Having different independant departments with different focus s not a bad idea. One of the concerns about FEMA after the New Orleans incident is that it had been reduced from a cabinet level agency and perhaps had lost some of its focus on natural disasters. In government there is transparency, so that a government agency can avoid duplicating the work of other agencies and as well they can also cooperate. So having a larger number of agencies also can allow for checks and balances to happen as well, so you dont have all of your eggs in one basket. Its important to have several indepandent agencies that can monitor each other. Different departments may also have different specialisation and may better able to fulfill certain needs than others.
There should be a focus and funding on implementing BGPSEC and DNSSEC since this is where many of the major vulnerabilities lie, and developing new and improved encryption systems and so on. The goal being to assure the internet is a platform of freedom of expression where some cannot oppress the viewpoints of others.
Even the phone which I got for free from T-Mobile, has a built in camera. With the iphone supposed to be an advanced device I do find it quite pathetic it lacks such a common feature. I never really like iphone because its closed platform nature and fisher price design.
There probably should be a low cost discount or no fee plan for low income persons who cannot afford to pay the main fee as well so everyone can afford news.
I disagree. Newspapers are failing because of the internet. They have tried to distribute most of their content on the internet for free, but they are still going bankrupt. Most blogs cannot replace a well funded news organisation. Most blogs do relatively little of their own reporting, mainly redistributing content of big media. It takes a lot of resources to go into often dangerous foreign countries to do investigation and journalism. These things tend to have to be well funded by solid revenue streams. With the collapse of subscription to newspapers and the bankruptcy of them, at a time when americans need accurate information of the world, and given how important information is to our democracy, a well informed population is essential to people making good decisions, a diverse, well funded media is essential. Americans are also terribly poorly informed and i fear that with less funding for international news coverage this will get worse. I think that we should perhaps fund an independant media similar to the BBC which has its own independant revenue stream from its own taxation authority. Also it would be nice if one could pay a fee once to their local paper which would go to their local coverage and also to international news press organisations, and which would allow one access to all newspapers in the country, both providing the benefits of instant global access of the internet and assuring a revenue stream for local and international media. Sort of a cooperative of newspapers of sorts. there could be also a fee schedule depending on if the person is a casual user or is using it for professional research purposes, but either way provides access to the same content.
do not put personal information on your public networking site for business. Instead, keep it business there and instead if you want a personal networking site for friends to see, create one and do not place your name or photo on the site, and make it private, to approve who can look at it. I have seperate business, that has my real name, a personal private myspace account does not, and a public politics account that does not. That keeps everything seperated and my private and political sites not accessible or tied to my name.
Sounds good, except crystals seem to be rather expensive and not a renewable resource. Or maybe they can be synthesised, is that possible? Can artificial crystals me made that would suffice in this case. It would be nice if the technology did become widely avialable, it would be great to carry around a library of congress in my pocket.
I agree completely. That mirijuana and pyschedelics are illegal is especially appalling considering they are less addictive than a beer. We are not living in a free society when we have a big brother nanny state ordering our daily lives and with insane laws as such we live in fear even though we are doing nothing to harm anyone else. Psychedelics like mushrooms are not addictive at all truth to be told, and mirajuana not close to tobacco. These should be completely legalised, as the evidence of severe physical addiction, does not even exist. Cocaine and Heroine are quite dangerous and create physical dependancy, but instead of criminalisation we should focus on treatment programs and regulated sale to eliminate the black market, which propogates these items.
Since when is it illegal to parody? I am sure its rude of course. But this is ridiculous and downright frightening to throw someone in jail for something they said. Reading that headline was a shocking moment. This is not a free society and the first amendment has been trampled with we have things such as this. have we lost all sanity?
Its very important for us to improve our data base and understanding of physics. While for some it may seem abstract it is often the case that data which at first seems to be inconsequential and a curiosity plays a critical role in developing some new technology. Understanding how atoms work for instance, gave rise to many new inventions that were probably not anticipated originally, such as understanding how transistors work.
Science is very important to solving our economic problems and collecting data allows science to better understand the universe and be able to develop better technologies. I am one who thinks we need to prioritise resources on science and education funding (especially our badly neglected gifted programs to allow high IQ students to fully develop their maximum potential and go through their course as fast as they wish) , and environmental protections.
The LHC will be to give a definitive answer to the question as to whether the Higgs Boson can exist. the LHC will pretty much give a clear yes or no answer, its not going to be indeterminate. They have create the conditions where they know that one will have to appear, with certainty that if they cannot produce it, it will indicate that Higgs is likely impossible to exist. This is an important moment for verifying the Standard Model and has will be one of the greatest discoveries lately.
I second this. It infuriates me to no end that I am unable to legally purchase so many contents legally. $2 for an episode that is shown for free on TV is indeed a huge ripoff, I dont care if they leave the advertisements intact, i am more than willing to put up with that as I would have that on my VCR anyway. There is really no excuse for not offering TV shows for very little cost or perhaps, even a feature that would allow a consumer who already subscribes to a cable channel to download the episodes from that channel at no additional cost, and an online only flat subscription for those who dont have cable, why pay twice? For over the air channels the content is free anyway and i could have simply recorded it on my VCR they are not losing anything by offering it for free, if they leave the ads intact they are gaining something by increasing ad exposure.
The country/region code and DRM has to go. If I purchase something, pay money for it, I should not have all sort of restrictions that prohibit my private use of it. What does it matter, if I buy a european DVD? I am still paying for it. they should be happy.
That you are downloading all of this music and listening to it, you obviously seem to like it and believe it has some value. On one hand you are saying you do not want to pay anything for tyhe music but you continue to download it, which indicate you think it has value. So basically you are trying to take something which you think does have value and not support those who produced these things. Producers of music do need to make a living especially if they are able to spend the time needed to produce it.
I say cut out the record company middle man and lets just directly fund the artists through buying their work if we think they are high quality. I think there are a lot of independant artists who need support, and I certainly prefer that music rather than listening to britney spears and other mass produced overmarketed artificial crap produced by large record companies. Record companies are the problem. They take a majority of the money from the sale of music, and they have had too much control as to what music is actually published.
I want everyone to enjoy life and we should strive to save industrial civilisation but do it in a sustainable way and environmentally friendly. We really need to be recycling all of our metals we use, and view these metals as the common property of humanity, our duty is to make sure they remain avialable for use by future generations and that we can keep the same stock of metal perpetually in a cycle of re-use, not let them rust and disappear in landfills. It is so so important we recycle, its the most important thing each of us can do. Not only cars cans but also your batteries as well. Dont throw them away! I believe a part of our stimulus should be recycling programs, and making sure every city has one and all metal bearing things, cars, electronics, batteries are being recycled.
It would also be very wise to recycle, and to require it by law. This is so important. We need to view metals as the property of all of humanity and see it as our duty to recycle them and reuse them and keep them avialable for future generations, not let them rust in feilds or in landfills.
Substinance farming or hunter gatherer does not necessarily take 12 hours a day. There are cultures around that do in fact spend about 2-3 hours a day on getting food and the rest of the time is spent doing whatever they want. It depends on the local environmental conditions to a great degree. A more favourable climate to growing foods with more local fruit and vegetable resources will be a lot better. It also depends on overpopulation. If population levels are kept at a moderate level it tends to be easier to find the resources to feed everyone. Resources are finite, land, water, etc, and therefore population growth can outstrip them. This has happened before in Europe and china and india are vastly overpopulated.
You also assume that industrialisation is sustainable or that in china it will lead to improved conditions. Industrialisation alone has often let to horrific abuses of human rights and alone has often not led to any improvement in conditions for many people, especially the workers. Permenantly impoverished worker classes can often exist and be exploited for the benefit of a wealthy class. China has such a large population its possible that could happen, that a part of the population will exist in terrible conditions, exploited industrially, never seeing any benefit of industrialisation. The main thing in the US and the UK that led to a turning of the tables where the working people began to win higher wages were the development of unions, and the presence of relatively democratic citisen driven governments. China has a highly corrupted political system that maintains dominance by censoring all forms of media and keeps the people in check through brutal police state terror tactics. There is little hope there of unions forming or a citisen driven government.
The US and UK are also not overpopulated to the extant of China. China is so overpopulated and the resource load so great I doubt poverty will ever be eliminated there. Maybe for a wealthy sector yes but its going to be a highly stratified society more so than the US.
Industrialisation as I mentioned cannot be assumed to be sustainable. The way we have been doing things is in fact destroying the planet, causing global warming, and is dependant on non renewable resources. The impact on human health from industrialisation has often led to skyrocketing cancer rates. Already in many chinese towns cancer has gone sky high because of the pollution from industries. The global supply of iron, copper, phosphate, nickel, tin, oil, coal and many other resources will be completely exhausted in a matter of 60-300 years. The copper will go rather soon and the oil, within the next 50 years. All of the inputs to industrial civilisations are being depleted at a rapid rate. It has been shown that to extend the american way of life to china, all of china, we would need many more planet earths., The resources just are not their. I am certain that americans will not be able to maintain their lifestyle much longer, not to mention china, and there are no viable solutions that will truly work, i have looked at them all. Many of the entail such massive environmental devastation and loss of human environmental living quality that we would be better off staying substinance with a smaller more sustianable population level. Changes are coming, the end of the industrial era, and no amount of denial and ignorance will stop it.
This is simply a horrendous idea that certainly has no place. It is basically seems to be a ploy of those who long for a tolitarian police state to get their way. This is a very tpical pattern that we see with shutting down an open society and create a police state, create fear and some horrendous problem, creating a reaction and then you can get people to demand a solution, offer them your solution which is taking away their freedom. You can basically get people to beg you to enslave them. The reason they want to do this is to gain greater control and mastery over the people and keep them from exercising control over their lives and government. They want to be able to monitor what everyone says and does, so they can then punish those who are saying things which run contrary to their agenda or who are advocating for democratic change. To stay in power indefinitely a tolitarian state needs to supress all dissent. Getting rid of privacy is the first step on the road to totalitarianism since to supress dissent they need to know who has what opinions and views so they can attack and punish them. They want to supress views and opinions as well, and want to manipulate and control information to psychologically manipulate the population by with-holding information and providing propoganda which manipulates people to support whatever objective they wish or behave in the way they please. Yo can bet that the desire to prohibit for instance pornography as a psychological and social engineering purpose, for instance.
The internet is just fine the way it is. No censorship should be allowed and anonymity should be a basic right. Only with such rights can free speech exist. There can be no free speech without anonymity since they can suppress and attack those who hold opinions they do not like.
Sure with how things are now there are spam messages in my mail box but I would rather have that and choose to opt in for a filter in my own software, than to have some mass surviellance scheme. I also think that government and the big brother nanny state poses far greater risk to our children coming from the tolitarian terror state that emerges from this than anything they will see on the internet. Those who give up their liberty for so called safety will be creating out of the government a much worse menace than anything it was supposed to protect them against.
The main thing that needs to be addressed with the internet has nothing to do with increasing surviellance or reducing privacy. There needs to be more use of SSL and there needs to be secure encrypted BGP and DNS to make sure that routing tables cannot be hacked.
It makes me quite angry that after we have fought so hard as a country to secure our liberties from a tolitarian oppressive government prying into our lives and deciding what we should look at, that we have people who are actively trying to undo these hard won liberties and turn the country into a totalitarian nightmare where people live in fear of an oppressive and tyrannical government, like china.
"Those who give up essential liberty for safety will deserve and shall get neither" -Benjamin Franklin
Actually i read TFA, and I just couldnt make sense of the benefits offered by the key value thing. You basically should be able to get the same benefits with a relational database system with a query that does a lookup on a single column index. This would involve searching the b-tree for that column, which would yield a row data address of some sort, to either a linked list of cells or a list of addresses of those cells. Once the single b-tree is done it is then very fast to find the other column values in that row. The b-tree or other index lookup also has to be done with the key value pair, the relational is just a collection of multiple key value indexes.
There is the issue of having a variable number of pieces of data linked to a certain key. But you can do this in relational too. Just create a table with an id column, value type column and value column. A well designed relational, if you do a query on the id column, the b-tree will lead to data which has all of the row data addresses in the database that match the id. EAch of those rows will contain a different data type/data payload for the id. This is again pretty much as fast as a simple single index database.
Really rational is the best way to take a data set and be able to access it in various ways. Many of the other concepts are indeed regressions and reintroduce problems a relational database solves. Relational allows you to able to display and view data in various different ways and apply the dataset in new ways, ways that may not have originally been a part of the original design of the application. Every time we hear someone harp about some new database technology that reintroduces all of the problems of the past, but relational is still the best and most versatile way to store your data in a way that allows for query flexibility.
Often times seperating different parts of the system into subsystems can make things easier to maintain than having a big ball of spaghetti code, and more bug free. For a negligable performance cost this can be a reasonable trade off.
As far as function calls I imagine it in part has something to do with how the compiler compiles code and the cost of the CPU to perform various operations such as a jump or call instruction. It would be interesting to see comparisons of performance costs for those. A call probably can be emulated with a jump if that turns out to be faster for instance. Optimisation can involve finding what the fastest way to do things on the CPU is.
As far as the size issue, using size as a major engineering requirement is probably not a good idea. Software should be written to do what the user needs to do and to implement features well and in a useable way, to give the user power and flexibility, and freedom. Features and functionality should not be removed and useability not comprimised for what are usually incosequential savings in size or cycles. Its important that code manages memory well and that free() is used properly, more than making software so stripped down its unuseable crap. Its absurd to remove 1 mb of code for a backwards compatable interface from X, breaking older apps, when at the same time X from startup wastes about 300 MB of space do to memory mismanagement. The way X is being managed is completely wrong, its less backwards compatable than ever and it takes up 20 times more memory than it did when i used Xfree86. X.org is total crap and its developers just dont seem to care. They break older applications by removing backwards compatability instead of fixing the memory leaks. So we end up with junk, incomptable, sloppy, memory hogging crap. We have seen with with KDE and Gnome, and Ubuntu which are mostly unuseable garbage in my opinion. Most of the time its so inflexible i cant make it do what i want and I have better things to do than to spend hours messing around with retarded inflexible GUIs and arcane configuration files.
A fallacy is that fewer features means easier to use, which is wrong. In fact if you make the user interface so inflexible and uncustomisable it becomes pretty much a pain in the ass to use and try to make work the way you want. Useability is not in small number of features but it is instead in layout, placing more commonly used features up front and others in advanced screens, but allowing everything to be as configurable as possible. really a system needs to be both new user friendl and expert friendly, which means the system should come with reasonable defaults, but the user can configure as little or as much as they want. Everything should be possible in both CLI and GUI, and all user interfaces should have advanced modes for advanced users who need total control.
This idea of making things so inflexible and having so few capabilities, Thats the big danger i think and could really do a lot of harm to Linuxs functionality. Especally if linux wants to compete it needs to, it must be able to maintain backwards compatability and be able to run older programs and drivers out of box, this is what average users expect to do. Average users do sometimes want to use a hardware device or a software program and sometimes there are not open source alternatives. Backwards compatability in Linux should be a major goal. It is important to keep older FSs and interfaces avialable for old programs anr reading older data.
those problems could be solved by Firefox supporting Microsoft embedding and HTML/DOM features. I think that supporting Microsofts features is a good idea and allows for Firefox to be able to load all of these webpages or serve as a complete IE replacement. Its better than Firefox, basically whining about how much Microsoft supports more features in IE. Obviosly since many webpages use those features, web developers are using them, so they certainly do have value to web developers and therefore they are worthwhile to support in Firefox.
MySQL and LDAP should be included with OS but user should be able to choose to opt out of installing them. Many OSs allow a minimal installation for that. I think that it is important, and best, to include a large number of features with an OS, and then allow the user to opt out of installing them. The user should have control and the system should work and be set up the way the user wants it to, not have some minimalists idea of what should be in the OS make it unuseable for others. Some may like editing configuration files and using Vi. I dont. I like configuration dialog boxes, click and dragging files rather than having to remember arcane commands and 10,000 configuration fil formats. Both the configuration file and a GUI front end should be avialable, everything should be able to be done in CLI and GUI and then let the user choose which to use. Users haev different preferences so we have to remember to include different modes of use and more than one way to do it to suite different needs. User friendliness comes not from scarce features, but large numbers of features and flexibility, and then allowing the user to choose which to use. At the GUI level, its in layout, the number of features should be large and extensive, but less used features go into advanced configuration screens. Software should come with reasonably configured defaults and run out of box, adn then a user if they want can fine tune. users gradually move into and learn more of the software, and this allows them to easily do that. People can grow into software and gradually use more of its vast feature set and use how few or how many features they want. This keeps software both novice and expert friendly, both easy to use and configurable, flexible and customizable to the max. It does not have to be one or the other, Systems should can be novice and expert friendly at the same time.
X is not a part of the Linux kernel. As well many parts of the Linux kernel are modules, and as well it is possible to create drivers that run as seperate processes. Linux has many of the characteristics already of a multiserver system. the goal of an OS should not be to provide a scarce number of features, but provide a large number of features, and then let the user decide which to load.
That, and using SQL placeholders. The best way to prevent insertion attack is use placeholders. Very simple. I am surprised people dont know how to use that feature, its in every SQL book.
That he published his finding and that he has not released customer data shows that he wants the problem to be fixed rather than for people to have their data stolen. Its better to have some curious hacker who is only interested in a little fun and challenge and who reports it find this than rather than some big time identity theft scam artist.
Slashdot Mirror
Having different independant departments with different focus s not a bad idea. One of the concerns about FEMA after the New Orleans incident is that it had been reduced from a cabinet level agency and perhaps had lost some of its focus on natural disasters. In government there is transparency, so that a government agency can avoid duplicating the work of other agencies and as well they can also cooperate. So having a larger number of agencies also can allow for checks and balances to happen as well, so you dont have all of your eggs in one basket. Its important to have several indepandent agencies that can monitor each other. Different departments may also have different specialisation and may better able to fulfill certain needs than others.
There should be a focus and funding on implementing BGPSEC and DNSSEC since this is where many of the major vulnerabilities lie, and developing new and improved encryption systems and so on. The goal being to assure the internet is a platform of freedom of expression where some cannot oppress the viewpoints of others.
Even the phone which I got for free from T-Mobile, has a built in camera. With the iphone supposed to be an advanced device I do find it quite pathetic it lacks such a common feature. I never really like iphone because its closed platform nature and fisher price design.
There probably should be a low cost discount or no fee plan for low income persons who cannot afford to pay the main fee as well so everyone can afford news.
I disagree. Newspapers are failing because of the internet. They have tried to distribute most of their content on the internet for free, but they are still going bankrupt. Most blogs cannot replace a well funded news organisation. Most blogs do relatively little of their own reporting, mainly redistributing content of big media. It takes a lot of resources to go into often dangerous foreign countries to do investigation and journalism. These things tend to have to be well funded by solid revenue streams. With the collapse of subscription to newspapers and the bankruptcy of them, at a time when americans need accurate information of the world, and given how important information is to our democracy, a well informed population is essential to people making good decisions, a diverse, well funded media is essential. Americans are also terribly poorly informed and i fear that with less funding for international news coverage this will get worse. I think that we should perhaps fund an independant media similar to the BBC which has its own independant revenue stream from its own taxation authority. Also it would be nice if one could pay a fee once to their local paper which would go to their local coverage and also to international news press organisations, and which would allow one access to all newspapers in the country, both providing the benefits of instant global access of the internet and assuring a revenue stream for local and international media. Sort of a cooperative of newspapers of sorts. there could be also a fee schedule depending on if the person is a casual user or is using it for professional research purposes, but either way provides access to the same content.
do not put personal information on your public networking site for business. Instead, keep it business there and instead if you want a personal networking site for friends to see, create one and do not place your name or photo on the site, and make it private, to approve who can look at it. I have seperate business, that has my real name, a personal private myspace account does not, and a public politics account that does not. That keeps everything seperated and my private and political sites not accessible or tied to my name.
Sounds good, except crystals seem to be rather expensive and not a renewable resource. Or maybe they can be synthesised, is that possible? Can artificial crystals me made that would suffice in this case. It would be nice if the technology did become widely avialable, it would be great to carry around a library of congress in my pocket.
I agree completely. That mirijuana and pyschedelics are illegal is especially appalling considering they are less addictive than a beer. We are not living in a free society when we have a big brother nanny state ordering our daily lives and with insane laws as such we live in fear even though we are doing nothing to harm anyone else. Psychedelics like mushrooms are not addictive at all truth to be told, and mirajuana not close to tobacco. These should be completely legalised, as the evidence of severe physical addiction, does not even exist. Cocaine and Heroine are quite dangerous and create physical dependancy, but instead of criminalisation we should focus on treatment programs and regulated sale to eliminate the black market, which propogates these items.
Since when is it illegal to parody? I am sure its rude of course. But this is ridiculous and downright frightening to throw someone in jail for something they said. Reading that headline was a shocking moment. This is not a free society and the first amendment has been trampled with we have things such as this. have we lost all sanity?
Its very important for us to improve our data base and understanding of physics. While for some it may seem abstract it is often the case that data which at first seems to be inconsequential and a curiosity plays a critical role in developing some new technology. Understanding how atoms work for instance, gave rise to many new inventions that were probably not anticipated originally, such as understanding how transistors work.
Science is very important to solving our economic problems and collecting data allows science to better understand the universe and be able to develop better technologies. I am one who thinks we need to prioritise resources on science and education funding (especially our badly neglected gifted programs to allow high IQ students to fully develop their maximum potential and go through their course as fast as they wish) , and environmental protections.
The LHC will be to give a definitive answer to the question as to whether the Higgs Boson can exist. the LHC will pretty much give a clear yes or no answer, its not going to be indeterminate. They have create the conditions where they know that one will have to appear, with certainty that if they cannot produce it, it will indicate that Higgs is likely impossible to exist. This is an important moment for verifying the Standard Model and has will be one of the greatest discoveries lately.
I second this. It infuriates me to no end that I am unable to legally purchase so many contents legally. $2 for an episode that is shown for free on TV is indeed a huge ripoff, I dont care if they leave the advertisements intact, i am more than willing to put up with that as I would have that on my VCR anyway. There is really no excuse for not offering TV shows for very little cost or perhaps, even a feature that would allow a consumer who already subscribes to a cable channel to download the episodes from that channel at no additional cost, and an online only flat subscription for those who dont have cable, why pay twice? For over the air channels the content is free anyway and i could have simply recorded it on my VCR they are not losing anything by offering it for free, if they leave the ads intact they are gaining something by increasing ad exposure.
The country/region code and DRM has to go. If I purchase something, pay money for it, I should not have all sort of restrictions that prohibit my private use of it. What does it matter, if I buy a european DVD? I am still paying for it. they should be happy.
That you are downloading all of this music and listening to it, you obviously seem to like it and believe it has some value. On one hand you are saying you do not want to pay anything for tyhe music but you continue to download it, which indicate you think it has value. So basically you are trying to take something which you think does have value and not support those who produced these things. Producers of music do need to make a living especially if they are able to spend the time needed to produce it.
I say cut out the record company middle man and lets just directly fund the artists through buying their work if we think they are high quality. I think there are a lot of independant artists who need support, and I certainly prefer that music rather than listening to britney spears and other mass produced overmarketed artificial crap produced by large record companies. Record companies are the problem. They take a majority of the money from the sale of music, and they have had too much control as to what music is actually published.
I want everyone to enjoy life and we should strive to save industrial civilisation but do it in a sustainable way and environmentally friendly. We really need to be recycling all of our metals we use, and view these metals as the common property of humanity, our duty is to make sure they remain avialable for use by future generations and that we can keep the same stock of metal perpetually in a cycle of re-use, not let them rust and disappear in landfills. It is so so important we recycle, its the most important thing each of us can do. Not only cars cans but also your batteries as well. Dont throw them away! I believe a part of our stimulus should be recycling programs, and making sure every city has one and all metal bearing things, cars, electronics, batteries are being recycled.
It would also be very wise to recycle, and to require it by law. This is so important. We need to view metals as the property of all of humanity and see it as our duty to recycle them and reuse them and keep them avialable for future generations, not let them rust in feilds or in landfills.
Substinance farming or hunter gatherer does not necessarily take 12 hours a day. There are cultures around that do in fact spend about 2-3 hours a day on getting food and the rest of the time is spent doing whatever they want. It depends on the local environmental conditions to a great degree. A more favourable climate to growing foods with more local fruit and vegetable resources will be a lot better. It also depends on overpopulation. If population levels are kept at a moderate level it tends to be easier to find the resources to feed everyone. Resources are finite, land, water, etc, and therefore population growth can outstrip them. This has happened before in Europe and china and india are vastly overpopulated.
You also assume that industrialisation is sustainable or that in china it will lead to improved conditions. Industrialisation alone has often let to horrific abuses of human rights and alone has often not led to any improvement in conditions for many people, especially the workers. Permenantly impoverished worker classes can often exist and be exploited for the benefit of a wealthy class. China has such a large population its possible that could happen, that a part of the population will exist in terrible conditions, exploited industrially, never seeing any benefit of industrialisation. The main thing in the US and the UK that led to a turning of the tables where the working people began to win higher wages were the development of unions, and the presence of relatively democratic citisen driven governments. China has a highly corrupted political system that maintains dominance by censoring all forms of media and keeps the people in check through brutal police state terror tactics. There is little hope there of unions forming or a citisen driven government.
The US and UK are also not overpopulated to the extant of China. China is so overpopulated and the resource load so great I doubt poverty will ever be eliminated there. Maybe for a wealthy sector yes but its going to be a highly stratified society more so than the US.
Industrialisation as I mentioned cannot be assumed to be sustainable. The way we have been doing things is in fact destroying the planet, causing global warming, and is dependant on non renewable resources. The impact on human health from industrialisation has often led to skyrocketing cancer rates. Already in many chinese towns cancer has gone sky high because of the pollution from industries. The global supply of iron, copper, phosphate, nickel, tin, oil, coal and many other resources will be completely exhausted in a matter of 60-300 years. The copper will go rather soon and the oil, within the next 50 years. All of the inputs to industrial civilisations are being depleted at a rapid rate. It has been shown that to extend the american way of life to china, all of china, we would need many more planet earths., The resources just are not their. I am certain that americans will not be able to maintain their lifestyle much longer, not to mention china, and there are no viable solutions that will truly work, i have looked at them all. Many of the entail such massive environmental devastation and loss of human environmental living quality that we would be better off staying substinance with a smaller more sustianable population level. Changes are coming, the end of the industrial era, and no amount of denial and ignorance will stop it.
This is simply a horrendous idea that certainly has no place. It is basically seems to be a ploy of those who long for a tolitarian police state to get their way. This is a very tpical pattern that we see with shutting down an open society and create a police state, create fear and some horrendous problem, creating a reaction and then you can get people to demand a solution, offer them your solution which is taking away their freedom. You can basically get people to beg you to enslave them. The reason they want to do this is to gain greater control and mastery over the people and keep them from exercising control over their lives and government. They want to be able to monitor what everyone says and does, so they can then punish those who are saying things which run contrary to their agenda or who are advocating for democratic change. To stay in power indefinitely a tolitarian state needs to supress all dissent. Getting rid of privacy is the first step on the road to totalitarianism since to supress dissent they need to know who has what opinions and views so they can attack and punish them. They want to supress views and opinions as well, and want to manipulate and control information to psychologically manipulate the population by with-holding information and providing propoganda which manipulates people to support whatever objective they wish or behave in the way they please. Yo can bet that the desire to prohibit for instance pornography as a psychological and social engineering purpose, for instance.
The internet is just fine the way it is. No censorship should be allowed and anonymity should be a basic right. Only with such rights can free speech exist. There can be no free speech without anonymity since they can suppress and attack those who hold opinions they do not like.
Sure with how things are now there are spam messages in my mail box but I would rather have that and choose to opt in for a filter in my own software, than to have some mass surviellance scheme. I also think that government and the big brother nanny state poses far greater risk to our children coming from the tolitarian terror state that emerges from this than anything they will see on the internet. Those who give up their liberty for so called safety will be creating out of the government a much worse menace than anything it was supposed to protect them against.
The main thing that needs to be addressed with the internet has nothing to do with increasing surviellance or reducing privacy. There needs to be more use of SSL and there needs to be secure encrypted BGP and DNS to make sure that routing tables cannot be hacked.
It makes me quite angry that after we have fought so hard as a country to secure our liberties from a tolitarian oppressive government prying into our lives and deciding what we should look at, that we have people who are actively trying to undo these hard won liberties and turn the country into a totalitarian nightmare where people live in fear of an oppressive and tyrannical government, like china.
"Those who give up essential liberty for safety will deserve and shall get neither" -Benjamin Franklin
Actually i read TFA, and I just couldnt make sense of the benefits offered by the key value thing. You basically should be able to get the same benefits with a relational database system with a query that does a lookup on a single column index. This would involve searching the b-tree for that column, which would yield a row data address of some sort, to either a linked list of cells or a list of addresses of those cells. Once the single b-tree is done it is then very fast to find the other column values in that row. The b-tree or other index lookup also has to be done with the key value pair, the relational is just a collection of multiple key value indexes.
There is the issue of having a variable number of pieces of data linked to a certain key. But you can do this in relational too. Just create a table with an id column, value type column and value column. A well designed relational, if you do a query on the id column, the b-tree will lead to data which has all of the row data addresses in the database that match the id. EAch of those rows will contain a different data type/data payload for the id. This is again pretty much as fast as a simple single index database.
Really rational is the best way to take a data set and be able to access it in various ways. Many of the other concepts are indeed regressions and reintroduce problems a relational database solves. Relational allows you to able to display and view data in various different ways and apply the dataset in new ways, ways that may not have originally been a part of the original design of the application. Every time we hear someone harp about some new database technology that reintroduces all of the problems of the past, but relational is still the best and most versatile way to store your data in a way that allows for query flexibility.
Often times seperating different parts of the system into subsystems can make things easier to maintain than having a big ball of spaghetti code, and more bug free. For a negligable performance cost this can be a reasonable trade off.
As far as function calls I imagine it in part has something to do with how the compiler compiles code and the cost of the CPU to perform various operations such as a jump or call instruction. It would be interesting to see comparisons of performance costs for those. A call probably can be emulated with a jump if that turns out to be faster for instance. Optimisation can involve finding what the fastest way to do things on the CPU is.
As far as the size issue, using size as a major engineering requirement is probably not a good idea. Software should be written to do what the user needs to do and to implement features well and in a useable way, to give the user power and flexibility, and freedom. Features and functionality should not be removed and useability not comprimised for what are usually incosequential savings in size or cycles. Its important that code manages memory well and that free() is used properly, more than making software so stripped down its unuseable crap. Its absurd to remove 1 mb of code for a backwards compatable interface from X, breaking older apps, when at the same time X from startup wastes about 300 MB of space do to memory mismanagement. The way X is being managed is completely wrong, its less backwards compatable than ever and it takes up 20 times more memory than it did when i used Xfree86. X.org is total crap and its developers just dont seem to care. They break older applications by removing backwards compatability instead of fixing the memory leaks. So we end up with junk, incomptable, sloppy, memory hogging crap. We have seen with with KDE and Gnome, and Ubuntu which are mostly unuseable garbage in my opinion. Most of the time its so inflexible i cant make it do what i want and I have better things to do than to spend hours messing around with retarded inflexible GUIs and arcane configuration files.
A fallacy is that fewer features means easier to use, which is wrong. In fact if you make the user interface so inflexible and uncustomisable it becomes pretty much a pain in the ass to use and try to make work the way you want. Useability is not in small number of features but it is instead in layout, placing more commonly used features up front and others in advanced screens, but allowing everything to be as configurable as possible. really a system needs to be both new user friendl and expert friendly, which means the system should come with reasonable defaults, but the user can configure as little or as much as they want. Everything should be possible in both CLI and GUI, and all user interfaces should have advanced modes for advanced users who need total control.
This idea of making things so inflexible and having so few capabilities, Thats the big danger i think and could really do a lot of harm to Linuxs functionality. Especally if linux wants to compete it needs to, it must be able to maintain backwards compatability and be able to run older programs and drivers out of box, this is what average users expect to do. Average users do sometimes want to use a hardware device or a software program and sometimes there are not open source alternatives. Backwards compatability in Linux should be a major goal. It is important to keep older FSs and interfaces avialable for old programs anr reading older data.
those problems could be solved by Firefox supporting Microsoft embedding and HTML/DOM features. I think that supporting Microsofts features is a good idea and allows for Firefox to be able to load all of these webpages or serve as a complete IE replacement. Its better than Firefox, basically whining about how much Microsoft supports more features in IE. Obviosly since many webpages use those features, web developers are using them, so they certainly do have value to web developers and therefore they are worthwhile to support in Firefox.
MySQL and LDAP should be included with OS but user should be able to choose to opt out of installing them. Many OSs allow a minimal installation for that. I think that it is important, and best, to include a large number of features with an OS, and then allow the user to opt out of installing them. The user should have control and the system should work and be set up the way the user wants it to, not have some minimalists idea of what should be in the OS make it unuseable for others. Some may like editing configuration files and using Vi. I dont. I like configuration dialog boxes, click and dragging files rather than having to remember arcane commands and 10,000 configuration fil formats. Both the configuration file and a GUI front end should be avialable, everything should be able to be done in CLI and GUI and then let the user choose which to use. Users haev different preferences so we have to remember to include different modes of use and more than one way to do it to suite different needs. User friendliness comes not from scarce features, but large numbers of features and flexibility, and then allowing the user to choose which to use. At the GUI level, its in layout, the number of features should be large and extensive, but less used features go into advanced configuration screens. Software should come with reasonably configured defaults and run out of box, adn then a user if they want can fine tune. users gradually move into and learn more of the software, and this allows them to easily do that. People can grow into software and gradually use more of its vast feature set and use how few or how many features they want. This keeps software both novice and expert friendly, both easy to use and configurable, flexible and customizable to the max. It does not have to be one or the other, Systems should can be novice and expert friendly at the same time.
X is not a part of the Linux kernel. As well many parts of the Linux kernel are modules, and as well it is possible to create drivers that run as seperate processes. Linux has many of the characteristics already of a multiserver system. the goal of an OS should not be to provide a scarce number of features, but provide a large number of features, and then let the user decide which to load.
That, and using SQL placeholders. The best way to prevent insertion attack is use placeholders. Very simple. I am surprised people dont know how to use that feature, its in every SQL book.
That he published his finding and that he has not released customer data shows that he wants the problem to be fixed rather than for people to have their data stolen. Its better to have some curious hacker who is only interested in a little fun and challenge and who reports it find this than rather than some big time identity theft scam artist.