Right the take away here is not the Googles costs are low, high, or otherwise; but that they have lots of control and plently of levers to move others. One of the biggest being they are for practical perpouses a top teir carrier themeselves.
Windows gained its momentum prior to '93. There was that period of 1990-3 where lots of people were getting home computers who simply never had them in the 8 and 16 bit era. The C=, Ti, and Tandy machines were clearly on they way out of the home and SMB markets. As far as a stand alone microcomputer went your selection was SGI workstation, Apple, IBM, or an IBM PC Clone. Microsoft was able to give you a GUI on top and easy to get a handle on D-O-S. It was not the best but it was the cheapest that met the "good enough hurdle." That is what started the ball rolling.
Don't worry once Pelosi and Obama use a bunch of extra constitutional tricker to pass this healthcare bill, you can be assured the RFID chips are but a few short years away.
Right you certainly don't want to kill the engine on a panic stop situation, you might in may case lose the break booster as well doing that, the thing is that most cars have had an ignition switch that operates a mechanical relay that is inline with the coil(s). Where Toyota went wrong here is they have drive by wire combined with at least in the Prius case start by wire and not way for the driver to "SHUT IT DOWN NOW". Holding a button for 3 secs is not a good mechanism in an emergency.
It takes to long and is likely dependent of software to interpret that input too, which might not work if the electronics are really in a messed up state. I think traditional key style ignition is a good design, you can't operate it accidentally but you can operate it quickly. It should be a hard requirement that a machine as large and powerful as an automobile have a hard kill switch that the human operate can use, if they decide. Most of the time its not the right decision but for a stuck throttle it certainly is what you want.
I just can't imagine any good argument for not having an electromechanical kill switch on all cars.
The is a component of moral empowerment though, you have to consider. Most people are more willing to accept risk if they control the situation, even if the risk is greater. Other people are more accepting of an inherent justice of in the results when something bad happens to someone else who they feel was in control of the situation than when they were not.
Consider on a per person per mile of travel basis a drunk "walker" is more likely to cause a traffic related fatality than a drunk driver. They do things like stumble off sidewalks into traffic, misjudge the rate of on cumming traffic and run out into busy highways, sit an take a rests on unlit rural roads and more. Still we vilify the drunk driver because when they cause a traffic fatality chances are they are not the individual contributing to the statistic, where as with the walkers they are usually the one killed.
If we really minimizing risk we would be more condemning of drunk walking than driving because someone is more likely to die. We don't operate that way though, we don't think that way. Many people would take a friends keys, few would forcibly restrain them if they could not be convinced to stay a little longer and sober up, even though that friend would be safer behind the wheel.
The same thing applies, most of us would be more willing to accept our loved one died because they were not able to control a set of mechanical and hydrolic linkages correctly and quickly enough to avoid and auto accident than we are when a software system fails to do the same, even though the later was far less likely.
I am not saying that makes sense in moral terms, statistical terms, or anything. In fact the more objectively you look at it the less sense it makes to not use drive by wire and computerized systems but "we" still don't "feel" that way about it.
A good RDBMS engine and as much as people Poopoo MSSQL server its a good engine. I have used it for databases in the 150TB range. If you do your schema right, your indexes correctly, plan your partitions and file groups well you can great performance out of affordable hardware. Now you do need to maintain this thing or develop the automation around building those partitions and moving data into and out of them based on tombstones or some other criteria or your get underwater real fast.
I don't care what technology you pick if you are going deal with that much data you need to: 1.Understand the problem well 2.Spend the time with whatever tools you select to really understand how they work and build whatever you need to fill in where they are deficient.
When you start doing anything that big its not plug and play anymore no matter how you go about it.
I am not saying you should reaching into the content of you users but analyzing the traffic so you can understand how your network is used should be allowed and its a good thing for ISPs to do. All ISPs over subscribe. That is how they can profitably sell you the bandwidth at prices you can afford. If they did not do this we would all buy our connections directly from the tier 1 carriers.
It makes perfect sense for them to want to understand what types of applications, again knowing you are using bittorent not knowing you are using bittorent to download a screener of Alice in Wonderland is perfectly reasonable. They should understand these things and probably should do some shaping. Your four hour bulk transfer really out to be queued for a moment so grandma who pays they same but hardly uses a fraction of the upstream resources you do can download a few thousand bytes of HTML about her book club and some E-mails from her grand kids, and not have to wait.
These are target it the Virtualization and specialized application space. You are not going to put these in your gaming rig, and your not going to use the +4 core models in your tranditional stand alone application server. You could get much better dollar to performance ration elsewhere if those are your intended applications.
Now slapping two or more of these things on a Linux box with a ton of UMLs running or on VMware ESX, and loading the system up with 128 gigs of ram and a medium business can probalby run their entire datacenter on 2 boxen + an entry level SAN.
I never understood how marketing people could not make the connection: if I annoy my target market with my image, they will associate my image with annoyance and be less likely to buy.
The reason is it is not true. There have been lots of studies with limited accuracy because its hard to study the effects of advertising without biasing the results, that show a negative response to an add does not in many cases make it ineffective. The biggest single predictor of your product, assuming we are talking about a commodity type product where there is only slight variation in price and features such like say televisions sets of a given size, being selected over a competitor is if your name is familiar to the purchaser.
Now not everyone is the same, I am sure there are many people out there who say you know that companies ads are really irritating and or abusive so I am not going to patronize them. Most people though if the name is familiar either wont remember where they saw it, will figure just because they seen it must be a respectable organization or whatever and will buy it over the other guys.
Some of the problem is the inefficiency of the whole channel model. Now the technology exists feed content on demand there is really no need for channels.
As a N'parent poster pointed out there are really on 6 big media firms producing just about everything on all 200 of those cable channels. Rather than bundling shows onto channels and then bundling channels into packages just bundle the shows into the packages.
Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration, saying they shouldn't be deprived of ABC shows, including the Oscars on Sunday, because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry.
Oh my my we have become a nation of cry babies. Cable TV is a service, don't like the service cancel your subscription. Give the money to an alternative provider, you pretty much have at least a satellite provider and or FIOS / UVERSE in almost every market Cablevision serves. Quit your crying and find another carrier, spend your money on something else entirely, or shut up about it and just accept you don't get ABC anymore.
Its the advertisers fault. I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped the shark.
When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it, I never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers. When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it. When they started making adds that pretended to be system messages, virus scanner alerts, and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same.
I agree with you it is often better to live in the current world as long as things work. These processes did work. They were high tech in many cases when they went in. The USPTO for instance a decade ago moved much faster whatever they were doing may have been antiquated by the standards even then but it worked. I would have agreed with you and said you're right don't fix what aint broke. Trouble is if that is your mentality you still need to be willing to recognize when it is broke, and do something about it when the time comes.
I am all for running a system until it will do no more, there is not need to be always chasing the latest and greatest and lots of good reasons not to do so, but we do need to make changes when changes are needed.
If you wrote your own filesystem or other record delimiting scheme and you could interface the drive normally at the block layer. Sure the controller might map blocks elsewhere but anytime you read the drive its going to reply with the same block from the same "logical" location, even if you move it to another machine.
So for all practical use, what difference does it make? Unless you were planning to actually remove the platters from the drive and install them in a different drive later, then you have a problem but if that is the case I think you should take a few steps back and reconsider your process..
That is my point though with proxy registered domains I very often don't have away to contact the responsible party. I am network administrator. I frequently use whois to find out who to call when there are issues relaying e-mail; or I am being spam by that domain, and various other reasons.
Generally people who are registered in who is tend to be available and get in touch with each other. We usually can figure out what the problem is and whose problem it is, efficiently and get the issue resolved for our users.
Generally people registered by proxy have only an e-mail listed for contact which is the proxy agents not theirs, and often the phone number is completely bogus. This is a pain when the problem is mail related, and when the phone number does work the proxy generally gives me a hard time and refused to even pass messages along to the domain owner.
If the behavior of the proxies were better than I'd be ok with it but generally it causes problems for people who actually use the net for more than just entertainment and need to get problems resolved.
I am not sure I agree. Anonymity on the internet is valuable and important. A domain is kinda formal though. Slashdot for instance is somewhat responsible for the content here. They don't need to really police it but if it were brought to Taco's attention people were arranging drug deals or something they would be obligated to help, the authorites.
All and all I think its a good point of balance; if you are going to have your own domain there should be a responsible part that can be easily determined and contacted when needed.
He who controls the language in use controls the debate. In recognition of that I used to feel as you do. If others are going to try and conduct discourse with loaded terms like "piracy" when the mean copyright infringement; than we should do the same and brand the fascists and the like.
I have not given up the above tactic just yet but more and more I am thinking the strategy does not work. Look at DC the debate just gets ever more shrill; on all subjects. Its getting to the point were we wont be able to discuss the issues at all because those with opposing viewpoints can't even understand what the are saying to each other.
I am starting to to think a better answer would just be to call them out on the language. Just state plainly you used a bunch of loaded terms that connote unrelated but emotionally charged subjects to distract form the matter at hand and I am not going to consider your arguments or ideas as valid if you are unwilling to state them in a way that at least attempts to use neutral language.
Exactly if by the time the general election rolled around you really were unable to support one presidential candidate over the other and truly felt that both choices were unfit for the office than the least you could have done is cast a blank ballot, for that election.
That would have said something, it would have at least expressed dissatisfaction with the process. If a largish number of people did that the major parties would take note. When you stay home who knows, maybe you're dissatisfied maybe just lazy and in any case you don't matter because you are very likely to just stay home in future elections as well.
Oh an then there is the matter of all those other state and local election which probably do have a more immediate impact on your life. Many of those races don't even have stated party affiliations and third parties win those elections often, when there are. Chances are there were candidates there you could have supported. Those are the guys that if elected often do move on up to higher offices. You could be doing you're part by giving good people their first political opportunities and derailing the careers of the bad ones. When you just stay home you are shirking your civic duties to be informed and participate in the process and yes when you do that you end up not mattering.
With that let me who voted for the other say I sincerely hope Obama and those who support his polices are turned out of office en-mass in the next round of elections.
You still have not wrapped your head around these modern asymmetrical warfare and terrorism concepts have you?
If you were fighting some other power and the objective was to disrupt their industrial efforts enough that you can invade an size the Capitol then you are correct these drones are not a very effective weapon.
If you are trying to make some political point and impose costs on another society and your an amorphous group like Al-queda then you could create some real misery. All you'd need to do is get hold of some anthrax spores and it could be a bad scene. Put a kilo on 20 or 30 of these little air craft and drop that tiny payload off at sites all long the coast and you'd create major panic.
Anthrax is not going to be very effective delivered that way you'd be lucky to infect a dozen people but that does not matter. Looks what two men a 20 year old car and rifle were able to do to Virgina a couple years ago? People were afraid to leave their homes!
This is a stupid argument being made by the lawyer. Its a basic economic problem that all manufactures face not just high tech.
You want to produce the wonder widgets. You have the facility to produce 100K widgets per year. The widgets could be build more cheaply if you make a capital investment and expand your facility, this will mean a higher percentage of the manufacturing cost would be variable, as you accounting, sales, and other front office remain the same, upkeep costs on a large plant probably don't scale linearly with plant size, etc etc. If you did this you could charge a lower price.
Ahh but what if someone develops a super wonder widget that makes wonder widgets obsolete and what if you can't easily retool your wonder widget plat to make super wonder widgets? Why you would never be able to recoup the costs! So you have a decision to make! You either invest and expand or sell fewer widgets at a higher price.
Perhaps your competition decides to expand they are ultimately going to be able to undercut you on price and will take away your market share for the remainder of the product cycle, and you might never get it back. Than again it could turn out to be a very poor investment for them if that super wonder widget is devised early on and you have capital on the sidelines available get your new plant ready. Your copetitor might go bankrupt with a plant they can nologer use, it will have been a poor investment.
Something has happen this past decade where for some reason investors think they are entitlted to profits when they make good calls but should be protected from losses when they make bad ones; THATS NOT HOW CAPITALISM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOLKS! You win some you lose some; if you work hard and smart you should win more than others nore than you loose/.
I am with you on thee through 4, and you probably should or are doing 1 because you want to be able to help the user put the right information in fields, check onblur an give some useful feedback but spending allot of time on careful input validation at the client level with web is pretty pointless. Anyone doing something malicious does not have to use your interface at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Right the take away here is not the Googles costs are low, high, or otherwise; but that they have lots of control and plently of levers to move others. One of the biggest being they are for practical perpouses a top teir carrier themeselves.
Windows gained its momentum prior to '93. There was that period of 1990-3 where lots of people were getting home computers who simply never had them in the 8 and 16 bit era. The C=, Ti, and Tandy machines were clearly on they way out of the home and SMB markets. As far as a stand alone microcomputer went your selection was SGI workstation, Apple, IBM, or an IBM PC Clone. Microsoft was able to give you a GUI on top and easy to get a handle on D-O-S. It was not the best but it was the cheapest that met the "good enough hurdle." That is what started the ball rolling.
Don't worry once Pelosi and Obama use a bunch of extra constitutional tricker to pass this healthcare bill, you can be assured the RFID chips are but a few short years away.
Right you certainly don't want to kill the engine on a panic stop situation, you might in may case lose the break booster as well doing that, the thing is that most cars have had an ignition switch that operates a mechanical relay that is inline with the coil(s). Where Toyota went wrong here is they have drive by wire combined with at least in the Prius case start by wire and not way for the driver to "SHUT IT DOWN NOW". Holding a button for 3 secs is not a good mechanism in an emergency.
It takes to long and is likely dependent of software to interpret that input too, which might not work if the electronics are really in a messed up state. I think traditional key style ignition is a good design, you can't operate it accidentally but you can operate it quickly. It should be a hard requirement that a machine as large and powerful as an automobile have a hard kill switch that the human operate can use, if they decide. Most of the time its not the right decision but for a stuck throttle it certainly is what you want.
I just can't imagine any good argument for not having an electromechanical kill switch on all cars.
The is a component of moral empowerment though, you have to consider. Most people are more willing to accept risk if they control the situation, even if the risk is greater. Other people are more accepting of an inherent justice of in the results when something bad happens to someone else who they feel was in control of the situation than when they were not.
Consider on a per person per mile of travel basis a drunk "walker" is more likely to cause a traffic related fatality than a drunk driver. They do things like stumble off sidewalks into traffic, misjudge the rate of on cumming traffic and run out into busy highways, sit an take a rests on unlit rural roads and more. Still we vilify the drunk driver because when they cause a traffic fatality chances are they are not the individual contributing to the statistic, where as with the walkers they are usually the one killed.
If we really minimizing risk we would be more condemning of drunk walking than driving because someone is more likely to die. We don't operate that way though, we don't think that way. Many people would take a friends keys, few would forcibly restrain them if they could not be convinced to stay a little longer and sober up, even though that friend would be safer behind the wheel.
The same thing applies, most of us would be more willing to accept our loved one died because they were not able to control a set of mechanical and hydrolic linkages correctly and quickly enough to avoid and auto accident than we are when a software system fails to do the same, even though the later was far less likely.
I am not saying that makes sense in moral terms, statistical terms, or anything. In fact the more objectively you look at it the less sense it makes to not use drive by wire and computerized systems but "we" still don't "feel" that way about it.
One of the many reasons you backup your data right?
A good RDBMS engine and as much as people Poopoo MSSQL server its a good engine. I have used it for databases in the 150TB range. If you do your schema right, your indexes correctly, plan your partitions and file groups well you can great performance out of affordable hardware. Now you do need to maintain this thing or develop the automation around building those partitions and moving data into and out of them based on tombstones or some other criteria or your get underwater real fast.
I don't care what technology you pick if you are going deal with that much data you need to:
1.Understand the problem well
2.Spend the time with whatever tools you select to really understand how they work and build whatever you need to fill in where they are deficient.
When you start doing anything that big its not plug and play anymore no matter how you go about it.
Yea and I can only imagine the SMARTNET costs...You think TAC will call you back in less than two hours if you own one of these things.
My sister had cancer of the bone marrow, and that is pretty much exactly what they did.
I am not saying you should reaching into the content of you users but analyzing the traffic so you can understand how your network is used should be allowed and its a good thing for ISPs to do. All ISPs over subscribe. That is how they can profitably sell you the bandwidth at prices you can afford. If they did not do this we would all buy our connections directly from the tier 1 carriers.
It makes perfect sense for them to want to understand what types of applications, again knowing you are using bittorent not knowing you are using bittorent to download a screener of Alice in Wonderland is perfectly reasonable. They should understand these things and probably should do some shaping. Your four hour bulk transfer really out to be queued for a moment so grandma who pays they same but hardly uses a fraction of the upstream resources you do can download a few thousand bytes of HTML about her book club and some E-mails from her grand kids, and not have to wait.
These are target it the Virtualization and specialized application space. You are not going to put these in your gaming rig, and your not going to use the +4 core models in your tranditional stand alone application server. You could get much better dollar to performance ration elsewhere if those are your intended applications.
Now slapping two or more of these things on a Linux box with a ton of UMLs running or on VMware ESX, and loading the system up with 128 gigs of ram and a medium business can probalby run their entire datacenter on 2 boxen + an entry level SAN.
I never understood how marketing people could not make the connection: if I annoy my target market with my image, they will associate my image with annoyance and be less likely to buy.
The reason is it is not true. There have been lots of studies with limited accuracy because its hard to study the effects of advertising without biasing the results, that show a negative response to an add does not in many cases make it ineffective. The biggest single predictor of your product, assuming we are talking about a commodity type product where there is only slight variation in price and features such like say televisions sets of a given size, being selected over a competitor is if your name is familiar to the purchaser.
Now not everyone is the same, I am sure there are many people out there who say you know that companies ads are really irritating and or abusive so I am not going to patronize them. Most people though if the name is familiar either wont remember where they saw it, will figure just because they seen it must be a respectable organization or whatever and will buy it over the other guys.
Some of the problem is the inefficiency of the whole channel model. Now the technology exists feed content on demand there is really no need for channels.
As a N'parent poster pointed out there are really on 6 big media firms producing just about everything on all 200 of those cable channels. Rather than bundling shows onto channels and then bundling channels into packages just bundle the shows into the packages.
Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration, saying they shouldn't be deprived of ABC shows, including the Oscars on Sunday, because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry.
Oh my my we have become a nation of cry babies. Cable TV is a service, don't like the service cancel your subscription. Give the money to an alternative provider, you pretty much have at least a satellite provider and or FIOS / UVERSE in almost every market Cablevision serves. Quit your crying and find another carrier, spend your money on something else entirely, or shut up about it and just accept you don't get ABC anymore.
Its the advertisers fault. I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped the shark.
When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it, I never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers. When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it. When they started making adds that pretended to be system messages, virus scanner alerts, and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same.
I agree with you it is often better to live in the current world as long as things work. These processes did work. They were high tech in many cases when they went in. The USPTO for instance a decade ago moved much faster whatever they were doing may have been antiquated by the standards even then but it worked. I would have agreed with you and said you're right don't fix what aint broke. Trouble is if that is your mentality you still need to be willing to recognize when it is broke, and do something about it when the time comes.
I am all for running a system until it will do no more, there is not need to be always chasing the latest and greatest and lots of good reasons not to do so, but we do need to make changes when changes are needed.
If you wrote your own filesystem or other record delimiting scheme and you could interface the drive normally at the block layer. Sure the controller might map blocks elsewhere but anytime you read the drive its going to reply with the same block from the same "logical" location, even if you move it to another machine.
So for all practical use, what difference does it make? Unless you were planning to actually remove the platters from the drive and install them in a different drive later, then you have a problem but if that is the case I think you should take a few steps back and reconsider your process..
That is my point though with proxy registered domains I very often don't have away to contact the responsible party. I am network administrator. I frequently use whois to find out who to call when there are issues relaying e-mail; or I am being spam by that domain, and various other reasons.
Generally people who are registered in who is tend to be available and get in touch with each other. We usually can figure out what the problem is and whose problem it is, efficiently and get the issue resolved for our users.
Generally people registered by proxy have only an e-mail listed for contact which is the proxy agents not theirs, and often the phone number is completely bogus. This is a pain when the problem is mail related, and when the phone number does work the proxy generally gives me a hard time and refused to even pass messages along to the domain owner.
If the behavior of the proxies were better than I'd be ok with it but generally it causes problems for people who actually use the net for more than just entertainment and need to get problems resolved.
I am not sure I agree. Anonymity on the internet is valuable and important. A domain is kinda formal though. Slashdot for instance is somewhat responsible for the content here. They don't need to really police it but if it were brought to Taco's attention people were arranging drug deals or something they would be obligated to help, the authorites.
All and all I think its a good point of balance; if you are going to have your own domain there should be a responsible part that can be easily determined and contacted when needed.
He who controls the language in use controls the debate. In recognition of that I used to feel as you do. If others are going to try and conduct discourse with loaded terms like "piracy" when the mean copyright infringement; than we should do the same and brand the fascists and the like.
I have not given up the above tactic just yet but more and more I am thinking the strategy does not work. Look at DC the debate just gets ever more shrill; on all subjects. Its getting to the point were we wont be able to discuss the issues at all because those with opposing viewpoints can't even understand what the are saying to each other.
I am starting to to think a better answer would just be to call them out on the language. Just state plainly you used a bunch of loaded terms that connote unrelated but emotionally charged subjects to distract form the matter at hand and I am not going to consider your arguments or ideas as valid if you are unwilling to state them in a way that at least attempts to use neutral language.
Exactly if by the time the general election rolled around you really were unable to support one presidential candidate over the other and truly felt that both choices were unfit for the office than the least you could have done is cast a blank ballot, for that election.
That would have said something, it would have at least expressed dissatisfaction with the process. If a largish number of people did that the major parties would take note. When you stay home who knows, maybe you're dissatisfied maybe just lazy and in any case you don't matter because you are very likely to just stay home in future elections as well.
Oh an then there is the matter of all those other state and local election which probably do have a more immediate impact on your life. Many of those races don't even have stated party affiliations and third parties win those elections often, when there are. Chances are there were candidates there you could have supported. Those are the guys that if elected often do move on up to higher offices. You could be doing you're part by giving good people their first political opportunities and derailing the careers of the bad ones. When you just stay home you are shirking your civic duties to be informed and participate in the process and yes when you do that you end up not mattering.
With that let me who voted for the other say I sincerely hope Obama and those who support his polices are turned out of office en-mass in the next round of elections.
You still have not wrapped your head around these modern asymmetrical warfare and terrorism concepts have you?
If you were fighting some other power and the objective was to disrupt their industrial efforts enough that you can invade an size the Capitol then you are correct these drones are not a very effective weapon.
If you are trying to make some political point and impose costs on another society and your an amorphous group like Al-queda then you could create some real misery. All you'd need to do is get hold of some anthrax spores and it could be a bad scene. Put a kilo on 20 or 30 of these little air craft and drop that tiny payload off at sites all long the coast and you'd create major panic.
Anthrax is not going to be very effective delivered that way you'd be lucky to infect a dozen people but that does not matter. Looks what two men a 20 year old car and rifle were able to do to Virgina a couple years ago? People were afraid to leave their homes!
This is a stupid argument being made by the lawyer. Its a basic economic problem that all manufactures face not just high tech.
You want to produce the wonder widgets. You have the facility to produce 100K widgets per year. The widgets could be build more cheaply if you make a capital investment and expand your facility, this will mean a higher percentage of the manufacturing cost would be variable, as you accounting, sales, and other front office remain the same, upkeep costs on a large plant probably don't scale linearly with plant size, etc etc. If you did this you could charge a lower price.
Ahh but what if someone develops a super wonder widget that makes wonder widgets obsolete and what if you can't easily retool your wonder widget plat to make super wonder widgets? Why you would never be able to recoup the costs! So you have a decision to make! You either invest and expand or sell fewer widgets at a higher price.
Perhaps your competition decides to expand they are ultimately going to be able to undercut you on price and will take away your market share for the remainder of the product cycle, and you might never get it back. Than again it could turn out to be a very poor investment for them if that super wonder widget is devised early on and you have capital on the sidelines available get your new plant ready. Your copetitor might go bankrupt with a plant they can nologer use, it will have been a poor investment.
Something has happen this past decade where for some reason investors think they are entitlted to profits when they make good calls but should be protected from losses when they make bad ones; THATS NOT HOW CAPITALISM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOLKS! You win some you lose some; if you work hard and smart you should win more than others nore than you loose/.
I am with you on thee through 4, and you probably should or are doing 1 because you want to be able to help the user put the right information in fields, check onblur an give some useful feedback but spending allot of time on careful input validation at the client level with web is pretty pointless. Anyone doing something malicious does not have to use your interface at all.
Don't you mean the late 50s? COBOL was more or less an attempt at natural language and arguably one of the most successful ones.