Relational vs nonrelational? It depends on the application. That's so obvious it needn't be discussed.
But I really, really hate SQL AS SUCH. It's an inefficient and overly complex interface that's full of security holes. Now there's a discussion worth having. But noooo...
there's no way "the best tool for the job" can justify any of:
Java's badly designed core class library, with its lack of logical consistency and its abuse of structured exceptions. C's preprocessor. There are better ways to implement constants and macros. Multiple inheritance and operator overloading in C++. * PHP semantics changing with each configuration. Perl's horrible syntax. * SQL's numerous security vulnerabilities. LISP's non-procedural pretensions, and the contortions that result.
Nearly every language's dependence on its own class libraries, because interoperability is unthinkable. What's the point of living if you can't reinvent the wheel?
* "Well, just don't use those features!" Go tell that to the guys who wrote the code I'm expected to debug. If you can manage to track them down somehow. They're long gone.
A programming language that doesn't have any irritating flaws or omissions, that's all I want. Am I asking too much?
Okay, maybe two. One optimised for system programming to replace C, and another, higher level, for applications. Give them both very similar syntax and semantics, except where differences are called for by their different purposes.
Instead, we get dozens upon dozens of languages that are distinguished only by their various flaws, limitations and arbitrary differences in syntax and semantics. Why? Is no one even TRYING to get it right?
Source code is chock full of inherent structure. Why confine ourselves to flat text that has to be parsed? If we're going to invent yet another new programming language that forces us to throw out all our old code, then we may as well go for broke. Make it some binary format that encapsulates all the structure, work with using an IDE that understands the format and represents it visually. We don't even to all agree on the visualization.
Sometimes satire ends up revealing more about the satirist than the target. And if the public turns out to be on the target's side, then the satirist ends up being perceived as mean-spirited and out of touch. Satire always draws blood, it's just a question of whose.
Never forget that Air America was a dismal failure.
I'm sorry. I don't want to seem ungrateful, but I just don't need the headaches that come with a Java runtime. Easy installation and maintenance is a must for a successful end user software. Adding a runtime that isn't really all that open source mucks things up needlessly. Plus it runs more slowly.
I like Tor. I'd like to see a distributed Facebook clone built atop Tor.
Hoping not to have to set aside the time to wade through all the annoying happy talk just to find out there's no technical meat. Someone please just tell me: are they nailing down a protocol spec first so that we can all do our own interoperable implementations, or at least all contribute code, and so not have the time wasting nightmare that was the Freenet project?
censorship. When a corporation wants to shut you up, they go to your ISp and get your site pulled. That won't work for a freesite.
The biggest problem I see with Freenet is it's disconnected from potential users by being its own spearate network without enough gateways to the World Wide Web. The problem with making a gateway is you have to try to exercise some editorial control over what goes through it to avoid legal trouble, and you have to be willing to get shut down by corporate pressure. I willingly accept the latter risk, but I'm still experimenting on how to keep what goes through my gateway legal and worthwhile at the same time. My current approach is to alow all HTML and text but block most other data types except from freesites I trust.
They fake the User-Agent and Referers fields in the headers to look like real traffic. I've seen the User-agent field change half a dozen times in a day from one host. That might be chained proxies, but here's something that isn't. One guy tried to fake a Referer as netbroadcaster.com but he did a typo the first time and it was netboradcaster.com, which doesn't exist.
posted the above, I got pings on my honeypot, from slashdot.org. On ports 3127 and 1026 it tried to fetch the URL http://slashdot.org/ok.txt, User-Agent: libwww-perl/5.803
This isn't the fist time I've seen hits from Slashdot. Is this the OTHER Slashdot effect?
I've seen it on my honeypot. They come in from various IPs in the far east (APNIC) on port 3128 and emulate several clicks per second per proxy.
I expect Google can look for the Via header line and don't count any click that includes one. My guess is either they don't do this or else the perps think they aren't doing this. And that would only work with proxies, not bots.
Slashdot Mirror
Relational vs nonrelational? It depends on the application. That's so obvious it needn't be discussed.
But I really, really hate SQL AS SUCH. It's an inefficient and overly complex interface that's full of security holes. Now there's a discussion worth having. But noooo...
Better late than never.
"You code in the language we tell you to, or you're fired."
Screw this, I'm gonna go look for another job.
So you go on dice.com...
"You code in the language we tell you to, or you don't get hired."
there's no way "the best tool for the job" can justify any of:
Java's badly designed core class library, with its lack of logical consistency and its abuse of structured exceptions.
C's preprocessor. There are better ways to implement constants and macros.
Multiple inheritance and operator overloading in C++. *
PHP semantics changing with each configuration.
Perl's horrible syntax. *
SQL's numerous security vulnerabilities.
LISP's non-procedural pretensions, and the contortions that result.
Nearly every language's dependence on its own class libraries, because interoperability is unthinkable. What's the point of living if you can't reinvent the wheel?
* "Well, just don't use those features!" Go tell that to the guys who wrote the code I'm expected to debug. If you can manage to track them down somehow. They're long gone.
A programming language that doesn't have any irritating flaws or omissions, that's all I want. Am I asking too much?
Okay, maybe two. One optimised for system programming to replace C, and another, higher level, for applications. Give them both very similar syntax and semantics, except where differences are called for by their different purposes.
Instead, we get dozens upon dozens of languages that are distinguished only by their various flaws, limitations and arbitrary differences in syntax and semantics. Why? Is no one even TRYING to get it right?
what for?
Source code is chock full of inherent structure. Why confine ourselves to flat text that has to be parsed? If we're going to invent yet another new programming language that forces us to throw out all our old code, then we may as well go for broke. Make it some binary format that encapsulates all the structure, work with using an IDE that understands the format and represents it visually. We don't even to all agree on the visualization.
Can it be said to have the quality of firstiness?
Sometimes satire ends up revealing more about the satirist than the target. And if the public turns out to be on the target's side, then the satirist ends up being perceived as mean-spirited and out of touch. Satire always draws blood, it's just a question of whose.
Never forget that Air America was a dismal failure.
...in time to change it to Google Millennium Edition.
I'm wondering why I see no conspicuous clustering at the trojan points of Earth and Venus. Are asteroids there harder to detect?
Suppose something was written to spread via both the Internet and USB autorun? The more vectors, the stronger it would be.
http://www.haystacknetwork.com/faq/
Sez it's got encryption too.
Ugh. It's in Java!
I'm sorry. I don't want to seem ungrateful, but I just don't need the headaches that come with a Java runtime. Easy installation and maintenance is a must for a successful end user software. Adding a runtime that isn't really all that open source mucks things up needlessly. Plus it runs more slowly.
I like Tor. I'd like to see a distributed Facebook clone built atop Tor.
Hoping not to have to set aside the time to wade through all the annoying happy talk just to find out there's no technical meat. Someone please just tell me: are they nailing down a protocol spec first so that we can all do our own interoperable implementations, or at least all contribute code, and so not have the time wasting nightmare that was the Freenet project?
The government spends money like drunken sailors, yet somehow law enforcement is underfunded. How does that happen?
Why bother to require a licensed OS except as a deal to benefit Microsoft?
and some of them are way out there. They dissent from just about everything.
censorship. When a corporation wants to shut you up, they go to your ISp and get your site pulled. That won't work for a freesite. The biggest problem I see with Freenet is it's disconnected from potential users by being its own spearate network without enough gateways to the World Wide Web. The problem with making a gateway is you have to try to exercise some editorial control over what goes through it to avoid legal trouble, and you have to be willing to get shut down by corporate pressure. I willingly accept the latter risk, but I'm still experimenting on how to keep what goes through my gateway legal and worthwhile at the same time. My current approach is to alow all HTML and text but block most other data types except from freesites I trust.
resolved? It seems the only time they even make token gestures toward human rights in when we lean on them.
I've seen it on my honeypot. They look for proxies that don't reveal themselves as such in the headers. They use lots of proxy judge sites such as http://www.softvb.com/cgi-bin/judge2-35.cgi, http://207.234.198.165/cgi-bin/prxjdg.cgi?en, http://motorscreensavers.com/cgi-bin/pxjdg12.cgi?e n,
l etlumina2.html - insurance-termsandcons.html
http://wilsonjack.ejunx.org/prxjdg.cgi
They fake the User-Agent and Referers fields in the headers to look like real traffic. I've seen the User-agent field change half a dozen times in a day from one host. That might be chained proxies, but here's something that isn't. One guy tried to fake a Referer as netbroadcaster.com but he did a typo the first time and it was netboradcaster.com, which doesn't exist.
Here are some sites they hit:
| 1 | http://www.findbestsite.com/
| 2 | http://www.mpww.net/white_yellow_page1.htm
| 3 | http://www.mpww.net/white_yellow_page.htm
| 4 | http://www.bigbusinessonline.com/chevrolet/chevro
| 5 | http://www.mpww.net/web_hosting1.htm
| 6 | http://www.ffgame.net/candy/scr2.htm
| 7 | http://www.mpww.net/travel.htm
| 8 | http://www.xwss.com/breakdown-insurance/breakdown
| 9 | http://www.mpww.net/womens_health.htm
| 10 | http://www.gamesir.us/games/boom_boom.html
| 11 | http://www.aoshao.com/watchout.shtml
| 12 | http://www.art-ton.us/fat/3d-ganes.php
| 13 | http://www.linksfortraveller.com/cruises.html
posted the above, I got pings on my honeypot, from slashdot.org. On ports 3127 and 1026 it tried to fetch the URL http://slashdot.org/ok.txt, User-Agent: libwww-perl/5.803 This isn't the fist time I've seen hits from Slashdot. Is this the OTHER Slashdot effect?
Definitely not.
I've seen it on my honeypot. They come in from various IPs in the far east (APNIC) on port 3128 and emulate several clicks per second per proxy. I expect Google can look for the Via header line and don't count any click that includes one. My guess is either they don't do this or else the perps think they aren't doing this. And that would only work with proxies, not bots.
then clickdefense is worthless.