1) As you say, this could potentionally be a huge index.
2) The software methods are probably still being played with.
3) Perhaps the value of the index itself in question. For example, Google probably does not want to index all the porn ads, gif edges, etc. Think about number 1 again. This could be a potentional resource sink. I don't know if Google has made a cost-benefit relationship out of this one yet, so refreshing the index may be viewed as a waste.
4) Images are more controversial than text. Google has a public image now.
From the article, this seems far less targeted publicity and more an expression of a community of users. The latter is more genuine and true to spirit, but the former is arguably more effective.
Personally, I would go with the targeted, simple approach. Make people think about Firefox - forget a list of names, 1.0 version, or the MS monopoly. Communicate for your audience, not for yourself.
In that same vein, I would use code which has somewhat unpredicatable and incremental behavior. It is much harder to detect code which alters data seemingly at random, and sometimes not at all.
Changing a small amount of data with minimal condition at pseudorandom intervals is practically an intentional bug. Of course, if I can expect a certain threshold of data, I might be able to add a statistical leaning into the program that favors a particular outcome. Of course, this is the point of the contest. The point is, blind trust is no trust at all.
This has nothing to do with unemployment, at least not directly.
Walmart is powerful enough to set prices on labor. As there is a global surplus of labor, the price of the majority of labor declines, excluding sectors with hot money and the elite.
As it is, there is good evidence Walmart already abuses its advantage over labor in the U.S. and China. Walmart will work, no doubt, to devalue labor globally. This in turn, will affect the entire United States, cutting into the taxbase significantly at state and Federal levels, lowering investment, and decreasing the already abysmal savings rate. From there, macroeconomic realities will take hold.
The greatest advantage the U.S. has in the global economy is a glut of consumers. Walmart undermines this advantage by exploiting it. In the process, labor is extracted below market value. This is a socio-economic concern, which causes human suffering at the bottom. Just because someone is not at the bottom does not mean they should not have concern for those who are. Afterall, aren't we all involved in mankind?
GDP calculations, especially with regards to China, are under debate. GDP doesn't measure a lot of important things. Basically, every argument against GDP as a vital metric can be applied to China. Standard of living and environmental degradation especially apply here.
Also if you're calculating in terms of GWP, then CO2 is baseline (actually 1). NO2 contributes, on this scale, 310x more to global warming vs. C02. Brings a different perspective if the scale is appropriate.
I basically agree with your post. To add, it is unclear when China will pursue international relations as a developed country. However, it is likely not to be any time soon. China recieves special WTO status, World Bank favor, and Kyoto perks for their current undeveloped, non-market status. Therefore, China's GDP may well rise while issues like human health suffer.
Many people have had AOL for a long time. For some their email address is @aol.com and that is the address they have passed on to everyone (this is a big lockin). For others, AOL may have been their first ISP and introduction to the Internet. Finally, many are simply complacent. AOL is not for trend-setters or the technical elite. It for those who don't care or know anything better.
Not to sour the joke, but in any problem-domain booting is literally the first requirement and no-where near the last. You have to think about the whole runtime existence of your program.
It's like caring for a person's health throughout their life. You don't give a baby a checkup and then never look back. You can't just reboot the child - somethings have to work and you better have tested some of those core units. If problems come up, you better fix them now or have a good plan for later.
As the child grows, you lay off the majority of testing and start to the trust the code a little more. But, problems will still come up and threaten the overall health. Your kid/app will likely find itself in situations you never envisioned.
Re:Why MySQL? create user foo createdb;
on
Beginning PHP and MySQL
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"...what makes a good set of language bindings, a good database interface, and in general a good programmer experience."
Amateurs can get by with minimal investment of time. Demand for simple scripting features like forums has been on the rise for years, but the demand has a low-price point. To meet this demand, a massive supply of low-end webhosting hit the market. Now the amateurs have a lot of ready-to-go PHP scripts to use and dirt-cheap webhosting. They have what they and the majority of the Internet websites can understand and want. Something like market equilbrium I suppose.
"where's my C++/Firebird book? Or my Java/PostgreSQL book? Or my Cobol/Oracle book?"
C++ is not even comparably friendly to PHP. No one has heard of Firebird. Java is much more than most people need - same with PostgreSQL. Oracle costs money and most people don't know what Cobol is.
It's not about being the best. It's about being easy enough, cheap enough, and popular enough.
If people cared, voting turnout would not be a problem because the political landscape would arguably be more representative and reflective of their views.
When people do not care, the voting options which might appeal to them dry up, candidates and parties start fighting over the same words, and they are left with the "lesser of two evils". The majority of voters consolidate into one massive, unmoved and unmotivated block. It is hard to appeal to apathy, though sensationalism, propoganda, war, terrorism, etc. sometimes garner attention.
This is a vicious cycle. As people have been apathetic in the past, their influence on party politics and candidate selection has dwindled and parties have consolidated into what we have today. It is, basically, an advertising campaign, designed to reach that undecided American block by simply generalizing and flashing names and insults . Issues are secondary, because no one really knows what issue will make an apathetic American vote. Hopefully, something sensational or scandalous maybe.
Incidentally, this situation is much more extreme in countries such as the Phillipines. Movie stars, talk show hosts, soup opera stars, religious right leaders, and the rich all dominate the government in elected positions. Each election is much like entertainment, though the consequences are sickening. In some ways it is like a soup opera, because the leaders are all related to one another by family, scandal, and/or business. Poverty and corruption are rampant.
For every country to have similar independent power to defend itself, superpowers cannot exist. Unions, like the EU, are the only legitimate option by your reasoning.
The market has a hard time pricing an earned trust. How much is an employee really worth vs. an outsourced hire-by-proxy? Can you really tally the cost beyond development time and projected sales into maintenance, market position, etc.? Ultimately, we just make a judgement, but it's not always the most efficient.
For example, we can trust Linux over something entirely closed source by Diebold, but Linux is free. That throws MBA logic in a loop. Yes there is ROI, TCOS, and others but at the end of the day, you're trusting where you put your money, not Linus and Co. Or are you?
This is nothing to do about actual trust - the kind you can bank on without lawyers - and everything to do with security, i.e. the control of your machine. A lot of people feel that they do not control their computers sometimes (especially if they do not understand them). Therefore they feel they do not trust them. Hence, "Trusted Computing".
I agree, money is wasted in U.S. defense spending. In fact, I don't think anyone disagrees with that - though some (not me) would argue not enough is spent. I also agree, money should go to avoiding problems. In a round about way, strike force planning may help achieve that.
The whole concept of planning is that you have identified possibilities so that you can avoid them and *maybe* even pick your poison. You can see that solution A may not work (i.e. STAR WARS) and that solution B maybe your only out. Sometimes it takes billions for leadership to come to a common sense conclusion. That is democracy.
Ideally, this planning is cheaper (in the longterm) than taking things on ad hoc, though that may not be how things turn out. In implementation, it can actually be more expensive. In theory, it seems reasonable.
About diplomacy - it is usually applied as a fix. Good diplomatic relations are a working project, but often diplomatic solutions are compromises. Partly because U.S. Presidents have their way on a lot of foreign policy. The U.S. is not about to compromise on defense. And few politicians are going to fund a compromise with any foreign power on defense. It's a political quagmire and will haunt one's career till death. On the other hand, a lot of people will get rich on trumpeting military hardware and advanced defense systems and some will even get elected. Who doesn't want the mere ability to tell the world what to do? No state can resist that.
Back to planning...
Successful planning is just as much about avoiding conflict/problems as succeeding in your goals. You have to plan to avoid conflict, especially when you are in a position of power.
It would be nice if the U.S. could simply say their goals are to avoid conflict and problems, but that is too simplistic for a superpower. There are issues the U.S. will hold a singular position on at some time in the future. This eventual (or perpetual) conflict may be a problem with their goals or how they achieve them or both. That's a few dozen flame threads right there...
"For example, with the Iraqi mess going on right now, it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times."
That would have been a lot easier in a lot of ways for the global economy and the U.S., no question. Better? You have the winning argument as things stand right now (maybe). But the scenario(s) you suggest are not the same as the current one (obviously) and neither do they necessarily have the same results (undetermined). Insurgency doesn't always do what one thinks it will. I am not justifying the Iraq war, btw.
Ignoring the quip grouping water with methane (trolling? - who knows), the rest isn't too far off. NOx emissions, for example, are in fact lowering. Just about across the board harmful emissions have been cut over time in the U.S.
"...combined with the prase 'pollutants like NO2'" NOx is a greenhouse gas, more harmful than CO2 (by GWP rating).
Also, he is right that Kyoto will shift polluting to countries not under the treaty or somehow exempt from stringent standards (like China). This could be viewed positively, in a twisted economic sense, as a redistribution of comparative advantage. In such light, Kyoto provides artificial comparative advantage to developing countries.
There are a lot of questions about global warming because 1) there is no simulation we can lay too much faith in and 2) observations are hard to aggregate and reconcile. From an economic cost/analysis, Kyoto is challenging to justify as worthy of primary international investment over things like HIV/AIDS.
BTW, I'm not against decreases in CO2 emissions, but scientific fact, policy, and global implementation are all very different things. I'm not sure we have anything that can hit all three, on any issue.
Hypertext documents have come to encompass a broad range of Internet activities which TBL did not have much to do with. The WWW by no means dominates the Internet, but it's an effective mass-communication glue. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to call it the face of the Internet (for most people at least).
Everything can be given a price. Modern (developed) economies require knowledge to efficiently allocate resources, generate wealth, and ultimately compete.
For example, the United States does not maintain it's position without extensive networks of specialization and "knowledge workers".
This is not a good question relating to global economy, IMO. I would put some other topics well above SI implementation:
international trade agenda
labor and capital flows
emerging industries and state intervention in their development
GDP estimations and how effective they are in policymaking
U.S. placement in the GWP
energy policy: what policies should the U.S. implement and to what end?
evironmental regulation on a global scale
the national debt
I would ask: "Is it the responsibility of the U.S. President to protect American jobs from overseas competition? What sort of policies do you consider stimulating to domestic job market vs. simply protectionist?"
Political scientists refer to this as institutional lock-in - those who found institutions usually lock-in their power over said bodies and other countries who wish to participate. Internationally, this is accepted by most nations.
That said, the U.N. isn't in any real stance to direct global commerce. The U.S. is a huge consumer market; China is a huge labor/production market. Sanctions against either is a huge restriction on either supply or demand networks - and we can understand that one affects the other. Quite simply, any sanction would likely be ignored, even if the security council situation somehow excluded China and/or the U.S. That would further erode the influence of the U.N., so the institution itself would likely discourage that step.
Sanctions are, arguably, a crude method of persuasion anyway because they isolate countries. Not only does every country pay the price, the people of a sanctioned country pay a much higher price. And if a government doesn't care about their people before a sanction, are they supposed to start caring under one?
While we are on the topic of China and other countries abusing their citizens, who has the right to sanction a country anyway? Arguably, that's abusing the innocent people of that country - they will pay for it with sometimes heavy economic penalties. The elite can suck wealth off the populace for a long time. The populace has little way to protect themselves.
The relation of things on GLAT also discussed or thrown out on/. instantly struck me. Not that these are unique to/., but I rarely come across them in one package.
Algorithmic haiku, "what's wrong with Unix", text adventures (the "it's 2PM... what do you do?" question and the maze one), ruminations on optimal team size, coolest hack ever, what's the next big thing for Google, a snide reference to the.com bubble, and a few math questions.
It's not clear. RTFA though so here is what I gather.
According to the article...
Each network connection has it's own configuration settings. Regardless of the settings in this dialogue window, if a file/print sharing is enabled (this is an internal windows service, which can potentionally use any network connection), then it is enabled by default on all active network connections. There are some conditions to this actually.
The article does say this applies to all network connections (dialup, DSL, etc.), but it confuses the issue:
"The PC only has to provide sharing for an internal local network and connect to the Internet via dial-up or ISDN. Users of DSL services are also affected.... Additionally, Internet Connection Sharing of the PC has to be disabled."
So ICS cannot be running, but the machine has to be serving as a network gateway? All I can gather is that there must be two (or more) network interfaces (I assume active), one of which must be on a local subnet. The firewall is default on both connections in SP2, but file/print sharing is also default on both as long as it was enabled on one in a previous configuration.
A further problem the article mentions is that when ICS is running, the button to specify sharing on only the local subnet in the Windows firewall configuration works. When ICS is deactivated, this configuration change does not work and manual changes have to be made.
The firewall is passive in this process - that is it applies local configuration as default for all interfaces.
(Again, this is what the article says in so many words...)
Many oil companies are nationalized, that is state-owned. There is no law, to my knowledge, which has scaled to that many countries with any type of practical results (at arguably impractical costs). In any kind of proceding, we might throw more than a few oil-exporting countries into civil war, not to mention oil-importing countries. We could push some countries to military action. The war in Iraq might be academic compared to the complexity of this kind of international action.
The WTO has no real mechanism or precendent against such a massive operation and international law isn't solid. Some countries critical to oil and OPEC, like Saudi Arabia, are only observer members. Therefore, no organization has real oversight, experience, the framework, or legitimacy to talk down to OPEC.
Also, the oil market is fairly inelastic - demand is not suddenly going to fall simply because price rises. OPEC obviously knows this intimately. There is room for OPEC to broker with the world and come out winning (financially).
Realistically, it's in the best interest of the world in whole to go after OPEC, but it is not in the interest of individual countries or even a group of countries, not even the U.S. to push it. Self-interest will keep coalitions from forming, and as long as oil is finite yet priced to sell, OPEC can simply bargain it's relations.
In a way, it is different, though we can still apply the same principles, we may not have the ability to realize them. And right now we don't.
By far, the biggest security problem in Windows/IE is that most users run with full priveleges (as an Administrator, like root). Forget any type of sandbox, that kind of default access lends itself to security problems.
I'm not in development on this, but I have reviewed some of the process.
USB operates with a host controller on a bus. When a device is connected on a PnP system, the controller detects it and polls it for a VID/PID (Vendor ID/Product ID), which is defined by some USB industry group at a cost (though there are some for non-commercial uses). This is polled along with a host of other descriptors. The USB Core (the sum of a controller driver, hub driver, and other things) controls this process for the PnP system. VID/PID is read from the device and referenced to a driver table, from which a driver can be loaded. Drivers are often organized by class according to function.
Descriptors, used to define device parameters, are then polled for all devices in the chain and subsequently devices are registered with the USB Core. Descriptors are formatted, so their organization is uniform, and come in several flavors. All are designed to properly integrate the device - mostly what to do and what not to do. The driver resides local to the system.
Your idea is interesting, but it still requires system setup I believe. If a USB device wishes to act as its own driver, the system needs a way to load an external driver (perhaps through a special type of driver, one which loads and wraps a driver from the device maybe). However this would be accomplished, a standard method of loading the driver needs to be developed and the generic USB driver would need to be built for all systems. Unless of course, such a driver already exists and I am ignorant of it (likely).
Yes, but the kernel and HAL work together in NT. Device drivers and the kernel access HAL.
A given HAL is platform-specific, but provides a partially platform-independent interface for the kernel/driver model. The interface is portable (though the kernel not entirely). HAL specifically abstracts CPU details into a common model.
The NT kernel controls hardware through HAL, making use of its abstraction. The kernel fulfills a large part of its work as a microkernel with messaging between HAL and the system (though of course it has many other tasks). Just as the kernel enforces certain restrictions, so HAL enforces abstraction.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably a combination of things:
1) As you say, this could potentionally be a huge index.
2) The software methods are probably still being played with.
3) Perhaps the value of the index itself in question. For example, Google probably does not want to index all the porn ads, gif edges, etc. Think about number 1 again. This could be a potentional resource sink. I don't know if Google has made a cost-benefit relationship out of this one yet, so refreshing the index may be viewed as a waste.
4) Images are more controversial than text. Google has a public image now.
From the article, this seems far less targeted publicity and more an expression of a community of users. The latter is more genuine and true to spirit, but the former is arguably more effective.
Personally, I would go with the targeted, simple approach. Make people think about Firefox - forget a list of names, 1.0 version, or the MS monopoly. Communicate for your audience, not for yourself.
In that same vein, I would use code which has somewhat unpredicatable and incremental behavior. It is much harder to detect code which alters data seemingly at random, and sometimes not at all.
Changing a small amount of data with minimal condition at pseudorandom intervals is practically an intentional bug. Of course, if I can expect a certain threshold of data, I might be able to add a statistical leaning into the program that favors a particular outcome. Of course, this is the point of the contest. The point is, blind trust is no trust at all.
This has nothing to do with unemployment, at least not directly.
Walmart is powerful enough to set prices on labor. As there is a global surplus of labor, the price of the majority of labor declines, excluding sectors with hot money and the elite.
As it is, there is good evidence Walmart already abuses its advantage over labor in the U.S. and China. Walmart will work, no doubt, to devalue labor globally. This in turn, will affect the entire United States, cutting into the taxbase significantly at state and Federal levels, lowering investment, and decreasing the already abysmal savings rate. From there, macroeconomic realities will take hold.
The greatest advantage the U.S. has in the global economy is a glut of consumers. Walmart undermines this advantage by exploiting it. In the process, labor is extracted below market value. This is a socio-economic concern, which causes human suffering at the bottom. Just because someone is not at the bottom does not mean they should not have concern for those who are. Afterall, aren't we all involved in mankind?
GDP calculations, especially with regards to China, are under debate. GDP doesn't measure a lot of important things. Basically, every argument against GDP as a vital metric can be applied to China. Standard of living and environmental degradation especially apply here.
Also if you're calculating in terms of GWP, then CO2 is baseline (actually 1). NO2 contributes, on this scale, 310x more to global warming vs. C02. Brings a different perspective if the scale is appropriate.
I basically agree with your post. To add, it is unclear when China will pursue international relations as a developed country. However, it is likely not to be any time soon. China recieves special WTO status, World Bank favor, and Kyoto perks for their current undeveloped, non-market status. Therefore, China's GDP may well rise while issues like human health suffer.
At the most, it's misplaced or blind trust.
Many people have had AOL for a long time. For some their email address is @aol.com and that is the address they have passed on to everyone (this is a big lockin). For others, AOL may have been their first ISP and introduction to the Internet. Finally, many are simply complacent. AOL is not for trend-setters or the technical elite. It for those who don't care or know anything better.
Not to sour the joke, but in any problem-domain booting is literally the first requirement and no-where near the last. You have to think about the whole runtime existence of your program.
It's like caring for a person's health throughout their life. You don't give a baby a checkup and then never look back. You can't just reboot the child - somethings have to work and you better have tested some of those core units. If problems come up, you better fix them now or have a good plan for later.
As the child grows, you lay off the majority of testing and start to the trust the code a little more. But, problems will still come up and threaten the overall health. Your kid/app will likely find itself in situations you never envisioned.
"...what makes a good set of language bindings, a good database interface, and in general a good programmer experience."
Amateurs can get by with minimal investment of time. Demand for simple scripting features like forums has been on the rise for years, but the demand has a low-price point. To meet this demand, a massive supply of low-end webhosting hit the market. Now the amateurs have a lot of ready-to-go PHP scripts to use and dirt-cheap webhosting. They have what they and the majority of the Internet websites can understand and want. Something like market equilbrium I suppose.
"where's my C++/Firebird book? Or my Java/PostgreSQL book? Or my Cobol/Oracle book?"
C++ is not even comparably friendly to PHP. No one has heard of Firebird. Java is much more than most people need - same with PostgreSQL. Oracle costs money and most people don't know what Cobol is.
It's not about being the best. It's about being easy enough, cheap enough, and popular enough.
If people cared, voting turnout would not be a problem because the political landscape would arguably be more representative and reflective of their views.
When people do not care, the voting options which might appeal to them dry up, candidates and parties start fighting over the same words, and they are left with the "lesser of two evils". The majority of voters consolidate into one massive, unmoved and unmotivated block. It is hard to appeal to apathy, though sensationalism, propoganda, war, terrorism, etc. sometimes garner attention.
This is a vicious cycle. As people have been apathetic in the past, their influence on party politics and candidate selection has dwindled and parties have consolidated into what we have today. It is, basically, an advertising campaign, designed to reach that undecided American block by simply generalizing and flashing names and insults . Issues are secondary, because no one really knows what issue will make an apathetic American vote. Hopefully, something sensational or scandalous maybe.
Incidentally, this situation is much more extreme in countries such as the Phillipines. Movie stars, talk show hosts, soup opera stars, religious right leaders, and the rich all dominate the government in elected positions. Each election is much like entertainment, though the consequences are sickening. In some ways it is like a soup opera, because the leaders are all related to one another by family, scandal, and/or business. Poverty and corruption are rampant.
"Just remember, it's really only 25% of the country."
If less-than 50% of the U.S. votes, Bush only needs greater-than-or-equal-to 26%.
26%!
For every country to have similar independent power to defend itself, superpowers cannot exist. Unions, like the EU, are the only legitimate option by your reasoning.
The market has a hard time pricing an earned trust. How much is an employee really worth vs. an outsourced hire-by-proxy? Can you really tally the cost beyond development time and projected sales into maintenance, market position, etc.? Ultimately, we just make a judgement, but it's not always the most efficient.
For example, we can trust Linux over something entirely closed source by Diebold, but Linux is free. That throws MBA logic in a loop. Yes there is ROI, TCOS, and others but at the end of the day, you're trusting where you put your money, not Linus and Co. Or are you?
This is nothing to do about actual trust - the kind you can bank on without lawyers - and everything to do with security, i.e. the control of your machine. A lot of people feel that they do not control their computers sometimes (especially if they do not understand them). Therefore they feel they do not trust them. Hence, "Trusted Computing".
I agree, money is wasted in U.S. defense spending. In fact, I don't think anyone disagrees with that - though some (not me) would argue not enough is spent. I also agree, money should go to avoiding problems. In a round about way, strike force planning may help achieve that.
The whole concept of planning is that you have identified possibilities so that you can avoid them and *maybe* even pick your poison. You can see that solution A may not work (i.e. STAR WARS) and that solution B maybe your only out. Sometimes it takes billions for leadership to come to a common sense conclusion. That is democracy.
Ideally, this planning is cheaper (in the longterm) than taking things on ad hoc, though that may not be how things turn out. In implementation, it can actually be more expensive. In theory, it seems reasonable.
About diplomacy - it is usually applied as a fix. Good diplomatic relations are a working project, but often diplomatic solutions are compromises. Partly because U.S. Presidents have their way on a lot of foreign policy. The U.S. is not about to compromise on defense. And few politicians are going to fund a compromise with any foreign power on defense. It's a political quagmire and will haunt one's career till death. On the other hand, a lot of people will get rich on trumpeting military hardware and advanced defense systems and some will even get elected. Who doesn't want the mere ability to tell the world what to do? No state can resist that.
Back to planning...
Successful planning is just as much about avoiding conflict/problems as succeeding in your goals. You have to plan to avoid conflict, especially when you are in a position of power.
It would be nice if the U.S. could simply say their goals are to avoid conflict and problems, but that is too simplistic for a superpower. There are issues the U.S. will hold a singular position on at some time in the future. This eventual (or perpetual) conflict may be a problem with their goals or how they achieve them or both. That's a few dozen flame threads right there...
"For example, with the Iraqi mess going on right now, it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times."
That would have been a lot easier in a lot of ways for the global economy and the U.S., no question. Better? You have the winning argument as things stand right now (maybe). But the scenario(s) you suggest are not the same as the current one (obviously) and neither do they necessarily have the same results (undetermined). Insurgency doesn't always do what one thinks it will. I am not justifying the Iraq war, btw.
Ignoring the quip grouping water with methane (trolling? - who knows), the rest isn't too far off. NOx emissions, for example, are in fact lowering. Just about across the board harmful emissions have been cut over time in the U.S.
"...combined with the prase 'pollutants like NO2'"
NOx is a greenhouse gas, more harmful than CO2 (by GWP rating).
Also, he is right that Kyoto will shift polluting to countries not under the treaty or somehow exempt from stringent standards (like China). This could be viewed positively, in a twisted economic sense, as a redistribution of comparative advantage. In such light, Kyoto provides artificial comparative advantage to developing countries.
There are a lot of questions about global warming because 1) there is no simulation we can lay too much faith in and 2) observations are hard to aggregate and reconcile. From an economic cost/analysis, Kyoto is challenging to justify as worthy of primary international investment over things like HIV/AIDS.
BTW, I'm not against decreases in CO2 emissions, but scientific fact, policy, and global implementation are all very different things. I'm not sure we have anything that can hit all three, on any issue.
If you consider the WWW solely a hypertext document system, then TBL created the first such system in HTML.
Hypertext documents have come to encompass a broad range of Internet activities which TBL did not have much to do with. The WWW by no means dominates the Internet, but it's an effective mass-communication glue. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to call it the face of the Internet (for most people at least).
Everything can be given a price. Modern (developed) economies require knowledge to efficiently allocate resources, generate wealth, and ultimately compete.
For example, the United States does not maintain it's position without extensive networks of specialization and "knowledge workers".
I would ask: "Is it the responsibility of the U.S. President to protect American jobs from overseas competition? What sort of policies do you consider stimulating to domestic job market vs. simply protectionist?"
Political scientists refer to this as institutional lock-in - those who found institutions usually lock-in their power over said bodies and other countries who wish to participate. Internationally, this is accepted by most nations.
That said, the U.N. isn't in any real stance to direct global commerce. The U.S. is a huge consumer market; China is a huge labor/production market. Sanctions against either is a huge restriction on either supply or demand networks - and we can understand that one affects the other. Quite simply, any sanction would likely be ignored, even if the security council situation somehow excluded China and/or the U.S. That would further erode the influence of the U.N., so the institution itself would likely discourage that step.
Sanctions are, arguably, a crude method of persuasion anyway because they isolate countries. Not only does every country pay the price, the people of a sanctioned country pay a much higher price. And if a government doesn't care about their people before a sanction, are they supposed to start caring under one?
While we are on the topic of China and other countries abusing their citizens, who has the right to sanction a country anyway? Arguably, that's abusing the innocent people of that country - they will pay for it with sometimes heavy economic penalties. The elite can suck wealth off the populace for a long time. The populace has little way to protect themselves.
The relation of things on GLAT also discussed or thrown out on /. instantly struck me. Not that these are unique to /., but I rarely come across them in one package.
.com bubble, and a few math questions.
Algorithmic haiku, "what's wrong with Unix", text adventures (the "it's 2PM... what do you do?" question and the maze one), ruminations on optimal team size, coolest hack ever, what's the next big thing for Google, a snide reference to the
I got mine in DDJ, not one in CUJ though.
It's not clear. RTFA though so here is what I gather.
According to the article...
Each network connection has it's own configuration settings. Regardless of the settings in this dialogue window, if a file/print sharing is enabled (this is an internal windows service, which can potentionally use any network connection), then it is enabled by default on all active network connections. There are some conditions to this actually.
The article does say this applies to all network connections (dialup, DSL, etc.), but it confuses the issue:
"The PC only has to provide sharing for an internal local network and connect to the Internet via dial-up or ISDN. Users of DSL services are also affected.... Additionally, Internet Connection Sharing of the PC has to be disabled."
So ICS cannot be running, but the machine has to be serving as a network gateway? All I can gather is that there must be two (or more) network interfaces (I assume active), one of which must be on a local subnet. The firewall is default on both connections in SP2, but file/print sharing is also default on both as long as it was enabled on one in a previous configuration.
A further problem the article mentions is that when ICS is running, the button to specify sharing on only the local subnet in the Windows firewall configuration works. When ICS is deactivated, this configuration change does not work and manual changes have to be made.
The firewall is passive in this process - that is it applies local configuration as default for all interfaces.
(Again, this is what the article says in so many words...)
Many oil companies are nationalized, that is state-owned. There is no law, to my knowledge, which has scaled to that many countries with any type of practical results (at arguably impractical costs). In any kind of proceding, we might throw more than a few oil-exporting countries into civil war, not to mention oil-importing countries. We could push some countries to military action. The war in Iraq might be academic compared to the complexity of this kind of international action.
The WTO has no real mechanism or precendent against such a massive operation and international law isn't solid. Some countries critical to oil and OPEC, like Saudi Arabia, are only observer members. Therefore, no organization has real oversight, experience, the framework, or legitimacy to talk down to OPEC.
Also, the oil market is fairly inelastic - demand is not suddenly going to fall simply because price rises. OPEC obviously knows this intimately. There is room for OPEC to broker with the world and come out winning (financially).
Realistically, it's in the best interest of the world in whole to go after OPEC, but it is not in the interest of individual countries or even a group of countries, not even the U.S. to push it. Self-interest will keep coalitions from forming, and as long as oil is finite yet priced to sell, OPEC can simply bargain it's relations.
In a way, it is different, though we can still apply the same principles, we may not have the ability to realize them. And right now we don't.
By far, the biggest security problem in Windows/IE is that most users run with full priveleges (as an Administrator, like root). Forget any type of sandbox, that kind of default access lends itself to security problems.
I'm not in development on this, but I have reviewed some of the process.
USB operates with a host controller on a bus. When a device is connected on a PnP system, the controller detects it and polls it for a VID/PID (Vendor ID/Product ID), which is defined by some USB industry group at a cost (though there are some for non-commercial uses). This is polled along with a host of other descriptors. The USB Core (the sum of a controller driver, hub driver, and other things) controls this process for the PnP system. VID/PID is read from the device and referenced to a driver table, from which a driver can be loaded. Drivers are often organized by class according to function.
Descriptors, used to define device parameters, are then polled for all devices in the chain and subsequently devices are registered with the USB Core. Descriptors are formatted, so their organization is uniform, and come in several flavors. All are designed to properly integrate the device - mostly what to do and what not to do. The driver resides local to the system.
Your idea is interesting, but it still requires system setup I believe. If a USB device wishes to act as its own driver, the system needs a way to load an external driver (perhaps through a special type of driver, one which loads and wraps a driver from the device maybe). However this would be accomplished, a standard method of loading the driver needs to be developed and the generic USB driver would need to be built for all systems. Unless of course, such a driver already exists and I am ignorant of it (likely).
http://www.beyondlogic.org/index.htm#USB is a great USB reference.
Yes, but the kernel and HAL work together in NT. Device drivers and the kernel access HAL.
A given HAL is platform-specific, but provides a partially platform-independent interface for the kernel/driver model. The interface is portable (though the kernel not entirely). HAL specifically abstracts CPU details into a common model.
The NT kernel controls hardware through HAL, making use of its abstraction. The kernel fulfills a large part of its work as a microkernel with messaging between HAL and the system (though of course it has many other tasks). Just as the kernel enforces certain restrictions, so HAL enforces abstraction.
For anyone who doesn't know, Theo de Raadt founded OpenBSD and OpenSSH. He was interviewed once on /. and has a Wikipedia page.