So the virtuous thing to do here would be releasing uncensored leaks? At least wikileaks censors the leaks to protect innocents/sources.
Unless you think that since whistle-blowing groups release information they HAVE to leak everything in it's entirety, in which case I would be right on the "psychopathic sense of rule bounding" i suspected before.
I've always found people like you kinda funny, I can't really understand where you are coming from. Some group exposes abuses from US Government by exposing secret documents. This somehow earns your hate, so what is it?
Is it just plain old blind nationalism? My country right or wrong? Or are you just misguided, drank some fox news koolaid about how every paper leaked murders 50 billion people some how? Or is it just some pathological contrarianism? You see them being popular so you hate them? Or is it some psychopathic sense of rule bounding, as in, if you see someone who claims to be vegetarian to spare innocent animals, you want to see them eaten by worms without taking anti-parasites because "that the logical end" you see?
So what? The kind of people who know that Anonymous can't disclaim involvement with certainty also didn't buy Sony's accusations in the first place.
The kind of people that would be fooled by Sony's baseless accusations are also clueless enough to demand "official" word from Anonymous.
The one thing we can be sure of is that the people behind the DDoS and the people behind the break in weren't the same since a DDoS makes breaking in next to impossible, with the service being denied and taken offline and all that.
If any, the DDoS delayed the crackers, since it's hard to break into a service you can't access.
This isn't really sensationalist. Dropbox threatened them with false DMCA notices, that the notices were automated and accidentally sent doesn't meant they didn't do it.
I didn't know that law allows companies to "take back" crimes on accounts of accidents. "Sorry, my automated turret killed your son, it was an automated accident, there I said sorry, I owe you nothing".
If the authors of Dropship were a corporation they would sue for a settlement, but as individuals they don't have the legal muscle against a company and that's why they aren't suing, which is a shame but you'll likely just call it sensationalism anyway.
Oh and by the way, the authors of Dropship have not violated the TOS. Dropship USERS (may) did, and thus they don't even have a legal reason to ban these files, automated fraud notice or not.
I say "may" because I have not read the TOS, I don't how the TOS relates to the program, if the TOS ban using 3rd party tools that's one thing. If the TOS merely forbids making files not marked as public available to others then the connection to Dropship is even more indirect, meaning the responsible party is the one disseminating the hashes who isn't necessarily a Dropbox user in any case; likely so? VERY VERY likely, but not necessarily so.
The parent lives in an alternate reality where windows dominates the server, Linux is a Hipster toy OS and Apple sells a general purpose OS that ships in 90% of desktop machines.
Why --and I ask this as a commie pinko hippie liberal-- why, how, what's the theory behind sales tax?
What's the point of a sales tax when you have an income tax already? Isn't that just the same than taxing people twice? And let's get real, it is the consumer, not the producer, nor the distributor who is going to end up gobbling up this tax.
The only difference I see is that a sales tax encourages saving, or rather punishes expending. Meaning a family that just can't save will end up getting heavily taxed up front, while a man who earns more than the immediately necessary gets to keep a bigger share of his earnings, at least in the short term.
Or is the point to encourage the contracting of services over acquisition of goods? A sales tax means that I'm encouraged to contract a plumber rather than buy a plumbing tool set? That doesn't quite seem practical. Even if I were to acquire the equipment I might not be able to use it so this doesn't sound like a reasonable justification.
So is this an attempt of social engineering to encourage saving, favoring financial corporations in the process, or is just about double taxing and trying to make it less noticeable by spreading it a bit?
Indeed, this is not "The End of Content Ownership" this is "The End of User Ownership". The Content remains owned and more owned than ever now that they not only want to own all the rights, they want to be the sole possessors of every persisting instance of the content, reducing the people (I mean people not "consumers") to merely experience transient glimpses of their culture.
Just as Lessing was advocating a the "read/write culture" these people want nothing but a culture of read-only devices.
Look, for starters you need a client/server system for such simple things like decoupling the data store from the application, and before you can start talking about sharding, load balancing etc.
And of course there is the issue of querying. If your data is split among several servers it is crazy to have each application instance mount a network share with the datastore/file system, grab each file in turn, managing locking from the instance and map-reduce the relevant data from each of the data store shards.
The problem is that RDMS optimizations mean nothing when you spend 99% of your application time hydrating and dehydrating complex data trees. You tell yourself "I'm a wise man, I choose SQL" but you end up doing the same joint lookups and bluiding the same objects from the tables over and over and over.
In other words unless 100% of your application is written in SQL you *are* already using NoSQL. Custom made, application side, ad hoc NoSQL.
The kinds of optimizations offered by RDMS are great for aggregation and analysis of data. After all you have to ask yourself. How is this data going to spend most of it time? Being aggregated and analyzed or being converted back and ford into a complex data structure? That's the question basically.
Not that you are making the argument that RDMS are the only acceptable solution, but you really don't give credit to key-value stores. One thing you have completely wrong is that you suggest using key-value stores for simple relation ships while storing arbitrarily complex data structures is NoSQL's forte.
The size of the data set is not really the point of key-value stores. You mention that because all the success stories of NoSQL are about huge data sets.
If your relations are really simple, there is no reason a SQL database would fail to serve you. The reason traditional RDMS fail at such large scales is because the data is both humongous *and* complex.
Actually SQL --the language-- does suck, reinventing it is non trivial but it's one of those things that's obvious that can be done better.
The Tutorial D family of languages are an example.
The problem with Tutorial D is that SQL exists. All the databases that support a Tutorial D language are not popular, conversely all the popular databases use SQL.
They already struggle to keep up with SQL, managing another language is a hurdle, unless there is enough demand, but there is no demand because DBAs don't learn nor use Tutorial D languages because all popular databases use (their own) SQL (dialect).
Similar situation south of the border. I hate being sent on business travels to a country that hates my people an treats me like a coke dealer and reserves the right to look at my junk on a whim. So I refuse to carry my own equipment there, insisting on my boss providing equipment on arrival. It works because company laptops aren't personally assigned.
Actually I think you are expecting too much of "adults".
The truth is that we have a tendency to get into role playing games. I don't have the terminology fresh, but that idea is that given the right conditions, anybody can fall into a "game" where we subconsciously play by the rules we have seen to work before.
So for instance, any adult trapped hopelessly in an extremely boring situation, subject to the whims of a friendly enough authority will try to play the "bored child game" since that's what worked for them decades ago.
So it's not so much a matter of being an spoiled brat as much as it is a matter of bing human.
Gnome was *more* customizable before Ubuntu came. Now I'm not going to blame it on Canonical since the urge to reduce configuration stems from Gnome itself.
My favorite example is the size of the buttons in the Window List applet, the Gnome 2 equivalent to the taskbar.
When I started using Ubuntu back in Warthy, in other words from the very beginning, I configured the Window List to display the widest possible buttons, meaning that no matter how many windows I had open the taskbar never had empty space.
Eventually they removed that option from the preferences dialog. I realized it was still there in gconf since it inherited my preferences after an incremental upgrade.
Later I made a clean upgrade and simply changed the gconf keys I wanted.
Then it stopped respecting that setting. It's setting there its just deprecated (since Gnome 2.20) Why? It was deeply hidden in gconf so they can't argue it was crowding the preferences dialog.
It was removed just because. It was an option they wanted me not to have.
KDE on the other hand infuriates me by insisting on hogging the corner hot spots for its own use, in other words, KDE has become as more customizable than Gnome to me.
It shocks me that I can't configure what icons or actions I want for the corners, but I can freely rotate my rss reader!!
WTF? WhyTF would I want to rotate a rss reader? And why would I want to use a semitransparent feed reader that is only displayed as a desktop widget?
It doesn't have the immediacy of a panel applet, nor the capabilities of a full reader like akregator.
Lately its getting harder and harder to set my linux desktop "my way"/rant
For half of the price, you get a keyboard+touchpad combo in a very compact package, and it has a backlight which I admit to needing most of the time. It's even more stylish, so while I agree that a dedicated remote layout is a good idea, the price, and the availability of very good alternatives make me doubt it will have that much success.
Maybe it's more like. It maximizes short term profits at the expense of alienating future markets.
Or maybe. it maximizes short term profits at the expense of over all global satisfaction, which is relevant if you really think the purpose of copyrights is the public good.
Or maybe. it maximizes short term profits at the expense of individual freedom and reasonable government powers. Which is my primary concern. If protecting their profits requires the deployment of a police state, a hostile anti-user legal environment and regular witch hunts in a bizarre era of neo-McCarthyism. it *seems* to me that we have lost much more than a few episodes of Seinfeld.
Slashdot Mirror
So the virtuous thing to do here would be releasing uncensored leaks? At least wikileaks censors the leaks to protect innocents/sources.
Unless you think that since whistle-blowing groups release information they HAVE to leak everything in it's entirety, in which case I would be right on the "psychopathic sense of rule bounding" i suspected before.
Probably they aren't missing it at all and are just a bunch of CIA agents trying to astroturf on /.
The idiocy I see in wikileaks deterrents is not something that I would expect form a nerd gathering like this.
I've always found people like you kinda funny, I can't really understand where you are coming from.
Some group exposes abuses from US Government by exposing secret documents. This somehow earns your hate, so what is it?
Is it just plain old blind nationalism? My country right or wrong?
Or are you just misguided, drank some fox news koolaid about how every paper leaked murders 50 billion people some how?
Or is it just some pathological contrarianism? You see them being popular so you hate them?
Or is it some psychopathic sense of rule bounding, as in, if you see someone who claims to be vegetarian to spare innocent animals, you want to see them eaten by worms without taking anti-parasites because "that the logical end" you see?
I mean really how exactly does this hate work?
Don't listen, his just and sub troll. There's no way mp3 and aac can be beaten by FM radio.
There's hopes of good news on linux though.
Basically, if Skype gets ported to .NET it's (remotely) possible that we will get a new version of skype for linux in the next year.
At this point any new version of skype for linux would be good.
Of course we would have to run it under mono, but i'm already using that bugger for tomboy an do.
So what? The kind of people who know that Anonymous can't disclaim involvement with certainty also didn't buy Sony's accusations in the first place.
The kind of people that would be fooled by Sony's baseless accusations are also clueless enough to demand "official" word from Anonymous.
The one thing we can be sure of is that the people behind the DDoS and the people behind the break in weren't the same since a DDoS makes breaking in next to impossible, with the service being denied and taken offline and all that.
If any, the DDoS delayed the crackers, since it's hard to break into a service you can't access.
This one is relevant to our [strike]interests[/strike] conversation http://xkcd.com/792/
I'd say capitalism is incapable of managing any sort of growth, except by offing the surplus population, if you find that acceptable.
Because if so I should have gotten it from pirate bay.
This isn't really sensationalist. Dropbox threatened them with false DMCA notices, that the notices were automated and accidentally sent doesn't meant they didn't do it.
I didn't know that law allows companies to "take back" crimes on accounts of accidents. "Sorry, my automated turret killed your son, it was an automated accident, there I said sorry, I owe you nothing".
If the authors of Dropship were a corporation they would sue for a settlement, but as individuals they don't have the legal muscle against a company and that's why they aren't suing, which is a shame but you'll likely just call it sensationalism anyway.
Oh and by the way, the authors of Dropship have not violated the TOS. Dropship USERS (may) did, and thus they don't even have a legal reason to ban these files, automated fraud notice or not.
I say "may" because I have not read the TOS, I don't how the TOS relates to the program, if the TOS ban using 3rd party tools that's one thing. If the TOS merely forbids making files not marked as public available to others then the connection to Dropship is even more indirect, meaning the responsible party is the one disseminating the hashes who isn't necessarily a Dropbox user in any case; likely so? VERY VERY likely, but not necessarily so.
"Sensiblemonkey" my ass.
The parent lives in an alternate reality where windows dominates the server, Linux is a Hipster toy OS and Apple sells a general purpose OS that ships in 90% of desktop machines.
What do you think about Demarchy?
Why --and I ask this as a commie pinko hippie liberal-- why, how, what's the theory behind sales tax?
What's the point of a sales tax when you have an income tax already? Isn't that just the same than taxing people twice? And let's get real, it is the consumer, not the producer, nor the distributor who is going to end up gobbling up this tax.
The only difference I see is that a sales tax encourages saving, or rather punishes expending. Meaning a family that just can't save will end up getting heavily taxed up front, while a man who earns more than the immediately necessary gets to keep a bigger share of his earnings, at least in the short term.
Or is the point to encourage the contracting of services over acquisition of goods? A sales tax means that I'm encouraged to contract a plumber rather than buy a plumbing tool set? That doesn't quite seem practical. Even if I were to acquire the equipment I might not be able to use it so this doesn't sound like a reasonable justification.
So is this an attempt of social engineering to encourage saving, favoring financial corporations in the process, or is just about double taxing and trying to make it less noticeable by spreading it a bit?
Indeed, this is not "The End of Content Ownership" this is "The End of User Ownership". The Content remains owned and more owned than ever now that they not only want to own all the rights, they want to be the sole possessors of every persisting instance of the content, reducing the people (I mean people not "consumers") to merely experience transient glimpses of their culture.
Just as Lessing was advocating a the "read/write culture" these people want nothing but a culture of read-only devices.
Are you trolling me?
Look, for starters you need a client/server system for such simple things like decoupling the data store from the application, and before you can start talking about sharding, load balancing etc.
And of course there is the issue of querying. If your data is split among several servers it is crazy to have each application instance mount a network share with the datastore/file system, grab each file in turn, managing locking from the instance and map-reduce the relevant data from each of the data store shards.
Did I just fed a troll?
The problem is that RDMS optimizations mean nothing when you spend 99% of your application time hydrating and dehydrating complex data trees. You tell yourself "I'm a wise man, I choose SQL" but you end up doing the same joint lookups and bluiding the same objects from the tables over and over and over.
In other words unless 100% of your application is written in SQL you *are* already using NoSQL. Custom made, application side, ad hoc NoSQL.
The kinds of optimizations offered by RDMS are great for aggregation and analysis of data. After all you have to ask yourself. How is this data going to spend most of it time? Being aggregated and analyzed or being converted back and ford into a complex data structure? That's the question basically.
Not that you are making the argument that RDMS are the only acceptable solution, but you really don't give credit to key-value stores. One thing you have completely wrong is that you suggest using key-value stores for simple relation ships while storing arbitrarily complex data structures is NoSQL's forte.
The size of the data set is not really the point of key-value stores. You mention that because all the success stories of NoSQL are about huge data sets.
If your relations are really simple, there is no reason a SQL database would fail to serve you. The reason traditional RDMS fail at such large scales is because the data is both humongous *and* complex.
Actually SQL --the language-- does suck, reinventing it is non trivial but it's one of those things that's obvious that can be done better.
The Tutorial D family of languages are an example.
The problem with Tutorial D is that SQL exists. All the databases that support a Tutorial D language are not popular, conversely all the popular databases use SQL.
They already struggle to keep up with SQL, managing another language is a hurdle, unless there is enough demand, but there is no demand because DBAs don't learn nor use Tutorial D languages because all popular databases use (their own) SQL (dialect).
Like they say, the good is the enemy of the best.
Similar situation south of the border. I hate being sent on business travels to a country that hates my people an treats me like a coke dealer and reserves the right to look at my junk on a whim. So I refuse to carry my own equipment there, insisting on my boss providing equipment on arrival. It works because company laptops aren't personally assigned.
I'm specially insulted by the
You will, you must, it's imperative that you feel respected.
That's the most disrespectful thing they could say, I love how they speak with their feet in their mouth like that.
Gnome 3 will have you do our way. You have no configuration. Start feeling respected now.
Confirming this on Firefox 3.6.16 on Linux Mint. (latest in repos)
Actually I think you are expecting too much of "adults".
The truth is that we have a tendency to get into role playing games. I don't have the terminology fresh, but that idea is that given the right conditions, anybody can fall into a "game" where we subconsciously play by the rules we have seen to work before.
So for instance, any adult trapped hopelessly in an extremely boring situation, subject to the whims of a friendly enough authority will try to play the "bored child game" since that's what worked for them decades ago.
So it's not so much a matter of being an spoiled brat as much as it is a matter of bing human.
s/more (\w+) than/much \1 as/
Gnome was *more* customizable before Ubuntu came. Now I'm not going to blame it on Canonical since the urge to reduce configuration stems from Gnome itself.
My favorite example is the size of the buttons in the Window List applet, the Gnome 2 equivalent to the taskbar.
When I started using Ubuntu back in Warthy, in other words from the very beginning, I configured the Window List to display the widest possible buttons, meaning that no matter how many windows I had open the taskbar never had empty space.
Eventually they removed that option from the preferences dialog. I realized it was still there in gconf since it inherited my preferences after an incremental upgrade.
Later I made a clean upgrade and simply changed the gconf keys I wanted.
Then it stopped respecting that setting. It's setting there its just deprecated (since Gnome 2.20) Why? It was deeply hidden in gconf so they can't argue it was crowding the preferences dialog.
It was removed just because. It was an option they wanted me not to have.
KDE on the other hand infuriates me by insisting on hogging the corner hot spots for its own use, in other words, KDE has become as more customizable than Gnome to me.
It shocks me that I can't configure what icons or actions I want for the corners, but I can freely rotate my rss reader!!
WTF? WhyTF would I want to rotate a rss reader? And why would I want to use a semitransparent feed reader that is only displayed as a desktop widget?
It doesn't have the immediacy of a panel applet, nor the capabilities of a full reader like akregator.
Lately its getting harder and harder to set my linux desktop "my way" /rant
For a while I've been looking forward to getting this http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Wireless-Keyboard-Rechargeable-Notebooks/dp/B003UE52ME/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1298676916&sr=1-2
For half of the price, you get a keyboard+touchpad combo in a very compact package, and it has a backlight which I admit to needing most of the time. It's even more stylish, so while I agree that a dedicated remote layout is a good idea, the price, and the availability of very good alternatives make me doubt it will have that much success.
Maybe it's more like. It maximizes short term profits at the expense of alienating future markets.
Or maybe. it maximizes short term profits at the expense of over all global satisfaction, which is relevant if you really think the purpose of copyrights is the public good.
Or maybe. it maximizes short term profits at the expense of individual freedom and reasonable government powers. Which is my primary concern. If protecting their profits requires the deployment of a police state, a hostile anti-user legal environment and regular witch hunts in a bizarre era of neo-McCarthyism. it *seems* to me that we have lost much more than a few episodes of Seinfeld.