Ah, but you are pinpointing it right there! It is more hassle than you want, why?
Because I don't want to have a computer at my house running all the time, and a colocated server for my personal data pretty much needs a lot of security monitoring and patching and configuration.
If we could fix that problem, so that it wouldn't be more hassle to have it on your own webserver, then what would you do? And that's like iteration 1 of Solid, we're separating those apps from the data, so that you can have your data on your webserver, but you can use any calendar app you want.
That sounds a little Pollyanna-ish. So what if my data lives on a server I control? The apps that I use still have full access to an awful lot of my data. It isn't exactly rocket science to exfiltrate data from a web server, or even browser, to arbitrary computers on the Internet.
How does this new thing let me trust my data to code written by other people, that I probably never see, running on servers I don't control?
Right, good question, because that is the essence. But first of all, they are not running on a server you don't control, they are running on your client.
Is the new fad running heavy apps on the client instead of on centralized servers (again)?
Smart servers are popular because they make it easy to collaborate in a way that is almost impossible if data is explicitly hosted by one of the users. Also because they make it easy to update the app (which goes back to the "can I trust this code?" question). Also because they make it easy for the app developers to have insight into how people use the apps -- not just the user interface, but statistics about the data, both of which make it much easier to make an app more useful for more users.
A calendar is a toy example for client-centric apps; the relatively few times that one person reads or edits another person's calendar, there is already a specific access control to allow that. A chat app is more interesting and more representative of many modern apps. For a smart client / light server approach, how and where is a new message stored, and how are recipients notified?
Normal HTTP does not map well to a smart-client chat app because you would need a URI for each message, and that adds a lot of overhead (unless your server, and maybe your protocol, includes a fair amount of chat-specific logic). You also need a push mechanism that is triggered by the right updates. You need to decide whether the message will be stored in the sender's pod or the recipient's pod, and there are drawbacks to both. If you want to have apps compete to be the best app, you now need standards on how chat should interoperate -- and while there are dozens of groups that develop and promote interoperability standards, the most recent such standard for chat is XMPP, which is an enormous mess of extensions that need server support and do not degrade nicely if a server does not support a particular extension.
All of that is merely for an application that lets one person send messages to another. The problems are much harder -- particularly in the "social" domain between implementors -- if you look at office productivity applications.
This is not too surprising given his recent work on reposurgeon, his previous statements that Python is simply not performant enough for converting the gcc repository from Subversion to git, and his exploration of Rust vs Go as systems programming languages.
That documentation is almost useless for assessing the claims of personal control over one's data. Sure, if you post an image, you can put it in your "pod", and you can -- if you want -- manage access control rules to limit who can retrieve it from that pod. That doesn't limit further distribution of the data, and it requires absolute trust in the server hosting your pod (because the WebID authentication protocol puts the public key for your identity in that pod).
These are very nice puff pieces claiming a lot of good intentions, but how does it work?
I can already create a calendar app -- or download one -- and control all my information by running it on my own web server. That is more hassle than I want. How does this new thing let me trust my data to code written by other people, that I probably never see, running on servers I don't control? How will Berners-Lee's new company make enough money to pay employees and satisfy its venture-capital backers?
Changing things a little each year for ten years won't fix problems like school times that sharply conflict with work schedules. It will, however, make a bunch of people raise a stink for each of those ten years, and increase the total cost of the transition because you're changing things every year.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
If you're right, that merely elevates the article from "crackpot claptrap" to "shoddily written clickbait". The mystery is less what happens than why it happens only to some ships, and why ship owners don't take the safety measures that are described in other comments here.
Except for the whole "when friction goes to zero" part, which is contrary to everyday laws of physics, and makes me wonder if the submitter is a crackpot.
You are apparently the one who cannot follow simple explanations. The AC admitted that the video was ambiguous, which means it is insufficient to establish probable cause. Without probable cause, there are no legitimate grounds for arrest or charging a crime.
If you want the police to arrest people and get charges filed when no crime was committed and there was no probable cause to believe the arrestee committed a crime, that is supporting a police state. It's not an ad hominem argument to accurately identify someone who does that.
Bill Gates doesn't understand economics. There have always been recurring and non-recurring costs to produce a thing. He thinks that the economic basics have changed just because the recurring cost is now very small compared to the non-recurring costs. The only economic difference is that the supply curve looks much different; the law of supply and demand remains as true as it ever was.
You did not describe the law. You distorted your description in ways that are friendly to police.
A wrongful arrest is wrongful even if it is not proven so in court. One of many reasons that an arrest may be wrongful is if it performed without probable cause that an offense has been committed.
An ambiguous fact on its own is not PC. "Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed."
This was a video from a game, and a moment's reflection with even the slightest understanding of the medium would show that the student neither actually threatened anyone or had any intent to intimidate, meaning there was no probable cause the crime for which he was arrested even happened.
If you weren't so busy licking those jackboots you'd probably understand why you come across as supporting a police state.
Something ambiguous that, depending on additional facts, either could be probable cause for a crime or could be innocuous is not itself PC. Those additional facts have to be deduced to find PC. In this case, they weren't there.
That is exactly backwards. Places don't get gun control unless there is a pervasive and lasting fear of shootings. That fear doesn't go away once the gun ban is in place, it just gets augmented with fears of knife attacks, acid attacks, vehicular homicide, bombing public places, and so on.
This Aussie is rather silly to think it knows what "cultural context" is going to be shared or not. The US still resists the nanny state mentality. That's the shared cultural context that you don't, or can't, understand.
We don't need more laws to stop incidents like the Parkland shootings, we need officials who will enforce the existing laws instead of letting known-violent offenders do whatever the flip they feel like in some misguided attempt to "shut down the school-to-prison pipeline". They merely replaced it with a school-to-graveyard pipeline.
Yeah, I was hoping to see the actual confidence ranges that gave rise to the study author's conclusion. Was there much overlap in the "statistically indistinguishable" cases, or barely any? How much separation was there between those cases and the one that was distinguished? Did they appropriately adjust their idea of statistical significance for testing however many hypotheses they considered, or did they go trawling for p-values?
He should change his name to Malarkey if he thinks these are downloadable guns, or that anyone has devised a plastic AR-15. That quote is so ignorant that he should recuse himself from any votes relating to firearms.
No, you want a histogram. The mode is easy to game: give two or three people a high salary, give everyone else unique but much lower salaries. Median gives a better sense of the typical, but without knowing the shape of the distribution, it can also be misleading.
The important thing is that they avoided using the passive voice. They could have written "Python has been used by..." and had no problems with the parallel construction they used. I would guess that's what the original author really wrote. Then someone came along with a grudge about the passive voice and butchered the sentence.
Does Sweden not toll the statute of limitations when the suspect is a fugitive from justice? This is the classic kind of case where someone (under US law, at least) loses the right to challenge a delay in being tried for an offense: the delay is due solely to their status as a fugitive.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I don't want to have a computer at my house running all the time, and a colocated server for my personal data pretty much needs a lot of security monitoring and patching and configuration.
That sounds a little Pollyanna-ish. So what if my data lives on a server I control? The apps that I use still have full access to an awful lot of my data. It isn't exactly rocket science to exfiltrate data from a web server, or even browser, to arbitrary computers on the Internet.
Is the new fad running heavy apps on the client instead of on centralized servers (again)?
Smart servers are popular because they make it easy to collaborate in a way that is almost impossible if data is explicitly hosted by one of the users. Also because they make it easy to update the app (which goes back to the "can I trust this code?" question). Also because they make it easy for the app developers to have insight into how people use the apps -- not just the user interface, but statistics about the data, both of which make it much easier to make an app more useful for more users.
A calendar is a toy example for client-centric apps; the relatively few times that one person reads or edits another person's calendar, there is already a specific access control to allow that. A chat app is more interesting and more representative of many modern apps. For a smart client / light server approach, how and where is a new message stored, and how are recipients notified?
Normal HTTP does not map well to a smart-client chat app because you would need a URI for each message, and that adds a lot of overhead (unless your server, and maybe your protocol, includes a fair amount of chat-specific logic). You also need a push mechanism that is triggered by the right updates. You need to decide whether the message will be stored in the sender's pod or the recipient's pod, and there are drawbacks to both. If you want to have apps compete to be the best app, you now need standards on how chat should interoperate -- and while there are dozens of groups that develop and promote interoperability standards, the most recent such standard for chat is XMPP, which is an enormous mess of extensions that need server support and do not degrade nicely if a server does not support a particular extension.
All of that is merely for an application that lets one person send messages to another. The problems are much harder -- particularly in the "social" domain between implementors -- if you look at office productivity applications.
Home page: http://www.catb.org/esr/pytogo...
This is not too surprising given his recent work on reposurgeon, his previous statements that Python is simply not performant enough for converting the gcc repository from Subversion to git, and his exploration of Rust vs Go as systems programming languages.
That documentation is almost useless for assessing the claims of personal control over one's data. Sure, if you post an image, you can put it in your "pod", and you can -- if you want -- manage access control rules to limit who can retrieve it from that pod. That doesn't limit further distribution of the data, and it requires absolute trust in the server hosting your pod (because the WebID authentication protocol puts the public key for your identity in that pod).
These are very nice puff pieces claiming a lot of good intentions, but how does it work?
I can already create a calendar app -- or download one -- and control all my information by running it on my own web server. That is more hassle than I want. How does this new thing let me trust my data to code written by other people, that I probably never see, running on servers I don't control? How will Berners-Lee's new company make enough money to pay employees and satisfy its venture-capital backers?
Changing things a little each year for ten years won't fix problems like school times that sharply conflict with work schedules. It will, however, make a bunch of people raise a stink for each of those ten years, and increase the total cost of the transition because you're changing things every year.
This comment is much funnier if I take "plays his ukelele" as a euphemism.
I saw that movie!
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
If you're right, that merely elevates the article from "crackpot claptrap" to "shoddily written clickbait". The mystery is less what happens than why it happens only to some ships, and why ship owners don't take the safety measures that are described in other comments here.
Except for the whole "when friction goes to zero" part, which is contrary to everyday laws of physics, and makes me wonder if the submitter is a crackpot.
You are apparently the one who cannot follow simple explanations. The AC admitted that the video was ambiguous, which means it is insufficient to establish probable cause. Without probable cause, there are no legitimate grounds for arrest or charging a crime.
If you want the police to arrest people and get charges filed when no crime was committed and there was no probable cause to believe the arrestee committed a crime, that is supporting a police state. It's not an ad hominem argument to accurately identify someone who does that.
Bill Gates doesn't understand economics. There have always been recurring and non-recurring costs to produce a thing. He thinks that the economic basics have changed just because the recurring cost is now very small compared to the non-recurring costs. The only economic difference is that the supply curve looks much different; the law of supply and demand remains as true as it ever was.
You did not describe the law. You distorted your description in ways that are friendly to police.
A wrongful arrest is wrongful even if it is not proven so in court. One of many reasons that an arrest may be wrongful is if it performed without probable cause that an offense has been committed.
An ambiguous fact on its own is not PC. "Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed."
This was a video from a game, and a moment's reflection with even the slightest understanding of the medium would show that the student neither actually threatened anyone or had any intent to intimidate, meaning there was no probable cause the crime for which he was arrested even happened.
If you weren't so busy licking those jackboots you'd probably understand why you come across as supporting a police state.
Congratulations on supporting a police state?
Something ambiguous that, depending on additional facts, either could be probable cause for a crime or could be innocuous is not itself PC. Those additional facts have to be deduced to find PC. In this case, they weren't there.
Congratulations, you are making a good case for banning straw men.
That is exactly backwards. Places don't get gun control unless there is a pervasive and lasting fear of shootings. That fear doesn't go away once the gun ban is in place, it just gets augmented with fears of knife attacks, acid attacks, vehicular homicide, bombing public places, and so on.
This Aussie is rather silly to think it knows what "cultural context" is going to be shared or not. The US still resists the nanny state mentality. That's the shared cultural context that you don't, or can't, understand.
We don't need more laws to stop incidents like the Parkland shootings, we need officials who will enforce the existing laws instead of letting known-violent offenders do whatever the flip they feel like in some misguided attempt to "shut down the school-to-prison pipeline". They merely replaced it with a school-to-graveyard pipeline.
A wrongful arrest is absolutely an infringement of the arrestee's rights.
And this was a video of a game, not a video of a plausible violation of the school's rules on contraband (unless cell phones are contraband there).
Even more relevant, the people who have the most free time -- teens and young adults with no kids -- are also the prime consumers of the product.
It was glaringly obvious from the start that they were promising more than the industry could afford to deliver at those prices.
Something like that, I think. "Bidirectional driving"? Wait until they hear about this upcoming innovation called "reverse gear"!
Octember normally only has 29 days anyway. I'm not sure what you're so upset about.
Yeah, I was hoping to see the actual confidence ranges that gave rise to the study author's conclusion. Was there much overlap in the "statistically indistinguishable" cases, or barely any? How much separation was there between those cases and the one that was distinguished? Did they appropriately adjust their idea of statistical significance for testing however many hypotheses they considered, or did they go trawling for p-values?
He should change his name to Malarkey if he thinks these are downloadable guns, or that anyone has devised a plastic AR-15. That quote is so ignorant that he should recuse himself from any votes relating to firearms.
No, you want a histogram. The mode is easy to game: give two or three people a high salary, give everyone else unique but much lower salaries. Median gives a better sense of the typical, but without knowing the shape of the distribution, it can also be misleading.
The important thing is that they avoided using the passive voice. They could have written "Python has been used by ..." and had no problems with the parallel construction they used. I would guess that's what the original author really wrote. Then someone came along with a grudge about the passive voice and butchered the sentence.
Does Sweden not toll the statute of limitations when the suspect is a fugitive from justice? This is the classic kind of case where someone (under US law, at least) loses the right to challenge a delay in being tried for an offense: the delay is due solely to their status as a fugitive.