I've dropped apache completely. I've got nginx in front of php-fpm (wigh fcgiwrapper/spawn-fcgi for things w/ legacy cgi like nagios/collectd) and uwsgi.
You can easily find appropriate nginx rewrite rules for the major php apps like wordpress and menalto's gallery2. And for performance's sake it's all in the server config, so there isn't a disk access to read the.htaccess file to figure out if there are rewrite rules that need to be considered.
It's even better for apps, like django, which keep in mind delivering static files out of the hands of the app server. And configuring nginx to serve static files instead of hitting app servers is a piece of cake.
And for those really wanting max performance, there are plugins for direct access to memcache/postgres or even writing your web app directly in the config file with something like the lua plugin.
Not just money to sue. But a service whose entire revenue model is dependent on customer generated content creating ad impressions is more likely to hand an identity from someone who produces little revenue to one they think will generate more ad impressions. (So you're safer if your social identity is a big traffic generator, say like a Scoble.)
It's interesting from this vantage point to notice the story of a conference in France on EU politics and tech was being covered in ZDNetAsia.
Patten, as the Last Governor of Hong Kong, is a celebrity of sorts here, but it would have been far more interesting to hear him explain at detail his thoughts on the issues and potential flaws with the UK ID card plan as former chief executive of a government with a mandatory ID card program.
Perhaps the powers that be should send Patten, now the Chancellor of Oxford University, an invitation to participate in a Slashdot interview?
No, if the government doesn't intervene at all, you've got a laissez faire economy.
laissez faire = "let things alone, let them pass" != "free market" despite what some ideologues might state.
a laissez faire market ensures an unfree market, where businesses are free to establish impediments to entry to a market and impediments to the free flow of information within a market.
There are reasons that government regulators such as the FTC, FCC, and SEC came in to existance as a direct result of the failures of the laissez faire model of economics.
It's the role of the government to ensure competition in a marketplace. Y'know, the free market.
Competition reduces prices by eliminating monopoly/oligopoly pricing structures.
The current FCC is ruling in favour of monopoly/oligopoly pricing structures, since big telecom companies want government to ensure appropriate return on investment. Y'know, the antithesis of the free market.
The laws that China has put in to place are civil laws much like the US has. To protect your IP in the US, you find the violator and then take them to court. Think of the RIAA handing out subpoenas.
This action wants to shift the fundamental responsibility of "protecting" government-granted time-limited monopolies from the IP owner to the district attorneys or Chinese procuratorate office. I don't think this fundamental shift in legal responsiblity is flamebait at all, but should be a discussion about what role our government vis a vis our corporations should have in protecting corporate profit margins.
There may be some problem with intellectual property violations in China and Korea, though it's hardly the foundation of their economy, but there are civil laws already in place.
Just as it is in the US, if you want to protect your intellectual property, it is up to you to find the violators and take them to court.
This would move the situation from the RIAA handing out civil subpoenas to the local DA or US AG handing out criminal subpoenas. Why should the government be responsible for more than providing you with a time-limited monopoly and become responsible for the financial and time burden of defending your potential profitability?
Hmmm. There are Cantonese idioms in written Chinese that don't translate well to Putonghua. And that doesn't include the differences between Traditional and Simplified characters or voice recognition or text-to-voice features.
No "lacking dns" is the worst offender, or more accurately "lacking reverse dns". And the.cn domain is horrible about providing reverse dns for users. I don't think I've gotten an IP to resolve yet and I do get valid traffic from.cn on my alter ego's blog..hk (and the.com's hosted in Hong Kong) aren't so bad. PCCW is listed in the article as a bad source of spam and PCCW's ISP, netvigator is good about reverse DNS.
Though a lot of US ISPs are completely delinquent when it comes to providing reverse DNS.
Heh heh... you didn't see the photos of the recent mobile phone battery explosions in Hong Kong. That's not FUD, just the cause for Consumer Council of Hong Kong press release on hazardous mobile phone batteries that may heat up to the point of causing the plastic to melt and the battery cell to explode.
Actually I think the Hong Kong system would be dual point of failure. The system will match the info on the card with the biometric info of the person. Then the information will match against the central database. So you'd have to alter the data twice (once local, once global) to bypass the system.
Current system is dual point of failure as well, but you're relying on an immigration front-liner to recognise forged documents for the second check. Or do you decide that the cost in time for people standing in lines crossing the border and paying immigration officials is less valuable than the extra security supposedly gained by triple point of failure (the current US system plus biometric passports)?
Hong Kong actually has a "national" ID card. Since so few people here drive, you can't use a driver's license as a form of identification. The new smart ID cards have a chip in them that stores the digitised thumbprint and signature among other information. They also function as a national library card and you can apply for a free e-cert (PKI) administered by Hong Kong Post
Yes, the police are allowed to randomly ask you for your ID card. Most of the checks seem to be for immigration violations by mainlanders. On the other hand the HK government is putting in place fast immigration checkpoints, where you run your ID card through a scanner and provide your thumbprint and you're on your way without ever being questioned by immigration officials.
Y'all might check out this entry and this entry for the most likely explanation I've heard on this story yet and a little background info on the PRC Minister of Education who it seems is partially behind some of these restrictions.
Of course I can only say "seems" and "partially" because in a system where transparency is lacking *cough*Hi Condi! Hi Cheney Energy Commission!*cough* you can never really tell what the government is doing and who is to be held responsible.
No. At least not yet. Glutter is one of many active Hong Kong bloggers. But please get back to us after Thursday to check on the status of HK's autonomy.
Actually the numbers don't belong to the businesses. All numbers are handed out in North America by the North American Numbering Plan Administration in coordination with local regulatory agencies.
To allow businesses to compete on something that isn't their property is definitely ludicrous.
What do you mean nobody talks about phone SERVICE? Can you hear me now? Huh?
And as the article points out, there are rural areas in Hong Kong (NT and Outlying Islands) that aren't served by all mobile carriers. But they do get served.
Some of the low cost companies will cherry pick the big cities, but as long as there is a market, the free market says a player will exist to exploit it.
Less money may flow in to the US IT industry or North American IT industry.
Adding a new player in to the chip industry means that MORE money as a whole will flow in to the global IT industry. And then there is support and the rest of the follow-ons to the chip fabrication, which will produce new opportunities for revenue for the IT industry, including North America and Europe, if people choose to use the architecture.
I could have sworn the primary goal for owners of music was to maximise profits from distribution and redistribution of their music.
If the **AA state that they cannot come close to the theoretical maximisation because of unauthorised distribution, then the only competition left in the marketplace is illegal and the **AA exercise effective monopoly power over the market.
Equal Time Rule, which dated back to the Radio Act of 1927 and is now Section 315 of the Communications Act. (I think this is the one that established the FCC itself.)
So is NANPA still requiring each line provider to buy a block of numbers and assign their users out of that block?
Are they blocking number portability? That is, can I take a Verizon number that I've had for years at my business and sign up with a dial tone competitor and keep the same number? (Yes, phone switches are smart enough to handle this and route a number anywhere on to any network.)
With Michael Powell at the FCC as a sock puppet of the RBOCs, things like number portability that might promote dial tone competition get squashed. It would also reduce the need for new area codes because the numbers that we do have would get used more efficiently.
But it is easier to get customers to carry the burden and expense of dialing extra digits (think of reprogramming speed dial numbers and fax numbers on machines). Then you can minimize competition and keep profits and campaign contributions maximized.
No. Visionary was writing up the weasel words for the first Consent Decree. This was the one that was the result of these illegal agreements that forced manufacturers to use MS or pay anyway.
The weasel words provided plausible deniability for breaking the Consent Decree during the second trip to Federal Court.
Does anybody remember how hard it was for the government to get information on their billing practices from Microsoft during the discovery phase of the trial that just ended?
Microsoft said that their books were too difficult to understand and that they wouldn't let the government have direct access to all of the electronic data, even after a court order on the matter.
Does this new breakout of information have something to do with Microsoft being slapped on the wrist by the SEC for accounting irregularities?
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously the Higgs Boson is a non-naturally occuring subsection of a molecule which can only be detected with special equipment provided by CERN.
Pay CERN royalties for using their patented Higgs Boson or be subject to having them forcefully removed from your use.
I've dropped apache completely. I've got nginx in front of php-fpm (wigh fcgiwrapper/spawn-fcgi for things w/ legacy cgi like nagios/collectd) and uwsgi.
You can easily find appropriate nginx rewrite rules for the major php apps like wordpress and menalto's gallery2. And for performance's sake it's all in the server config, so there isn't a disk access to read the .htaccess file to figure out if there are rewrite rules that need to be considered.
It's even better for apps, like django, which keep in mind delivering static files out of the hands of the app server. And configuring nginx to serve static files instead of hitting app servers is a piece of cake.
And for those really wanting max performance, there are plugins for direct access to memcache/postgres or even writing your web app directly in the config file with something like the lua plugin.
Not just money to sue. But a service whose entire revenue model is dependent on customer generated content creating ad impressions is more likely to hand an identity from someone who produces little revenue to one they think will generate more ad impressions. (So you're safer if your social identity is a big traffic generator, say like a Scoble.)
It's interesting from this vantage point to notice the story of a conference in France on EU politics and tech was being covered in ZDNetAsia.
Patten, as the Last Governor of Hong Kong, is a celebrity of sorts here, but it would have been far more interesting to hear him explain at detail his thoughts on the issues and potential flaws with the UK ID card plan as former chief executive of a government with a mandatory ID card program.
Perhaps the powers that be should send Patten, now the Chancellor of Oxford University, an invitation to participate in a Slashdot interview?
No, if the government doesn't intervene at all, you've got a laissez faire economy.
laissez faire = "let things alone, let them pass" != "free market" despite what some ideologues might state.
a laissez faire market ensures an unfree market, where businesses are free to establish impediments to entry to a market and impediments to the free flow of information within a market.
There are reasons that government regulators such as the FTC, FCC, and SEC came in to existance as a direct result of the failures of the laissez faire model of economics.
It's the role of the government to ensure competition in a marketplace. Y'know, the free market.
Competition reduces prices by eliminating monopoly/oligopoly pricing structures.
The current FCC is ruling in favour of monopoly/oligopoly pricing structures, since big telecom companies want government to ensure appropriate return on investment. Y'know, the antithesis of the free market.
Flamebait?
The laws that China has put in to place are civil laws much like the US has. To protect your IP in the US, you find the violator and then take them to court. Think of the RIAA handing out subpoenas.
This action wants to shift the fundamental responsibility of "protecting" government-granted time-limited monopolies from the IP owner to the district attorneys or Chinese procuratorate office. I don't think this fundamental shift in legal responsiblity is flamebait at all, but should be a discussion about what role our government vis a vis our corporations should have in protecting corporate profit margins.
There may be some problem with intellectual property violations in China and Korea, though it's hardly the foundation of their economy, but there are civil laws already in place.
Just as it is in the US, if you want to protect your intellectual property, it is up to you to find the violators and take them to court.
This would move the situation from the RIAA handing out civil subpoenas to the local DA or US AG handing out criminal subpoenas. Why should the government be responsible for more than providing you with a time-limited monopoly and become responsible for the financial and time burden of defending your potential profitability?
Hmmm. There are Cantonese idioms in written Chinese that don't translate well to Putonghua. And that doesn't include the differences between Traditional and Simplified characters or voice recognition or text-to-voice features.
Check company profile at China Online.
"Under Government/Regulatory Authority of: Sichuan Mianyang State-Owned Assets Bureau"
I guess someone in the Chinese government has something to do with this.
No "lacking dns" is the worst offender, or more accurately "lacking reverse dns". And the .cn domain is horrible about providing reverse dns for users. I don't think I've gotten an IP to resolve yet and I do get valid traffic from .cn on my alter ego's blog. .hk (and the .com's hosted in Hong Kong) aren't so bad. PCCW is listed in the article as a bad source of spam and PCCW's ISP, netvigator is good about reverse DNS.
Though a lot of US ISPs are completely delinquent when it comes to providing reverse DNS.
Heh heh... you didn't see the photos of the recent mobile phone battery explosions in Hong Kong. That's not FUD, just the cause for Consumer Council of Hong Kong press release on hazardous mobile phone batteries that may heat up to the point of causing the plastic to melt and the battery cell to explode.
Actually I think the Hong Kong system would be dual point of failure. The system will match the info on the card with the biometric info of the person. Then the information will match against the central database. So you'd have to alter the data twice (once local, once global) to bypass the system.
Current system is dual point of failure as well, but you're relying on an immigration front-liner to recognise forged documents for the second check. Or do you decide that the cost in time for people standing in lines crossing the border and paying immigration officials is less valuable than the extra security supposedly gained by triple point of failure (the current US system plus biometric passports)?
Yes, the police are allowed to randomly ask you for your ID card. Most of the checks seem to be for immigration violations by mainlanders. On the other hand the HK government is putting in place fast immigration checkpoints, where you run your ID card through a scanner and provide your thumbprint and you're on your way without ever being questioned by immigration officials.
Y'all might check out this entry and this entry for the most likely explanation I've heard on this story yet and a little background info on the PRC Minister of Education who it seems is partially behind some of these restrictions.
Of course I can only say "seems" and "partially" because in a system where transparency is lacking *cough*Hi Condi! Hi Cheney Energy Commission!*cough* you can never really tell what the government is doing and who is to be held responsible.
No. At least not yet. Glutter is one of many active Hong Kong bloggers. But please get back to us after Thursday to check on the status of HK's autonomy.
Actually the numbers don't belong to the businesses. All numbers are handed out in North America by the North American Numbering Plan Administration in coordination with local regulatory agencies.
To allow businesses to compete on something that isn't their property is definitely ludicrous.
What do you mean nobody talks about phone SERVICE? Can you hear me now? Huh?
And as the article points out, there are rural areas in Hong Kong (NT and Outlying Islands) that aren't served by all mobile carriers. But they do get served.
Some of the low cost companies will cherry pick the big cities, but as long as there is a market, the free market says a player will exist to exploit it.
Less money may flow in to the US IT industry or North American IT industry.
Adding a new player in to the chip industry means that MORE money as a whole will flow in to the global IT industry. And then there is support and the rest of the follow-ons to the chip fabrication, which will produce new opportunities for revenue for the IT industry, including North America and Europe, if people choose to use the architecture.
I could have sworn the primary goal for owners of music was to maximise profits from distribution and redistribution of their music.
If the **AA state that they cannot come close to the theoretical maximisation because of unauthorised distribution, then the only competition left in the marketplace is illegal and the **AA exercise effective monopoly power over the market.
I seem to remember the name Neil Bush. Board member of Silverado, one of the largest of the failures.
Neil, son of George H. W. and Barbara Bush, brother of Jeb and George W.
Fairness Doctrine, which was killed by the Reagan Administration.
Equal Time Rule, which dated back to the Radio Act of 1927 and is now Section 315 of the Communications Act. (I think this is the one that established the FCC itself.)
So is NANPA still requiring each line provider to buy a block of numbers and assign their users out of that block?
Are they blocking number portability? That is, can I take a Verizon number that I've had for years at my business and sign up with a dial tone competitor and keep the same number? (Yes, phone switches are smart enough to handle this and route a number anywhere on to any network.)
With Michael Powell at the FCC as a sock puppet of the RBOCs, things like number portability that might promote dial tone competition get squashed. It would also reduce the need for new area codes because the numbers that we do have would get used more efficiently.
But it is easier to get customers to carry the burden and expense of dialing extra digits (think of reprogramming speed dial numbers and fax numbers on machines). Then you can minimize competition and keep profits and campaign contributions maximized.
No. Visionary was writing up the weasel words for the first Consent Decree. This was the one that was the result of these illegal agreements that forced manufacturers to use MS or pay anyway.
The weasel words provided plausible deniability for breaking the Consent Decree during the second trip to Federal Court.
Does anybody remember how hard it was for the government to get information on their billing practices from Microsoft during the discovery phase of the trial that just ended?
Microsoft said that their books were too difficult to understand and that they wouldn't let the government have direct access to all of the electronic data, even after a court order on the matter.
Does this new breakout of information have something to do with Microsoft being slapped on the wrist by the SEC for accounting irregularities?