Standards have never been as high as I'd like - typos and grammatical errors abound in articles - but noospeek is definitely a new low. I would suggest sacking the current editors and replacing them with Grumpy Cat and Happy Cat.
It is not only valid but required, so although your thoughts are appreciated, they are nonetheless wrong.
Actually, archaeology shows that only some societies are greedy. It happens that those are the societies that dominate, but that is a consequence of short term gains being militarily better than long term gains, in early history. You were very vulnerable back then and even small losses had large impacts.
Ultimately, though, it means that humans are not compelled to be a bunch of arrogant twits. At the very worst, some societies may have a genetic propensity for it, but that dictates nothing. Even if it did, sending the right-wingers to Mars (or, better, Venus) and using gene therapy or eugenics to reduce (not eliminate, that would be bad) violent tendencies should be sufficient.
The Pledge is an affront to all that school stands for. Unthinking obedience simply isn't compatible with intellectual growth or rational questioning. Obedience to a nation is also incompatible with the international semi-borderless worlds of science and art. Neither paints nor positrons have any respect for local laws or political boundaries. Boundaries exist to maximize the benefits within and minimize contagion from flawed systems, the notion of "loyalty" to any standard is relatively modern as society goes and has been a failure from start to, well, it hasn't finished yet but it's time for philosophers to stop poking at their navels and start thinking about metanations and paranations, how to draw on what has always worked (cooperation across strengths) to derive a notion that is functional, rational, sane and likely to (as an early Megadeth noted) work this time.
Not really. The NSA costs more to run than the national debt. Closing it would be one of the most cost-effective ways to save the nation from bankruptcy. Not that the US is anywhere near close. It will be, if it continues to not spend on the arts and sciences, but economies can remain entirely stable when running 110% of GDP, at least for a few years. Nations aren't like personal bank accounts and you cannot run economies as if they were private budgets.
At this point, the NSA has cost the economy not only its own expenses but billions in international trade (plus interest spanning decades), but can produce no evidence of any benefits. Skipjack is broken, as was SHA-0 (the NSA version of the algorithm). Cryptologists ignored Skipjack once it was determined to be faulty and spent a fair bit of time fixing SHA. These are additional costs, created almost certainly as a result of deliberate breakage by the NSA (it's either that or they're incompetent, take your pick).
When you have something very expensive with no direct or indirect return, you generally term it a failure. When something fails on that scale when your economy has been crippled by neocons and kept defunct by Tea Partiers, the sound fiscal move is to cut losses. When a ship is struggling to stay afloat, you dump the deadweight. The NSA is deadweight until or unless it can show value for money.
There was a time in England when you paid fire fighters insurance. They marked the houses that had paid. Houses that didn't pay - well, picture two Mafia heavies sauntering up the driveway, making comments about how combustible things are and what a pity it would be if an accident were to.... happen. (Terry Pratchett made a reference to this in his books because it is such a sick, evil and yet utterly predictable outcome.)
The service became one of the first truly national services because organized crime syndicates, even firefighting ones, are not approved of.
By moving mills away from slicing the arms off children to being run by trained adults interested in mill work, those children got to have this thing called education. Instead of being a burden to others, they became valued members of society, including scientists and engineers.
The left was arguably a major factor in the Enlightenment, without which no science could be done except in secret from the conservatives.
A large proportion of schools and universities in Britain were founded, funded and run by the left. No left, no Faraday, no Rutherford, no Turing, no Crick or Watson - name something you can't live without and I can show those components that would not exist without left-wing establishments, left-wing idealists and left-wing philosophies.
Can you name anything, anything at all, developed because of right-wing ideology?
The really interesting science, that is, there is no guarantee of a return accountants would recognize as such. (Scientists consider no result a result.)
In space science, this is worsened by rockets failing, the harsh conditions of space wrecking probes, the hazards of space junk, the very long-term nature of the work, the fact that all costs are up-front and the commercial rewards beyond satellite relays are never tangibly linked to space research by the public, creating the illusion that space has done nothing.
Just cut back on projects. Starting with those involving spending money in districts whose politicians work to cripple NASA. Remember, we're coming up to yet another election year and there's no news like bad news to shape the outcomes.
I second that. Some of their guides are ooold, but look rock solid. That isn't too surprising, corporations and politicians never follow guidelines and probably wouldn't understand the NSA's anyway. So the risk of protecting their real opponents is nil. (If they were worried about terrorists, black hats, etc, that would be another matter.)
I used to build myself patchsets roughly equal in size to the kernels themselves. There are a LOT of rare but bbv valuable projects out there.
Steam has opted for well-established APIs, which is reasonable. Not what I would have done, as in a console war, you want to be able to undercut your opponents fatally if need be. However, consoles without games sell about as well as JCB GTs. Probably less. So, from that perspective, Steam (with a few hundred titles) would have wanted to have the games make use of the system. So what they did was correct, given a pre-existing stockpile of software.
On the flip side, those games are merely the now. The games of the future will be written with whatever the best system is in mind. Being that system is a good place to start. As I have said on many a desktop Linux thread, you don't want to be known for being a replacement for the past. The past is gone. You want to define the future. Have the rest of industry catch up to you. You can't win by following the leader.
For a console system, you need sprites, high-speed polygon placement, built-in shaders and deadline-based updates (it has to be damn smooth, if it's going to compete with the alternatives).
What you do not need are windows (beyond picture-in-picture), client-server overheads (consoles aren't likely to be connected to X terminals in a different room, city or country, unless you're using a VERY big monitor), memory overheads from components never used in this context, or support for multiple users with one or more displays each on a single console.
Now, I haven't inspected the code yet, so can't say how far they've gone. Nor do I know if anyone still works on KGI or GGI, although those would be far closer to console requirements than X.
(Hey, I love X, I actually have made a lot of use of redirecting screens several hundred miles for diagnostic purposes, I think there is a lot of life in the system yet, but vanilla X is totally wrong for consoles and even modded X won't give the experience console addicts crave.)
Besides, Valve isn't a desktop flavour. If you want a desktop flavour, one that wows desktop users (just as the desktop market starts dying horribly, it's anguished cry half-drowned in the blood and tabletness flowing forth like a monstrous, misshapen river) then you need to make one.
No, the world doesn't. Consumer OS' need Delay Tolerant Protocol support and Mars One needs to put a giant data server with gigantic solar panels near one of the Martian poles. Anyone with a TV satellite dish and a decent amplifier would be able to put what they wanted there. There's no ISP, no third-party network, no cables that could be cut or tapped, no raidable office, no power switch, no DNS entry to block, no search engine entry to remove.
There is also no way consumers would pay for it. This is one case where you do get what you pay for. Although there are more than enough concerned Internet users to actually put a human-less data centre of useful size on Mars, complete with fault tolerance and hot standby capabilities, so close to absolutely none of you would fork over real money to achieve it that it could never happen.
(How close is close? Fewer than a million is close to zero. Fewer than a hundred million, you could do it if a few were very rich. But since a dead server is equal to no server, anything less than enough to get this working is close to zero.)
Despite everything said in recent months, all the evidence from security experts suggests social engineering is the number one weakness. Network and host security are closing the gap, sure, but unless you plan to go EAL7 - which you can do with a general-purpose OS if you've money to burn - there is nothing that can be trusted.
Nothing? An early backdoor for AT&T Unix was built into the compiler, but it could just as easily have been in any library the compiler used. Auditing the Linux kernel would be bad enough, auditing GCC, glibc and all the maths libraries used by the optimizer? Even with an army of testers and coders, you'd be dead of old age before securing that lot against accidental and deliberate exploits that may arise in code other than that tested.
(By an army, I mean 100,000 dedicated, skilled people would be capable of getting a specific Linux kernel watertight after about 1.5 years on the first go. Each iteration would take less, such that the series would be convergent, but you'd always lag by several months. With the compiler and libraries, the interactions are too severe and there's too much code. You could never get it watertight and the series would diverge because complexity would increase exponentially but verification would be linear.)
I would love to see a company on that scale set up for the sole purpose of finding and fixing Linux bugs. I would also love next week's lottery numbers, a girlfriend, a cuddly toy, a chip fabrication plant and something that can make proper tea. (Cue Bruce Forsyth)
Realistically, I have to limit myself to visions of provably secure kernel components, with the rest of the kernel, and the rest of the OS, being either insecure or half-inched from OpenBSD.
I dunno, Mars is looking very nice about now.