The reason Sun died mainly is that 100 dead-cheap PC blades with linux and "cloudy" deployment systems and "cloudy" work-sharing and fault-tolerance middleware makes a more reliable server infrastructure than 5 or 10 Suns.
One thing thing that makes me sad about this is that app devices with touchscreens etc. are largely about consuming content as opposed to producing it. Sure, you can produce chirps, squawks, tweets whatever they're called, like a hungry cookaburra chick (I want to be FED!!)
But no-one is going to write the next great scientific paper, the next insightful essay, or the next great American novel one tweet, one google-search, or one mobile coupon at a time, are they?
Everyone's goal should be to produce more quality stuff/experience/knowledge/wisdom than they consume. Or at least to be occasionally in output mode instead of tribe-following input mode with a channel changer.
When you are ready, study the more formal parts of modern philosophy (epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science), to acquire the meta-level skills necessary to understand what knowledge is, and what its properties are, before you try to load up on too much specific knowledge.
Also, study some westernized writings on Zen philosophy, to the level at which you understand its relationship to the other above-mentioned aspects of modern philosophy. When you understand the significance of the dividing of the world by the cutting strokes of the knife, you may be ready to start learning a few specifics.
When visualizing global environment metrics, it is crucial to be able to see time-lapse imagery/maps.
For example, it would be very illuminating to see a time-lapse of forest cover globally over the last 1000 years. This would allow us to properly gauge human impact on forest eco-systems.
The older data would have to be created from approximations based on historical anecdote, the mid-twentieth century data from paper maps in government offices, and the recent stuff from satellite imagery.
But putting it all together to see the trend over significant amounts of time is what would give use the insight into what is happening and how we are trending.
1. Slap a massive carbon tax on fossil fuel electricity production.
2. Wind farms all up the Eastern seaboard
3. Solar all over e.g Nevada
4. Look up the Sahara Solar Breeder project.
By the way, you might consider substituting "those who care about Earth's ecosystems and humanity's future" for the term "environmentalists" in your post. And of course substitute "those who don't give a rat's@ss for Earth's ecosystems or humanity's future" for those proud transam owners and other non-environmentalists of whom you speak.
1. Amazon, a commercial cloud hosting provider, has, it appears acted pre-emptively and capriciously to take down content based on political pressure from a single government. 2. This has been done before any court has ruled on the legality of the distribution of the content in this particular case. 3. Legal precedents, such as USA vs New York Times, indicate that, at least according to current precedent, this distribution should not be presumed illegal.
This rights-violating conduct by a commercial cloud hosting provider demonstrates the need for a viable alternative solution for the hosting of controversial content. It is time that software geeks interested in a generally open information climate devote considerable effort to creating a non-commercially controlled, decentralized-responsibility, globally distributed encrypted information infrastructure layer. Something along the lines of freenet but easier (dead simple, no config) for anyone at all to host.
What? Of course there's a reason for conspiracy. This guy is one of the US Government's least favourite people. The US has an organization called the CIA. They f**k over people whenever it serves the cause. They use all kinds of tactics, up to assassination. This guy is comparatively lucky so far.
I don't know the particulars of the case, but a major discrediting of this guy (and thus his organization) is consistent with an expected multi-pronged response to attempt to prevent/minimize impact of the leaks.
Are you sure that the experimental extension being referred to in RFC2581 is not the one that was later formalized as RFC 3390, whose larger limits are still being violated apparently by Microsoft and Google and several others.
Also, the RFC 2581 standard noted that "a NON-STANDARD EXPERIMENTAL TCP extension allows...bigger"
Experimentation might be permissible, but vast-scale operational use of the non-standard extension by Google & Microsoft cannot be described as expermentation, and therefore is clearly not contemplated, nor countenanced, by RFC 2581.
Unless you believe that Japanese "scientific whaling" is actually thousands and thousands of experiments on whales, that is.
You do realize that if servers on the Internet start ignoring Internet standards (RFCs) as a matter of usual practice that there is a very good chance the net will, if not grind to a halt, develop instability, the probability of unreliability, poor performance, isolated unreachable islands etc.
This is a clear case of the tragedy of the commons. Only the general adherence to RFCs and effective shunning mechanisms have prevented the tragedy from occurring so far.
Ships (per ton of stuff moved a certain distance) are much much smaller emitters of greenhouse gases than cars and trucks.
The article is talking about particulate pollution etc. It is really, really important to know that particulate pollution is not really related to causing global warming.
It is a common tactic by the automobile industry to point out how little particulate pollution they emit nowadays. The term they use is "tailpipe emissions". This is a deliberate PR strategy (misdirection) to distract from the fact that today's automobiles emit more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than ever before, because their fuel economy has gotten worse, in terms of fleet averages.
Physical location of information storage is irrelevant.
What matters (and what should matter legally) is who has control of and access rights to the information. That is the person who is in possession of the information and determining its disposition.
Whether a person chooses to manage their personal or personally owned information on a local hard drive, a usb stick, or a rented chunk of the cloud ought to be completely irrelevant.
If law is going to rule on uses of internet architecture, law had better understand fundamental concepts of internet architecture, such as virtual private networks and idependent security realms.
Emissions per square kilometer will result in increased economic migration to lower population-density countries (such as, say, the entire west.)
Why should I stay around in a crowded place being held down to a lower standard of living by a lower personal emissions cap?
Emissions per capita is the only fair way to do it, unless you are saying some people, depending on their place of origin, are inherently worth less than other people, and that they don't deserve the same rights as other people. Is that what you're saying?
To which "we" do you refer? To which constitution? We are talking about the WORLDWIDE web here. I'm pretty sure the constitution you have is not the same one I have. The web is bigger than the USA. It wasn't even invented in the USA (Except for Al Gore's part of it, of course;-)
Maybe Tim Berners-Lee, and W3C, can chair a process of drafting a constitution protecting at least the minimum standards of acceptable behavior of actors and intermediaries on the web. Perhaps this would result in a lowest-common-denominator set of standards, but maybe that would be better than nothing.
What is it (Aspergers or what?) that prevents people explaining in a couple of English sentences or a short paragraph what it is that the few lines of script do. Not the details, just the gist!
I am technical. I could write an OS (if imprisoned & pressed). But I don't have time right now to read enough subtle command option man pages to get to the bottom of the precious little aha! briliant! insight.
Explain it, simply, please. That's what the (natural) language was created for.
Paradoxically, the Chinese leadership's need to quell even the slightest expression of dissent, or the slightest expression of free-thinkng, simply telegraphs the inherent weakness and illegitimacy of their system of government. If the government is truly legitimate, is truly based on the consent of the people, then it does not require such measures. The most legitimate form of government is that which requires the least repression of individual expression and will while still being able to function in a stable manner.
There is an inherent problem with free-form linguistic input to computer systems. If it doesn't have near-perfect comprehension of a wide range of topics, it's frustrating as hell. It's like talking to a person that is mostly there, but has brain lesions that wiped out part of their memory or frontal lobe, making them oblivious to some common concepts and ways of speaking.
It's directly analogous to the "uncanny gulf" between a near-perfect computer-graphics person and a real person. It freaks the hell out of people.
I'm not saying that natural language interfaces are always going to be a bad idea, but the system underneath needs true comprehension of the world and the motives of speakers, and of many ways of expressing the same thing. The bar is very, very high.
>Maybe you are too young to have seen this yourself, but after a few years, most URLs are dead. With >gittorrent, ideally with a DHT sprinkled on top, this might change in the longer run
Actually I said URI, not URL, and I mean standard name-based addressing i.e. a DHT concept. URIs that are stably findable (by DHT-like search processes, or maybe just google search) and are a function of the official name and version identification of a verified piece of content will be of growing importance going forward.
>To summarize: There are shedloads of docs out there describing what I just wrote. If devs don't read >them and prepare shitty software, that's no different from them not getting the language they write it. >It's _their fault_. The fact that Windows made them think in static systems is MS's fault. If they don't >re-learn, it's theirs. It is _not_ the fault of the system they are abusing.
The point is, if you can document the best-practices convention, why not just enforce it? That becomes much much more powerful as a tool for taming the complexity of the combinatorics of minor choice differences.
>Finally, you did not even touch on the fact that the ability to compile from source is what makes the >FLOSS movement so strong.
No. A common agreement about where to put code, depending on name, origin, version, and variant, can be used for source code equally as it can be for compiled linkable library objects. Java went partway down this road. Maven includes this concept too, although it allows too much gratuitous variation in where things can be, so it requires horrendously complex dependency files.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason Sun died mainly is that 100 dead-cheap PC blades with linux and "cloudy" deployment
systems and "cloudy" work-sharing and fault-tolerance middleware
makes a more reliable server infrastructure than 5 or 10 Suns.
One thing thing that makes me sad about this is that app devices with touchscreens etc. are largely about consuming content as opposed to producing it.
Sure, you can produce chirps, squawks, tweets whatever they're called, like a hungry cookaburra chick (I want to be FED!!)
But no-one is going to write the next great scientific paper, the next insightful essay, or the next great American novel one tweet, one google-search,
or one mobile coupon at a time, are they?
Everyone's goal should be to produce more quality stuff/experience/knowledge/wisdom than they consume. Or at least to be occasionally in output mode instead of tribe-following input mode with a channel changer.
These devices aren't going to help.
When you are ready, study the more formal parts of modern philosophy
(epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science), to acquire the
meta-level skills necessary to understand what knowledge is, and what
its properties are, before you try to load up on too much specific knowledge.
Also, study some westernized writings on Zen philosophy, to the level at which you
understand its relationship to the other above-mentioned aspects of modern
philosophy. When you understand the significance of the dividing of the world
by the cutting strokes of the knife, you may be ready to start learning a few specifics.
When visualizing global environment metrics, it is crucial to be able to see time-lapse imagery/maps.
For example, it would be very illuminating to see a time-lapse of forest cover globally over the last
1000 years. This would allow us to properly gauge human impact on forest eco-systems.
The older data would have to be created from approximations based on historical anecdote, the mid-twentieth
century data from paper maps in government offices, and the recent stuff from satellite imagery.
But putting it all together to see the trend over significant amounts of time is what would give use the
insight into what is happening and how we are trending.
...with a more limited and distorted spun-for-the-public view of the intrigues of the world....
Uncle Sam wants you for the State Department!
Where will we get the electric power?
1. Slap a massive carbon tax on fossil fuel electricity production.
2. Wind farms all up the Eastern seaboard
3. Solar all over e.g Nevada
4. Look up the Sahara Solar Breeder project.
By the way, you might consider substituting
"those who care about Earth's ecosystems and
humanity's future" for the term "environmentalists"
in your post.
And of course substitute "those who don't give a rat's@ss for Earth's ecosystems or humanity's future" for those proud transam owners and other non-environmentalists of whom you speak.
Truth in Labelling, I say!
That would save them the cost of the engine and all it's secondary components (cooling system, exhaust system, etc etc)
1. Amazon, a commercial cloud hosting provider, has, it appears acted pre-emptively and capriciously
to take down content based on political pressure from a single government.
2. This has been done before any court has ruled on the legality of the distribution of the content in this
particular case.
3. Legal precedents, such as USA vs New York Times, indicate that, at least according to
current precedent, this distribution should not be presumed illegal.
This rights-violating conduct by a commercial cloud hosting provider demonstrates the need for
a viable alternative solution for the hosting of controversial content. It is time that software geeks
interested in a generally open information climate devote considerable effort to creating a
non-commercially controlled, decentralized-responsibility, globally distributed encrypted information
infrastructure layer. Something along the lines of freenet but easier (dead simple, no config)
for anyone at all to host.
What? Of course there's a reason for conspiracy. This guy is one of the US Government's least favourite people.
The US has an organization called the CIA. They f**k over people whenever it serves the cause.
They use all kinds of tactics, up to assassination. This guy is comparatively lucky so far.
I don't know the particulars of the case, but a major discrediting of this guy (and thus his organization)
is consistent with an expected multi-pronged response to attempt to prevent/minimize impact of the leaks.
Do you know these women were not paid to lie?
Are you sure that the experimental extension being referred to in RFC2581 is not the one that was later formalized as RFC 3390, whose
larger limits are still being violated apparently by Microsoft and Google and several others.
Also, the RFC 2581 standard noted that "a NON-STANDARD EXPERIMENTAL TCP extension allows...bigger"
Experimentation might be permissible, but vast-scale operational use of the non-standard extension by Google & Microsoft cannot
be described as expermentation, and therefore is clearly not contemplated, nor countenanced, by RFC 2581.
Unless you believe that Japanese "scientific whaling" is actually thousands and thousands of experiments on whales, that is.
You do realize that if servers on the Internet start ignoring Internet standards (RFCs) as a matter of usual
practice that there is a very good chance the net will, if not grind to a halt, develop instability, the probability
of unreliability, poor performance, isolated unreachable islands etc.
This is a clear case of the tragedy of the commons. Only the general adherence to RFCs and effective
shunning mechanisms have prevented the tragedy from occurring so far.
Research on reading typically comes up with results like the following
(google it for more details)
- Longer line lengths generally facilitate faster reading speeds.
- Shorter line lengths result in increased comprehension.
- The optimal number of characters per line is between 45 and 65.
(some studies say 66 to 70, but you get the point.)
Ships (per ton of stuff moved a certain distance) are much much smaller emitters of greenhouse gases than
cars and trucks.
The article is talking about particulate pollution etc. It is really, really important to know that particulate
pollution is not really related to causing global warming.
It is a common tactic by the automobile industry to point out how little particulate pollution they emit nowadays.
The term they use is "tailpipe emissions".
This is a deliberate PR strategy (misdirection) to distract from the fact that today's automobiles emit more
greenhouse gases per passenger mile than ever before, because their fuel economy has gotten worse,
in terms of fleet averages.
Physical location of information storage is irrelevant.
What matters (and what should matter legally) is who has control of
and access rights to the information. That is the person who is
in possession of the information and determining its disposition.
Whether a person chooses to manage their personal or personally owned
information on a local hard drive, a usb stick, or a rented chunk of the
cloud ought to be completely irrelevant.
If law is going to rule on uses of internet architecture, law had
better understand fundamental concepts of internet architecture,
such as virtual private networks and idependent security realms.
Emissions per square kilometer will result in increased economic migration to lower population-density countries (such as, say, the entire west.)
Why should I stay around in a crowded place being held down to a lower standard of living by a lower personal emissions cap?
Emissions per capita is the only fair way to do it, unless you are saying some people, depending on their place of origin,
are inherently worth less than other people, and that they don't deserve the same rights as other people. Is that what you're saying?
Then it must be destroyed! Down with those whose money shepherds the opinions of irrational, tyrannical majorities!
There. Fixed that for you.
To which "we" do you refer? To which constitution? We are talking about the WORLDWIDE web here. ;-)
I'm pretty sure the constitution you have is not the same one I have. The web is bigger than the USA.
It wasn't even invented in the USA (Except for Al Gore's part of it, of course
Maybe Tim Berners-Lee, and W3C, can chair a process of drafting a constitution protecting
at least the minimum standards of acceptable behavior of actors and intermediaries on the
web. Perhaps this would result in a lowest-common-denominator set of standards, but maybe
that would be better than nothing.
Regarding TFA on the few lines patch.
What is it (Aspergers or what?) that prevents people explaining in a couple of
English sentences or a short paragraph what it is that the few lines of script
do. Not the details, just the gist!
I am technical. I could write an OS (if imprisoned & pressed).
But I don't have time right now to read enough subtle command option man pages
to get to the bottom of the precious little aha! briliant! insight.
Explain it, simply, please. That's what the (natural) language was created for.
Paradoxically, the Chinese leadership's need to quell
even the slightest expression of dissent, or the slightest expression of
free-thinkng, simply telegraphs the inherent weakness and illegitimacy
of their system of government. If the government is truly legitimate, is
truly based on the consent of the people, then it does not require such
measures. The most legitimate form of government is that which requires
the least repression of individual expression and will while still being able
to function in a stable manner.
No. It's called dying with your sword in your hand. There's a certain nobility there, if the cause is just.
There is an inherent problem with free-form linguistic input to computer systems.
If it doesn't have near-perfect comprehension of a wide range of topics, it's
frustrating as hell. It's like talking to a person that is mostly there, but has
brain lesions that wiped out part of their memory or frontal lobe, making them
oblivious to some common concepts and ways of speaking.
It's directly analogous to the "uncanny gulf" between a near-perfect computer-graphics person
and a real person. It freaks the hell out of people.
I'm not saying that natural language interfaces are always going to be a bad idea, but
the system underneath needs true comprehension of the world and the motives of speakers,
and of many ways of expressing the same thing. The bar is very, very high.
"the Aerial Regional-Scale Environment Surveyor...Its primary mission is to sniff out potential microbial-life-generating gases like methane,
So logically, its primary sensor instrument will be called the AR-SES Sniffer.
>Maybe you are too young to have seen this yourself, but after a few years, most URLs are dead. With >gittorrent, ideally with a DHT sprinkled on top, this might change in the longer run
Actually I said URI, not URL, and I mean standard name-based addressing i.e. a DHT concept. URIs that are stably findable (by DHT-like search processes, or maybe just google search) and are a function of the official name and version identification of a verified piece of content will be of growing importance going forward.
>To summarize: There are shedloads of docs out there describing what I just wrote. If devs don't read >them and prepare shitty software, that's no different from them not getting the language they write it. >It's _their fault_. The fact that Windows made them think in static systems is MS's fault. If they don't >re-learn, it's theirs. It is _not_ the fault of the system they are abusing.
The point is, if you can document the best-practices convention, why not just enforce it?
That becomes much much more powerful as a tool for taming the complexity of the combinatorics
of minor choice differences.
>Finally, you did not even touch on the fact that the ability to compile from source is what makes the >FLOSS movement so strong.
No. A common agreement about where to put code, depending on name, origin, version, and variant, can be used for source code equally as it can be for compiled linkable library objects. Java went partway down this road. Maven includes this concept too, although it allows too much gratuitous variation in where things can be, so it requires horrendously complex dependency files.
For large-scale library interoperability and code-sharing without the need for a complex package manager.