25% seems like a fair enough amount to spend on keeping people alive.
How is the argument that the government should not spend tax money on social services anything other than contempt for the old, the sick, and the poor? I can understand some people may feel no solidarity with their fellow human beings and value keeping their money in their pocket above anything else; but it always surprises me when they admit it out loud.
Creating a postgresql user who has the ability to create databases makes that user a superuser of ALL databases. This makes postgresql tricky to use in a mass virtual hosting environment.
I don't see the difficulty. All you'd need to do is to offer a place in a secure web admin area, *outside* of the main database managemenet area, where users can create and delete 'their' databases. That mini-webapp could have authorisation via the root user, but would be limited to doing only that one thing. Then, for normal access (phpPgAdmin/etc or the command line), the user would be authenticated with his/her regular database user.
As I recall from the last time I had to use Plesk (one of the more common admin web consoles) for a client, that's the way it worked anyway.
The syntactic (as opposed to architectural) differences between Java and C++ are largely based on the fact that while C++ has backward compatibility with C as one of its core aims, Java has made no such attempt.
Therefore the comparison (Java vs. C) is a valid one. I would argue that C++'s OO capabilities are crippled by being tied to the legacy of C.
It is rather disturbing, yes. Note that the USSR was no more a Marxist system than the USA is a democratic one. In both cases, ideology is (or was) a cover for the aggressive advancement of vested interests.
I think your use of the word 'wisdom' is quite telling -- another poster used it too. Unlike a less emotive word like 'knowledge' or 'experience', it has a magical connotation.. a way of avoiding argument?
You'll also note that I'm not advocating any particular course of action -- I didn't mention proportional representation. Since I mentioned the electoral college, you decided to use that to build your straw man with -- easier than taking on what I was really saying...
People who talk about the founding fathers are often campaigning to preserve the true republic. As things stand now we have a democratically elected communist state. Given the amount of control the federal government has over the GDP directly (federal budget) and indirectly (regulatory), the federal government serves more as a redistribution system than as a republic.
Redistribution? What? You guys don't even have free universal healthcare. Are you seriously trying to make out that the USA is somehow a socialist entity?
It's weird -- the Left is so non-existant in America, you guys see anything that doesn't conform to either 'libertarian' (i.e. the negative freedom of the Right) or 'conversative' (the Right, with no dressing-up) you start yelling communist. Crazy.
I think I trust any of their judgement more than I do any of our political "leaders" that we have today.
That's up to you. I suggest you don't trust any of them and try measuring every statement and theory against your own best judgement. Once you let patriotism cloud your critical faculties, you're letting yourself down -- and your country too, probably (not that I've ever really thought about such matters myself, being a multi-citizenshipped nomad....)
The "founding fathers" were more or less revolutionaries.
Definitely less. Tax evaders might be a better term. Compare what they did (establish a post-colonial society that carried forward all the old hiearchy, just severing the link to London at the top.. don't forget they explicitly set up the electoral system as a check and balance *against* democracy, because they didn't trust the common man to choose wisely.. kinda like the patronising Leninist idea of 'false consciousness') to the real revolution, however imperfect, that was happening in France around the same time (I'm bad with dates, I know).
You're making the mistake many liberals make by confusing Bush's pandering to the conservative "Bible-Belt," with his personal beliefs. In actuality, GWB--and the Bush family in general--are quite religiously moderate.
Who cares? If he acts like a zealot, then to all intents and purposes he is one. Also, moderate on what scale?
What always confuses me, as an outsider, is why so often in discussions about the political system in America, the opinions of the 'founding fathers' are invoked as a standard by which the current situation can be gauged in terms of its democratic legitimacy. Who cares what they thought, or what their purposes were in setting up obscure systems like the electoral college? Mythologising the process by which the system was designed obscures the fact that the system, like all systems, is imperfect, arose from the given political circumstances of the day, and was designed to protect the interests of certain groups over others. The guys you're talking about didn't introduce democracy. The idea of democracy is thousands of years old. The actual *practise* of democracy only got off the ground once women got the vote: in the USA, that was in around 1920 for federal elections, I believe.
Bullshit. Google, like any company, is motivated entirely by self interest (their repudiation of 'evil' is childish and beside the point. They are not letting you use their beta service because they are nice people: they are doing it because it makes good sense for them to do it. GMail is a way of drawing in a potentially vast amount of advetising revenue through targetted marketing. No one is doing you a favour here: this is business.
I don't have the time to waste hacking GMail, but if others do, I don't see a problem with it. Why do you care? Unless you work for Google. I have a GMail account but I don't see anything amazing about it. The threading and search is nice, some cool concepts; but certainly nothing that I don't expect to be cloned elsewhere by the time it leaves beta. Stop treating GMail like manna from heaven -- it's just an email account, and it snoops on your mail, at that.
It makes me wonder why it takes so much longer for Microsoft with all its resources to go from one beta to the next, even with all the software that has to be tested.
I assume you're referring to beta versions of Windows? If so, remember that Windows is a kernel, window manager, desktop environment, set of APIs, blah blah blah, all in one. Imagine trying to change versions of not just FreeBSD itself, but also X.org, KDE/Gnome, and probably quite a few apps that aren't part of the OS but come bundled with it (eg Konqueror).. that would be a better comparison.
Of course the other reason would be bugs being shallower with more eyes etc, closed vs. OSS. But I'm inclined to think that the more significant contrast is OS-as-monolith vs. Unix-style small, atomic utilities. Not talking monolithic vs. micro kernels here.. I mean the OS as a whole, or in MicroSoft's case, as a product.
because the interface doesn't look like anything that he or she seen before, the user wouldn't expect "well, it worked here in this environment, so it should work the same way here."
Great point. I have seen people criticising Gnome / KDE for deviations from what they are used to in Windows.. and then the same people have no problem with similar choices made in the design of OS X. And these are people that are used to Windows and Linux, not Mac freaks...
Of course I've used tabbed browsing, like anyone that's reading Slashdot:P Thanks for clearing up the point about window redrawing, I hadn't really considered that.
Tabbed browsing allows the user to view multiple sites within a single browser window, saving system resources that would otherwise be used by multiple browser launches.
.. can any Windows developers shed any light on this? My assumption is that it's bullshit, and the chrome for a new browser window (not a new instance of the app) would be roughly equivelant to the resources needed for a new tab. 'Multiple browser launches' are not necessary (unless you want a fresh session).
Surely even a Pretty Good Hacker would find herself (not necessarily female, but his/her is so ugly) would only rarely find herself in a position where she needs to modify her old code so it works in a slightly different way. I am no Great Hacker, but I do take satisfaction from situations where this looks like it's necessary, but really it's just a matter of choosing the right level of abstraction at which to build the functionality..
Tinkering with the code is something that hardly anyone actually does, except for the core developers.
Doesn't this depend on how the application is built? The Mozilla codebase, for instance, uses a lot of JavaScript and XUL.. which is quite easy to tinker with. I submitted a patch myself the other day. It didn't get used -- someone came up with a better one -- but that's not the point. Probably only a small minority of an app's users can read enough C++ to locate and identify a bug in the codebase.. but nowadays kids are learning scripting languages at school.
Why would it be worthwhile having people click adverts when it would be trivial to knock up a bot to trawl the web and 'click' them instead -- hugely faster? I can't believe the pay can be so low as to make it worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
25% seems like a fair enough amount to spend on keeping people alive.
How is the argument that the government should not spend tax money on social services anything other than contempt for the old, the sick, and the poor? I can understand some people may feel no solidarity with their fellow human beings and value keeping their money in their pocket above anything else; but it always surprises me when they admit it out loud.
To me (I grew up in Europe) these are quite tragic questions for someone in a rich country to have to ask himself:
No bugs found here. But I was sad to see the 'Cookies are delicious delicacies' line disappear from Prefs.
I don't see the difficulty. All you'd need to do is to offer a place in a secure web admin area, *outside* of the main database managemenet area, where users can create and delete 'their' databases. That mini-webapp could have authorisation via the root user, but would be limited to doing only that one thing. Then, for normal access (phpPgAdmin/etc or the command line), the user would be authenticated with his/her regular database user.
As I recall from the last time I had to use Plesk (one of the more common admin web consoles) for a client, that's the way it worked anyway.
C++ is a superset of C.
The syntactic (as opposed to architectural) differences between Java and C++ are largely based on the fact that while C++ has backward compatibility with C as one of its core aims, Java has made no such attempt.
Therefore the comparison (Java vs. C) is a valid one. I would argue that C++'s OO capabilities are crippled by being tied to the legacy of C.
It is rather disturbing, yes. Note that the USSR was no more a Marxist system than the USA is a democratic one. In both cases, ideology is (or was) a cover for the aggressive advancement of vested interests.
So what -- you're hundreds of years old? :P
I think your use of the word 'wisdom' is quite telling -- another poster used it too. Unlike a less emotive word like 'knowledge' or 'experience', it has a magical connotation.. a way of avoiding argument?
You'll also note that I'm not advocating any particular course of action -- I didn't mention proportional representation. Since I mentioned the electoral college, you decided to use that to build your straw man with -- easier than taking on what I was really saying ...
What always confuses me, as an outsider, is why so often in discussions about the political system in America, the opinions of the 'founding fathers' are invoked as a standard by which the current situation can be gauged in terms of its democratic legitimacy. Who cares what they thought, or what their purposes were in setting up obscure systems like the electoral college? Mythologising the process by which the system was designed obscures the fact that the system, like all systems, is imperfect, arose from the given political circumstances of the day, and was designed to protect the interests of certain groups over others. The guys you're talking about didn't introduce democracy. The idea of democracy is thousands of years old. The actual *practise* of democracy only got off the ground once women got the vote: in the USA, that was in around 1920 for federal elections, I believe.
Who are you, the Free Software police? :P
.... and the spam rolls in .... :P
Bullshit. Google, like any company, is motivated entirely by self interest (their repudiation of 'evil' is childish and beside the point. They are not letting you use their beta service because they are nice people: they are doing it because it makes good sense for them to do it. GMail is a way of drawing in a potentially vast amount of advetising revenue through targetted marketing. No one is doing you a favour here: this is business.
I don't have the time to waste hacking GMail, but if others do, I don't see a problem with it. Why do you care? Unless you work for Google. I have a GMail account but I don't see anything amazing about it. The threading and search is nice, some cool concepts; but certainly nothing that I don't expect to be cloned elsewhere by the time it leaves beta. Stop treating GMail like manna from heaven -- it's just an email account, and it snoops on your mail, at that.
I think the poster was being sarcastic.
I assume you're referring to beta versions of Windows? If so, remember that Windows is a kernel, window manager, desktop environment, set of APIs, blah blah blah, all in one. Imagine trying to change versions of not just FreeBSD itself, but also X.org, KDE/Gnome, and probably quite a few apps that aren't part of the OS but come bundled with it (eg Konqueror) .. that would be a better comparison.
Of course the other reason would be bugs being shallower with more eyes etc, closed vs. OSS. But I'm inclined to think that the more significant contrast is OS-as-monolith vs. Unix-style small, atomic utilities. Not talking monolithic vs. micro kernels here .. I mean the OS as a whole, or in MicroSoft's case, as a product.
Great point. I have seen people criticising Gnome / KDE for deviations from what they are used to in Windows .. and then the same people have no problem with similar choices made in the design of OS X. And these are people that are used to Windows and Linux, not Mac freaks ...
Of course I've used tabbed browsing, like anyone that's reading Slashdot :P Thanks for clearing up the point about window redrawing, I hadn't really considered that.
You should have a backup anyway. Is it Lycos' answer to the (cringe) geocities?
Surely even a Pretty Good Hacker would find herself (not necessarily female, but his/her is so ugly) would only rarely find herself in a position where she needs to modify her old code so it works in a slightly different way. I am no Great Hacker, but I do take satisfaction from situations where this looks like it's necessary, but really it's just a matter of choosing the right level of abstraction at which to build the functionality ..
Doesn't this depend on how the application is built? The Mozilla codebase, for instance, uses a lot of JavaScript and XUL .. which is quite easy to tinker with. I submitted a patch myself the other day. It didn't get used -- someone came up with a better one -- but that's not the point. Probably only a small minority of an app's users can read enough C++ to locate and identify a bug in the codebase .. but nowadays kids are learning scripting languages at school.
Why would it be worthwhile having people click adverts when it would be trivial to knock up a bot to trawl the web and 'click' them instead -- hugely faster? I can't believe the pay can be so low as to make it worthwhile.
How would you propose changing it?
If there is no public contact information, then how can the domain name owner be contacted?
You have to realise that whois isn't set up for your benefit. It's for the benefit of someone wanting to know who is the owner of your domain name.