Bad GUI standards? What does that have to do with JavaScript? If you can name a GUI standard within a single language that it better, please let me know. Certainly you don't mean Python's GUI since there's no standard there at all. It's the same story with C, C++, Ruby, Perl, Pascal, and all of the others. A notable exception is Java (aside from the AWT/Swing duplication), and a large number of people hate that. Name something better.
What's wrong with DOM/CSS, especially when there is nothing about JavaScript itself that's intimately tied with DOM/CSS. There's no reason within the language's constraints that an applications programmer couldn't integrate JavaScript with GTK+ or Qt.
As for debuggers, have you even used Venkman? Or are you still using alert() calls for your debugging?
Yes, we computer folks have been using prefixes like kilo to mean 1024 unlike *every other field of study in existence*, because we find it too difficult to start using KiB instead of KB. I mean, c'mon! It's a whole other letter! It's not fair!!!
Please.
I see folks on Slashdot constantly stating that X is more correct than Y, but when they are forced to look outside their own little corner of academia and business, this group collectively says, "La la la! I can't hear you! Kilo = 1024 uber alles!"
Every. Other. Field. Of. Study.
Congratulations! You've now collectively abdicated any moral right to tell anyone else they're being unreasonable. By the way, the word is "regardless," not "irregardless." A dictionary will commonly list that word as nonstandard, and since I studied English Lit in college and it's an English word, we in the English Lit community get to set the rules.
So which is it? Will you stop using the illogical word "irregardless" or will you start using kibibytes? If you don't change either of those, you will clearly be just a lazy hypocrite.
I'll answer you as soon as you answer why the following retort is correct?
"Aren't I the one for that job?"
"Aren't" is a contraction for "are not," correct? However, the verb "to be" is not conjugated as "are" for the subject pronoun "I." The "correct" form is, "Am I not the one for that job?" So how does "aren't" fit into this "correctly?"
Yes, I used a lot of quotation marks. It doesn't alter the fact that "aren't I" is no more valid than "ain't." In fact, "ain't" has been around as long as all of the other contractions. Its status as bad English is largely arbitrary.
"It ain't nothing to worry about neither." Did you understand that sentence? Do you understand the intent of the writer? Done. Move along.
"Greater than ourselves?" That presupposes that "greatness" can be quantified. Are crocodiles greater than we are because they are relatively unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs? Does greater mean most common or most successful? Ants make up far greater biomass on this planet than humans do.
As for supernatural, that's bunk. If someone actually saw a real ghost, it would not be supernatural. You can see it. It's interacting with you. It is therefore following natural laws, just laws that may be unknown to us currently. It is therefore natural, not supernatural.
If the supernatural existed, we would have no way of detecting it let alone interacting with it. If it cannot be perceived, it might as well not exist to us. If it can be perceived, it is natural. It's that simple. "The supernatural" is simply a logical dodge to say that one believes in magic -- in other words, the unreal.
So in HTTP/1.1 they introduced a way of making multiple requests in one connection. (It may have predated HTTP/1.1 but I think that was when it was first formalized). Close. It was possible to make multiple requests per connection in even the HTTP 1.0 spec. HTTP 1.1 simply made that behavior the default. In other words, you had to specify an additional header to support multiple requests in 1.0, but in 1.1 you had to specify "Connection: close" to prevent the behavior.
You make some great points, thank you. You also avoid answering my question yet again.
Call me an optimist, but 300 generations should be enough to make fusion viable.
Which raises another question: if fusion technology became viable (a big if, I know), would you have any major objections? After all, it would produce a very large amount of energy using a very small yet abundant fuel source, generate no long-term waste, no appreciable environmental impact, and will be around for as long as heavy hydrogen exists in the universe, i.e., longer than the human species.
Don't get me wrong, you made some great points other than the 40-50% lab cells. Those lab-grown cells have typical lifespans measured in weeks or months. They are far cries from usable tech let alone mass production.
But once again, you made great points. All I ask is that you answer my two questions. That's all, and I'll concede the point.
Nuclear power plants are not either 100% on or completely off. The reaction can be moderated to many shades of gray, just as the comments on your own blog mention. You are presenting a straw man: not accurately representing how the opposition works and then taking them to task using your own sketchy characterization.
Your second link deals with the benefits of decentralization. Once again, I have no argument with that. I am not against wind and solar use.
If you look a little deeper, the solar number is for a concentrator and such thermal plants are being built with thermal storage. No batteries, just dispatchable solar power with a good match to changes in seasonal demand.
Link, please. And yes, they are indeed batteries; they are simply not chemical batteries.
And, that 80 by 80 miles covers the whole energy use of the entire country, not just Nevada and not just electric generation.
You haven't addressed how to get that power from Nevada to the rest of the country without huge losses. Those numbers you gave only work for the 80x80 square in Nevada. This is like when the Catholic Church asserted that the Earth could support 12 billion people because a quarter of Iowa could produce x-amount of food, but completely skipping over the fact that most places on Earth aren't like that quarter of Iowa -- including other parts of Iowa!
Other places will use panels, that is kind of the point of looking at what roof space is available. As pointed out, the batteries to make panels work 24/7 come basically as a freebee from transportation.
A freebie? Now I'm worried. NOTHING is free. Are you suggesting shipping charged batteries on a truck or rail line from state to state and then returning them discharged? Please tell me you're not. Then again, even if you were, what is moving the trucks and the rail lines? Oil? Electricity? Please give more info.
Nuclear power has economic, environmental, safety, proliferation and sustainablility issues that are intelocking and have not been adequately addressed.
You're sidestepping my question. If you look back to read again, I specifically stated that nuclear's problems were not solved yet. I was asking a very pointed hypothetical: if we could address the waste issue, which to be honest is the linchpin to your other issues, would you still be against nuclear?
If the waste were minute in volume and had a short-lived hazard duration (for example, 100 years). If by using more of the fuel and leaving less waste, it was made more economically viable. If the waste had no vector for water/ground contamination. If there was no plutonium produced after the fuel was used. If the fuel source could last tens of thousands of years.
If all of those were true, would you be willing to support nuclear energy. It's a straightforward yes-or-no question. I'm not asking if you think these things are true today. I'm asking that if these things were true tomorrow, would your objection to it be diminished or eliminated?
If the answer is yes, this means you are rational. If the answer is no, you have adopted your stance as a religious issue, not subject to rational thought.
However, since you brought up environmental impact (with regard to nuclear), I might ask what the impact of all of those semiconductor photoelectric cells has on the environment during their manufacture. I know for computers, things can get fairly nasty. So tell me, what is the overall environmental impact of manufacturing 6,400 square miles of semiconductors?
Take a look at the numbers again. Remember that wind is cheaper than nuclear power by a lot and solar will be even cheaper than wind shortly. Thin film solar is already on the market and growing rapidly.
Yes, growing rapidly at 20% efficiency. Look, I'm not arguing with you that we sho
I was not commenting on their percentage output based on longevity. No solar panel has ever been 80% efficient as a percentage of the Solar Constant. No panel will EVER get 100% of the Solar Constant. No energy transfer mechanism in the real world will ever be 100% efficient.
Nevada has regions that get 9 kWh per square meter of sunlight per day on average over a year, or 375 Watts per square meter of average power. At 20% efficiency you get 75 of those. So we just divide the 1.2 TW of energy we use that we calculated earlier by 75 W per square meter to get the number of square meters we need. Divided again by a million gives 16000 square kilometers. The square root of this, 126 km, gives the length of the edge of the square which is about 80 miles.
Okay, let's take a closer look together. You see that 20% reference? That does NOT mean the solar cells working at 20% of their capacity; that means that the solar panels are working at 20% of what nature allows. Big, big difference.
It was nice of them to average out between day and night, which is where they got their 75W/m^2 average (after 20% factor). The sun shines between six and eight hours for solar panels in the best case. Yes, there is some light near sunrise and sunset, but the real power doesn't start coming in until the middle six to eight hours of the day. Which means you have to store that power. That means batteries. Ever feel the battery on a laptop while it's in use or charging? It's warm, isn't it?
That heat means loss, a non-trivial amount in fact. Nevertheless, 75W/m^2 means that for every square meter, you can run a single 75W lightbulb all day long. One. Just one. Modern gaming computers have 500W power supplies and more. Simple math really. Now let's talk about washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, etc. Washers and dryers use a lot of power, but they are only on for short periods of the day. Refrigerators on the other hand...
So now you're trying to convince me that 6,400 square miles (square of 80 miles on each side) will solve all of our problems. Sure, that's a far smaller number than the 113,635 square miles in Arizona.
BUT!
You've provided for Nevada, one of the states with the lowest population density and consistent sun. What about Washington State? Just run a 1,000-mile power cable? I can guarantee that you won't get 75W except in the height of summer in Washington State.
AND!
Your source neglects to mention that solar panels become less efficient when they become very hot. The baking deserts of Nevada and Arizona are not optimum locations for efficiency unless they are high deserts.
AND!
You have to manufacture 6,400 square miles of semiconductors. You can't reduce the cost substantially unless you stop needing a clean room. No, economy of scale doesn't work as well as you'd think. Why not? That computer you're typing on uses a massive amount of semiconductors. They have a massive amount of R&D invested in them. Are there any fast computers boards printed with an inkjet? No. That single innovation would reduce the cost of computers dramatically, but we're not there yet. There is absolutely no reason to believe that cheap, printable solar panels are just around the corner either, even with substantial monetary investment.
-------
Now on to wind. Once again, re-read my post and pay attention this time. I did not say that all wind power together could not add up to thousands of megawatts. I never said that. I said that individual wind generators and most wind farms cannot. My issue is with energy density: the energy density of wind and solar is not high enough. The question -- this is important -- is not nor has it ever been "can it produce power." The question is "can it produce enough power consistently 24/7/365.
Folks in Montana don't suddenly stop needing power in winter when t
Are humans capable of producing more CO2 per decade than say, a single volcanic eruption?
Yes. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 has dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced. As those eruption-generated particles leave the stratosphere, the haze effect will diminish, and the original greenhouse effect will be more pronounced.
Does the amount of organisms capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere increase as this new atmosphere provides an environment closer to the optimum for them?
Does the increase of CO2 (which is far denser than oxygen or nitrogen) at relatively LOW altitudes (because of this density) have ANY effect on the upper atmosphere? In fact, is heat really retained at ALL by a thin surface layer of CO2?
Yes and yes.
The "facts" are not as clear cut as you would like them to be. Of course it's easy if you only listen to what you WANT to hear.
For example, if most of your talking points come from conservative "think tanks" rather than planetary climatologists. Please cite your assertions and be sure that all come from scientific journals and the like as opposed to the aforementioned think tanks or political pundits.
Honestly. I'd love to see your evidence that calls global warming into question. I will read it and give it an honestly critical eye. I only ask that you cite your sources.
Some of the main benefits of thorium reactors are that they vastly reduce the amount of waste, emit waste that has much shorter half-lives, and (here's the kicker) can eliminate existing stockpiles of plutonium and spent fuel.
Fusion does nothing to address the issue of existing nuclear material.
It's not an either-or deal; it's a measured "both."
Here we go again. The vast conspiracy against solar and wind by those evil baddies. Please.
Why not solar? The Solar Constant, that's why. 1.367kW/m^2. Typical yield is closer to 1kW/m^2. Then some genius suggests that we cover an area roughly the size of Arizona with solar cells to generate all of the power. Riiiiiiiiight. "Just cover all of the roofs, and we'll be set!" Riiiiiiiiiight.
Those are the roofs. Added up, they might add up to Arizona. Not likely though. Now imagine that you wanted to cover up Arizona with big pieces of paper, the whole state. I want you to imagine the scale of a project like that with just paper. Now I want you to reflect on the difficulty inherent with replacing all of that paper with silicon semiconductors that currently require clean rooms for manufacture.
Nevermind that we can't get 50% cells to last more than a couple months let alone ten years, and that's the expensive, lab-grown variety. But people still hold out hope for "printable" solar panels that get 50% efficiency and last fifty years.
And wind? Yeah, let's hear it for the 5 or 6MW wind generators! Well, until you see the stats on land area they use up. Feel free to look up pictures of how big 6MW wind generators actually are. However, most generators aren't anywhere near that big. In fact most wind farms (collections of generators) tend to add up to that 5 or 6MW range all together. There just isn't enough wind. You can't produce energy out of nothing. It has to come from something. If the wind isn't blowing hard enough, no amount of money and research is going to extract thousands of megawatts out of it.
What? Offshore wind generators? Uh hunh, no maintenance involved in keeping mechanical devices with large moving parts in working order in the middle of those salt water oceans. No sir! We could just turn them on and walk away. Let's not even think about those big power cables headed for shore. Nope, those aren't a target for mischief.
Kites? Sure, as long as we ignore the fact that no one has actually been successful at getting 100 kilowatts-hours out of that even for a single hour. I haven't yet heard of a meager first step yet let alone something approaching a working prototype.
Or traffic wind generators? That one takes the cake. If someone can't grasp why traffic wind generators are a moronic idea, that person can't handle the real world. Transferring energy from wind to turn generators will slow the air. If the air is slowed, it makes the cars work harder to maintain speed. If the cars are working harder, they burn more fuel. See where this is headed?
Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, the two nuclear plants in California, each have two working nuclear reactors on site. Each one produces more than 1,000MW. Hmmm... let's figure out how many 5MW wind generators it takes to add up to just one nuclear reactor. Be sure to keep that picture of the 5MW variety of wind generator around for reference.
Then there's the issue of how much wind you can get in most areas. Added to the fact that nuclear reactors and coal plants don't depend on (in)consistent wind patterns, daylight hours, or weather conditions.
Be sure to focus on the amount of area that rates above "good." Notice how some states are COMPLETELY screwed with regard to wind power. What? Have some states sell their power to the other states, the completely energy dependent ones? Look up how well that worked when Enron, a Texas company, held sway over the energy supply of a different state, California. Now imagine that happening to a state with less clout than California.
Solar and wind are not going to save us. They are excel
No they don't. That's bullshit. If we do not mine anymore, only use 1-2% of the energy potential (like we do now), do not enrich the spent fuel, and completely ignore fast-neutron reactor designs. Then and only then would we "run out" in 2030-2036. Fast neutron reactors can breed uranium from thorium, and we sure as hell are not going to run out of thorium anytime in the next few millennium.
But I will agree with you that it's a stopgap. Fission until fusion.
Actually many houses are so badly insulated, that you could get back your investment within only a few years.
But, essentially you are right: It does cost something, sometimes a lot. And in this times in which everybody seems to be dependent on the nanny-state any change is seen as threatening.
I totally agree, it can be an obvious gain; however, injecting the "nanny state" into this discussion is unnecessary. Inertia happens in any society, nanny state or not.
The alternative is that within 5-10 years Saudi-Arabia will no longer be able to satisfy rising demands and/or China will buy so much oil that there just won't be enough to heat all houses.
If you think that's great, OK.
I don't think that's great and taxing the hell out of all energy would be a big hassle now, but it would soften the blow that will come in the form of Peak Oil.
There you go again with the straw man argument. You know damn well I wasn't saying we should do nothing. I actually agree with you on most points. I'm simply saying that in the real world, answers aren't quite so cut and dry as you present them. Part of the solution includes the method in convincing others to work toward a common goal. From a pragmatic standpoint, this can be almost as important as the goal itself. You can feel self righteous all you want, but if you come off as arrogant and dismissive, people will ignore you or contradict you simply because you are personally distasteful to them. This does not help anyone's long-term goals.
As far as stone homes versus wood homes, it is you that is ignoring the problem. Yes, we should be building homes with energy efficiency in mind, stone or not. But you cannot reasonably ignore the existing population of energy-inefficient buildings when discussing solutions. Yes, you can insulate in the attic and install double-paned windows to get an immediate and substantial benefit. But that is a far cry from homes that are built from the ground up to be energy efficient. That's all I'm saying.
Another excuse - and a pretty weak one: Only a "miniscule proportion of the total number of homes" stand in earthquake-prone regions. And of course you can use steel-reinforced concrete in these cases that will survive any earthquake.
What is the single most populous state? California. Earthquakes there. It is not a miniscule proportion. And yes, you could build with steel-reinforced concrete. Unfortunately, it would be substantially more expensive than the equivalent size wood home. I'm not trying to justify buying a wood home over a stone home. I'm just talking about the effect of economics in the real world. Unless of course you want the "nanny state" to step in with incentives and taxes. (Notice how if the government intervenes for something you want, you don't consider it obtrusive, but if it's something you don't want, it is?)
1) Of course they don't need an acre of land, they just need about 30m for the foundation, the surrounding land can be used as farmland just fine (you usually don't build them in residential areas). 2) 20,000? So? In the US, there are several hundred MILLIONS of cars and tens of MILLIONS are produced every year. You want to tell me that this country is so weak that it's unable to produce a couple of thousand windmills? 3) Modern windmills have a lifetime of 20 years without any maintenance whatsoever. The technology isn't that new anymore. 4) Power lines distribute electrical energy over long distances, that's nothing new.
Here I admit, I was not being clear enough. I am not suggesting that only windmills could be used on this land. Another respondent did, but not me. I was referring to the fact that 5MW windmills requires that much distance from each other due to the physical blades as well as airflow.
As far as numbers go, each car doesn't take an acre of land.;-) Also, bear in mind that I was arr
Yes, houses should be better insulated. Unfortunately, many homes are quite old and would require a non-trivial amount of money from the homeowner to improve. Since many new homeowners have a fat mortgage, children, a college fund, food bills, etc., a lot of folks will not rush out and do this.
It's not because they are evil or apathetic. They are simply not rich, are commonly sleep-deprived (read: have children), and flat out do not have time to deal with it (read: have children).
As far as your "use stone instead of wood houses," that is a red herring. Yes, when starting from scratch, a stone house would be better; however, US homes are overwhelmingly built upon wood construction. Those homes don't just magically go away just because we decide stone homes are better. Even if all new construction were to be stone homes -- a long shot considering that most construction workers are familiar with wood construction, not stone -- it would be a minuscule proportion of the total number of homes.
In addition, what would you propose for earthquake-prone regions? Stone? I think not. A very good reason to build wood homes is that the wood home will sway in an earthquake instead of crumble. In 1989, a major quake hit my area. Many homes survived, but the chimneys were by and large ruined. You simply can't buy a home around here that doesn't have a cracked or repaired chimney.
The suggestion about smaller, more fuel-efficient cars is actually the most reasonable suggestion you've made. Far more so than the suggestion about wind power. Why? Check out wind density in the US. Wind power completely excludes the south and most of the southwest. Just have one state sell to another? One word: Enron. Not gonna happen.
Also, let's look at your numbers. Possibly up to 10% by 2020 in Germany? In the US, we consume upwards of 4.8 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (with a 't'). The larger windmills generate up to 5 megawatts if the wind is blowing to full potential and the windmill is in perfect working order. That's potentially about 43.8 million kilowatt-hours per year. Those 5 megawatt jobs require about an acre of land apiece (they're really big!). Hmmm... Not only would it require 19,178 of those monsters to handle 10% of the US in the perfect case (hint: we live in the real world where perfect cases don't exist), but you'd have to factor in the maintenance costs associated with keeping such a decentralized power source in good repair. This requires -- you guessed it -- more energy. If you think the repair aspect is trivial, just remember the climate found in those northern states where the wind is so abundant. Hot summers and below freezing winters with hail and sleet in between.
Coal is currently the number one US electricity source: over 50% of our total electricity production. This is a problem. For reasons mentioned above, wind is not going to replace that. For reasons I haven't spelled out but you can research yourself, solar power can't displace coal either (1.367kWh/m^2 is the solar constant). The reasons are somewhat similar though: energy density and the demands of geography. So what's left?
Hydroelectric? We've already tapped that avenue. Microtidal? Over 90% of Earth's life exists within ten miles of a coastline. I'm a bit hesitant to mess with the energy transfer found in those ecosystems. Geothermal? The US is not Iceland. Biodiesel? The amount of cropland required to offset coal usage would significantly reduce the area available for food production.
What's left? Conservation? Even if we cut our usage in half -- 2.4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, which incidentally will not happen in the US without an energy crisis afoot -- that's still a massive amount of power required.
And we haven't even factored in vehicle needs yet, which is necessary since oil won't last forever. Plug-in hybrids? Great idea. Gonna need more electricity for that.
While it was once fun to compile the kernel and mention it the next morning while grabbing a cup of coffee, these days I want to use my machine for things other the care and feeding of the operating system.
As I type from my Mac and monitor my Ubuntu and Debian servers, I couldn't agree more.
Life's too damn short to reinvent the wheel. 5% extra speed from a custom compile? Screw that! Give the slower binary and more time to live life, be happy, do my job, and get paid. With the time I saved on the 5% custom compile, I can buy a CPU that's 15% faster. Since time is money, I actually save money buying the CPU rather than doing the 5% custom compile.
If it gives you pleasure, by all means, do the custom compile. Hell, even if the custom compile reduced speed by 5%, go ahead and do it if it makes you happy.
Me? Hanging out in the sunlight and fresh air makes me happy these days. The opportunity cost associated with the 5% custom compile just ain't worth it to me anymore.
Coming from Java and C++ land, I'm familiar with the idea of
try {} catch (...) {} finally {}
What is the point of else? What does it get you that you didn't have just as easily without it? If no exception is thrown, run it? Isn't that what the content in the try section is for? Will someone provide a use case for this for me please?
For point of reference, I've been using Linux for almost ten years, and I have written (not just started and stopped) server software for both Linux and Windows.
I was pleasantly surprised by Ubuntu Server recently. After install, I went in to remove all those packages I was used to removing in Debian after install as part of the hardening process. No ports open. Nothing. Just a clean, working system: a blank slate.
All in all, it was a clean system. The items I couldn't remove due to dependencies were things like evms and lvm. For a server, I find that reasonable. Note, not that I couldn't remove them, just that I would be overriding the system recommendation. In other words, it made recommendations, but did not lock you in.
It has bugged me for years that Debian ships with an SMTP server (exim) even when I don't want or need one. Not a basic mail client. A full SMTP mail server. Maybe I'm just annoyed because I'm a Postfix man, but it has always bugged me that I have to install and configure a piece of software when I'm just going to have to remove it soon after.
And with the lack of cruft on install, Ubuntu Server boots fast. Really fast. When the system slows down during boot, you can't help but realize that it's your own fault, not the basic OS. Already a step up from Fedora and Debian in my book.
I used to think that Debian was only good for servers, and Ubuntu was only good for desktops. I'm changing my tune. Debian still sucks for desktops (it can be done, but it's not fun). I still admire the Debian team for what they've accomplished, and I know that Ubuntu was built upon the strong foundations created by Debian, but the child is quickly outdoing the parent.
Hmmm... Let's see. Looking at my "old" five-year-old G4 Powerbook.
PC Card interface (PCMCIA) USB Firewire Ethernet DVI S-Video ATA (IDE) hard drive interface Laptop SDRAM
Yup. That's a closed architecture if I've ever seen it. Not.
The new laptops have standard laptop DDR memory as well. As a special bonus, I didn't shell out for the Airport card; I have a Microsoft-brand 802.11g PC Card wireless interface installed instead. (It was lying around and therefore free to me.) No extra drivers to be installed. It just ran under OS X as an airport device. How exactly could this laptop be any more open? Have you changed your Dell or IBM laptop motherboard lately for a 3rd party replacement? How about the CPU?
And the desktops are even worse! AGP and PCI on the motherboards. What were they thinking? Next thing you know, they'll be moving to PCI-X in the next generation.
The 1990s called. They want their "Macs are a closed architecture" whines back.
Re:I'm a "Plan 9 from Bell Labs" user
on
Driving Plan 9
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There's no point calling a turd a diamond to save the feelings of the person who shitted it out.
However you don't tell someone their house is a shithole that only an idiot would want to live in even if you have a better home proposed. You point out the merits of the new house over and above what they have now.
Otherwise you will be perceived simply as an asshole calling someone an idiot. It might make you feel better, superior, etc., but it guarantees that you and whatever you're bringing to the table will be ignored or actively derided.
You hurt your cause by your presence. People will avoid Plan 9 not for its failings, but because it is associated with assholes, for example, you. If your goal is to kill the project, then by all means continue insulting others because you think they deserve it. If you actually want to foster adoption, perhaps a measure of diplomacy and a modicum of decorum would help.
In short, don't be a dick. As an added bonus, that advice works for more than just software.
PHP succeeds an older product, named PHP/FI. PHP/FI was created by Rasmus Lerdorf in 1995, initially as a simple set of Perl scripts for tracking accesses to his online resume. - PHP history page
Let me get this straight: you are condemning a programming language but championing the language it spawned.
As for your comment:
Quite honestly, as a programmer, I expect the applications to do as I ask them to, and not hold my dick at every opportunity. If I want something passed to a SQL statement in the way I've asked it to, I don't expect my data to be munged by the application to protect me.
Bwahahaha!! Since when is escaping a single-quote considered an attempt to "hold your dick"? Simple string concatenation for the creation of database is always a bad idea, even for 20-year veterans like you. The last time you were coding at 4am, were you as sharp as you were at midnight?
Also you are falling into the same pseudo-libertarian trap (tripe?) that many programmers seem to these days. You think that as long as you are doing the right thing, who cares what someone else does? In fact, ridiculing others is a sufficient solution to most problems.
It's not.
SQL injection attacks affect me when it's my bank. When was the last time you personally interviewed the web development staff at your bank or credit union? How do you know they are as good as you are? Considering the fact that binding variables is as fast or faster than simple string concatenation in most cases (in some cases, they can be converted to stored procedures transparently on the back end), I have exactly zero problems with a language "holding some dicks" in the name of security. Especially since there is no speed loss in the process.
Correctness, not "what works." It's the difference between modern chemistry and alchemy. You might end up with the right result, but only with trial and error... mostly error.
But perhaps this all points to a greater Slashdot problem: too many people who refuse to get their dicks held once in a while. In more ways than one.;-)
Weathersby said OpenSSL has been challenged by companies with competing proprietary encryption technologies, and that those challenges are aided by the open-source model, which makes source code for the tools publicly available.
"Now the opposing forces have the luxury of going in and trying to pick us apart," he said. "That's fine. That's fair. This is about dollars and cents. This is not about technology."
This doesn't bother me so much on its face; OpenSSL can only get better after this intense review. What bothers me is that the "opposing forces" are not likely receiving the same level of scrutiny and yet presumably are fully certified for sensitive information by the US government.
But of course they can't release the code for everyone else to review. People might steal their ideas, right? So how do we know they are secure rather than "mostly secure"? Or even worse, that they are "sort of secure, but the right people were taken out to dinner."
Or rather, you can use stored procedures, but that's not what is being discussed. We were talking about binding variables. Two different things.
Stored procedure: a function that runs within the database server.
Prepared/bound statement: something in code -- usually provided by the programming language's database layer -- that looks like the following:
UPDATE things SET alpha = ?, beta = ? where foo = ? and bar = ?
Then you set item 1 to some value, item 2 to another, etc. Other variations exist as well:
UPDATE things SET alpha =:alpha:, beta =:beta: where foo =:foo: and bar =:bar:
Here you can set values by name rather than by index. The implementation of this on the back end (where you should not be able to see it) may in fact be a stored procedure in databases that support it -- especially for SQL statements that are run repeatedly. However, even if the database doesn't support stored procedures, binding variables will always work since the issue is handled completely in code.
And then of course there are folks who don't want SQL anywhere near their code. That's when you may opt for an object-relational mapping library and/or stored procedures within a database.
Bottom line: escaping each time on your own is error-prone. Better to solve the problem right the first time. And it's easier than manually escaping/validating as well!
Slashdot Mirror
Then the OS is wrong, not the drive.
What exactly is "bad" about JQuery?
Bad GUI standards? What does that have to do with JavaScript? If you can name a GUI standard within a single language that it better, please let me know. Certainly you don't mean Python's GUI since there's no standard there at all. It's the same story with C, C++, Ruby, Perl, Pascal, and all of the others. A notable exception is Java (aside from the AWT/Swing duplication), and a large number of people hate that. Name something better.
What's wrong with DOM/CSS, especially when there is nothing about JavaScript itself that's intimately tied with DOM/CSS. There's no reason within the language's constraints that an applications programmer couldn't integrate JavaScript with GTK+ or Qt.
As for debuggers, have you even used Venkman? Or are you still using alert() calls for your debugging?
Yes, we computer folks have been using prefixes like kilo to mean 1024 unlike *every other field of study in existence*, because we find it too difficult to start using KiB instead of KB. I mean, c'mon! It's a whole other letter! It's not fair!!!
Please.
I see folks on Slashdot constantly stating that X is more correct than Y, but when they are forced to look outside their own little corner of academia and business, this group collectively says, "La la la! I can't hear you! Kilo = 1024 uber alles!"
Every. Other. Field. Of. Study.
Congratulations! You've now collectively abdicated any moral right to tell anyone else they're being unreasonable. By the way, the word is "regardless," not "irregardless." A dictionary will commonly list that word as nonstandard, and since I studied English Lit in college and it's an English word, we in the English Lit community get to set the rules.
So which is it? Will you stop using the illogical word "irregardless" or will you start using kibibytes? If you don't change either of those, you will clearly be just a lazy hypocrite.
I'll answer you as soon as you answer why the following retort is correct?
"Aren't I the one for that job?"
"Aren't" is a contraction for "are not," correct? However, the verb "to be" is not conjugated as "are" for the subject pronoun "I." The "correct" form is, "Am I not the one for that job?" So how does "aren't" fit into this "correctly?"
Yes, I used a lot of quotation marks. It doesn't alter the fact that "aren't I" is no more valid than "ain't." In fact, "ain't" has been around as long as all of the other contractions. Its status as bad English is largely arbitrary.
"It ain't nothing to worry about neither." Did you understand that sentence? Do you understand the intent of the writer? Done. Move along.
"Try using GTK+. Everything looks very bad and wrong..."
:)
There, fixed that for you.
"Greater than ourselves?" That presupposes that "greatness" can be quantified. Are crocodiles greater than we are because they are relatively unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs? Does greater mean most common or most successful? Ants make up far greater biomass on this planet than humans do.
As for supernatural, that's bunk. If someone actually saw a real ghost, it would not be supernatural. You can see it. It's interacting with you. It is therefore following natural laws, just laws that may be unknown to us currently. It is therefore natural, not supernatural.
If the supernatural existed, we would have no way of detecting it let alone interacting with it. If it cannot be perceived, it might as well not exist to us. If it can be perceived, it is natural. It's that simple. "The supernatural" is simply a logical dodge to say that one believes in magic -- in other words, the unreal.
Good introductory overview in general. Kudos.
You make some great points, thank you. You also avoid answering my question yet again.
Call me an optimist, but 300 generations should be enough to make fusion viable.
Which raises another question: if fusion technology became viable (a big if, I know), would you have any major objections? After all, it would produce a very large amount of energy using a very small yet abundant fuel source, generate no long-term waste, no appreciable environmental impact, and will be around for as long as heavy hydrogen exists in the universe, i.e., longer than the human species.
Don't get me wrong, you made some great points other than the 40-50% lab cells. Those lab-grown cells have typical lifespans measured in weeks or months. They are far cries from usable tech let alone mass production.
But once again, you made great points. All I ask is that you answer my two questions. That's all, and I'll concede the point.
Nuclear power plants are not either 100% on or completely off. The reaction can be moderated to many shades of gray, just as the comments on your own blog mention. You are presenting a straw man: not accurately representing how the opposition works and then taking them to task using your own sketchy characterization.
Your second link deals with the benefits of decentralization. Once again, I have no argument with that. I am not against wind and solar use.
Link, please. And yes, they are indeed batteries; they are simply not chemical batteries.
You haven't addressed how to get that power from Nevada to the rest of the country without huge losses. Those numbers you gave only work for the 80x80 square in Nevada. This is like when the Catholic Church asserted that the Earth could support 12 billion people because a quarter of Iowa could produce x-amount of food, but completely skipping over the fact that most places on Earth aren't like that quarter of Iowa -- including other parts of Iowa!
A freebie? Now I'm worried. NOTHING is free. Are you suggesting shipping charged batteries on a truck or rail line from state to state and then returning them discharged? Please tell me you're not. Then again, even if you were, what is moving the trucks and the rail lines? Oil? Electricity? Please give more info.
You're sidestepping my question. If you look back to read again, I specifically stated that nuclear's problems were not solved yet. I was asking a very pointed hypothetical: if we could address the waste issue, which to be honest is the linchpin to your other issues, would you still be against nuclear?
If the waste were minute in volume and had a short-lived hazard duration (for example, 100 years). If by using more of the fuel and leaving less waste, it was made more economically viable. If the waste had no vector for water/ground contamination. If there was no plutonium produced after the fuel was used. If the fuel source could last tens of thousands of years.
If all of those were true, would you be willing to support nuclear energy. It's a straightforward yes-or-no question. I'm not asking if you think these things are true today. I'm asking that if these things were true tomorrow, would your objection to it be diminished or eliminated?
If the answer is yes, this means you are rational. If the answer is no, you have adopted your stance as a religious issue, not subject to rational thought.
However, since you brought up environmental impact (with regard to nuclear), I might ask what the impact of all of those semiconductor photoelectric cells has on the environment during their manufacture. I know for computers, things can get fairly nasty. So tell me, what is the overall environmental impact of manufacturing 6,400 square miles of semiconductors?
Yes, growing rapidly at 20% efficiency. Look, I'm not arguing with you that we sho
I was not commenting on their percentage output based on longevity. No solar panel has ever been 80% efficient as a percentage of the Solar Constant . No panel will EVER get 100% of the Solar Constant. No energy transfer mechanism in the real world will ever be 100% efficient.
Nevada has regions that get 9 kWh per square meter of sunlight per day on average over a year, or 375 Watts per square meter of average power. At 20% efficiency you get 75 of those. So we just divide the 1.2 TW of energy we use that we calculated earlier by 75 W per square meter to get the number of square meters we need. Divided again by a million gives 16000 square kilometers. The square root of this, 126 km, gives the length of the edge of the square which is about 80 miles.
Okay, let's take a closer look together. You see that 20% reference? That does NOT mean the solar cells working at 20% of their capacity; that means that the solar panels are working at 20% of what nature allows. Big, big difference.
It was nice of them to average out between day and night, which is where they got their 75W/m^2 average (after 20% factor). The sun shines between six and eight hours for solar panels in the best case. Yes, there is some light near sunrise and sunset, but the real power doesn't start coming in until the middle six to eight hours of the day. Which means you have to store that power. That means batteries. Ever feel the battery on a laptop while it's in use or charging? It's warm, isn't it?
That heat means loss, a non-trivial amount in fact. Nevertheless, 75W/m^2 means that for every square meter, you can run a single 75W lightbulb all day long. One. Just one. Modern gaming computers have 500W power supplies and more. Simple math really. Now let's talk about washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, etc. Washers and dryers use a lot of power, but they are only on for short periods of the day. Refrigerators on the other hand...
So now you're trying to convince me that 6,400 square miles (square of 80 miles on each side) will solve all of our problems. Sure, that's a far smaller number than the 113,635 square miles in Arizona.
BUT!
You've provided for Nevada, one of the states with the lowest population density and consistent sun. What about Washington State? Just run a 1,000-mile power cable? I can guarantee that you won't get 75W except in the height of summer in Washington State.
AND!
Your source neglects to mention that solar panels become less efficient when they become very hot. The baking deserts of Nevada and Arizona are not optimum locations for efficiency unless they are high deserts.
AND!
You have to manufacture 6,400 square miles of semiconductors. You can't reduce the cost substantially unless you stop needing a clean room. No, economy of scale doesn't work as well as you'd think. Why not? That computer you're typing on uses a massive amount of semiconductors. They have a massive amount of R&D invested in them. Are there any fast computers boards printed with an inkjet? No. That single innovation would reduce the cost of computers dramatically, but we're not there yet. There is absolutely no reason to believe that cheap, printable solar panels are just around the corner either, even with substantial monetary investment.
-------
Now on to wind. Once again, re-read my post and pay attention this time. I did not say that all wind power together could not add up to thousands of megawatts. I never said that. I said that individual wind generators and most wind farms cannot. My issue is with energy density: the energy density of wind and solar is not high enough. The question -- this is important -- is not nor has it ever been "can it produce power." The question is "can it produce enough power consistently 24/7/365.
Folks in Montana don't suddenly stop needing power in winter when t
Yes. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 has dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced. As those eruption-generated particles leave the stratosphere, the haze effect will diminish, and the original greenhouse effect will be more pronounced.
Yes, but not enough to counter our influence. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/0409
Yes and yes.
For example, if most of your talking points come from conservative "think tanks" rather than planetary climatologists. Please cite your assertions and be sure that all come from scientific journals and the like as opposed to the aforementioned think tanks or political pundits.
Honestly. I'd love to see your evidence that calls global warming into question. I will read it and give it an honestly critical eye. I only ask that you cite your sources.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348
Some of the main benefits of thorium reactors are that they vastly reduce the amount of waste, emit waste that has much shorter half-lives, and (here's the kicker) can eliminate existing stockpiles of plutonium and spent fuel.
Fusion does nothing to address the issue of existing nuclear material.
It's not an either-or deal; it's a measured "both."
Here we go again. The vast conspiracy against solar and wind by those evil baddies. Please.
Why not solar? The Solar Constant, that's why. 1.367kW/m^2. Typical yield is closer to 1kW/m^2. Then some genius suggests that we cover an area roughly the size of Arizona with solar cells to generate all of the power. Riiiiiiiiight. "Just cover all of the roofs, and we'll be set!" Riiiiiiiiiight.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970830.html
Those are the roofs. Added up, they might add up to Arizona. Not likely though. Now imagine that you wanted to cover up Arizona with big pieces of paper, the whole state. I want you to imagine the scale of a project like that with just paper. Now I want you to reflect on the difficulty inherent with replacing all of that paper with silicon semiconductors that currently require clean rooms for manufacture.
Nevermind that we can't get 50% cells to last more than a couple months let alone ten years, and that's the expensive, lab-grown variety. But people still hold out hope for "printable" solar panels that get 50% efficiency and last fifty years.
Stirling engines? Sure, cover Arizona with Stirling engines. That's feasible. Riiiiiiight.
And wind? Yeah, let's hear it for the 5 or 6MW wind generators! Well, until you see the stats on land area they use up. Feel free to look up pictures of how big 6MW wind generators actually are. However, most generators aren't anywhere near that big. In fact most wind farms (collections of generators) tend to add up to that 5 or 6MW range all together. There just isn't enough wind. You can't produce energy out of nothing. It has to come from something. If the wind isn't blowing hard enough, no amount of money and research is going to extract thousands of megawatts out of it.
What? Offshore wind generators? Uh hunh, no maintenance involved in keeping mechanical devices with large moving parts in working order in the middle of those salt water oceans. No sir! We could just turn them on and walk away. Let's not even think about those big power cables headed for shore. Nope, those aren't a target for mischief.
Kites? Sure, as long as we ignore the fact that no one has actually been successful at getting 100 kilowatts-hours out of that even for a single hour. I haven't yet heard of a meager first step yet let alone something approaching a working prototype.
Or traffic wind generators? That one takes the cake. If someone can't grasp why traffic wind generators are a moronic idea, that person can't handle the real world. Transferring energy from wind to turn generators will slow the air. If the air is slowed, it makes the cars work harder to maintain speed. If the cars are working harder, they burn more fuel. See where this is headed?
Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, the two nuclear plants in California, each have two working nuclear reactors on site. Each one produces more than 1,000MW. Hmmm... let's figure out how many 5MW wind generators it takes to add up to just one nuclear reactor. Be sure to keep that picture of the 5MW variety of wind generator around for reference.
Then there's the issue of how much wind you can get in most areas.
Added to the fact that nuclear reactors and coal plants don't depend on (in)consistent wind patterns, daylight hours, or weather conditions.
How much does wind blow? http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/maps/images/wherewind 800.gif
Be sure to focus on the amount of area that rates above "good." Notice how some states are COMPLETELY screwed with regard to wind power. What? Have some states sell their power to the other states, the completely energy dependent ones? Look up how well that worked when Enron, a Texas company, held sway over the energy supply of a different state, California. Now imagine that happening to a state with less clout than California.
Solar and wind are not going to save us. They are excel
No they don't. That's bullshit. If we do not mine anymore, only use 1-2% of the energy potential (like we do now), do not enrich the spent fuel, and completely ignore fast-neutron reactor designs. Then and only then would we "run out" in 2030-2036. Fast neutron reactors can breed uranium from thorium, and we sure as hell are not going to run out of thorium anytime in the next few millennium.
But I will agree with you that it's a stopgap. Fission until fusion.
I totally agree, it can be an obvious gain; however, injecting the "nanny state" into this discussion is unnecessary. Inertia happens in any society, nanny state or not.
There you go again with the straw man argument. You know damn well I wasn't saying we should do nothing. I actually agree with you on most points. I'm simply saying that in the real world, answers aren't quite so cut and dry as you present them. Part of the solution includes the method in convincing others to work toward a common goal. From a pragmatic standpoint, this can be almost as important as the goal itself. You can feel self righteous all you want, but if you come off as arrogant and dismissive, people will ignore you or contradict you simply because you are personally distasteful to them. This does not help anyone's long-term goals.
As far as stone homes versus wood homes, it is you that is ignoring the problem. Yes, we should be building homes with energy efficiency in mind, stone or not. But you cannot reasonably ignore the existing population of energy-inefficient buildings when discussing solutions. Yes, you can insulate in the attic and install double-paned windows to get an immediate and substantial benefit. But that is a far cry from homes that are built from the ground up to be energy efficient. That's all I'm saying.
What is the single most populous state? California. Earthquakes there. It is not a miniscule proportion. And yes, you could build with steel-reinforced concrete. Unfortunately, it would be substantially more expensive than the equivalent size wood home. I'm not trying to justify buying a wood home over a stone home. I'm just talking about the effect of economics in the real world. Unless of course you want the "nanny state" to step in with incentives and taxes. (Notice how if the government intervenes for something you want, you don't consider it obtrusive, but if it's something you don't want, it is?)
Here I admit, I was not being clear enough. I am not suggesting that only windmills could be used on this land. Another respondent did, but not me. I was referring to the fact that 5MW windmills requires that much distance from each other due to the physical blades as well as airflow.
;-) Also, bear in mind that I was arr
As far as numbers go, each car doesn't take an acre of land.
Yes, houses should be better insulated. Unfortunately, many homes are quite old and would require a non-trivial amount of money from the homeowner to improve. Since many new homeowners have a fat mortgage, children, a college fund, food bills, etc., a lot of folks will not rush out and do this.
It's not because they are evil or apathetic. They are simply not rich, are commonly sleep-deprived (read: have children), and flat out do not have time to deal with it (read: have children).
As far as your "use stone instead of wood houses," that is a red herring. Yes, when starting from scratch, a stone house would be better; however, US homes are overwhelmingly built upon wood construction. Those homes don't just magically go away just because we decide stone homes are better. Even if all new construction were to be stone homes -- a long shot considering that most construction workers are familiar with wood construction, not stone -- it would be a minuscule proportion of the total number of homes.
In addition, what would you propose for earthquake-prone regions? Stone? I think not. A very good reason to build wood homes is that the wood home will sway in an earthquake instead of crumble. In 1989, a major quake hit my area. Many homes survived, but the chimneys were by and large ruined. You simply can't buy a home around here that doesn't have a cracked or repaired chimney.
The suggestion about smaller, more fuel-efficient cars is actually the most reasonable suggestion you've made. Far more so than the suggestion about wind power. Why? Check out wind density in the US. Wind power completely excludes the south and most of the southwest. Just have one state sell to another? One word: Enron. Not gonna happen.
Also, let's look at your numbers. Possibly up to 10% by 2020 in Germany? In the US, we consume upwards of 4.8 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (with a 't'). The larger windmills generate up to 5 megawatts if the wind is blowing to full potential and the windmill is in perfect working order. That's potentially about 43.8 million kilowatt-hours per year. Those 5 megawatt jobs require about an acre of land apiece (they're really big!). Hmmm... Not only would it require 19,178 of those monsters to handle 10% of the US in the perfect case (hint: we live in the real world where perfect cases don't exist), but you'd have to factor in the maintenance costs associated with keeping such a decentralized power source in good repair. This requires -- you guessed it -- more energy. If you think the repair aspect is trivial, just remember the climate found in those northern states where the wind is so abundant. Hot summers and below freezing winters with hail and sleet in between.
Coal is currently the number one US electricity source: over 50% of our total electricity production. This is a problem. For reasons mentioned above, wind is not going to replace that. For reasons I haven't spelled out but you can research yourself, solar power can't displace coal either (1.367kWh/m^2 is the solar constant). The reasons are somewhat similar though: energy density and the demands of geography. So what's left?
Hydroelectric? We've already tapped that avenue. Microtidal? Over 90% of Earth's life exists within ten miles of a coastline. I'm a bit hesitant to mess with the energy transfer found in those ecosystems. Geothermal? The US is not Iceland. Biodiesel? The amount of cropland required to offset coal usage would significantly reduce the area available for food production.
What's left? Conservation? Even if we cut our usage in half -- 2.4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, which incidentally will not happen in the US without an energy crisis afoot -- that's still a massive amount of power required.
And we haven't even factored in vehicle needs yet, which is necessary since oil won't last forever. Plug-in hybrids? Great idea. Gonna need more electricity for that.
What hasn't been discussed yet? Nuclear. Commonly
Life's too damn short to reinvent the wheel. 5% extra speed from a custom compile? Screw that! Give the slower binary and more time to live life, be happy, do my job, and get paid. With the time I saved on the 5% custom compile, I can buy a CPU that's 15% faster. Since time is money, I actually save money buying the CPU rather than doing the 5% custom compile.
If it gives you pleasure, by all means, do the custom compile. Hell, even if the custom compile reduced speed by 5%, go ahead and do it if it makes you happy.
Me? Hanging out in the sunlight and fresh air makes me happy these days. The opportunity cost associated with the 5% custom compile just ain't worth it to me anymore.
try {} catch (...) {} finally {}
What is the point of else? What does it get you that you didn't have just as easily without it? If no exception is thrown, run it? Isn't that what the content in the try section is for? Will someone provide a use case for this for me please?
For point of reference, I've been using Linux for almost ten years, and I have written (not just started and stopped) server software for both Linux and Windows.
I was pleasantly surprised by Ubuntu Server recently. After install, I went in to remove all those packages I was used to removing in Debian after install as part of the hardening process. No ports open. Nothing. Just a clean, working system: a blank slate.
All in all, it was a clean system. The items I couldn't remove due to dependencies were things like evms and lvm. For a server, I find that reasonable. Note, not that I couldn't remove them, just that I would be overriding the system recommendation. In other words, it made recommendations, but did not lock you in.
It has bugged me for years that Debian ships with an SMTP server (exim) even when I don't want or need one. Not a basic mail client. A full SMTP mail server. Maybe I'm just annoyed because I'm a Postfix man, but it has always bugged me that I have to install and configure a piece of software when I'm just going to have to remove it soon after.
And with the lack of cruft on install, Ubuntu Server boots fast. Really fast. When the system slows down during boot, you can't help but realize that it's your own fault, not the basic OS. Already a step up from Fedora and Debian in my book.
I used to think that Debian was only good for servers, and Ubuntu was only good for desktops. I'm changing my tune. Debian still sucks for desktops (it can be done, but it's not fun). I still admire the Debian team for what they've accomplished, and I know that Ubuntu was built upon the strong foundations created by Debian, but the child is quickly outdoing the parent.
Hmmm... Let's see. Looking at my "old" five-year-old G4 Powerbook.
PC Card interface (PCMCIA)
USB
Firewire
Ethernet
DVI
S-Video
ATA (IDE) hard drive interface
Laptop SDRAM
Yup. That's a closed architecture if I've ever seen it. Not.
The new laptops have standard laptop DDR memory as well. As a special bonus, I didn't shell out for the Airport card; I have a Microsoft-brand 802.11g PC Card wireless interface installed instead. (It was lying around and therefore free to me.) No extra drivers to be installed. It just ran under OS X as an airport device. How exactly could this laptop be any more open? Have you changed your Dell or IBM laptop motherboard lately for a 3rd party replacement? How about the CPU?
And the desktops are even worse! AGP and PCI on the motherboards. What were they thinking? Next thing you know, they'll be moving to PCI-X in the next generation.
The 1990s called. They want their "Macs are a closed architecture" whines back.
However you don't tell someone their house is a shithole that only an idiot would want to live in even if you have a better home proposed. You point out the merits of the new house over and above what they have now.
Otherwise you will be perceived simply as an asshole calling someone an idiot. It might make you feel better, superior, etc., but it guarantees that you and whatever you're bringing to the table will be ignored or actively derided.
You hurt your cause by your presence. People will avoid Plan 9 not for its failings, but because it is associated with assholes, for example, you. If your goal is to kill the project, then by all means continue insulting others because you think they deserve it. If you actually want to foster adoption, perhaps a measure of diplomacy and a modicum of decorum would help.
In short, don't be a dick. As an added bonus, that advice works for more than just software.
Choose two.
Let me get this straight: you are condemning a programming language but championing the language it spawned.
As for your comment:
Bwahahaha!! Since when is escaping a single-quote considered an attempt to "hold your dick"? Simple string concatenation for the creation of database is always a bad idea, even for 20-year veterans like you. The last time you were coding at 4am, were you as sharp as you were at midnight?
Also you are falling into the same pseudo-libertarian trap (tripe?) that many programmers seem to these days. You think that as long as you are doing the right thing, who cares what someone else does? In fact, ridiculing others is a sufficient solution to most problems.
It's not.
SQL injection attacks affect me when it's my bank. When was the last time you personally interviewed the web development staff at your bank or credit union? How do you know they are as good as you are? Considering the fact that binding variables is as fast or faster than simple string concatenation in most cases (in some cases, they can be converted to stored procedures transparently on the back end), I have exactly zero problems with a language "holding some dicks" in the name of security. Especially since there is no speed loss in the process.
Correctness, not "what works." It's the difference between modern chemistry and alchemy. You might end up with the right result, but only with trial and error... mostly error.
But perhaps this all points to a greater Slashdot problem: too many people who refuse to get their dicks held once in a while. In more ways than one.
This doesn't bother me so much on its face; OpenSSL can only get better after this intense review. What bothers me is that the "opposing forces" are not likely receiving the same level of scrutiny and yet presumably are fully certified for sensitive information by the US government.
But of course they can't release the code for everyone else to review. People might steal their ideas, right? So how do we know they are secure rather than "mostly secure"? Or even worse, that they are "sort of secure, but the right people were taken out to dinner."
- Stored procedure: a function that runs within the database server.
- Prepared/bound statement: something in code -- usually provided by the programming language's database layer -- that looks like the following:
Then you set item 1 to some value, item 2 to another, etc. Other variations exist as well:Here you can set values by name rather than by index. The implementation of this on the back end (where you should not be able to see it) may in fact be a stored procedure in databases that support it -- especially for SQL statements that are run repeatedly. However, even if the database doesn't support stored procedures, binding variables will always work since the issue is handled completely in code.And then of course there are folks who don't want SQL anywhere near their code. That's when you may opt for an object-relational mapping library and/or stored procedures within a database.
Bottom line: escaping each time on your own is error-prone. Better to solve the problem right the first time. And it's easier than manually escaping/validating as well!