Your comment is just a concatenation of conservative talking points. Wages and jobs have not declined in major western powers such as France and Germany which still retain functional governments based on real social contracts. Shame on you for believing the free trade propaganda.
You realize that Murdoch, who owns News Corporation and Fox News, controls most of Britain's media, including Sky Television, The Times [of London], The Sun, and News of the World. If you want to vomit, look at some of Murdoch's holdings outside the US.
Why would Cameron, a deeply conservative aristocrat, care one bit about what the riff-raff can do with his supporter's "intellectual property"? The British have caught the plague that began on my side of the Atlantic: kleptocrats compose a huge part of government, and they've been on a crusade against egalitarianism since the 1980s. Everything done by conservatives in power is aimed at enriching the already rich and reducing everyone else to desperate peasants. They yearn for a return to the Gilded Age or worse. If a conservative creates policy that benefits the people at large, he's done it by accident. Academic rationales and appeals to the public, however erudite or reasonable they might appear, are just meaningless words put together by consultants who specialize in creating talking points that promote a particular narrative among a particular audience. These statements are tools with a particular purpose, not sincere attempts to explain the genesis of an action and demonstrate its worth.
Knowing this, you must consider every action taken by a conservative through the lens of their ultimate goal. If Cameron says he wants to revise copyright law to foster creativity, don't take him at his word. Ask yourself, "In what way will these modifications enrich powerful backers? What loopholes exist? What narrative is the government trying to push? What does it prepare the population to accept? How can the change under consideration be used to hurt the opposition? Where are the lies? Where is the selective truth?"
Finally, consider the most important question of all: "Will the net effect of this action be to enrich the wealthy?" The answer will invariably be "yes".
Trades that happen this fast are only good for further enriching large investment firms that can afford to spend millions on clever algorithms for shuffling numbers around. This speedup lets these companies make even more money without creating one damned thing that's useful to any living person.
Limit trades to one per second per institution, and while you're at it, add that tiny per-trade tax. Finance should be boring. Let's encourage people to focus on the real economy that operates in the world inhabited by you and me.
The message to libtech was signed with the same key; you can look it up there to verify it. I didn't want to deal with having a link in the signed portion. Getting the signed comment was a pain as it was.
If you try to use this tool to browse 4chan at work, it's going to surround your browser's 4chan image http requests with nonsensical weather.com http requests.
As I explicitly stated, I am not resigning in shame over the codebase. The program Danny, Jacob, and others rightly tore apart has no common lineage with what would have eventually become the Haystack release. As part of our short-lived attempt to open up, I described the design of that program in a lengthy post to liberation-tech. It is a generally reasonable design that could have worked. I believe the idea still has merit, and hope it is somehow pursued.
It is a shame it is conflated with the broken test program that, for better or for worse, saw a more general distribution than ever intended. (But then again, I should not be surprised.)
I am Daniel Colascione. I've placed a link to my resignation letter below; I feel it adds another dimension to the debate on what happened to Haystack. If anyone has questions, I'll do my best to respond here. Let me note, also, that as part of my rejoining the project, I insisted that we release the source under the GPLv3, and that we engage in an open and honest dialogue with the security community. It was too late, of course.
Oh, get over yourself. Both my parents came from large families and turned out fine, and there are plenty of idealogues with small families who homeschool their children so as to better indoctrinate them in some fringe belief or other. Having a larger than typical family is no great sin.
An ACID compliant RDBMS can't even get read access to the user, car, friend, picture and pet_survey_answer table set as long as any of the million users of the system is making a change to his data, even if the application only locks one table at a time for write access, let alone the problem of a million users trying to gain write access to the same table at the same time.
You have no idea what you're talking about, probably because your brain has been irreversibly warped by MySQL. Concurrent writing is widely-supported.
And I also realise that Erlang isn't using processes, but instead threads, so I guess it's an exception to my "all languages do threads badly" position. But it's not "typical" threaded programming.
It's not "threading" that you're opposed to. Your actual position (which is very sensible) is that it's a bad idea to mix concurrency and shared memory. Erlang actors don't share memory with each other (at least at the Erlang level), which is why you say threading is okay in that instance. You can write a program in C that passes messages like Erlang processes do and it'd be almost as pleasant.
Re:Asynchronous and self modifying code.
on
Programming Clojure
·
· Score: 1
If metaprogramming is self-modifying code, then every compiled program is self-modifying: there is no fundamental difference between translating a program to assembly and translating it to the same language in which it was written; if macros were inherently self-modifying, MACROEXPAND would be useless. If closures were self-modifying, then every C callback system that incorporated an opaque user-data parameter would also consist of self-modifying code.
In all my years*, I have seen no poster demonstrating a more profound cognitive deficit than yours. It's not ignorance. It's stupidity: by using technical terms, you demonstrate that you have some relevant experience. But your ideas show such a marked inability to connect these terms to each other in a consistent and coherent way that I wonder whether you've suffered some localized damage to the logic portions of your brain. Please, see a doctor. There are therapies available which can restore a semblance of a normal life.
Fortunately instead of a manufacturing based industry, the US will concentrate on enforcing the concept of "intellectual property"
But fortunately for the rest of the world, they can laugh at our silly statements of what they "owe" us and get on with their lives. Oh, wait? What's that you say? We spend more on our military than every other nation on earth put together? Oh, well, I'm sure they'll pay up then.
Come on --- what's left for the US other than the formation of a military-enforced trade hegemony?
Bush took positive, harmful action. He discussed invading Iraq before September 11. He began his warrantless wiretapping program before September 11. He repeatedly floated privatizing social security, and appointed two radical supreme court justices.
On the other hand, Obama has tried to take constructive action and has been stymied in the legislature. Do you seriously think that he wouldn't pass cap-and-trade, financial reform, and healthcare tomorrow if they landed on his desk?
Equating Obama and Bush is wicked and intellectually dishonest. Your sophistry is typical of righties trying to rationalize a worldview that hurts them and their families.
Allegedly he's doing the healthcare reform thing despite the penalties. Why not the rest?
More sophistry. Without right-wing obstruction, much more would have already been done.
He said he'd close it. He hasn't.
Sure, he should have. But with the right screaming bloody murder that a terrorist or two might be housed in a federal prison on *gasp* US soil, he's decided this fight isn't worth the political capital it would cost to win it. See, again? The right attacks him no matter what he does: close the prison, and he's bringing dangerous terrorists onto US soil. Keep the prison open, and he's breaking a campaign promise.
Interestingly, social psychology studies have demonstrated atheists are in fact quite similar to the strongly religious.
The internationally famous Institute of the Passive Voice has also demonstrated that both atheists and the strongly religious combine glucose with oxygen to produce ATP!
Your comment is vague and practically worthless. Care to substantiate it, or even better, cite a source?
So until then, you can vote Democrat and no one is allowed to disagree with you?
No, you're free to disagree with me; likewise, I'm free to consider you reckless and ignorant if you do.
Didn't the Keynesian economics shift of Roosevelt, the world-police politics of Wilson, etc do more harm than Bush did?
No. That's unequivocally and absolutely untrue. The only people advocating that point of view are the discredited Chicago economists who gave us the present financial crisis by supposing that the market is always perfectly rational. The people who claim that FDR worsened the Great Depression have an agenda. The New Deal put millions to work and helped avoid misery, starvation, and possibly social unrest. The problem was that it didn't go far enough: predictably, in 1937, when FDR listened to fiscal conservatives and prematurely scaled back the New Deal, the economy crashed.
Isn't Obama working hard to to the same thing to health insurance?
You like being denied for those pre-existing conditions, don't you?
You, your family, and all of your friends would benefit from a government that understood what a deficit was
If our deficit were such a problem, the government wouldn't be able to borrow at under 1%. If we were really that profligate, we'd see actual inflation: instead, we're seeing prices holding steady or declining slightly. As a portion of GDP, Britain ran bigger deficits and recovered; we ran bigger deficits 50 years ago and recovered. For the average person, the debt is a much smaller problem than holding a good job, educating our children, and eating.
Both sides are bad, friend.
But promoting the idea that both sides are equally bad just promotes apathy that allows the worse, more self-interested side to take over and loot the country even harder. That's really the silver lining of the Bush years: it showed people how much trouble you can get into if you keep your hands off the wheel.
The policies I advocate would, at worst, return us to a time around the 1950s, where few people had insurance, and most everyone's medical needs were met.
Would you also be comfortable with returning to 1950s tax rates, unionization levels, life expectancies, and prescription drug advertising rules?
I think the fairest analysis of Obama is that he did not deliver anything close to what got him elected. He said he would Change(tm) everything. All we got was 'change'
Yes, that in itself is a fair statement. My problem is with the implication that's almost always attached to it: specifically, that Obama somehow deceived the country, that he was elected on a lie, and that the relative lack of real reform is a reflection of Obama's incompetence, malice, or both.
In reality, people making that claim have unrealistic expectations of presidential power. Between unprecedented and stubborn legislative obstruction, very high unemployment, very effective opposition propaganda, and a global economic collapse, Obama has very little space in which to operate. He can't even form a proper government: even after Shelby allowed a few nominations to go through, dozens of more routine appointments to federal office remain held up in the Senate.
How would you suggest Obama effect the reforms he promised? By fiat, as the right has been claiming he would act? No matter what he does, he's going to be smeared: if he doesn't act, he's a fraud. If he acts, he's an overreaching tyrant.
If we were to restore 1950s and 1960s top-end tax rates rates, which were upwards of 90% on the very wealthiest, you'd find that we would not only have enough money to pay for the education and infrastructure, but that we'd be able to pay down the national debt as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment is just a concatenation of conservative talking points. Wages and jobs have not declined in major western powers such as France and Germany which still retain functional governments based on real social contracts. Shame on you for believing the free trade propaganda.
Since when does policy affect voting?
You realize that Murdoch, who owns News Corporation and Fox News, controls most of Britain's media, including Sky Television, The Times [of London], The Sun, and News of the World. If you want to vomit, look at some of Murdoch's holdings outside the US.
Why would Cameron, a deeply conservative aristocrat, care one bit about what the riff-raff can do with his supporter's "intellectual property"? The British have caught the plague that began on my side of the Atlantic: kleptocrats compose a huge part of government, and they've been on a crusade against egalitarianism since the 1980s. Everything done by conservatives in power is aimed at enriching the already rich and reducing everyone else to desperate peasants. They yearn for a return to the Gilded Age or worse. If a conservative creates policy that benefits the people at large, he's done it by accident. Academic rationales and appeals to the public, however erudite or reasonable they might appear, are just meaningless words put together by consultants who specialize in creating talking points that promote a particular narrative among a particular audience. These statements are tools with a particular purpose, not sincere attempts to explain the genesis of an action and demonstrate its worth.
Knowing this, you must consider every action taken by a conservative through the lens of their ultimate goal. If Cameron says he wants to revise copyright law to foster creativity, don't take him at his word. Ask yourself, "In what way will these modifications enrich powerful backers? What loopholes exist? What narrative is the government trying to push? What does it prepare the population to accept? How can the change under consideration be used to hurt the opposition? Where are the lies? Where is the selective truth?"
Finally, consider the most important question of all: "Will the net effect of this action be to enrich the wealthy?" The answer will invariably be "yes".
You made your point. In context, "Java" clearly and unambiguously refers to the entire ecosystem. Give it up.
Trades that happen this fast are only good for further enriching large investment firms that can afford to spend millions on clever algorithms for shuffling numbers around. This speedup lets these companies make even more money without creating one damned thing that's useful to any living person.
Limit trades to one per second per institution, and while you're at it, add that tiny per-trade tax. Finance should be boring. Let's encourage people to focus on the real economy that operates in the world inhabited by you and me.
My favorite resolver is 127.0.0.1. Running your own recursive DNS server is easy.
The message to libtech was signed with the same key; you can look it up there to verify it. I didn't want to deal with having a link in the signed portion. Getting the signed comment was a pain as it was.
Where did you get that idea?
As I explicitly stated, I am not resigning in shame over the codebase. The program Danny, Jacob, and others rightly tore apart has no common lineage with what would have eventually become the Haystack release. As part of our short-lived attempt to open up, I described the design of that program in a lengthy post to liberation-tech. It is a generally reasonable design that could have worked. I believe the idea still has merit, and hope it is somehow pursued.
It is a shame it is conflated with the broken test program that, for better or for worse, saw a more general distribution than ever intended. (But then again, I should not be surprised.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I am Daniel Colascione. I've placed a link to my resignation letter
below; I feel it adds another dimension to the debate on what happened
to Haystack. If anyone has questions, I'll do my best to respond here.
Let me note, also, that as part of my rejoining the project, I
insisted that we release the source under the GPLv3, and that we
engage in an open and honest dialogue with the security community. It
was too late, of course.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREC AAYFAkyP9 SwACgkQ17c 2LVA10Vtlx ACg6iE3K x2Cbzj3Hg CRO9k6msmz
tH8An iNSdKNga 6sOQWr8wX5 tlbCDRLPP
=s34t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Note: the Slashdot lameness filter forced me to break up the signature; please remove the whitespace before verifying.)
My resignation letter.
Oh, get over yourself. Both my parents came from large families and turned out fine, and there are plenty of idealogues with small families who homeschool their children so as to better indoctrinate them in some fringe belief or other. Having a larger than typical family is no great sin.
You have no idea what you're talking about, probably because your brain has been irreversibly warped by MySQL. Concurrent writing is widely-supported.
Hint: MVCC.
It's not "threading" that you're opposed to. Your actual position (which is very sensible) is that it's a bad idea to mix concurrency and shared memory. Erlang actors don't share memory with each other (at least at the Erlang level), which is why you say threading is okay in that instance. You can write a program in C that passes messages like Erlang processes do and it'd be almost as pleasant.
If metaprogramming is self-modifying code, then every compiled program is self-modifying: there is no fundamental difference between translating a program to assembly and translating it to the same language in which it was written; if macros were inherently self-modifying, MACROEXPAND would be useless. If closures were self-modifying, then every C callback system that incorporated an opaque user-data parameter would also consist of self-modifying code.
In all my years*, I have seen no poster demonstrating a more profound cognitive deficit than yours. It's not ignorance. It's stupidity: by using technical terms, you demonstrate that you have some relevant experience. But your ideas show such a marked inability to connect these terms to each other in a consistent and coherent way that I wonder whether you've suffered some localized damage to the logic portions of your brain. Please, see a doctor. There are therapies available which can restore a semblance of a normal life.
* check my UID
False.
The old saying goes, "never get into argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
Maybe we should update it to say: never get into an argument with someone who writes programs that run on whole data centers.
But fortunately for the rest of the world, they can laugh at our silly statements of what they "owe" us and get on with their lives. Oh, wait? What's that you say? We spend more on our military than every other nation on earth put together? Oh, well, I'm sure they'll pay up then.
Come on --- what's left for the US other than the formation of a military-enforced trade hegemony?
I've identified your problem:
You forgot to add "abracadabra" to the end of your post.
Bush took positive, harmful action. He discussed invading Iraq before September 11. He began his warrantless wiretapping program before September 11. He repeatedly floated privatizing social security, and appointed two radical supreme court justices.
On the other hand, Obama has tried to take constructive action and has been stymied in the legislature. Do you seriously think that he wouldn't pass cap-and-trade, financial reform, and healthcare tomorrow if they landed on his desk?
Equating Obama and Bush is wicked and intellectually dishonest. Your sophistry is typical of righties trying to rationalize a worldview that hurts them and their families.
More sophistry. Without right-wing obstruction, much more would have already been done.
Sure, he should have. But with the right screaming bloody murder that a terrorist or two might be housed in a federal prison on *gasp* US soil, he's decided this fight isn't worth the political capital it would cost to win it. See, again? The right attacks him no matter what he does: close the prison, and he's bringing dangerous terrorists onto US soil. Keep the prison open, and he's breaking a campaign promise.
The internationally famous Institute of the Passive Voice has also demonstrated that both atheists and the strongly religious combine glucose with oxygen to produce ATP!
Your comment is vague and practically worthless. Care to substantiate it, or even better, cite a source?
No, you're free to disagree with me; likewise, I'm free to consider you reckless and ignorant if you do.
No. That's unequivocally and absolutely untrue. The only people advocating that point of view are the discredited Chicago economists who gave us the present financial crisis by supposing that the market is always perfectly rational. The people who claim that FDR worsened the Great Depression have an agenda. The New Deal put millions to work and helped avoid misery, starvation, and possibly social unrest. The problem was that it didn't go far enough: predictably, in 1937, when FDR listened to fiscal conservatives and prematurely scaled back the New Deal, the economy crashed.
You like being denied for those pre-existing conditions, don't you?
If our deficit were such a problem, the government wouldn't be able to borrow at under 1%. If we were really that profligate, we'd see actual inflation: instead, we're seeing prices holding steady or declining slightly. As a portion of GDP, Britain ran bigger deficits and recovered; we ran bigger deficits 50 years ago and recovered. For the average person, the debt is a much smaller problem than holding a good job, educating our children, and eating.
But promoting the idea that both sides are equally bad just promotes apathy that allows the worse, more self-interested side to take over and loot the country even harder. That's really the silver lining of the Bush years: it showed people how much trouble you can get into if you keep your hands off the wheel.
Would you also be comfortable with returning to 1950s tax rates, unionization levels, life expectancies, and prescription drug advertising rules?
Yes, that in itself is a fair statement. My problem is with the implication that's almost always attached to it: specifically, that Obama somehow deceived the country, that he was elected on a lie, and that the relative lack of real reform is a reflection of Obama's incompetence, malice, or both.
In reality, people making that claim have unrealistic expectations of presidential power. Between unprecedented and stubborn legislative obstruction, very high unemployment, very effective opposition propaganda, and a global economic collapse, Obama has very little space in which to operate. He can't even form a proper government: even after Shelby allowed a few nominations to go through, dozens of more routine appointments to federal office remain held up in the Senate.
How would you suggest Obama effect the reforms he promised? By fiat, as the right has been claiming he would act? No matter what he does, he's going to be smeared: if he doesn't act, he's a fraud. If he acts, he's an overreaching tyrant.
I don't envy him.
Have you considered that might be because we have the wealth inequality of a banana republic?
If we were to restore 1950s and 1960s top-end tax rates rates, which were upwards of 90% on the very wealthiest, you'd find that we would not only have enough money to pay for the education and infrastructure, but that we'd be able to pay down the national debt as well.