to replace: very hard. Even well-designed systems, when they're of any complexity, take a really long time to understand and start modifying with any confidence. Anyone coming in later is going to be afraid to touch anything, for fear of breaking systems elsewhere -- even if you designed the system so it wouldn't. We all know how we write our own personal code... and that makes us afraid of large blocks of code handed to us.
I was rather afraid that, had we not come back as contractors, the replacements would have left... and the cycle would have started over with new programmers, with new ideas, coding the app in VB and not understanding why people complained about functionality loss... and then leaving again.
Open source projects don't protect us from this -- they make code available, yes, but I've found that they also make programmers lazy: anyone can read the code, right? So why document as well? Why leave design docs behind? Why check all the security yourself, since we simply expect that because an OSS project -can- be audited by thousands of programmers, it obviously will be with any success?
The fact remains, though, that in many cases, just having the source code so you can fix one stupid bug is enough. And that alone makes OSS worthwhile.
yeah... some of us competent programmers wouldn't mind a more permanent job, coding something of some interest (something other than a brain-dead database design)... 'course, considering the comments, seems this wouldn't really be the case. oh well.
so, you go to an E3 conference, with games everywhere, to write up articles to be published, so you can get paid, and this is -neither- business nor pleasure? hell, i'll take either. games. money. but neither?
yeah. that'll be fun. "you seem to be 96% human. you get 96% of a vote in the next elections." i don't think a scientific view of our place in the 'tree of life' is going to change public opinion stating that "we own the planet" and "all other creatures may be our entertainment, our food, or our experiment"... no matter how similar we may be genetically.
if nothing else, the fact that we can't seem to even get more than extremely basic communication up is a problem. yeah, i talk to my cat. and he talks back. but i couldn't for the life of me tell you what he's thinking when he sticks his paw in the water bowl, no matter how often i ask, and how often he chirps back at me.
we quite simply wouldn't be able to fairly hold a tribunal system, telling random animals they've broken some law they didn't help create (wait, that applies to me too) and punishing them for it. my cat knows right and wrong. sorta. but not the way i do. if he kills a bird, well, yay. if i kill a cow, well, yay. if he kills another cat, darn. if i kill another human, well, i'm in trouble for sure.
the way we treat other animals can't be considered fair. but at least it's simple and managable.
Even if the backdoor is "secure", you still have the possibility that quickly-released patches, to fix vulnerabilities exposed in "flash attacks" will in fact themselves create more problems. As much as it may sound like a good idea at first, those patches could themselves prove to be more dangerous than the attacks they prevent. And the patch has a -guaranteed- method of distribution, as opposed to a virus taking the time to scan for hosts, attempt infiltration, and re-send itself from the new host. And with companies like Microsoft around, who seem to think that every patch and update is a good opportunity to update your EULA too, and make you agree that they have every right to do anything they damn please to your machine... completely automatic updates seem like a really -bad- idea. I don't run nightly builds of software: I wait for everyone else to find the bugs, and hope real security will keep me safe until then. Automatic updates would be exactly that -- "here, have our latest-and-greatest-and-probably-full-of-bugs version!"
i agree. GM foods will tend to appear en-masse, for marketting reasons. we don't just modify one plant, and leave it out to multiply. the difference is one of speed, not logical possibility. as such, of -course- we should watch what Monsato, and other, are up to. the point was only that we can't blame them as the only possible cause of problems.
you're missing the fact that, in general, we complain that we -don't- know what GM plants will do to us. maybe cancer... in fifty years. how many generations of a plant is that? we might not have any reason at all to know better, and weed those modified plants out. why should we? we're fine right now... so natural selection may not be -possible-, because no detectable change has occured, until too late. this is the case in any of these situations. in the time it takes us to notice (run federally-funded research five times to get a result we believe,) other properties of the dangerous plant may have helped it spread... or maybe it even tasted better, while also leading to some unknown disease later in life? natural selection could work against us, such that this plant, in an extreme situation, actually gains an advantage, wiping out those who eat it. it wouldn't be the first time a plant had, over time, become poisonous to its natural predators. (yes, you'll find me in the fields stalking the plants... they won't see me coming.)
i'm not saying this is likely. but i am saying that GM mega-corps aren't solely responsible for -possible- dangerous foods appearing in our bowls. while we may have the means to control those corps, we may -not- have the foresight to catch other dangers.
and... unless you'd like to, while you're at it, go ahead and say that darwinian evolution through mutation is total crock (you're welcome to, i don't mind) then you have to admit for the possibility that random mutations do, over time, happen and spread. "sharp teeth could never have happened, as other predators would have taken out the offending proto-tiger"... right. of course.
now, if you wanted to argue that there -are- no mutations that, over time, may spread and eventually snowball into a new species... then yeah, sure, GM mega-corps are the only threat to us. -obviously- current crops of wheat, naturally grown, aren't dangerous. they haven't killed us off yet...
a few weeks ago, a friend of mine and i convinced my girlfriend to give then-phoenix a try... she just about stopped using it, when auto-complete would kill the browser window (and any other phoenix windows she had open.) amazingly, the "stupid stuff doesn't pop up at random" feature was enough to keep her using it, and she just keeps typing, ignoring auto-complete... she's been pretty happy with it.
(she and a friend have complained of a few sites that either don't render at all, or render -really- badly... and at least one of them has some sort of auto-popup at the beginning of the page that is necessary for the rest of the page to load correctly... and with popups turned off except for requested windows, that doesn't work. for the ones where this isn't the case, i'll probably have her submit a but report / check the html for stupid mistakes... yes, she's a geek.)
First off, this isn't to defend companies like Monsato. However... when you complain that they're "experimenting on us with GM foods" you're implying that in nature, things never change, and are always safe. You do realize, right, that -many- plants we eat are partially poisonous? Random mutations, which we assume happen all the time, could just as easily start a new strain of human-killing wheat, without the help of Monsato. We don't know, for sure, what's growing in those crops -- one little plant could be sitting there "plotting" the demise of the world, without anyone knowing about it, even -without- GM plants and companies. Solutions: a) force farmers to eat some of every plant on their grounds, before selling any of it. (not effective at all.) b) scan crops to make sure every last plant has the same DNA as a known-good plant (md5 hash, anyone?) before allowing the crop to be used. (again, not effective.)
In conclusion, nature could "decide" to kill us at any time, without our help. Yes, Monsato et al. should test their crops in a controlled environment (closed, sealed, and locked) before releasing them into full-blown fields for harvesting... but we're still at risk, regardless.
as others have pointed out -- you're right, mysql IS fast (see my other posts,) i even recommend it for datawarehousing situations, where data is denormalized, and fast queries against large amounts of simple information are a good thing.
however, it's also fast -for what it does- which is not nearly as much as other database systems. the fact that it compares to oracle while not having the features of oracle says something: oracle's still worth more, and maybe a price is justified. firebird, postgresql may have more features than mysql, but they also aren't always as fast. i've found though that they're not slow, and being able to accomplish complicated queries without resorting to some client-side method is often a -good- thing. i'd rather my server deal with it than my network.
Re:What must have gone through the FirebirdSQL min
on
Mozilla's Joy Of Naming
·
· Score: 2, Informative
the point was that it's not a new-comer, experimental, this-is-my-phd thesis database system. it's not abandoned, and its development is still going strong.
and yes, someone -does- know firebird. now you do.
as to datawarehousing, however, the dominant technique (star) isn't really a relational technique -- it's an optimization via older, hierarchical methods. as such, i wouldn't recommend directly using a database designed for normal relational operations -- in fact, i -would- recommend something like mysql: designed for speed over simple operations... transaction support is practically optional (most data warehouses aren't one at the same with the online oft-updated production database.)
as to the naming (you'll notice i was kind enough not to say anything about that?) you should realize that, as a trademark, the name must be defended, or it will be diluted. if 'firebird' were going to be anything more than an internal code-name for a particular version of the mozilla browser product, you'd have a serious problem coming: firebird's name would be taken over by a more popular product, such that eventually, someone would inevitably claim that the database project had stolen the browser's name. impossible, you claim? if the mozilla team is so attached to the name now, imagine how it'd be a year or two down the line when questions were asked... there'd be no room for debate. it had to happen -now- to avoid future problems.
the firebird team is working just to have their own little corner. they're not good at advertising themselves, but the least the rest of us can do is leave them alone. you don't like it? fine, don't use it. but you don't name your projects in such a way as to make it even harder for others to gain recognition -- say, naming your popular [x] software "mysql" when at a time when it's still a fledgling project. (they, however, are really quite good at advertising.)
and 'denial of service' isn't a product name, now is it?
Re:What must have gone through the FirebirdSQL min
on
Mozilla's Joy Of Naming
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
yeah, it's publicity. in fact, ann -did- say it was publicity: because they figured this had happened by accident, because, as you pointed out, they're not popular... and no-one would be careful not to name their project 'firebird'.
however, as to the postgresql part... i'd like to see your qualification of that. i've come across talks by (of all people) microsoft, where interbase/firebird (same thing, except firebird is open-source, free, and not stinky) is listed right along with oracle, db2, sybase, etc. (and you won't find any mention of mysql or postgresql there.)
interbase has been around for, what... fifteen years? a little more? it's quite full-featured, growing constantly, and currently undergoing a C to C++ conversion so adding features will be even faster in the near future.
if it hadn't been for this stink over naming, firebird would have stood a good chance of publicizing their milestone releases (1.5 and 2.0) through slashdot. in fact, there might have been a lot more people picking it up and saying "hey, cool!"... but on slashdot, everyone uses a browser. and if they code... they're quite likely to have just picked up "php and mysql" at their local bookstore, and never looked for a -real- database. (isn't it sad that, even as good as postgresql is, and -known-, people still favor mysql? geeks, of all people, should know when they see a hack-job.) so instead, from now on, with the slashdot crowd, firebird will be known as "that evil database project that tried to keep mozilla from using its name!"...
maybe interbase stands a chance (not really -- all the original coders who made interbase possible... work on firebird now. you can thank ann and jim for the work that brought you a fully-capable database without the bloat of oracle.)
and yes, i -am- proud to use firebird in a production environment. it's fast, it's solid, and it does everything (almost -- i've got a few feature requests in) i want it to do. check it out! (and call it whatever you like!)
indeed. it's been a recent fad to make the word 'terrorist' apply to just about anybody -- because terrorism is worse than murder, or spying, or theft, or just about any other crime... people understand murder. they get the urge every once in a while. theft? yeah, they understand that too. but terrorism... is not something the average joe thinks about every day. "i'm gonna blow up the trade center"... sure, if you've seen "office space" you might remember something about burning individual buildings down... but not terrorism. just random, directed anger.
by branding more things as 'terrorism' our government is building sympathy for harsher sentences against crimes that we wouldn't have punished nearly so much in the recent past. because it was murder, not terrorism. revolution, not terrorism. self-defense, not terrorism.
just try seeing what you think if you brand bin laden as having conspired for murder... not assassination, but just general murder. and he didn't pull the trigger. now try to think about similar cases in our country. mobsters? other gang leaders? we didn't label -them- terrorists, now did we... but you won't tell me the mob hasn't used murder to try to change public policy. bring down laws, stop law enforcement in certain areas,... ?
the word "terrorism" really shouldn't be used the way it is today. it's a tool -- propaganda -- like anything else.
depends on the contracts signed. any NDA's? any "what you write is ours forever" clauses? any "you may -not- go and rewrite this from scratch elsewhere, thanks to your exceptional memory" clauses?
it says "in the user interface of the browser and not in the document" -- frames, as well as templated links (static content at top, left, bottom, right, or in the damn middle) are in the document, not the browser. the entire page, including frames, is the document. the user interface has stuff like the status bar, favorites, link bar, and the evil animation thingie... but not the frames, nor the templated content! that's the document, and therefore out of the reach of the patent.
it seems odd to me that on a daily basis, i see release notes for gnome, freebsd, every last version of mysql... and even windows! and yet, a perfectly good, fast, small, powerful open-source database engine doesn't get mentioned!
they're releasing 1.5 now/soon... that's a -big- milestone for them. they're in the middle of, well, a code-rewrite to C++, so they can give us an even better product. i don't even remember slashdot posting news about 1.0 coming to us... and hey, that was a rather nice improvement. (i'm still running it.)
i, for one, support firebird. not the tactics in this case, but as others point out... they've had a rough ride of getting pushed around. mozilla is known to the slashdot crowd, firebird's not. it's obvious who's going to get the sympathy.
give the database a try... and maybe overlook this, k?
i think the studies showing that shooting people are all wrong. those studies, and the policies they cause, are restricting my freedom to shoot people. that sucks. same goes with alcohol. and anything else potentially harmful. but damn it, we have a natural right to do anything, right? yup.
maybe you're right. maybe capitalism and freedom are more important than at least looking at the possibility that we're screwing ourselves over. but maybe... just -maybe-... it's possible to limit ourselves slightly. market economy is already restricted: no monopolies (theoretically)... long john's can't fry your fish in animal fat anymore... we restrict ourselves all the time. this won't be the first, nor the last. as posted elsewhere: even if we're not sure of all the causes and all the effects of our actions, maybe we should still be somewhat careful?
you're right of course. we don't have enough data. and the people giving us what data we have already interpret the data in odd ways, mostly for their own profit. all of them. but i'd hate for our generation to be remembered as the ones who had a chance to do something about the world before it got too bad -- but just figured it was fine and refused to look. that'd suck.
and... on another note... do you really think we should be bossing other countries around? bribing some, invading some, putting up blockades on others... ? and if you're worried about freedom, you might also look at what our current, completely blameless government is doing to us. they're not corrupt, right? wonder why my rights keep going down the drain every time they get together to worry about my security...
Slashdot Mirror
isn't that what "flamebait" is for? if you're getting it wrong, no matter how much you try to be interesting or honest ... you'll get flamed. yes, that modding is just a 'prophecy' of sorts ... but ... close enough?
maybe you don't remember this from the '25 worst moments in computer gaming', posted on slashdot a few days ago ... but the US courts have upheld that it doesn't take much look & feel difference to make games different enough to not be violating each others' copyright turf. why do you think we got so many street-fighter-esque games? same idea, often same rules, slightly different characters ... and in this case, does freecraft copy the data, or just let you use any data you like? i hadn't really cared to look into it ...
it's not about whether or not it's legal. it most likely is, despite blizzard's attempts to state otherwise. (change the name slightly, and i'm sorry, but everyone and their mom has made RTS's on these themes, with their own sucky isometric pre-drawn sprites.)
it's about innovation -- it's pointless, except for personal edification, to rebuild these same games over and over again. i don't even understand why companies bother with so many FPS' -- no amount of upgraded visuals is going to make it -that- much more interesting. (have to admit, i appreciated red faction's geo-mod.) i want new ideas, new kinds of games -- not new settings for the exact same thing.
do note that, at least in theory, a database (file-wise) should never be in a state where it's unusable. at all. ever. it's called careful-write, and no, it's not the fastest thing around ... but if your system crashes in the big middle of a transaction (whether you're inserting thousands of rows, or transferring a file) that database should come back up with that transaction rolled back, basically invisible. you shouldn't notice the difference. (might take a few extra seconds while the re-booted system cleans out the wasted space.)
... and i know that power failures, system crashes, and lightning ... won't make my database unloadable unless they destroy the drive(s).
... so yeah.
... how much does it take in order to read an ext2 partition? or anything else requiring a driver? you have to prime the pump one way or another -- something has to be up so the rest of the system can read the files and load.
well, that's the theory. i trust firebird (the database project, not the browser) with my data
of course, we're talking about microsoft
as to having the "whole os up"
uhm, ... don't they already -anyway-? seems anonymous cowards can normally post replies to just about anything (so long as it's not archived) ... so, for free, they can post their replies themselves, exactly where appropriate (as a reply to the offending post) ... which is actually ideal. and /. does the 'slash-back' thing where, often, they actually do link to rebuttals. got a problem with that?
i don't think the parent-post was ruling out simply reducing population by changing the first derivative ...
... better not to have one, right? (damn, i wish that had worked on some families i know ...)
... they just -must- have the traditional family (2.x kids, etc.) ... even worse, they seem to think they have to do this each time they get married, if that's several times (a marriage just isn't right if you don't have kids to prove it's working out) ...
... that's just a straw-man argument. it's funny, sorta, yes ... but not necessary. after all, we could just -sterilize- ... )
VHEMT.ORG
i'd really rather people not had kids. i'm hoping not to. and just think -- your neat, show-off-to-the-coworkers kid might wind up rejecting your religion of choice
sadly, i've found that the less-free-thinking families tend to have the most kids. they may not even be idiots
(btw, the part about killing the jews
and in the US ...
d er seige
...
http://www.raisethefist.com/news.cgi?artical=un
or have we forgotten that we can no longer dessiminate the "Jolly Roger Anarchist's Cookbook"? not protected under freedom of speech, apparently. and it doesn't even suggest what to do with the info. just technical stuff. on putting thumbtacks on people's windshield wipers
as others have already done a fine job of pointing out -- movies like the matrix, any of the star wars movies, etc. do in fact depict terrorism in good light -- as the fight against some tyrrany. we tend to assume that it's an acceptable revolution if it leads to a world like ours -- supposed freedom of expression, etc. anything else is wrong. but in -all- cases, we are imposing our view of the "right" world to the rest of the population -- people who deal, every day, with living under the tyranny you despise. any revolution is diruptive to the daily lives of citizens: bystanders get killed, homes are destroyed, food and water become scarce as roads are blocked for military reasons ... to the innocent civilians just trying to live each day in peace, any conflict is bad. but we cheer as luke skywalker destroys the death star -- regardless of the countless engineers, janitors, or cooks employed there, just making a living! all revolutions are messy, no matter the cause. all revolutions harm the general population. there's no escaping it. you want to give freedom to people, because you think it's the "right way to live"? go ahead. you'll probably kill a few of them in the process, and i'm sure they'll thank you.
as to israel -- would you say that helicopters firing missiles into cars in the middle of a crowded street is covered as "rule of law"? would you say that's justice? would you want that to be the every-day method of keeping the peace in -your- country? then realize that the hate and anger go both ways, and all are to blame. bystanders died. their families are grieving. do you think they praise israel for ridding them of those criminals? maybe between the tears. but it wasn't their choice, it wasn't their way. and now people are dead.
i'm just curious, for all those millions of lines of code, how SCO might have found this copyright/patent/secret violation, unless they planted it?
... the algorithms for running that kind of check are nasty, speed-wise. it'd be more trouble than breaking a lot of encryption algorithms, and take at least as long. and even then, i'd just be looking for trouble: even if i do match up a bunch of lines of code, that's barely a hint at a problem. most code looks the same to me, especially low-level code. there's no reason to get really creative with it or re-invent the wheel. i wouldn't be surprised to find someone else had written very similar code (note that the article says the code looked "strikingly similar", not identical bit-for-bit. that makes it even harder to find, and even harder to prove to be stolen property.)
... methinks someone's going to be testifying about their sources of information.
i don't find myself browsing cvs respositories across the world, seeing how many lines of code i can match up between my own private stash, and all previous versions of code in the world
unless they were tipped off by someone 'in the know' about the code-migration? unless that was an anonymous tip
Hear! hear!
... and wound up doing most of them ourselves when we were re-hired as contractors four months later because so little development had actually gotten done in the mean time. One of our replacements still works there, in person, and is rather useful. On his own, however, the project would be "simmering" at best.
... and that makes us afraid of large blocks of code handed to us.
... and the cycle would have started over with new programmers, with new ideas, coding the app in VB and not understanding why people complained about functionality loss ... and then leaving again.
As the tech-lead on a project, and now an independent contractor working on that same project, I agree. Our project started because the previous guys had left, leaving behind a mess that really couldn't be fixed. When we left, after training replacements, we found that they just couldn't handle it. No amount of free phone calls and chat helped them take charge of the project -- we had left a long list of important things to do
Original designers, no matter how much documentation and training they leave with the newcomers, are hard to replace: very hard. Even well-designed systems, when they're of any complexity, take a really long time to understand and start modifying with any confidence. Anyone coming in later is going to be afraid to touch anything, for fear of breaking systems elsewhere -- even if you designed the system so it wouldn't. We all know how we write our own personal code
I was rather afraid that, had we not come back as contractors, the replacements would have left
Open source projects don't protect us from this -- they make code available, yes, but I've found that they also make programmers lazy: anyone can read the code, right? So why document as well? Why leave design docs behind? Why check all the security yourself, since we simply expect that because an OSS project -can- be audited by thousands of programmers, it obviously will be with any success?
The fact remains, though, that in many cases, just having the source code so you can fix one stupid bug is enough. And that alone makes OSS worthwhile.
yeah ... some of us competent programmers wouldn't mind a more permanent job, coding something of some interest (something other than a brain-dead database design) ... 'course, considering the comments, seems this wouldn't really be the case. oh well.
so, you go to an E3 conference, with games everywhere, to write up articles to be published, so you can get paid, and this is -neither- business nor pleasure? hell, i'll take either. games. money. but neither?
yeah. that'll be fun. "you seem to be 96% human. you get 96% of a vote in the next elections." i don't think a scientific view of our place in the 'tree of life' is going to change public opinion stating that "we own the planet" and "all other creatures may be our entertainment, our food, or our experiment" ... no matter how similar we may be genetically.
if nothing else, the fact that we can't seem to even get more than extremely basic communication up is a problem. yeah, i talk to my cat. and he talks back. but i couldn't for the life of me tell you what he's thinking when he sticks his paw in the water bowl, no matter how often i ask, and how often he chirps back at me.
we quite simply wouldn't be able to fairly hold a tribunal system, telling random animals they've broken some law they didn't help create (wait, that applies to me too) and punishing them for it. my cat knows right and wrong. sorta. but not the way i do. if he kills a bird, well, yay. if i kill a cow, well, yay. if he kills another cat, darn. if i kill another human, well, i'm in trouble for sure.
the way we treat other animals can't be considered fair. but at least it's simple and managable.
Even if the backdoor is "secure", you still have the possibility that quickly-released patches, to fix vulnerabilities exposed in "flash attacks" will in fact themselves create more problems. As much as it may sound like a good idea at first, those patches could themselves prove to be more dangerous than the attacks they prevent. And the patch has a -guaranteed- method of distribution, as opposed to a virus taking the time to scan for hosts, attempt infiltration, and re-send itself from the new host. And with companies like Microsoft around, who seem to think that every patch and update is a good opportunity to update your EULA too, and make you agree that they have every right to do anything they damn please to your machine ... completely automatic updates seem like a really -bad- idea. I don't run nightly builds of software: I wait for everyone else to find the bugs, and hope real security will keep me safe until then. Automatic updates would be exactly that -- "here, have our latest-and-greatest-and-probably-full-of-bugs version!"
And here's another idea -- Hell no.
i agree. GM foods will tend to appear en-masse, for marketting reasons. we don't just modify one plant, and leave it out to multiply. the difference is one of speed, not logical possibility. as such, of -course- we should watch what Monsato, and other, are up to. the point was only that we can't blame them as the only possible cause of problems.
you're missing the fact that, in general, we complain that we -don't- know what GM plants will do to us. maybe cancer ... in fifty years. how many generations of a plant is that? we might not have any reason at all to know better, and weed those modified plants out. why should we? we're fine right now ... so natural selection may not be -possible-, because no detectable change has occured, until too late. this is the case in any of these situations. in the time it takes us to notice (run federally-funded research five times to get a result we believe,) other properties of the dangerous plant may have helped it spread ... or maybe it even tasted better, while also leading to some unknown disease later in life? natural selection could work against us, such that this plant, in an extreme situation, actually gains an advantage, wiping out those who eat it. it wouldn't be the first time a plant had, over time, become poisonous to its natural predators. (yes, you'll find me in the fields stalking the plants ... they won't see me coming.)
... unless you'd like to, while you're at it, go ahead and say that darwinian evolution through mutation is total crock (you're welcome to, i don't mind) then you have to admit for the possibility that random mutations do, over time, happen and spread. "sharp teeth could never have happened, as other predators would have taken out the offending proto-tiger" ... right. of course.
... then yeah, sure, GM mega-corps are the only threat to us. -obviously- current crops of wheat, naturally grown, aren't dangerous. they haven't killed us off yet ...
i'm not saying this is likely. but i am saying that GM mega-corps aren't solely responsible for -possible- dangerous foods appearing in our bowls. while we may have the means to control those corps, we may -not- have the foresight to catch other dangers.
and
now, if you wanted to argue that there -are- no mutations that, over time, may spread and eventually snowball into a new species
a few weeks ago, a friend of mine and i convinced my girlfriend to give then-phoenix a try ... she just about stopped using it, when auto-complete would kill the browser window (and any other phoenix windows she had open.) amazingly, the "stupid stuff doesn't pop up at random" feature was enough to keep her using it, and she just keeps typing, ignoring auto-complete ... she's been pretty happy with it.
... and at least one of them has some sort of auto-popup at the beginning of the page that is necessary for the rest of the page to load correctly ... and with popups turned off except for requested windows, that doesn't work. for the ones where this isn't the case, i'll probably have her submit a but report / check the html for stupid mistakes ... yes, she's a geek.)
(she and a friend have complained of a few sites that either don't render at all, or render -really- badly
First off, this isn't to defend companies like Monsato. However ... when you complain that they're "experimenting on us with GM foods" you're implying that in nature, things never change, and are always safe. You do realize, right, that -many- plants we eat are partially poisonous? Random mutations, which we assume happen all the time, could just as easily start a new strain of human-killing wheat, without the help of Monsato. We don't know, for sure, what's growing in those crops -- one little plant could be sitting there "plotting" the demise of the world, without anyone knowing about it, even -without- GM plants and companies. Solutions:
... but we're still at risk, regardless.
a) force farmers to eat some of every plant on their grounds, before selling any of it. (not effective at all.)
b) scan crops to make sure every last plant has the same DNA as a known-good plant (md5 hash, anyone?) before allowing the crop to be used. (again, not effective.)
In conclusion, nature could "decide" to kill us at any time, without our help. Yes, Monsato et al. should test their crops in a controlled environment (closed, sealed, and locked) before releasing them into full-blown fields for harvesting
as others have pointed out -- you're right, mysql IS fast (see my other posts,) i even recommend it for datawarehousing situations, where data is denormalized, and fast queries against large amounts of simple information are a good thing.
however, it's also fast -for what it does- which is not nearly as much as other database systems. the fact that it compares to oracle while not having the features of oracle says something: oracle's still worth more, and maybe a price is justified. firebird, postgresql may have more features than mysql, but they also aren't always as fast. i've found though that they're not slow, and being able to accomplish complicated queries without resorting to some client-side method is often a -good- thing. i'd rather my server deal with it than my network.
the point was that it's not a new-comer, experimental, this-is-my-phd thesis database system. it's not abandoned, and its development is still going strong.
... transaction support is practically optional (most data warehouses aren't one at the same with the online oft-updated production database.)
... there'd be no room for debate. it had to happen -now- to avoid future problems.
and yes, someone -does- know firebird. now you do.
as to datawarehousing, however, the dominant technique (star) isn't really a relational technique -- it's an optimization via older, hierarchical methods. as such, i wouldn't recommend directly using a database designed for normal relational operations -- in fact, i -would- recommend something like mysql: designed for speed over simple operations
as to the naming (you'll notice i was kind enough not to say anything about that?) you should realize that, as a trademark, the name must be defended, or it will be diluted. if 'firebird' were going to be anything more than an internal code-name for a particular version of the mozilla browser product, you'd have a serious problem coming: firebird's name would be taken over by a more popular product, such that eventually, someone would inevitably claim that the database project had stolen the browser's name. impossible, you claim? if the mozilla team is so attached to the name now, imagine how it'd be a year or two down the line when questions were asked
the firebird team is working just to have their own little corner. they're not good at advertising themselves, but the least the rest of us can do is leave them alone. you don't like it? fine, don't use it. but you don't name your projects in such a way as to make it even harder for others to gain recognition -- say, naming your popular [x] software "mysql" when at a time when it's still a fledgling project. (they, however, are really quite good at advertising.)
and 'denial of service' isn't a product name, now is it?
yeah, it's publicity. in fact, ann -did- say it was publicity: because they figured this had happened by accident, because, as you pointed out, they're not popular ... and no-one would be careful not to name their project 'firebird'.
... i'd like to see your qualification of that. i've come across talks by (of all people) microsoft, where interbase/firebird (same thing, except firebird is open-source, free, and not stinky) is listed right along with oracle, db2, sybase, etc. (and you won't find any mention of mysql or postgresql there.)
... fifteen years? a little more? it's quite full-featured, growing constantly, and currently undergoing a C to C++ conversion so adding features will be even faster in the near future.
... but on slashdot, everyone uses a browser. and if they code ... they're quite likely to have just picked up "php and mysql" at their local bookstore, and never looked for a -real- database. (isn't it sad that, even as good as postgresql is, and -known-, people still favor mysql? geeks, of all people, should know when they see a hack-job.) so instead, from now on, with the slashdot crowd, firebird will be known as "that evil database project that tried to keep mozilla from using its name!" ...
... work on firebird now. you can thank ann and jim for the work that brought you a fully-capable database without the bloat of oracle.)
however, as to the postgresql part
interbase has been around for, what
if it hadn't been for this stink over naming, firebird would have stood a good chance of publicizing their milestone releases (1.5 and 2.0) through slashdot. in fact, there might have been a lot more people picking it up and saying "hey, cool!"
maybe interbase stands a chance (not really -- all the original coders who made interbase possible
and yes, i -am- proud to use firebird in a production environment. it's fast, it's solid, and it does everything (almost -- i've got a few feature requests in) i want it to do. check it out! (and call it whatever you like!)
indeed. it's been a recent fad to make the word 'terrorist' apply to just about anybody -- because terrorism is worse than murder, or spying, or theft, or just about any other crime ... people understand murder. they get the urge every once in a while. theft? yeah, they understand that too. but terrorism ... is not something the average joe thinks about every day. "i'm gonna blow up the trade center" ... sure, if you've seen "office space" you might remember something about burning individual buildings down ... but not terrorism. just random, directed anger.
... not assassination, but just general murder. and he didn't pull the trigger. now try to think about similar cases in our country. mobsters? other gang leaders? we didn't label -them- terrorists, now did we ... but you won't tell me the mob hasn't used murder to try to change public policy. bring down laws, stop law enforcement in certain areas, ... ?
by branding more things as 'terrorism' our government is building sympathy for harsher sentences against crimes that we wouldn't have punished nearly so much in the recent past. because it was murder, not terrorism. revolution, not terrorism. self-defense, not terrorism.
just try seeing what you think if you brand bin laden as having conspired for murder
the word "terrorism" really shouldn't be used the way it is today. it's a tool -- propaganda -- like anything else.
depends on the contracts signed. any NDA's? any "what you write is ours forever" clauses? any "you may -not- go and rewrite this from scratch elsewhere, thanks to your exceptional memory" clauses?
no? then no. have at it. give us a better kernel.
it says "in the user interface of the browser and not in the document" -- frames, as well as templated links (static content at top, left, bottom, right, or in the damn middle) are in the document, not the browser. the entire page, including frames, is the document. the user interface has stuff like the status bar, favorites, link bar, and the evil animation thingie ... but not the frames, nor the templated content! that's the document, and therefore out of the reach of the patent.
it seems odd to me that on a daily basis, i see release notes for gnome, freebsd, every last version of mysql ... and even windows! and yet, a perfectly good, fast, small, powerful open-source database engine doesn't get mentioned!
... that's a -big- milestone for them. they're in the middle of, well, a code-rewrite to C++, so they can give us an even better product. i don't even remember slashdot posting news about 1.0 coming to us ... and hey, that was a rather nice improvement. (i'm still running it.)
... they've had a rough ride of getting pushed around. mozilla is known to the slashdot crowd, firebird's not. it's obvious who's going to get the sympathy.
... and maybe overlook this, k?
they're releasing 1.5 now/soon
i, for one, support firebird. not the tactics in this case, but as others point out
give the database a try
i think the studies showing that shooting people are all wrong. those studies, and the policies they cause, are restricting my freedom to shoot people. that sucks. same goes with alcohol. and anything else potentially harmful. but damn it, we have a natural right to do anything, right? yup.
... just -maybe- ... it's possible to limit ourselves slightly. market economy is already restricted: no monopolies (theoretically) ... long john's can't fry your fish in animal fat anymore ... we restrict ourselves all the time. this won't be the first, nor the last. as posted elsewhere: even if we're not sure of all the causes and all the effects of our actions, maybe we should still be somewhat careful?
... on another note ... do you really think we should be bossing other countries around? bribing some, invading some, putting up blockades on others ... ? and if you're worried about freedom, you might also look at what our current, completely blameless government is doing to us. they're not corrupt, right? wonder why my rights keep going down the drain every time they get together to worry about my security ...
maybe you're right. maybe capitalism and freedom are more important than at least looking at the possibility that we're screwing ourselves over. but maybe
you're right of course. we don't have enough data. and the people giving us what data we have already interpret the data in odd ways, mostly for their own profit. all of them. but i'd hate for our generation to be remembered as the ones who had a chance to do something about the world before it got too bad -- but just figured it was fine and refused to look. that'd suck.
and