get a load of that democracy, freedom of speech.... you are as free as the money you have - and those with more money than you, can even go 'privately' buying means with which you can effectively practice your freedom of speech... yeah yeah, i know, they are 'just' buying domain names in this instance. 'just'. but they are also in bed (all megacorps actually) with each other in payment, backbone providing, news, media, and so on. all combined, it makes a hugely effective mechanism for control of free speech.
greatest trick : make everyone free to speak, but tie everything to money. then you have effectively controlled free speech, and also maintained an illusion of freedom that fools would believe.
i read the article, and both the title and contents, are going to be used against concept of ddos. the ddoses that were happening to the human rights sites, actually ANY site, were around for a decade or more. yet, noone came up and said that they threatened free speech up until anonymous started to take down major bank/payment sites as a reaction.
very well said. some people seem to have 'belief'. belief doesnt use logic. they just put their trust in the system, despite the system had always acted to the contrary before, and despite the participants and major players of the system are actually saying that they ARE going to act to the contrary, and against people's freedoms. some people still dont believe they will be able to do that. they ARE able to do that, they have the means, they have the control, they are even buying laws. yet, some people still believe 'everything will work out okay'. because ? well, just 'because'... against logic and reason, it will just 'work out'. i see it no different than a belief in a religion. they just believe.
Which is their right of free association. They can choose not to do business with a company or organization, just as individuals or other groups have the right to boycott something they don't agree with.
yeah, surely. except that in all fields of life there are at most 4 major conglomerates, ALL of which pursue the same policy, monopolizing the fields they are in, preventing entry, and eventually forcing their practices as 'industry' standard.
in middle ages you could also choose to move to somewhere else if you didnt want to live under a feudal lord, in some countries. curiously, wherever you go, feudal lords were ruling the land.
it is a foolish belief that you have, regarding 'choosing not to do business with'. make a test - tomorrow attempt to buy a cleaning product which doesnt belong to unilever, procter&gamble or 2 other major corporation that dominate the cleaning chemicals market. dont be a moron and mistake the brand names you see labeled on the product in big letters - check out the real producer written somewhere below.
the mere title of that article, proposing that ddos attacks threaten human rights, will be used by right wing press to actually effect that propaganda. period.
Why does it matter what their opinions are? Free speech is for everybody and every opinion. Again, EVERYBODY is supposed to have free speech, not just the people who agree with you.
quite so. however the people who do not agree with me, are wanting to suppress my disagreement with them through capitalist mechanics, in this instance.
first, wall street journal asks whether do we REALLY need net neutrality, then, harvard puts out that the reaction of THE PEOPLE against the control mechanisms of established wealthy, are stifling 'free speech'.
apparently, the censorship that has been tried to effect by visa, mc, paypal, amazon, banks, american government, is not stifling free speech. but, the reaction AGAINST it, is. the VERY people that are supposed to have free speech, are being restricted, and when they react to it adversely and fiercely, it becomes 'stifling free speech'.
you gotta love corporate capitalism. even science works in your way, through connections and donations.
So, this is what wall street, the mouthpiece of private interests, the lapdog of corporations, is doing.
it passed the stage of whether it being something good or bad, as you see, now they are posing it as questions like 'is it REALLY needed'.
all it is aimed at is, rekindling the fire in the minds of the fools that believe that there can be 'competition' in a conglomerate world in which more than 50% of the top economic entities of the world, are corporations even before countries. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html
these corporations are basically GOVERNMENTS. they are bigger than governments. their reach, their effect is much bigger than governments. you can go around and buy innumerable goods and services in a state, and yet still not leave the domain of a holding that maintains a few megacorporations that dominate those sectors. and you wouldnt even know, because of proxy shareholderships, stakeholderships, co-branding, branding and so on.
and there are idiots who believe that 'free market' will handle that. yeah, it handles that. every 15-20 years, when some new technology comes, free market gives a chance for nobodies or small time companies to go big. like in the case of internet. with that, maybe it can be possible for a corporation that is not already owned by an established conglomerate may come up and get some market share, and you, as the consumer, may have 'choice'. but when dust settles, the big established conglomerates will move in with their MEGA capital, and consolidate the sector again. just like how it happened with isps. end of line sharing regulation ended in 2006, mega corps like at&t, comcast started to consolidate the internet, and, ironically, immediately at the same time they started attacking net neutrality. see how that works ?
no, free market wont avail you until a new technology is found. the established powers in a capitalist economy is always bigger than any upcoming competitor can handle. competitors are either destroyed, or bought, or subdued and integrated into the existing hierarchy. it is the way of things in situations where the society allows a dog eat dog situation. the strong subdues the weak.
see, there is THAT much lobbying, even though it is fairly well understood by now that no net regulation will mean walled gardens. there are still shitty pieces like this coming up in mouthpiece conglomerate media like wall street. you think they are doing all that effort for nothing ? you think they will not wall you off ?
but actually, yeah, competition might happen. it may take 5 to 10 years for an acceptable competitor to come up and allow you a non walled garden choice. but in the meantime, your kids will grow up, you will have aged a decade, in a world in which you are not able to decide what you can do on the internet, but some corporate appointed administration.
its private censorship, for profit. its worse than any other kind of censorship. even the censorship in repressive countries, have some ideology behind them, right or wrong, an idea. but, in the case of this kind of private censorship, your life gets restricted for the mere sake of private profits of a small group of individuals.
yeah. net neutrality is needed. it is what made internet what it is in the first place. what is not needed is, lapdog publications like wall street trying to do shitty propaganda, and fools believing some school of economics which even the most prominent figure of that school have given up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan
your numbers are off, and youre shooting out of your ass. you have said THREE decades. 30 fscking years. that saw a lot of games from x-wing, tie fighter, to x wing vs tie fighter, x wing alliance, rebellion, dark forces, jedi knight, kotors, star wars republic commando and many more. what you have said maybe can pass for the last decade.
EVEN with that, still, the FIRST and so far the only star wars mmo, is not a 'one out of many' star wars games. it is THE star wars mmo. it was properly hyped, properly advertised, and it had huge attendance at its launch, and there wasnt even wow to go around.
flopping that required dedication, and soe had it.
there are a lot of mmos that havent flopped. and swg didnt 'flop' in the normal sense as you put it, like in 'eventually'. it flopped, with the true sense of the word.
if you have the right of way, legally, you shouldnt take it. because.... some morons driving cars think that it is their right to have the way, DESPITE they are not legally entitled to it over others.
I don't know anyone who considers Rails to be a programming language.
just read the comments made to this article. you may see that some even go beyond that in their zealotry.
There is nothing holding back PHP in message queuing. Why didn't Twitter choose PHP instead of Scala? Surely the popularity of PHP would have made the move even easier?
im not knowledgeable in details of message queueing. yet im sure there are issues of nativity with software/hardware. ....
i think we discussed long enough.
isnt that the point, already ? people are pitting rails as a programming language.
However, I believe it does show that PHP is not a very strong contender in the message queue arena.
contender, and future leader. just like how it happened with a lot of other things. all it needs is people using more and more. rest of the hardware and infrastructure will follow
According to Twitter, they dropped Starling, their Ruby (not Rails) message queue, because they found edge cases to be too difficult to code around. The Scala language provided features to make those tasks easier, thus improving productivity and the service as a whole. Kudos to Twitter for looking for the best language for the job, not just sticking with what they know.
that is the thing youre missing. it doesnt matter what you are doing - if you are doing ANYthing for the long run, any 'framework' that allows you create things fast will become a burden in future. it will either incur high load, or make further modification increasingly harder. and inevitably a point will come in which you will see that some low level operation is not possible or is infeasible with the framework you are using. that is why i argued for php. because, apart from things that require machine code, it is suitable for any kind of service/integration we are using on internet and the things it can integrate.
Slashdot Mirror
Reform of a field of sports for an entire nation is dependent on the whim of a random individual somewhere.
no no. patent system isnt something that cannot work. surely. it can work. maybe. on some occasions. if, and when.
until it works, maybe, sometime in future, youth wont be able to play in a reformed sports arena. because, well, just 'because' it spurs innovation.
get a load of that democracy, freedom of speech .... you are as free as the money you have - and those with more money than you, can even go 'privately' buying means with which you can effectively practice your freedom of speech ... yeah yeah, i know, they are 'just' buying domain names in this instance. 'just'. but they are also in bed (all megacorps actually) with each other in payment, backbone providing, news, media, and so on. all combined, it makes a hugely effective mechanism for control of free speech.
greatest trick : make everyone free to speak, but tie everything to money. then you have effectively controlled free speech, and also maintained an illusion of freedom that fools would believe.
big corps are being targeted by patent trolls.
today. there has to be a reason, out of the blue.
geee .... rehash of 1998 game. even in that case, it is questionable that it busted any blocks.
to pass a law to reduce Internet sharing of music and media, which is legal in Spain
see how that filth works ? this is precisely why they are trying to take down wikileaks. because it exposes what filth they are doing.
where are they ? i havent seen once since late 90s.
i read the article, and both the title and contents, are going to be used against concept of ddos. the ddoses that were happening to the human rights sites, actually ANY site, were around for a decade or more. yet, noone came up and said that they threatened free speech up until anonymous started to take down major bank/payment sites as a reaction.
very well said. some people seem to have 'belief'. belief doesnt use logic. they just put their trust in the system, despite the system had always acted to the contrary before, and despite the participants and major players of the system are actually saying that they ARE going to act to the contrary, and against people's freedoms. some people still dont believe they will be able to do that. they ARE able to do that, they have the means, they have the control, they are even buying laws. yet, some people still believe 'everything will work out okay'. because ? well, just 'because' ... against logic and reason, it will just 'work out'. i see it no different than a belief in a religion. they just believe.
Which is their right of free association. They can choose not to do business with a company or organization, just as individuals or other groups have the right to boycott something they don't agree with.
yeah, surely. except that in all fields of life there are at most 4 major conglomerates, ALL of which pursue the same policy, monopolizing the fields they are in, preventing entry, and eventually forcing their practices as 'industry' standard.
in middle ages you could also choose to move to somewhere else if you didnt want to live under a feudal lord, in some countries. curiously, wherever you go, feudal lords were ruling the land.
it is a foolish belief that you have, regarding 'choosing not to do business with'. make a test - tomorrow attempt to buy a cleaning product which doesnt belong to unilever, procter&gamble or 2 other major corporation that dominate the cleaning chemicals market. dont be a moron and mistake the brand names you see labeled on the product in big letters - check out the real producer written somewhere below.
the mere title of that article, proposing that ddos attacks threaten human rights, will be used by right wing press to actually effect that propaganda. period.
Why does it matter what their opinions are? Free speech is for everybody and every opinion. Again, EVERYBODY is supposed to have free speech, not just the people who agree with you.
quite so. however the people who do not agree with me, are wanting to suppress my disagreement with them through capitalist mechanics, in this instance.
first, wall street journal asks whether do we REALLY need net neutrality, then, harvard puts out that the reaction of THE PEOPLE against the control mechanisms of established wealthy, are stifling 'free speech'.
apparently, the censorship that has been tried to effect by visa, mc, paypal, amazon, banks, american government, is not stifling free speech. but, the reaction AGAINST it, is. the VERY people that are supposed to have free speech, are being restricted, and when they react to it adversely and fiercely, it becomes 'stifling free speech'.
you gotta love corporate capitalism. even science works in your way, through connections and donations.
So, this is what wall street, the mouthpiece of private interests, the lapdog of corporations, is doing.
it passed the stage of whether it being something good or bad, as you see, now they are posing it as questions like 'is it REALLY needed'.
all it is aimed at is, rekindling the fire in the minds of the fools that believe that there can be 'competition' in a conglomerate world in which more than 50% of the top economic entities of the world, are corporations even before countries. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html
these corporations are basically GOVERNMENTS. they are bigger than governments. their reach, their effect is much bigger than governments. you can go around and buy innumerable goods and services in a state, and yet still not leave the domain of a holding that maintains a few megacorporations that dominate those sectors. and you wouldnt even know, because of proxy shareholderships, stakeholderships, co-branding, branding and so on.
and there are idiots who believe that 'free market' will handle that. yeah, it handles that. every 15-20 years, when some new technology comes, free market gives a chance for nobodies or small time companies to go big. like in the case of internet. with that, maybe it can be possible for a corporation that is not already owned by an established conglomerate may come up and get some market share, and you, as the consumer, may have 'choice'. but when dust settles, the big established conglomerates will move in with their MEGA capital, and consolidate the sector again. just like how it happened with isps. end of line sharing regulation ended in 2006, mega corps like at&t, comcast started to consolidate the internet, and, ironically, immediately at the same time they started attacking net neutrality. see how that works ?
no, free market wont avail you until a new technology is found. the established powers in a capitalist economy is always bigger than any upcoming competitor can handle. competitors are either destroyed, or bought, or subdued and integrated into the existing hierarchy. it is the way of things in situations where the society allows a dog eat dog situation. the strong subdues the weak.
see, there is THAT much lobbying, even though it is fairly well understood by now that no net regulation will mean walled gardens. there are still shitty pieces like this coming up in mouthpiece conglomerate media like wall street. you think they are doing all that effort for nothing ? you think they will not wall you off ?
you think 'competition' will happen ? lets see how will it happen in this situation http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/04/18/1318210
but actually, yeah, competition might happen. it may take 5 to 10 years for an acceptable competitor to come up and allow you a non walled garden choice. but in the meantime, your kids will grow up, you will have aged a decade, in a world in which you are not able to decide what you can do on the internet, but some corporate appointed administration.
its private censorship, for profit. its worse than any other kind of censorship. even the censorship in repressive countries, have some ideology behind them, right or wrong, an idea. but, in the case of this kind of private censorship, your life gets restricted for the mere sake of private profits of a small group of individuals.
yeah. net neutrality is needed. it is what made internet what it is in the first place. what is not needed is, lapdog publications like wall street trying to do shitty propaganda, and fools believing some school of economics which even the most prominent figure of that school have given up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan
or maybe he could be charged with bullshit ? like, someone being charged for having eyebrows over their eye sockets ?
get real. his rationalization for justifying violation of legal rights of pedestrians, was shitty. dont sweat it.
your numbers are off, and youre shooting out of your ass. you have said THREE decades. 30 fscking years. that saw a lot of games from x-wing, tie fighter, to x wing vs tie fighter, x wing alliance, rebellion, dark forces, jedi knight, kotors, star wars republic commando and many more. what you have said maybe can pass for the last decade.
EVEN with that, still, the FIRST and so far the only star wars mmo, is not a 'one out of many' star wars games. it is THE star wars mmo. it was properly hyped, properly advertised, and it had huge attendance at its launch, and there wasnt even wow to go around.
flopping that required dedication, and soe had it.
in that case, all the people in that bar that have assaulted that person becomes guilty under law, and gets charged, and jailed, when caught.
there are a lot of mmos that havent flopped. and swg didnt 'flop' in the normal sense as you put it, like in 'eventually'. it flopped, with the true sense of the word.
italians are famous for their lack of respect for rules.
sony has to pay ME in order to play SOE's games after star wars galaxies flop.
no other company could so grandly flop a mega merchandise like star wars.
if you have the right of way, legally, you shouldnt take it. because.... some morons driving cars think that it is their right to have the way, DESPITE they are not legally entitled to it over others.
if they have the right of way legally, it means that THEY LEGALLY HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY.
its not too hard to understand. however, you talk as if they do not have the right of way, in your opinion. its, your opinion.
I don't know anyone who considers Rails to be a programming language.
just read the comments made to this article. you may see that some even go beyond that in their zealotry.
There is nothing holding back PHP in message queuing. Why didn't Twitter choose PHP instead of Scala? Surely the popularity of PHP would have made the move even easier?
im not knowledgeable in details of message queueing. yet im sure there are issues of nativity with software/hardware.
....
i think we discussed long enough.
Unlike Rails, PHP is a programming language.
isnt that the point, already ? people are pitting rails as a programming language.
However, I believe it does show that PHP is not a very strong contender in the message queue arena.
contender, and future leader. just like how it happened with a lot of other things. all it needs is people using more and more. rest of the hardware and infrastructure will follow
According to Twitter, they dropped Starling, their Ruby (not Rails) message queue, because they found edge cases to be too difficult to code around. The Scala language provided features to make those tasks easier, thus improving productivity and the service as a whole. Kudos to Twitter for looking for the best language for the job, not just sticking with what they know.
that is the thing youre missing. it doesnt matter what you are doing - if you are doing ANYthing for the long run, any 'framework' that allows you create things fast will become a burden in future. it will either incur high load, or make further modification increasingly harder. and inevitably a point will come in which you will see that some low level operation is not possible or is infeasible with the framework you are using. that is why i argued for php. because, apart from things that require machine code, it is suitable for any kind of service/integration we are using on internet and the things it can integrate.
they generally dont make any audible noise at all from close distance. that would be rather dangerous on roads for pedestrians.