I can think of one -- Free Market. As in free to invest, free to lose your house.
And since high-frequency trading is neither, but rather a tax-like cost extracted from every trade between third parties, what's your point?
Fascists need not apply.
Fascism: the merger of state and corporate power. It's what Free Market inevitably leads to, since it facilitates the concentration of wealth into a few hands, who can then bribe the politicians and buy out media.
How are we going to deal with them? They have a military and we don't.
With a POLICE force. The crucial difference is this: soldiers make wars. Policemen are supposed to KEEP THE PEACE.
Both police and army are used to enforce the laws of the land. They are simply employed against different level of threats. Also, it doesn't really matter if you call your fighters soldiers or police, if you use them to "deal with" another country you're waging a war.
It seemed to work for Ghandi.
It worked for Ghandi because the British were nice people unwilling to commit mass murder to keep India. Furthermore, and more cynically, the Empire was falling apart, and the British realized they couldn't keep India through military force since they didn't have enough of it, so they chose to accept the inevitable. India then promptly went and developed nuclear weapons.
But even so I wasn't suggesting that TODAY. I know we aren't living in that world - but the reality is that the only world peace worth HAVING is the one you don't NEED to defend, and it is attainable. Not overnight, not in a few years - but it can be done.
No, it can't. Aggression and ambition are parts of human nature, and for very good reasons. As long as they remain so, you have competition and the possibility of it turning violent.
At the point in time where I'm suggesting this scenario - genocides would not ever happen anymore. I never suggested it was right to let ones like Rwanda continue as long as we did. I did suggest that we should strive for a world where they NEVER START. How is that not BETTER than stopping them AFTER the fact ?
Thus far you've failed to either describe such a world or how it could be attained. Just saying that a peaceful world would be better than a violent one is not striving for one, it's just wishful thinking.
Shamed ? No. Imprisoned and punished by a criminal NOT a military justice system - absolutely. I never said no justice. I never even said no violence. I said - peace forces as opposed to WAR forces. Policemen as opposed to soldiers.
And as I said above, the only real difference between police and military is the level of violence they can counter. This opposition simply doesn't exist, especially since modern militaries take imprison rather than kill the enemies who surrender, just like police does.
Nobody going onto a battlefield with effectively no real rights, there to be pointed at and pull a trigger at some other schmuck who is except for the colour of his uniform EXACTLY LIKE ME.
So what will you do when these few remaining nations with a military send a horde of those poor schmucks to take over your country? Will you pull a stunt from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and arrest them?
No flags. No targets. But justice systems so effective that individuals are incapable of ever amassing the kind of power you need to start a war - and if no government has a military then THEY are not a threat either.
Flags are nothing but symbols, just like the Scales of Justice is. And a system that prevents anyone from amassing power - in other words, keeps everyone in their place - is either a totalitarianism or at the very least a dictatorship and in both cases anything but just. And dictatorships are quite infamous for their militancy; after all, stomping down everyone who tries to rise requires a huge army.
Your two kinds of warlords in this world are the official government, or the guy who wants to BE the official government but can't get there via the official channels.
Most governments are not warlords on the account of not having waged any wars in decades, in some cases in centuries. One of the requi
The only way to really end war is the same way we ended slavery - by education and political pressure until practically nobody on earth supports the idea anymore. Until any politician who even suggests HAVING a military is by definition unelectable. By the time we've crushed it into a few small illegal things in a few rare countries (which would be even rarer because fundamental to this one would be greatly reducing the number of poor countries around, which ipso facto reduces the places where criminals have free reign) - we can deal with those few.
How are we going to deal with them? They have a military and we don't.
Look, pacifism in its moderate form of preferring peaceful solutions to violent ones is a good thing, but taking it to the extreme where violence is never an option is suicidal, and letting a genocide continue even when you could stop it is monstrous. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that mass murderers can be shamed into stopping, which is completely delusional.
If we can save lives with adult stem cells, what if we could save even more lives with embryonic stem cells? Shouldn't we at least do the research to find out?
Adult stem cells have the obvious advantage of being your cells, and thus not causing any issues with rejection. Also, as nanotechnology matures, there's the long-term prospect of setting up fully autonomous regenerative capability, which would solve the problems with "lifestyle" diseases, thus vastly decreasing medical spending.
swap allows on OS to move UNUSED applications / etc off to disk, so they can be restored later to main memory when they need to run. if your system is trying to run an application that's located in swap, that's called thrashing and any application is going to perform like crap.
Swap moves unused memory pages to disk. Most applications have a small working set, so that works well; but when Java does full garbage collection, it traces its entire memory space. That's in no way comparable to getting a few page faults here and there.
and if the defaults were higher you'd complain that it unnecessarily grabbed more memory than it needs. that's why it's a parameter, because every application is different. do you really think they could have one setting that worked well for an enterprise application server, your IDE, and an applet on a web page?
Yes: grow allocated memory as needed, and release memory that's been unused for a while back to the OS.
for the average app, you don't care about these details. if you have a high end enterprise server application you have the power to tweak things. any high-end application, regardless of the language / machine it runs in / on, is going to require memory tweaks.
there are many high-quality java bindings to opengl,
There isn't one that comes standard with the language. There really is no excuse for that, since it includes a graphics API.
and the fact that you think opengl is "new fangled" really hurts your credibility.
If the US is the world police, then the UN is the world government. And it's not that the US seem to care too much of what the UN thinks.
Which, as far as I (an European) am concerned, is a good thing, since horrible dictatorships like China have a voice in the UN.
If the government is corrupt, the police must excersize their own judgement. It's not an ideal situation, but it's one that can't be helped except by changing the government.
Right now - the most important thing we can do about it is to complain everytime somebody orders people to war.
I'm not sure that this is actually a good thing to do. Wars are bad, yes; but the biggest tragedies of recent years have happened because people were reluctant to enter war. The Jugoslavian genocide didn't stop until Nato bombed the Serbs, and Rwandan Genocide killed 20% of the populace since the UN couldn't get off its ass and end it. The Holocaust was ended only by crushing the Nazi regime by force. Nobody was there to stop Stalin and Mao, and so they kept killing until their deaths.
I've also been thinking about the ban of exporting weapons to conflict zones: the attacker knows he'll attack, so he'll stocpile weapons beforehand, while the victim can't buy any after he's attacked.
In any case, what I'm saying is, that sometimes barbarism rises its ugly head, and then it's the sad duty of civilized people to go to war and stomp it back down.
Strangely Russia's puppet states of Belorussia, South Osettia and Abkhasia are not on the list.
It could be that Russia simply doesn't give a damn either way, and lets its puppets do what they will in this matter. The whole "Nobel Peace Prize" is a joke anyway.
The system worked well enough to make the British Empire the largest empire the world has ever seen, and to give a relatively small nation dominance and influence above it's weight for several centuries.
The British Empire - both of them - wasn't born until after Magna Carta was.
The system has worked so far in propelling China towards becoming the world's largest economy, and in urbanising and significantly raising the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people who previously lived as subsistence farmers.
Most of them still do. And Mao's tyranny did nothing to help that. It wasn't until after he died that China began its rise. And even that is mostly linked to Chinese government loosening the reins and restoring the order after the chaos of Cultural Revolution. Mass industrialization could never have happened under Mao, since he was intent on killing all engineers and other educated people.
Sanity has advantages, and dictators tend to be insane - that's the point here.
I think you ignore the fact "if history is anything to go by" China has had emperors for thousands of years.
It did. The end result was going from the most powerful civilization of the world to an abused colony of Western powers. An emperor will always prefer the status quo with himself on the top to progress.
China's current success is because the government has loosened the reins a bit. But make no mistake, it's still mostly an agricultural country - it's just so huge even a tiny bit of industrialization counts for a lot.
The real problem with Java is that it allows some really crappy programs to actually work vs c where they would have long ago self destructed.
Java has three huge problems:
Garbage collection interacts very badly with swap. Once your Java program starts hitting the disk, it will stand still for minutes. Bigger memory sizes are solving this problem nowadays.
Possibly relating to the above, Sun's JVM requires you to pass startup parameters that determine the maximum memory the program will be allowed to use. The defaults are too small for almost anything. As an icing of the cake, Sun's JVM also makes use of several different areas of memory, all requiring their own parameter, thus recreating the DOS experience with loving attention to detail. Who woulda guessed where Solaris developers hearts really lay;).
The Java class library is huge, complicated and odd. This is especially true of Swing, which has an Image class that supports several different colorspaces (and is just as efficient as that implies), yet lacks such newfangled things as OpenGL support.
Because if people are paying they will be ticked off. It's not like a cabletv monopoly where the competition is practically nil.
Ads tick people off too, but that doesn't stop almost every web site from having them. Competition is nil if everyone else is doing it, too.
Adblock does a helluva good job already.
Adblock works because ads are typically served from a particular server or directory. It's simply not used enough to make it worth it to defeat simple pattern-matching of the URL which lets it work. Once every ad view actually nets the webpage 1 cent from micropayment, you can bet the beancounters demand obfuscating the source of all content to fight Adblock.
It's pretty straightforward, really. There's this "progressive" tendency to try to paint companies as faceless, soulless lifesuckers draining all that is meaningful from existence when in reality, it's just people trying to get things done to make a living.
Companies are faceless and soulless, on the account of being fictional legal entities rather than human (or comparable) beings. They also tend to be the nastier the bigger they become, since any individual person - who, presumably, does have a face and soul - can hide behind the bureaucracy and pretend he didn't really have a choice. As an end result, nobody is responsible for anything but do get the benefits nonetheless; the end result is exactly what you'd expect, and the very definition of psychopathic behaviour.
I like poking holes in the "progressive" attempts at class welfare.
You need to poke harder and aim better, then. Since we're talking about companies, you might start by explaining how Wall-Mart's and McDonald's efforts to remove minimum wage entirely to increase their profits when their employees already subsist on food stamps is not a clear example of class warfare? Or did you mean that you only dislike "progressive" efforts at it, and are okay with the owning class waging war on everyone else?
I think that if we had a practical "electronic cash" system that was reasonably anonymous with effectively no per-transaction cost we would see the end of a lot of advertising on the net.
Why would we? Show someone an ad and charge them for the privilege! It's not like a web browser can differentiate between an add and legitimate content, so it'll just end up paying for both.
Business is not based on making some reasonable amount, it's based on fleecing your customers and other victims as much as possible. As long as these people can make a single burnt wooden penny out of advertisements, the Web will be full of them, whether or not you pay in any other form.
I was at an Open Source Symposium at Oregon State Uni, and RMS was a guest. Before his time to speak, he sat ni the first row PICKING FLEAS OUT OF HIS BEARD and popping them in his mouth. NO SHIT.
No. It's more like someone stealing your car, using it in a bank robbery, and getting shot into Swiss cheese in resulting firefight, which also sets the car on fire. It's unfortunate, but hardly the police's fault, even if the pulled the trigger.
So we're back to protectionism? Please stop. Really.
Yes. We tried free trade and it failed miserably: unemployment keeps rising and rising, many jobs no longer pay enough for a worker to even afford food (Wal-Mart, I'm looking at you), society is getting more and more into debt, and any attempt to do anything about any of this leads to cries of "business will leave for China! WAAHHH!"
Protectionism protects domestic industry, which creates jobs and wealth. Free Trade means that everyone's standard of living races to the bottom. We must stop this madness while we still can.
Most browser apps I have been involved in writing involve local storage for some data, rather than going back and forth to the DB every time the user needs something.
That's what variables are for. There's a huge difference between storing something per-session and permanently.
Certainly there should be a check to see if it is set to zero and then a message saying, "How do you expect any app to work without local storage, dolt?".
Easily: you store whatever data you need to into local variables, and the rest on the database on the server.
Seriously, it's a miracle Slashdot is still going strong as it is given numerous issues and their 1996-esk Perl implementation.
I, for one, consider the old-fashioned static pages amongst Slashdot's greatest strengths. I can't stand Discussion 2.0 (or whatever it is called nowadays); give me a non-AJAX static page without any Javascript shit.
That's not to say that a dynamic interface couldn't be good; it's just that it almost never is. An NNTP interface would be ideal, with stories corresponding to top-level posts, but I doubt we'll see anything like it again...
Slashdot Mirror
And since high-frequency trading is neither, but rather a tax-like cost extracted from every trade between third parties, what's your point?
Fascism: the merger of state and corporate power. It's what Free Market inevitably leads to, since it facilitates the concentration of wealth into a few hands, who can then bribe the politicians and buy out media.
Both police and army are used to enforce the laws of the land. They are simply employed against different level of threats. Also, it doesn't really matter if you call your fighters soldiers or police, if you use them to "deal with" another country you're waging a war.
It worked for Ghandi because the British were nice people unwilling to commit mass murder to keep India. Furthermore, and more cynically, the Empire was falling apart, and the British realized they couldn't keep India through military force since they didn't have enough of it, so they chose to accept the inevitable. India then promptly went and developed nuclear weapons.
No, it can't. Aggression and ambition are parts of human nature, and for very good reasons. As long as they remain so, you have competition and the possibility of it turning violent.
Thus far you've failed to either describe such a world or how it could be attained. Just saying that a peaceful world would be better than a violent one is not striving for one, it's just wishful thinking.
And as I said above, the only real difference between police and military is the level of violence they can counter. This opposition simply doesn't exist, especially since modern militaries take imprison rather than kill the enemies who surrender, just like police does.
So what will you do when these few remaining nations with a military send a horde of those poor schmucks to take over your country? Will you pull a stunt from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and arrest them?
Flags are nothing but symbols, just like the Scales of Justice is. And a system that prevents anyone from amassing power - in other words, keeps everyone in their place - is either a totalitarianism or at the very least a dictatorship and in both cases anything but just. And dictatorships are quite infamous for their militancy; after all, stomping down everyone who tries to rise requires a huge army.
Most governments are not warlords on the account of not having waged any wars in decades, in some cases in centuries. One of the requi
Wouldn't that really require a phased array?
How are we going to deal with them? They have a military and we don't.
Look, pacifism in its moderate form of preferring peaceful solutions to violent ones is a good thing, but taking it to the extreme where violence is never an option is suicidal, and letting a genocide continue even when you could stop it is monstrous. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that mass murderers can be shamed into stopping, which is completely delusional.
Adult stem cells have the obvious advantage of being your cells, and thus not causing any issues with rejection. Also, as nanotechnology matures, there's the long-term prospect of setting up fully autonomous regenerative capability, which would solve the problems with "lifestyle" diseases, thus vastly decreasing medical spending.
I was, of course, referring to the ability to draw 3D graphics with the OpenGL interface.
Swap moves unused memory pages to disk. Most applications have a small working set, so that works well; but when Java does full garbage collection, it traces its entire memory space. That's in no way comparable to getting a few page faults here and there.
Yes: grow allocated memory as needed, and release memory that's been unused for a while back to the OS.
There isn't one that comes standard with the language. There really is no excuse for that, since it includes a graphics API.
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
Also see Conservapedia's Bible Retranslation Project (setting new standards for blashphemy) and Political Aspects of the Theory of Relativity (setting new standards for stupidity).
Seriously, don't quote Conservapedia. Even by conservative standards, that site is batshit insane.
Which, as far as I (an European) am concerned, is a good thing, since horrible dictatorships like China have a voice in the UN.
If the government is corrupt, the police must excersize their own judgement. It's not an ideal situation, but it's one that can't be helped except by changing the government.
I'm not sure that this is actually a good thing to do. Wars are bad, yes; but the biggest tragedies of recent years have happened because people were reluctant to enter war. The Jugoslavian genocide didn't stop until Nato bombed the Serbs, and Rwandan Genocide killed 20% of the populace since the UN couldn't get off its ass and end it. The Holocaust was ended only by crushing the Nazi regime by force. Nobody was there to stop Stalin and Mao, and so they kept killing until their deaths.
I've also been thinking about the ban of exporting weapons to conflict zones: the attacker knows he'll attack, so he'll stocpile weapons beforehand, while the victim can't buy any after he's attacked.
In any case, what I'm saying is, that sometimes barbarism rises its ugly head, and then it's the sad duty of civilized people to go to war and stomp it back down.
It could be that Russia simply doesn't give a damn either way, and lets its puppets do what they will in this matter. The whole "Nobel Peace Prize" is a joke anyway.
The British Empire - both of them - wasn't born until after Magna Carta was.
Most of them still do. And Mao's tyranny did nothing to help that. It wasn't until after he died that China began its rise. And even that is mostly linked to Chinese government loosening the reins and restoring the order after the chaos of Cultural Revolution. Mass industrialization could never have happened under Mao, since he was intent on killing all engineers and other educated people.
Sanity has advantages, and dictators tend to be insane - that's the point here.
It did. The end result was going from the most powerful civilization of the world to an abused colony of Western powers. An emperor will always prefer the status quo with himself on the top to progress.
China's current success is because the government has loosened the reins a bit. But make no mistake, it's still mostly an agricultural country - it's just so huge even a tiny bit of industrialization counts for a lot.
Java has three huge problems:
Ads tick people off too, but that doesn't stop almost every web site from having them. Competition is nil if everyone else is doing it, too.
Adblock works because ads are typically served from a particular server or directory. It's simply not used enough to make it worth it to defeat simple pattern-matching of the URL which lets it work. Once every ad view actually nets the webpage 1 cent from micropayment, you can bet the beancounters demand obfuscating the source of all content to fight Adblock.
Companies are faceless and soulless, on the account of being fictional legal entities rather than human (or comparable) beings. They also tend to be the nastier the bigger they become, since any individual person - who, presumably, does have a face and soul - can hide behind the bureaucracy and pretend he didn't really have a choice. As an end result, nobody is responsible for anything but do get the benefits nonetheless; the end result is exactly what you'd expect, and the very definition of psychopathic behaviour.
You need to poke harder and aim better, then. Since we're talking about companies, you might start by explaining how Wall-Mart's and McDonald's efforts to remove minimum wage entirely to increase their profits when their employees already subsist on food stamps is not a clear example of class warfare? Or did you mean that you only dislike "progressive" efforts at it, and are okay with the owning class waging war on everyone else?
Why would we? Show someone an ad and charge them for the privilege! It's not like a web browser can differentiate between an add and legitimate content, so it'll just end up paying for both.
Business is not based on making some reasonable amount, it's based on fleecing your customers and other victims as much as possible. As long as these people can make a single burnt wooden penny out of advertisements, the Web will be full of them, whether or not you pay in any other form.
So what have you done to solve world hunger?
If you left a bar with a gorgeous man/woman but wake up next to a gorgon, have you been raped?
No. It's more like someone stealing your car, using it in a bank robbery, and getting shot into Swiss cheese in resulting firefight, which also sets the car on fire. It's unfortunate, but hardly the police's fault, even if the pulled the trigger.
Yes. We tried free trade and it failed miserably: unemployment keeps rising and rising, many jobs no longer pay enough for a worker to even afford food (Wal-Mart, I'm looking at you), society is getting more and more into debt, and any attempt to do anything about any of this leads to cries of "business will leave for China! WAAHHH!"
Protectionism protects domestic industry, which creates jobs and wealth. Free Trade means that everyone's standard of living races to the bottom. We must stop this madness while we still can.
Yes it is.
That's what variables are for. There's a huge difference between storing something per-session and permanently.
Easily: you store whatever data you need to into local variables, and the rest on the database on the server.
Simply put into your crontab "rm -Rf ~/.adobe/*" to be executed once per minute.
Don't worry, watching hentai doesn't count.
I, for one, consider the old-fashioned static pages amongst Slashdot's greatest strengths. I can't stand Discussion 2.0 (or whatever it is called nowadays); give me a non-AJAX static page without any Javascript shit.
That's not to say that a dynamic interface couldn't be good; it's just that it almost never is. An NNTP interface would be ideal, with stories corresponding to top-level posts, but I doubt we'll see anything like it again...