Take a look at Jetty. Running out of memory is still a problem where "all bets are off" [1] but being overloaded is not. Incoming requests are queued. If there are too many requests, they are rejected (HTTP 503). The server is very solid and much lighter than other JavaEE implementations (runs like a library instead of a container).

[1] But this is mostly under your control. You shouldn't allow unbounded allocations or unvalidated user requests.

I'm not too familiar with PostgreSQL. Out of curiosity, can you elaborate what you mean by the TXID problem? You can share a link that elaborates on the problem if that's easier for you.

It turns out you don't need to understand math to kill people. You just need a lot of money (easy when you're sitting on top of oil) and weapons/explosives.

They won't be inventing any new weapons but Russia/China is more than willing to sell them what they want.

You might want to tone down your insults. Furthermore, I took a look at http://www.pricewatch.com/syst... and prices are roughly double what you claimed. Next time please provide concrete links instead of insulting for the sake of insulting.

See http://www.extremetech.com/com... and https://pcpartpicker.com/trend...

Actually, the prices I was quoting were for DDR3, not DDR4 so the problem is actually worse than you think.

Two years ago it was half that price.

Electronics prices are supposed to drop over time. When you compare current prices to 5 years ago there isn't much of a difference.

No one is talking about the elephant in the room: RAM prices are so high that you'd have to spend $700 to hit 64GB RAM (the max the board supports). That is just outrageous.

These prices are going to lead to a severe drop in demand.

Not when most of the grievances are found to be factually incorrect (videos of deaths from Syria passed off as Jews killing Palestinians) and when "high sea piracy" is actually Israel intercepting ships from Iran to Gaza full of weapons.

Israel has made mistakes, like any other country has, but nothing that would justify terrorism against its civilians. Most of the animosity against it is based on false propaganda.

By allowing extremists to continue indoctrinating more people you are ensuring a never-ending conflict. You could do that, but it seems to me it would be much more efficient to nip the problem in the bud.

Also, we have a concrete example in Egypt and Jordan that this does not really work. The Egyptian and Jordanian street hates Israel (to the point they want war) yet the leaders do not. Most of this hate comes from indoctrination. The countries are practicing what you preach, which is to say they allow indoctrination to continue and only intervene with police forces in the last second.

The end result is that Egypt, Jordan and Israel has a frosty and every couple of months someone launches an attack from Egypt or Jordan on Israeli citizens. Sometimes they are caught, sometimes they are not ... but they would all be better off if the indoctrination would end and an economic peace would be allowed to begin.

Anyway, I get the feeling this conversation will go on forever if we allow it. I guess we can agree to disagree for now. You brought up good points though. Thank you!

If your religious text incites violence, and members of your religion act on those incitements, then yes I believe you need to censor such texts and disarm its followers.

To clarify: I'm not talking about the mainstream members of a given religion. I'm talking about the extremist elements (a subset of the total membership) which exist in every religious group today.

The various extremist sects of Islam are a prime example of this. Mainstream Islam is fine but Al-Qaeda, ISIS and friends are not. Their literature *should* be censored and their members *should* be disarmed. This is no different than the banning neo-nazi and terrorist groups around the world from running for government.

The "marketplace of ideas" is driven by popularity and money, not by truth. It's much easier to blame other people for your problems than looking in the mirror and taking personal responsibility for your failures. How do you combat that? Historically speaking, combating it with ideas alone has always failed.

I never said it should be banned. I saying there are legitimate concerns with the current system and those problems should be tackled.

Right, so implying the system is not perfect is grounds for shipping me to North Korea? Jumping the gun a little...?

Stop being lazy. The situation is not black or white. There are solutions in the middle.

I think we're talking about different things.

You're talking about people being afraid to criticize their own government. I'm fine with protecting such criticism as Freedom of Speech.

But what happens once we reach the ignorance -> fear -> hate -> violence cycle? What happens if someone taps into people's ignorance by spreading literature that taps into someone's ignorance about an ethnic group, leads to fear, hate and eventually violence?

If we can prove that origin post was factually incorrect, it should be removed (not protected by Freedom of Speech) because it incites violence and is factually incorrect. If the person keeps on spreading this kind of hate speech then the person himself/herself should be penalized.

On a slightly related topic, we should have zero tolerance for online bullying. The sooner we out such posters (remove their anonymity) the sooner this will stop. Right now a lot of online bullying goes unpunished because it's too hard to track people down. If the children posting the malicious content were identifiable they would not do it.

If what you say is true, then I don't disagree. In my experience, every time I flag an online discussion/video as hate speech nothing gets done. Some of the examples I flagged went along the lines of "Fuck all X. We should bring back the gas chambers." If organizations like Facebook/Youtube actually enforced the law then I would have no problem with it. However, I'm not sure such a law really exists. In any case, they seem to be hiding behind Freedom of Speech and never removing such posts. I've also seen videos that were taken from Syria, posted online as if they were Jews murdering Gazans. I can prove that the video is a fake and that the poster is trying to spread hate against Jews but the service provider refuses to remove it.

So yes, if we could legally enforce the fact that such posts/videos must be legally removed (enforced as stringently as the DCMA) then I'd have no problem with anonymity.