Ah, I missed that part... Internal accounting is largely made of whatever they can get away with to make the local fiefdoms appear successful. One place I know has had the same phone charges since the 90ies...
One can argue that Trends helps people to spam the hottest topic, but if anything, it prevents (some) scattershots of even more spam.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist (or a search scientist) to know that "oil spill" features rather high, atm. Same goes for any c-rate starlet which happened to be naked within the last month. Repeat ad infinitum.
Tough words from a tough guy. On the other hand, if you enter a talk with a big fat tagline of "we will now intercept your calls", it might make sense to either avoid that or live with it.
That's not as much fun as armchair-bullying from your mom's basement, though;)
> First one to mention chernobyl not only loses, loses all credibility, but is immediately flagged for scare mongering. If you don't know why this is obvious, you clearly don't understand enough to even be invoking the name, "chernobyl".
First one to mention Coast Guard not only loses, loses all credibility, but is immediately flagged for scare mongering. If you don't know why this is obvious, you clearly don't understand enough to even be invoking the name, "Coast Guard".
There, I can sound self-righteous without volunteering any facts or even the hint of logic, too. You're welcome.
> As for much of you other comments, you clearly don't understand economics, a government's role in an economy, are a variety of other factors as to why the comment I provided resolved much of your "concerns." *cough*
As for much of you other comments, you clearly don't understand economics, a government's role in an economy, are a variety of other factors as to why the comment I provided resolved much of your "concerns." *cough*
> And the oil industry has a cap of $75 million on the possible economic impact of their mistakes so I fail to see your point.
Interesting. Thanks:) Though BP has shelled out a lot more than $75 million. And they are actually able to. Different situation for nuclear energy companies.
> If the gulf has taught us anything it should be that fossil fuel usage can cause disasters just as bad, if not worst, than nuclear energy.
While I am really sorry for the US, did you notice that they only call it "the largest ecological disaster _in the USA_"? Let one of the French nuclear power plants go boom and the effects are a _lot_ worse. Also, Africa has had an oil spill of similar size for ages and no one would think of starting to stop it as it's apparently not cost-efficient. And that is on land. Where people live. Not hidden under water by ways of chemicals.
> As for nuclear storage, as others have pointed out, spent fuel can be recycled. The same can't be said for the waste products of fossil fuels.
Wrong. It's easy to process CO_2 into O_2 and C_x. It's just not economically feasible.
> At the end of the day society pays a price for all our energy usage.
I prefer to pay for my stuff in a way that makes sure the ones getting rich from what I pay have to shoulder the costs, as well. Not that I pay them _and_ pay extra for clean-up.
> I saw a documentary not long ago. They talked about the fact that one of our nuclear subs hadn't needed to be refueled in twenty plus years.
Nice. Did they also factor in maintenance and other costs? How much fuel would have the cost of the reactor bought?
> Nuclear is extremely cost effective so long as scaremongering twits stay out of the political spot light.
Sorry, but I will refrain from returning any implicit ad hominem attacks.
> As such, the reason insurance caps exists is because anti-nukers were specifically attempting to create an environment where nuclear is uninsurable.
So you are saying that Tchernobyl cost less than 5 billion even though it happenend in Russia and most of the crap that rained down from it came down east of there thanks to the Passat winds? That is an interesting stance.
> Such scare mongering is literally why "NUCLEAR MRI" was simply renamed to "MRI". Otherwise people would literally risk their health to avoid the scary "nuclear" word.
Many people are gullible, thus my arguments must be wrong. Even though I referred to medical & research reasons explicitly.
> When scaremongering has been so extremely abused, the government does have an important role to play for such critical infrastructure (power, not medical). To be against this means you should also be against FDIC insurance, FEMA, and even the US military; including the Coast Guard and National Guard.
I don't live in the US; the self-hampering paranoia which reigns freely over there is of no concern to me as I refuse to visit such a country any longer.
> This is actually one of the areas where the government should shoulder part of the burden; especially the US government. The US military is the largest single consumer of oil in the world. As such, they force the price higher for all of us. Its not unreasonable for them to shoulder some of the potential financial burden such that it then allows for the price of electricity to be not only significantly lower and safer, but also extremely reliable.
Wow, that is some serious bullshit you have going there. I must admit I smiled while following that logic. In related news, the US military is (was) the largest single supplier of Helium because they sold of their strategic reserves over decades. We should charge them for keeping prices low.
> As an interesting side note, Obama could have actually stimulated the economy with massive military energy modernization projects. Some estimates suggestions as much as 50% can be saved. Which for the US is EXTREMELY huge amounts of oil and money, especially when we have active, deployed forces. You need to keep in mind, much of the US military is still running on turbines and diesel engines designed and built during the late 50s to the 70s. HUGE strides in efficiency and power have been created since then. Best of all, such programs would stimulate almost all levels of the economy (white to blue collar) while making HUGE strides to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and lower the general public's price at the pump. Good thing we got more of the same, with one exception, they called it, "change."
I note that you are not referring to any other president between the 70s and the 00s. Interesting in and as of itself.
That (almost) no governmental body on earth values long-term savings over short-term ones is a well-established fact.
I was obviously talking in the context of normal power plants.
And while nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines certainly have a longer range (in theory. aircraft carriers still need a shitload of support vessel which run on oil), do you have any numbers in that direction?/me would be interested.
While that is not hard data, this plant has been in the works for about 20 years under several different governments. Sicily means that a large, if not the largest, part of the money went to Mafia bribes and related costs.
Point in case, the southern half of the cross-italian highway costs _more_ than the northern half even though there are literally dozens and dozens of tunnels in the North.
The guy who started it all became fed up with waiting and built a few smaller-scale plants in Spain within a few years.
Finally, while this technology is not old, industry-scale application of it is. So there are one-time and pioneer costs involved.
So yah, this plant may not have been cheap; but the cost is certainly inflated due to various circumstances.
a) nuclear power plants are the only industrial plants in the world which do not need to be insured to the full extent of possible damages they might cause. The insurance industry made politics cap the max at a mere 5 billion Dollar which may sound like a lot, but it's not. The population at large would shoulder those costs.
b) the countries in which the plants operate are charged with long-term storage. So the population at large shells out for that.
A prime example of privatizing earnings and socializing losses if there ever was one.
It's high time we got rid of fission (other than what we need for medical & research reasons). The claimed cost-efficiency _does not exist_. Period.
Your suggestions make sense, but suggesting to store comma-delimited plain text in a SQL table is wrong by any and all database standards & best practises. You fail to reach even the first normalized form.
You want to define a table "tags" or something with id, article_id, name, comment. Make the combination of id, parent_id, name unique.
* id is on auto-increase, not NULL * article_id is a foreign key to the id of the article, not NULL * name is the name of the tag, not NULL * comment is an optional comment explaining the tag (for example in the mouse-over or on the site listing everything with that tag), may be NULL
Not only is that easier to maintain in the long run (think of parsing plain text out of a VARCHAR. argh!), but all of a sudden, you have the data you _store_ available to _access_. How many artcles are tagged electric? SELECT count (1) FROM article_tags WHERE name = "electric"; Give me a list of all article relating to foo and bar? SELECT article_id FROM article_tags WHERE name = "foo" OR name = "bar". etc pp.
If you want to go really fancy with multi-level tags, replace article_id with parent_id (referring to the id in the same table) and create a relation table as glue. If you want all upper levels to apply, throw in a transitive closure:
Generally speaking, you want a table for magazines with their names, publication dates, publisher, whatnot; and only refer to them via foreign keys. Same goes for train models (which you could cross-ref via tags. Yay for clean db design!), authors, collectors, train clubs and and pretty much everything else.
One last word of advice: No matter what anyone tells you: Either you use a proper framework or you _ALWAYS_ use prepared statements. You get some performance benefits and SQL injection becomes impossible, for free! Repeat: Even if you ignore all the other tips above, you _MUST heed this.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you have a colourful, vibrant e-paper (or similar) that reads well in direct sunlight, every tablet is a de facto e-reader.
Obviously, e-readers will not simply disappear over night, but if I ever saw two converging technologies, this is one...
Ah, I missed that part... Internal accounting is largely made of whatever they can get away with to make the local fiefdoms appear successful. One place I know has had the same phone charges since the 90ies...
> $360k per year to store 1TB is insanity.
Actually, the fact that this is happening in a private company and not in a public entity is the surprising thing...
One can argue that Trends helps people to spam the hottest topic, but if anything, it prevents (some) scattershots of even more spam.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist (or a search scientist) to know that "oil spill" features rather high, atm. Same goes for any c-rate starlet which happened to be naked within the last month. Repeat ad infinitum.
Yah, just like Google does with Android... Oh, wait...
Ever tried OCFS2? Oracle deserves to be shot just for that.
They don't just fall off. They slide out of curves, crash against stuff, etc.
To simply fall off without other influences, you must be _really_ inept.
> There's already the term "laissez-faire", which loosely translates as "leave it be" or "let it happen".
To nitpick, it means "let them do (it)". The results are the same, though.
Use Wi-Fi, but only with OpenVPN or a SSH tunnel.
Of course, that means you will not be able to use an iPad.
> This is fantastically analogous to Net Neutrality.
I kinda suspect GP might have posted his story for exactly that reason ;)
Tough words from a tough guy. On the other hand, if you enter a talk with a big fat tagline of "we will now intercept your calls", it might make sense to either avoid that or live with it.
That's not as much fun as armchair-bullying from your mom's basement, though ;)
I saw the talk at 26c3, though unfortunately, they could not whip up a demo system for Fosdem.
Creating their own femto-cells has been done time and time again, as is the case for decrypting saved frequency dumps.
As far as I understand things, this is the first time that they want to decrypt intercepted phone calls live and in real-time.
My plan is to buy & bring a Nokia 1616 or similar to 27C3 for exactly that reason.
It's cheap enough that tossing it away after using it there and/or keeping it as a dedicated conference phone won't hurt me.
> First one to mention chernobyl not only loses, loses all credibility, but is immediately flagged for scare mongering. If you don't know why this is obvious, you clearly don't understand enough to even be invoking the name, "chernobyl".
First one to mention Coast Guard not only loses, loses all credibility, but is immediately flagged for scare mongering. If you don't know why this is obvious, you clearly don't understand enough to even be invoking the name, "Coast Guard".
There, I can sound self-righteous without volunteering any facts or even the hint of logic, too. You're welcome.
> As for much of you other comments, you clearly don't understand economics, a government's role in an economy, are a variety of other factors as to why the comment I provided resolved much of your "concerns." *cough*
As for much of you other comments, you clearly don't understand economics, a government's role in an economy, are a variety of other factors as to why the comment I provided resolved much of your "concerns." *cough*
See above.
Suggestion: Let's agree to disagree.
> And the oil industry has a cap of $75 million on the possible economic impact of their mistakes so I fail to see your point.
Interesting. Thanks :)
Though BP has shelled out a lot more than $75 million. And they are actually able to. Different situation for nuclear energy companies.
> If the gulf has taught us anything it should be that fossil fuel usage can cause disasters just as bad, if not worst, than nuclear energy.
While I am really sorry for the US, did you notice that they only call it "the largest ecological disaster _in the USA_"? Let one of the French nuclear power plants go boom and the effects are a _lot_ worse. Also, Africa has had an oil spill of similar size for ages and no one would think of starting to stop it as it's apparently not cost-efficient. And that is on land. Where people live. Not hidden under water by ways of chemicals.
> As for nuclear storage, as others have pointed out, spent fuel can be recycled. The same can't be said for the waste products of fossil fuels.
Wrong. It's easy to process CO_2 into O_2 and C_x. It's just not economically feasible.
> At the end of the day society pays a price for all our energy usage.
I prefer to pay for my stuff in a way that makes sure the ones getting rich from what I pay have to shoulder the costs, as well. Not that I pay them _and_ pay extra for clean-up.
> I saw a documentary not long ago. They talked about the fact that one of our nuclear subs hadn't needed to be refueled in twenty plus years.
Nice. Did they also factor in maintenance and other costs? How much fuel would have the cost of the reactor bought?
> Nuclear is extremely cost effective so long as scaremongering twits stay out of the political spot light.
Sorry, but I will refrain from returning any implicit ad hominem attacks.
> As such, the reason insurance caps exists is because anti-nukers were specifically attempting to create an environment where nuclear is uninsurable.
So you are saying that Tchernobyl cost less than 5 billion even though it happenend in Russia and most of the crap that rained down from it came down east of there thanks to the Passat winds? That is an interesting stance.
> Such scare mongering is literally why "NUCLEAR MRI" was simply renamed to "MRI". Otherwise people would literally risk their health to avoid the scary "nuclear" word.
Many people are gullible, thus my arguments must be wrong. Even though I referred to medical & research reasons explicitly.
> When scaremongering has been so extremely abused, the government does have an important role to play for such critical infrastructure (power, not medical). To be against this means you should also be against FDIC insurance, FEMA, and even the US military; including the Coast Guard and National Guard.
I don't live in the US; the self-hampering paranoia which reigns freely over there is of no concern to me as I refuse to visit such a country any longer.
> This is actually one of the areas where the government should shoulder part of the burden; especially the US government. The US military is the largest single consumer of oil in the world. As such, they force the price higher for all of us. Its not unreasonable for them to shoulder some of the potential financial burden such that it then allows for the price of electricity to be not only significantly lower and safer, but also extremely reliable.
Wow, that is some serious bullshit you have going there. I must admit I smiled while following that logic.
In related news, the US military is (was) the largest single supplier of Helium because they sold of their strategic reserves over decades. We should charge them for keeping prices low.
> As an interesting side note, Obama could have actually stimulated the economy with massive military energy modernization projects. Some estimates suggestions as much as 50% can be saved. Which for the US is EXTREMELY huge amounts of oil and money, especially when we have active, deployed forces. You need to keep in mind, much of the US military is still running on turbines and diesel engines designed and built during the late 50s to the 70s. HUGE strides in efficiency and power have been created since then. Best of all, such programs would stimulate almost all levels of the economy (white to blue collar) while making HUGE strides to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and lower the general public's price at the pump. Good thing we got more of the same, with one exception, they called it, "change."
I note that you are not referring to any other president between the 70s and the 00s. Interesting in and as of itself.
That (almost) no governmental body on earth values long-term savings over short-term ones is a well-established fact.
I was obviously talking in the context of normal power plants.
And while nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines certainly have a longer range (in theory. aircraft carriers still need a shitload of support vessel which run on oil), do you have any numbers in that direction? /me would be interested.
While that is not hard data, this plant has been in the works for about 20 years under several different governments. Sicily means that a large, if not the largest, part of the money went to Mafia bribes and related costs.
Point in case, the southern half of the cross-italian highway costs _more_ than the northern half even though there are literally dozens and dozens of tunnels in the North.
The guy who started it all became fed up with waiting and built a few smaller-scale plants in Spain within a few years.
Finally, while this technology is not old, industry-scale application of it is. So there are one-time and pioneer costs involved.
So yah, this plant may not have been cheap; but the cost is certainly inflated due to various circumstances.
You forgot that
a) nuclear power plants are the only industrial plants in the world which do not need to be insured to the full extent of possible damages they might cause. The insurance industry made politics cap the max at a mere 5 billion Dollar which may sound like a lot, but it's not. The population at large would shoulder those costs.
b) the countries in which the plants operate are charged with long-term storage. So the population at large shells out for that.
A prime example of privatizing earnings and socializing losses if there ever was one.
It's high time we got rid of fission (other than what we need for medical & research reasons). The claimed cost-efficiency _does not exist_. Period.
Maybe they failed to make much of a splash in the USA, but I live in Germany and I don't know a single person who bought their phone in a store.
All purchases are made online; everyone buys a phone directly and goes with cheaper contracts.
The only people who have subsidized phones are the ones with secondary work phones and even the corporations are starting to re-think their approach.
http://maps.google.de/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Timmelsjochstra%C3%9Fe%2FB186&daddr=SS44bis&hl=de&geocode=FeKzywIdZqWoAA%3BFWJ_ywId9tepAA&mra=mi&mrsp=1&sz=12&sll=46.873336,11.077309&sspn=0.19175,0.445976&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=12
And I never found a way to tell Google about it...
Ah, yes thanks... I should not be allowed to post before coffee...
The second statement should have read
SELECT article_id FROM article_tags WHERE name = "foo" AND name = "bar"
for obvious reasons.
Your suggestions make sense, but suggesting to store comma-delimited plain text in a SQL table is wrong by any and all database standards & best practises. You fail to reach even the first normalized form.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
You want to define a table "tags" or something with id, article_id, name, comment. Make the combination of id, parent_id, name unique.
* id is on auto-increase, not NULL
* article_id is a foreign key to the id of the article, not NULL
* name is the name of the tag, not NULL
* comment is an optional comment explaining the tag (for example in the mouse-over or on the site listing everything with that tag), may be NULL
Not only is that easier to maintain in the long run (think of parsing plain text out of a VARCHAR. argh!), but all of a sudden, you have the data you _store_ available to _access_.
How many artcles are tagged electric? SELECT count (1) FROM article_tags WHERE name = "electric";
Give me a list of all article relating to foo and bar? SELECT article_id FROM article_tags WHERE name = "foo" OR name = "bar".
etc pp.
If you want to go really fancy with multi-level tags, replace article_id with parent_id (referring to the id in the same table) and create a relation table as glue. If you want all upper levels to apply, throw in a transitive closure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_closure
Generally speaking, you want a table for magazines with their names, publication dates, publisher, whatnot; and only refer to them via foreign keys. Same goes for train models (which you could cross-ref via tags. Yay for clean db design!), authors, collectors, train clubs and and pretty much everything else.
One last word of advice: No matter what anyone tells you: Either you use a proper framework or you _ALWAYS_ use prepared statements. You get some performance benefits and SQL injection becomes impossible, for free! Repeat: Even if you ignore all the other tips above, you _MUST heed this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection
Richard
PS: You are more than welcome to reply to this post once you have your DB design hammered out. I will have a look & optimize, if you want.
Read the actual article! I know that's frowned upon, but it will help.