In a proper Relational DBMS, there should be no problems storing anything. By creating a view that maps onto the normalized logical layer, you will have access to the whole object through that view, store new objects, manipulate and convert them. So even though the object is spread across multiple entities, you access it through a view that makes it seem like one table.
If you are having spatial problems, then that is a problem either with your DBMS, which is not fully Relational, or you haven't modelled your database correctly. Perhaps you can solve the problem temporarily, by creating a generalized layer that stores and retrieves your information across several tables in the application. However, be warned that this will move functionality that should be covered by the DMBS to the application layer, which is not adviceable.
How do you plan to manipulate "relations" in OODBMSes, when they are all unconstrained (perhaps except for type) proprietary/inaccessible pointers? The very core of relational technology makes it open to everyone to manipulate the relations as they see fit using dead-simple foreign keys. No strange constraints there, other than those you define yourself on rows, tables and domains. Not so with OODBMSes. The problems with OODBMSes are *FUNDAMENTAL*, and can only be "fixed" with the sound and PROVEN relational theory. OODBMS is far from proven, neither in theory or in practice. Neither can it ever be proven to be superior to the relational theory, because OO is mathematically a small subset of it.
Read the articles in the link I gave in my original post. Read them well under the "contents" menu there.
I believe it is YOU who need to be educated. Any wise man will admit so when facing the facts. I admit that myself, I don't know everything, but this I know: OO may be a comfortable way of programming, but there is nothing there which relational theory doesn't have, and much, much more. If OO is having problems, it is because it is not embedding relational theory, not the other way around.
If all you plan, is to have an OO application save and restore its state, maybe an OODB is the way to go, but I would never call that a Database Management System (DBMS). You can use a flat-file DB like Berkley more easily and efficiently for that too.
Before flaming on, I would recommend taking your own advice.
OODBMSes have been thoroughly and handily debunked. For the best opinions on relational database technology, visit these hardcore guys: http://www.dbdebunk.com/
The problems with OODBMSes can be summarized so (OTOMHRN - on top of my head right now): 1) Proper relational technology can model OO-hierarchies, but the other way around is unnatural and cumbersome, if not impossible. Proper relational technology is a step up on the ladder in generalization from OO-technology. It's simply a generation or two ahead, while OODBMS is several steps backwards.
2) Proper relational technology is proven concepts from mathematics and logics, while OODBMSes are just a hack to store application data "quick'n dirty". Everything can be modelled as general relations, while OO-technology lacks the fundamentals to model *ANYTHING* and is limited and impeded by having an obligatory and *meaningless* top-to-bottom hierarchy. (You cannot have *meaning* without relations of differing types to other entities.)
3) Proper relational technology allows you to extract, convert and manipulate data in standardized methods (using query languages like SQL), in ways not thought of at the time of design. OODBMSes can only be used properly in the context of the OO-application layer, often relying on runtime data. If you need flexible solutions, you will have to spend extra time programming a specialized solution, instead of having the benefit of a fully relational query language (which unlike SQL, can express almost any problem to be solved).
4) The future is relational. Current RDBMSes do not implement true relational technology, which if they did, nothing else would be needed. The matemathics in the theories behind it would be at the programmers disposal during programming, reducing time and potential errors. Yes, it requires understanding the theory, but wouldn't you like a true DBA to do that anyways?
Don't buy into the hype, look into true relational technology and educating yourself. As for storing everything in RAM, and "saving it for the night", I wouldn't risk to have my bank-account in such a DB. Such solutions are only usable for storing non-volatile data. For non-commercial game-servers, it maybe perfect.
So what if the music is a hit? I still won't turn on my radio. All the "hits" there are crap to my ears, and I doubt they can make an algorithm that can detect the _feel_ behind the music. Music is supposed to raise the "good vibrations" in your body, and that's what _I'm_ looking for in music. That's why I rarely listen to music, because it get tiresome after a while.
They seem to assume that such an algorithm will tell "bad" music from "good", but it'll just spout out the same music. It sounds good to make such an algorithm, but it's a kick in the face to humanity. We're humans, you can believe you can deduct it all into a neat algorithm, but I'll prove you wrong easily. To be ALIVE! is something greater than all matematics and logics.
See my User-page for the music I like (although I've grown tired of listening to it, except for the Buddha Bar-series).
"We probably aren't going to want to take any steps back," Finkbeiner said.
Uuuuuhuu, Very reassuring. It's not a statement, just a display of who can dictate your government. And a hope that they want the right thing for us....
I don't want to sound hard, but 5 years of your life of important data and you deleted the old copy?
Ok, I guess we've all done stupid things like that, but if you're interested in getting it back (ie, the data is WORTH something), then there are many companies that specialize in retrieving lost data. This is probably a piece of cake for them, because they do it for customers who've had fires in the server-room etc. A dead HDD should prove easy, but they cost money! (I hope you didn't trash your HDD in anger)
5 years of my life, all GONE! It was quite depressing really. Since then i have vowed to never buy a IBM hd or any IBM products ever again (not because they'll fail again, but just because they killed my data!!!)
IBM didn't kill your data. All HDDs are prone to failure. If the data was worth something to you, you would have backed it up periodically, so that you have MANY copies. It's the only way to properly save data you want to keep.
You killed your data. Blaming others are pointless, and only furthers your pain. Besides, data will always vanish upon a point of time. Everything in the universe is always changing, so maybe the best course of action is to drop the importance of the data and enjoy the freedom being without it.
How about only randomizing the response time for error messages?
This might be adequate in some circumstances. In others, it might be devastating. It's okay, so long as the attacker can't drop the connection after a short timeout (she then knows there is an error after a specified time, and don't have to wait for a response), and reconnect with a fast loop. You really have to tailor it to the system. It's probably "safe", but required care.
That gives a boost to people waging denial of service attacks unless you also...
Agreed. That might be an issue to consider too for CPU-intensitive calculations. Good observation!
And of course the system should never ever accept more than N failures
Probably the most important feature to implement. And one must not allow concurrent connections in a backwards-way so that an atttacker can connect with 10000 connections, thus being allowed 9999 retries.
Security is really for the Paranoid with a Big 'P'.;-)
The proper way to solve stuff like timing seems to become totally paranoid about timing:
1) Randomize the message-queues: Some requests coming later will be processed sooner than others and vica versa. 2) Randomize the response time or guarantee a response time at a certain time (real-time systems). 3) Maybe even: Compute everything even in case of early failure. Have as few paths of execution as possible handling the request. (Makes it more difficult to intercept and analyse signals from the circuits etc) 4) And of course the system should never ever accept more than N failures, and start blocking out requests based on IP or other "reliable" identification.
EVERYBODY should "own up" to the problem. It isn't anyones "fault". I'd even argue that the bullies are the ones who can be called "socially inept".
The call for taking responsibility goes to ALL, for everything. Even those who are not in school. Anything less is as ignorant and ineffective as finding "blame".
...on the other side. If you ask her, maybe she'd say she regrets it. That she should have saved herself more for that special relationship. I have certainly heard that argument myself. Sex is NOTHING, without love. It's a fun toy for love, not a goal in itself. You don't even need to have sex in a real love-relationship. Do not get suckered in into the hopeless fantasies of others, and commercial society. Most Highschool sex is boring, but people think that this is how they "must behave". Much like they have to wear certain clothes and put on lipstick. It's really sad, not to be envied.
Forget the past, drop the future. You don't live there, you are living NOW *SNAP!*. Become alive!: People won't find you boring, you will relate to people better and finding a girlfriend will become natural. She'll probably find you though, if YOU just open up YOUR eyes..;-O
The best way to get a girlfriend, is to believe and behave like you don't need a girlfriend. To have fun without clinging.
Permit owners of digital information, whether copyright holders or registrars responsible for student records, to set tamper-proof controls on who can see, copy, and alter digital files.
Prevent unauthorized access, via a computer network or the Internet, to Social Security numbers, credit-card information, and other personal data stored in PC's.
Palladium will not:
Eliminate spam and software viruses.
Prevent a digital thief from gaining access to a computer in person and disabling its hardware security features.
Is it only me, or are these extremely contradictory? If a "digital thief" can gain access and disable Palladium, then what is gained in security? Who says she can't spoof valid Palladium requests, eg. by snooping traffic, etc. In the end, it'll only be as secure as the OS (and we know how secure that is...)
Point #2: When talking about good or evil, you all fall into the same trap. You forget that objective good or evil doesn't exist! It's based on subjective opinion.
For the publisher, being able to stop fair use is "good", while for the users it is "evil". Etc, etc. The discussions turn ignorant and meaningless from then on.
If Palladium doesn't stop viruses and hackers, possibly it can be cracked in time, then what is gained in security for the users of said system?
I have yet to see a valid example of something truly "good" (for users) coming from Palladium, that you wouldn't gain with a properly programmed and audited OS.
I don't buy Palladium. When users find out they can't copy & paste, they'll paint Redmond red.
If anything, it means fewer copies of Win98 in use, which means less old stuff for them to support.
Not really. You pay through the nose for actual support, besides they just drop the support and force everyone to stay current.
Most importantly: Don't take your business elsewhere
I'd say the excactly opposite. Take your business as far away from money-grubbing people as you can! If not, you're part of the system, and you're giving energy to it.
Saying "we'll just use open source software" doesn't do anything about the continued growth of draconian attempts at regaining control with their collateral damage.
No, but it's an ALTERNATIVE. One that is giving control back to the users. When people realize this, they will turn back more and more from the old egocentric ways.
Turn and take the issue head on, at its core level: The law.
No real persons have the money or time to deal with the law. It's utterly too complex, beuraucratic and a hopeless case. You'll spend time forever in lawsuits or discussions going nowhere, or being overridden by the latest bought-up-law from the corporations. To win, you need to make more money than them, which makes you a capitalist pig, hence part of the system again. However, of course this is a broad generalisation, and it's good to do what one can, when one can (ie, DVD-Jon case, FSF, etc).
IMHO, a shift in consciousness is the only way to bring the human system back into balance. You can append as many rules and laws as you like, but as long as people DON'T _GET IT_, they will break and tear the system down for personal gain. Real education and information of human values to the people is what is needed today. Nothing else will work. Period.
Forget the notion 'Black Box', your instructor is confusing the issue of "black-box testing" and interfaces. BB-testing is appropriate in some situations, "white-box testing" in others, doing both is superb.
What he means is that you shouldn't let the code become interdependent except through interfaces and documentation. Unless you really want nasty side-effects when you later change some innocent-looking code (job security;).
"Mememememememe". Have you ever considered thinking about someone else besides YOURSELF all the time? Real programmers aren't interested in recognition and fame, but the creation of extraordinary programs which can be a benefit to others as well as yourself.
I'm sure the code will feel a lot better if the GPL takes some time to make it Free (although no code ever complained to me), but then again, why should I bother? Seems to be an issue between the code and the GPL alone, no human action required. Not that I would stop the GPL from making any code Free, mind you. We all know what a hassle it is to deal with a pissed off license.
Yours is a funny post, but besides the issue. I'm not advocating the freedom of software for the sake of the software itself, but for the users of said software. It might be an advantage that all changes are kept Free to change by others when distributed. Then the software sort of gets a life by itself, no authority can forcably prevent forks or stomp it down into oblivion. Thus copyleft is sort of the opposite of copyright, which prevents copying altogether or makes it altogether expensive.
If you don't like the license, use BSD or a proprietary solution, whatever suits your fancy. But just because you dislike it yourself, don't take away the freedom of others to choose GPL..
GPL is Free, not because you are free to do whatever you wish with it (there are restrictions on distribution, not use), but because the software is Free (not gratis), and nobody can retain control once it is distributed.
BSD gives freedom to the programmers. GPL makes the software Free.
Yes, it's that easy, but since it's not taught in school, people will continue to confuse the issue. Myself, I respect both licenses and hope the authors are comfortable with what they imply when they pick a license for their projects.
Freedom is more complex than limitless actions for everyone, since we don't live in a perfect world with perfect inhabitants.
Dang, I think I'm being trolled again. You're doing it gently and politely, I'll grant, but I think you're trolling all the same. That makes the second time recently for me.
I'm terribly sorry for inconveniencing you with an impression that I am trolling, however, I stand by my opinion and let you have yours. *giggle*;-)
Have you found any? Care to share? It's not up to others to find evidence for an unconvincing case.
I'll let RedBear speak for me, as he does it much more elegantly than me. A reply to his post is also worth an extra glance. These are not evidence per se, but they are very compelling reasons to investigate further. It's better to read books about the subject than what's on the net (so much crap).
There are tons more of these little facts: It's happening all over the world in varying degrees. Crop circles have been reported in mostly barley and wheat. But, they also appear in corn, oats, oilseed rape (canola), grass, ricefields, trees, sand, and even snow. When investigators come early to an authentic ring, there are no footprints or traces of the creators, even on a rainy day with muddy ground. Many rings are made in canola, which you cannot step into without turning completely yellow, and breaking the fragile crop leaving trails into the crops. The earliest known formation was in 1647 in England (see the picture of the devil bending the crop), so it's not new of date. The microscopic structure of the plants themselves seem to have changed, which cannot be explained by conventional methods. Claims have been made that the cropgrowth are boosted (also researched). This means that many times you can see cropcircles of last year, in the new crop this year, as faint shadows because of longer crops. The genuine cropcircles also exhibits more complexity, whirlswithin the circles, especially in the middle. They are much more complex when you get a closer look at them.
All in all, there's alot of interesting stuff. Perhaps it's all made up of kooks and hoaxers as you seem to suggest, but I'm not that paranoid to believe such a grand conspiracy. There's too much work involved, both in design, planning and
Also, you missed the bit about keeping an open mind, even when one has a firm position/opnion. Clearly you find it difficult to believe that one can both have an opinion on topic X and an open mind on topic X. You've certainly shown that the reverse is true - one can have no opinion on a topic and a closed mind on it!!:-)
But I do have an opinion, and it is not convinced that humans are doing this. You are the one who cannot for the life of you accept the possibility of ETs or anything extraordinary. But it's typical to attack others for your own lacks..
Clearly, some of these works of art involve more than planks of wood and string, hence my reference to smart people. But I think you know this already - you were just defeating a straw man there (attacking a position I did not take).
Why would anybody with all the knowledge behind circles spend their time sweating in the long dark hours, without even being detected? What is the motive?
And let me repeat my question - which do you REALLY think is more likely? C'mon - say it! You really think it's 50-50? I don't know who did it either, but I have an opinion on the most likely explanation - do you?
50-50 of WHAT?? Crop circles are interesting, even with humans making them. When you really study them, they're impressive.
Actually you are, and that's OK! Stand firm! Express an opinion! You clearly think it's likely that I'm wrong!
How can you be wrong, when you offer no hypothesis and motive? You're just dismissing the whole thing as 'uninteresting', and that's your right..
Close! I have a negative attitude to anything non-existent. And I take a very, VERY broad interpretation of what existence means. But if it's invisible, unmeasurable, unpredictable, with no form or substance, and no effect on the world whatsoever (all in the broadest sense), then it doesn't exist.
Then in 1800, atoms and molecules didn't exist for you. They could not be measured or understood at the time, so they didn't exist, except for the "nutcracks" and "kooks" that persisted in researching what building blocks the world is made of.
Times certainly doesn't change much..
And your evidence for that assertion? Let me guess - I disagree with you, so I mustn't have done the research!
Seems so to me. The only other explanation is that you're AFRAID to find out that something fantastic really exists.
Sure I do, that's why I don't need to make stuff up.
They're not made up, you can visit crop circles yourself.
Tangent? I feel like I stepped into the middle of a different conversation.
Hint: It's to do with your dismissal attitude.
Hey - anything's possible!;-)
If only more people actually believed that, they would be open to new discoveries.
Instead, a witchhunt is clearly taking place. Ok, some of the kooks clearly "deserves it". However, that doesn't justify a crucifiction IMHO.
On the contrary. Faith in those time were knowledge. The religious church as grand authority could smash down on scientific research in those days.
The same is happening today, but with reversed roles: The church of science, logic and its blind followers are hampering the progress of humanity and spirituality by smashing down on everything "out of the ordinary".
I'm not asking you to believe in something which doesn't exist. Belief is weak, because it asks you to "know" something you don't really know. I'm just asking for an open mind, a mind that doesn't say: "yes, yes, no, no" to everything you read, limiting your view on the subject.
Don't you find it fascinating that there are thousands of cropcirlces made every year, in many different parts of the world? That cropcircles may inhibit cropgrowth, so that you can see the marks from previous year in the new crop of this year? MUST every explanation include human beings? If so, then there is no problem: By double-thinking, you can trick your brain into believing that.. Just like a believer.
You my friend, is a believer of logic. You're not so different from religious people as you think you are.
But seriously, I don't see any SCIENTIFIC evidence for any of these phenomena to solely from a spacecraft.
I'm not saying it comes from a spacecraft. There have been written plenty of good books on the subject, and from what you can read on the net, the phenomena is quite intriguing without bringing in clunky spacecrafts from Andromeda. I say we should investigate more, rather than dismiss everything as a hoax.
It's all about the difference between possibilities (ultimately, anything is possible) and probabilities (looking for evidence, weighing up the evidence, deciding what is the most likely answer, but keeping an open eye and open mind for new evidence that might suggest another answer).
Your possibilities limits your view. You understand that I see. It makes you dismiss things, without even doing some proper research into it.
It's likely that one of us is indeed being close-minded.:-) After all, can't I use your logic and claim that you are being dismissive of the probability that humans did it?
Why should I? Enough people are claiming humans did it with a plank and some strings, and enough material is out there to debunk all this. I've read it, and am impressed enough to post this story to/.. Let me repeat: I don't know who did it. If it's human, I'm Very impressed (based on what I've read about cropcirlces). Now YOU show me some evidence, besides throwing in some weak dismissive arguments. But please read the links with an open mind first:-)
Open mind does not mean empty mind...:-)
I'd say excactly the opposite is true:-) If you manage to get an empty mind, it'll be the most open mind in existance. An empty mind can be filled, while a full mind will reject.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that the basis of your arguments are based on a negative attitude towards anything non/super-physical. It's obvious you haven't researched the subject.
You obviously don't see the miracle that is life here on earth. Maybe you think you are a robot, a complex machine? I believe (and sense) we are much more than that, so maybe that's really the difference between our opinions too.
Slashdot Mirror
In a proper Relational DBMS, there should be no problems storing anything. By creating a view that maps onto the normalized logical layer, you will have access to the whole object through that view, store new objects, manipulate and convert them. So even though the object is spread across multiple entities, you access it through a view that makes it seem like one table.
If you are having spatial problems, then that is a problem either with your DBMS, which is not fully Relational, or you haven't modelled your database correctly. Perhaps you can solve the problem temporarily, by creating a generalized layer that stores and retrieves your information across several tables in the application. However, be warned that this will move functionality that should be covered by the DMBS to the application layer, which is not adviceable.
"Mommy, he said the D-word.."
Nothing destroys beauty like G R E E D.
I feel sorry for you.
*sigh*
How do you plan to manipulate "relations" in OODBMSes, when they are all unconstrained (perhaps except for type) proprietary/inaccessible pointers? The very core of relational technology makes it open to everyone to manipulate the relations as they see fit using dead-simple foreign keys. No strange constraints there, other than those you define yourself on rows, tables and domains. Not so with OODBMSes. The problems with OODBMSes are *FUNDAMENTAL*, and can only be "fixed" with the sound and PROVEN relational theory. OODBMS is far from proven, neither in theory or in practice. Neither can it ever be proven to be superior to the relational theory, because OO is mathematically a small subset of it.
Read the articles in the link I gave in my original post. Read them well under the "contents" menu there.
I believe it is YOU who need to be educated. Any wise man will admit so when facing the facts. I admit that myself, I don't know everything, but this I know: OO may be a comfortable way of programming, but there is nothing there which relational theory doesn't have, and much, much more. If OO is having problems, it is because it is not embedding relational theory, not the other way around.
If all you plan, is to have an OO application save and restore its state, maybe an OODB is the way to go, but I would never call that a Database Management System (DBMS). You can use a flat-file DB like Berkley more easily and efficiently for that too.
Before flaming on, I would recommend taking your own advice.
OODBMSes have been thoroughly and handily debunked. For the best opinions on relational database technology, visit these hardcore guys: http://www.dbdebunk.com/
The problems with OODBMSes can be summarized so (OTOMHRN - on top of my head right now):
1) Proper relational technology can model OO-hierarchies, but the other way around is unnatural and cumbersome, if not impossible. Proper relational technology is a step up on the ladder in generalization from OO-technology. It's simply a generation or two ahead, while OODBMS is several steps backwards.
2) Proper relational technology is proven concepts from mathematics and logics, while OODBMSes are just a hack to store application data "quick'n dirty". Everything can be modelled as general relations, while OO-technology lacks the fundamentals to model *ANYTHING* and is limited and impeded by having an obligatory and *meaningless* top-to-bottom hierarchy. (You cannot have *meaning* without relations of differing types to other entities.)
3) Proper relational technology allows you to extract, convert and manipulate data in standardized methods (using query languages like SQL), in ways not thought of at the time of design. OODBMSes can only be used properly in the context of the OO-application layer, often relying on runtime data. If you need flexible solutions, you will have to spend extra time programming a specialized solution, instead of having the benefit of a fully relational query language (which unlike SQL, can express almost any problem to be solved).
4) The future is relational. Current RDBMSes do not implement true relational technology, which if they did, nothing else would be needed. The matemathics in the theories behind it would be at the programmers disposal during programming, reducing time and potential errors. Yes, it requires understanding the theory, but wouldn't you like a true DBA to do that anyways?
Don't buy into the hype, look into true relational technology and educating yourself. As for storing everything in RAM, and "saving it for the night", I wouldn't risk to have my bank-account in such a DB. Such solutions are only usable for storing non-volatile data. For non-commercial game-servers, it maybe perfect.
So what if the music is a hit? I still won't turn on my radio. All the "hits" there are crap to my ears, and I doubt they can make an algorithm that can detect the _feel_ behind the music. Music is supposed to raise the "good vibrations" in your body, and that's what _I'm_ looking for in music. That's why I rarely listen to music, because it get tiresome after a while.
They seem to assume that such an algorithm will tell "bad" music from "good", but it'll just spout out the same music. It sounds good to make such an algorithm, but it's a kick in the face to humanity. We're humans, you can believe you can deduct it all into a neat algorithm, but I'll prove you wrong easily. To be ALIVE! is something greater than all matematics and logics.
See my User-page for the music I like (although I've grown tired of listening to it, except for the Buddha Bar-series).
From the article:
"We probably aren't going to want to take any steps back," Finkbeiner said.
Uuuuuhuu, Very reassuring. It's not a statement, just a display of who can dictate your government. And a hope that they want the right thing for us....
I don't want to sound hard, but 5 years of your life of important data and you deleted the old copy?
Ok, I guess we've all done stupid things like that, but if you're interested in getting it back (ie, the data is WORTH something), then there are many companies that specialize in retrieving lost data. This is probably a piece of cake for them, because they do it for customers who've had fires in the server-room etc. A dead HDD should prove easy, but they cost money! (I hope you didn't trash your HDD in anger)
5 years of my life, all GONE! It was quite depressing really. Since then i have vowed to never buy a IBM hd or any IBM products ever again (not because they'll fail again, but just because they killed my data!!!)
IBM didn't kill your data. All HDDs are prone to failure. If the data was worth something to you, you would have backed it up periodically, so that you have MANY copies. It's the only way to properly save data you want to keep.
You killed your data. Blaming others are pointless, and only furthers your pain. Besides, data will always vanish upon a point of time. Everything in the universe is always changing, so maybe the best course of action is to drop the importance of the data and enjoy the freedom being without it.
How about only randomizing the response time for error messages?
;-)
This might be adequate in some circumstances. In others, it might be devastating. It's okay, so long as the attacker can't drop the connection after a short timeout (she then knows there is an error after a specified time, and don't have to wait for a response), and reconnect with a fast loop. You really have to tailor it to the system. It's probably "safe", but required care.
That gives a boost to people waging denial of service attacks unless you also...
Agreed. That might be an issue to consider too for CPU-intensitive calculations. Good observation!
And of course the system should never ever accept more than N failures
Probably the most important feature to implement. And one must not allow concurrent connections in a backwards-way so that an atttacker can connect with 10000 connections, thus being allowed 9999 retries.
Security is really for the Paranoid with a Big 'P'.
The proper way to solve stuff like timing seems to become totally paranoid about timing:
1) Randomize the message-queues: Some requests coming later will be processed sooner than others and vica versa.
2) Randomize the response time or guarantee a response time at a certain time (real-time systems).
3) Maybe even: Compute everything even in case of early failure. Have as few paths of execution as possible handling the request. (Makes it more difficult to intercept and analyse signals from the circuits etc)
4) And of course the system should never ever accept more than N failures, and start blocking out requests based on IP or other "reliable" identification.
Let's never forget there is never 100% security.
I'd love to see the protocol where the information doesn't pass between a client and a server...
...both correct and wrong at the same time.
EVERYBODY should "own up" to the problem. It isn't anyones "fault". I'd even argue that the bullies are the ones who can be called "socially inept".
The call for taking responsibility goes to ALL, for everything. Even those who are not in school. Anything less is as ignorant and ineffective as finding "blame".
...on the other side. If you ask her, maybe she'd say she regrets it. That she should have saved herself more for that special relationship. I have certainly heard that argument myself. Sex is NOTHING, without love. It's a fun toy for love, not a goal in itself. You don't even need to have sex in a real love-relationship. Do not get suckered in into the hopeless fantasies of others, and commercial society. Most Highschool sex is boring, but people think that this is how they "must behave". Much like they have to wear certain clothes and put on lipstick. It's really sad, not to be envied.
;-O
Forget the past, drop the future. You don't live there, you are living NOW *SNAP!*. Become alive!: People won't find you boring, you will relate to people better and finding a girlfriend will become natural. She'll probably find you though, if YOU just open up YOUR eyes..
The best way to get a girlfriend, is to believe and behave like you don't need a girlfriend. To have fun without clinging.
Worked for me:
Point #1:
...
From the article:
Palladium will:
Permit owners of digital information, whether copyright holders or registrars responsible for student records, to set tamper-proof controls on who can see, copy, and alter digital files.
Prevent unauthorized access, via a computer network or the Internet, to Social Security numbers, credit-card information, and other personal data stored in PC's.
Palladium will not:
Eliminate spam and software viruses.
Prevent a digital thief from gaining access to a computer in person and disabling its hardware security features.
Is it only me, or are these extremely contradictory? If a "digital thief" can gain access and disable Palladium, then what is gained in security? Who says she can't spoof valid Palladium requests, eg. by snooping traffic, etc. In the end, it'll only be as secure as the OS (and we know how secure that is...)
Point #2:
When talking about good or evil, you all fall into the same trap. You forget that objective good or evil doesn't exist! It's based on subjective opinion.
For the publisher, being able to stop fair use is "good", while for the users it is "evil". Etc, etc. The discussions turn ignorant and meaningless from then on.
If Palladium doesn't stop viruses and hackers, possibly it can be cracked in time, then what is gained in security for the users of said system?
I have yet to see a valid example of something truly "good" (for users) coming from Palladium, that you wouldn't gain with a properly programmed and audited OS.
I don't buy Palladium. When users find out they can't copy & paste, they'll paint Redmond red.
Firstly, let me say GOOD POST.
If anything, it means fewer copies of Win98 in use, which means less old stuff for them to support.
Not really. You pay through the nose for actual support, besides they just drop the support and force everyone to stay current.
Most importantly: Don't take your business elsewhere
I'd say the excactly opposite. Take your business as far away from money-grubbing people as you can! If not, you're part of the system, and you're giving energy to it.
Saying "we'll just use open source software" doesn't do anything about the continued growth of draconian attempts at regaining control with their collateral damage.
No, but it's an ALTERNATIVE. One that is giving control back to the users. When people realize this, they will turn back more and more from the old egocentric ways.
Turn and take the issue head on, at its core level: The law.
No real persons have the money or time to deal with the law. It's utterly too complex, beuraucratic and a hopeless case. You'll spend time forever in lawsuits or discussions going nowhere, or being overridden by the latest bought-up-law from the corporations. To win, you need to make more money than them, which makes you a capitalist pig, hence part of the system again. However, of course this is a broad generalisation, and it's good to do what one can, when one can (ie, DVD-Jon case, FSF, etc).
IMHO, a shift in consciousness is the only way to bring the human system back into balance. You can append as many rules and laws as you like, but as long as people DON'T _GET IT_, they will break and tear the system down for personal gain. Real education and information of human values to the people is what is needed today. Nothing else will work. Period.
Forget the notion 'Black Box', your instructor is confusing the issue of "black-box testing" and interfaces. BB-testing is appropriate in some situations, "white-box testing" in others, doing both is superb.
;).
What he means is that you shouldn't let the code become interdependent except through interfaces and documentation. Unless you really want nasty side-effects when you later change some innocent-looking code (job security
Well, I'm a programmer, not software.
"Mememememememe". Have you ever considered thinking about someone else besides YOURSELF all the time? Real programmers aren't interested in recognition and fame, but the creation of extraordinary programs which can be a benefit to others as well as yourself.
I'm sure the code will feel a lot better if the GPL takes some time to make it Free (although no code ever complained to me), but then again, why should I bother? Seems to be an issue between the code and the GPL alone, no human action required.
Not that I would stop the GPL from making any code Free, mind you. We all know what a hassle it is to deal with a pissed off license.
Yours is a funny post, but besides the issue. I'm not advocating the freedom of software for the sake of the software itself, but for the users of said software. It might be an advantage that all changes are kept Free to change by others when distributed. Then the software sort of gets a life by itself, no authority can forcably prevent forks or stomp it down into oblivion. Thus copyleft is sort of the opposite of copyright, which prevents copying altogether or makes it altogether expensive.
If you don't like the license, use BSD or a proprietary solution, whatever suits your fancy. But just because you dislike it yourself, don't take away the freedom of others to choose GPL..
GNU: Freedom is Slavery.
George Bush: War is Peace.
Nobody is forcing you to use GPLed-software. This is an insult to slaves!
Maybe you need to study the GPL again.
GPL is Free, not because you are free to do whatever you wish with it (there are restrictions on distribution, not use), but because the software is Free (not gratis), and nobody can retain control once it is distributed.
BSD gives freedom to the programmers.
GPL makes the software Free.
Yes, it's that easy, but since it's not taught in school, people will continue to confuse the issue. Myself, I respect both licenses and hope the authors are comfortable with what they imply when they pick a license for their projects.
Freedom is more complex than limitless actions for everyone, since we don't live in a perfect world with perfect inhabitants.
Haha. Got you! :-)
Now take the blue pill. I'm not wasting any more time..
Dang, I think I'm being trolled again. You're doing it gently and politely, I'll grant, but I think you're trolling all the same. That makes the second time recently for me.
;-)
:-)
;-)
I'm terribly sorry for inconveniencing you with an impression that I am trolling, however, I stand by my opinion and let you have yours. *giggle*
Have you found any? Care to share? It's not up to others to find evidence for an unconvincing case.
I'll let RedBear speak for me, as he does it much more elegantly than me. A reply to his post is also worth an extra glance. These are not evidence per se, but they are very compelling reasons to investigate further. It's better to read books about the subject than what's on the net (so much crap).
There are tons more of these little facts: It's happening all over the world in varying degrees. Crop circles have been reported in mostly barley and wheat. But, they also appear in corn, oats, oilseed rape (canola), grass, ricefields, trees, sand, and even snow. When investigators come early to an authentic ring, there are no footprints or traces of the creators, even on a rainy day with muddy ground. Many rings are made in canola, which you cannot step into without turning completely yellow, and breaking the fragile crop leaving trails into the crops. The earliest known formation was in 1647 in England (see the picture of the devil bending the crop), so it's not new of date. The microscopic structure of the plants themselves seem to have changed, which cannot be explained by conventional methods. Claims have been made that the cropgrowth are boosted (also researched). This means that many times you can see cropcircles of last year, in the new crop this year, as faint shadows because of longer crops. The genuine cropcircles also exhibits more complexity, whirls within the circles, especially in the middle. They are much more complex when you get a closer look at them.
All in all, there's alot of interesting stuff. Perhaps it's all made up of kooks and hoaxers as you seem to suggest, but I'm not that paranoid to believe such a grand conspiracy. There's too much work involved, both in design, planning and
Also, you missed the bit about keeping an open mind, even when one has a firm position/opnion. Clearly you find it difficult to believe that one can both have an opinion on topic X and an open mind on topic X. You've certainly shown that the reverse is true - one can have no opinion on a topic and a closed mind on it!!
But I do have an opinion, and it is not convinced that humans are doing this. You are the one who cannot for the life of you accept the possibility of ETs or anything extraordinary. But it's typical to attack others for your own lacks..
Clearly, some of these works of art involve more than planks of wood and string, hence my reference to smart people. But I think you know this already - you were just defeating a straw man there (attacking a position I did not take).
Why would anybody with all the knowledge behind circles spend their time sweating in the long dark hours, without even being detected? What is the motive?
And let me repeat my question - which do you REALLY think is more likely? C'mon - say it! You really think it's 50-50? I don't know who did it either, but I have an opinion on the most likely explanation - do you?
50-50 of WHAT?? Crop circles are interesting, even with humans making them. When you really study them, they're impressive.
Actually you are, and that's OK! Stand firm! Express an opinion! You clearly think it's likely that I'm wrong!
How can you be wrong, when you offer no hypothesis and motive? You're just dismissing the whole thing as 'uninteresting', and that's your right..
Close! I have a negative attitude to anything non-existent. And I take a very, VERY broad interpretation of what existence means. But if it's invisible, unmeasurable, unpredictable, with no form or substance, and no effect on the world whatsoever (all in the broadest sense), then it doesn't exist.
Then in 1800, atoms and molecules didn't exist for you. They could not be measured or understood at the time, so they didn't exist, except for the "nutcracks" and "kooks" that persisted in researching what building blocks the world is made of.
Times certainly doesn't change much..
And your evidence for that assertion? Let me guess - I disagree with you, so I mustn't have done the research!
Seems so to me. The only other explanation is that you're AFRAID to find out that something fantastic really exists.
Sure I do, that's why I don't need to make stuff up.
They're not made up, you can visit crop circles yourself.
Tangent? I feel like I stepped into the middle of a different conversation.
Hint: It's to do with your dismissal attitude.
Hey - anything's possible!
If only more people actually believed that, they would be open to new discoveries.
Instead, a witchhunt is clearly taking place. Ok, some of the kooks clearly "deserves it". However, that doesn't justify a crucifiction IMHO.
New discoveries are hampered by faith.
On the contrary. Faith in those time were knowledge. The religious church as grand authority could smash down on scientific research in those days.
The same is happening today, but with reversed roles: The church of science, logic and its blind followers are hampering the progress of humanity and spirituality by smashing down on everything "out of the ordinary".
I'm not asking you to believe in something which doesn't exist. Belief is weak, because it asks you to "know" something you don't really know. I'm just asking for an open mind, a mind that doesn't say: "yes, yes, no, no" to everything you read, limiting your view on the subject.
Don't you find it fascinating that there are thousands of cropcirlces made every year, in many different parts of the world? That cropcircles may inhibit cropgrowth, so that you can see the marks from previous year in the new crop of this year? MUST every explanation include human beings? If so, then there is no problem: By double-thinking, you can trick your brain into believing that.. Just like a believer.
You my friend, is a believer of logic. You're not so different from religious people as you think you are.
But seriously, I don't see any SCIENTIFIC evidence for any of these phenomena to solely from a spacecraft.
I'm not saying it comes from a spacecraft. There have been written plenty of good books on the subject, and from what you can read on the net, the phenomena is quite intriguing without bringing in clunky spacecrafts from Andromeda. I say we should investigate more, rather than dismiss everything as a hoax.
Uh huh. Do you find reality to be dull and lifeless?
If you mean a reality where we get born, go to school, go to work and then drop dead, then yes, that is dull and lifeless.
I believe there is much more to life than what authorities tell us.
It's all about the difference between possibilities (ultimately, anything is possible) and probabilities (looking for evidence, weighing up the evidence, deciding what is the most likely answer, but keeping an open eye and open mind for new evidence that might suggest another answer).
:-) After all, can't I use your logic and claim that you are being dismissive of the probability that humans did it?
/.. Let me repeat: I don't know who did it. If it's human, I'm Very impressed (based on what I've read about cropcirlces). Now YOU show me some evidence, besides throwing in some weak dismissive arguments. But please read the links with an open mind first :-)
:-)
:-) If you manage to get an empty mind, it'll be the most open mind in existance. An empty mind can be filled, while a full mind will reject.
Your possibilities limits your view. You understand that I see. It makes you dismiss things, without even doing some proper research into it.
It's likely that one of us is indeed being close-minded.
Why should I? Enough people are claiming humans did it with a plank and some strings, and enough material is out there to debunk all this. I've read it, and am impressed enough to post this story to
Open mind does not mean empty mind...
I'd say excactly the opposite is true
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that the basis of your arguments are based on a negative attitude towards anything non/super-physical. It's obvious you haven't researched the subject.
You obviously don't see the miracle that is life here on earth. Maybe you think you are a robot, a complex machine? I believe (and sense) we are much more than that, so maybe that's really the difference between our opinions too.
There is no point discussing this with you. Obviously you know how aliens *should* act and not act..
That is being closed-minded. An open mind doesn't know. Unless you don't know, you're not open to new ideas.