Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Moot Point and useless debate. (Score 1) 319

by marienf (#49085139) Attached to: Java Vs. Node.js: Epic Battle For Dev Mindshare

That's another thing I will never understand: Back in the days (1998), we used an Object Store (*nix version of NeoAccess, in our case) .. because we bascially thought RDB would be over by the turn of the century, and good riddance. We were extremely happy with the results. These site ran on minimal hardware (as we couldn't afford anything else in the data center), and flew, as compared to the competition (and anything else we'd ever done on that scale and online before).

In the following years it turned out everyone else insisted on keeping SQL around, and so we had to turn to manual SQL wrapping again (we created code generators, because it's too error-prone and boring to do manually) until ORM came around, which IMHO is a totally ass-backward way of dealing with a DB from an OO point-of-view. Also, clients demanded that we run stuff in J2EE containers and hence, that we write it in Java, which I still consider to have been a marketing exercise by Sun Microsystems to obtain more broad meaning for their ailing Spark CPU line (Java has always ran suspiciously better on *nix than any other platform). Little did they count on GNU/Linux taking over the server universe. We did go Java, but never liked it, and still consider it the result of brainwashing, and don't understand the need for all those extra layers. There is not one thing that the container does that the OS cannot do better, except packaging, and ever there, J2EE is "write once, debug everywhere" in the field and therefore of little real help. Since then, other enviroments and languages came along, all with their strengths and weaknessess, but all with a common goal, from my POV, which is to make development more abstract, less error-prone, more specialized, easier to package and deploy etc.. and to take up a lot of extra CPU power and memory. I don't believe in making development easier: It resulted in the extremely dangerous monsters that are online, written in PHP by good-intentioned dilattantes with an excellent grasp of their fields but with little development skills. Same in Java, same in Python, same in Ruby.. While these are all interesting languages with interesting frameworks, they do not, IMHO contribute anyhting new except runtime inefficiency, and some extra layers to make debugging harder.

Moore's law saved our bacons, there, because as time progressed, everything became more inefficient, but everyone had bigger CPU's and a lot of RAM to be able to keep up.

So you see, for me, the current situation with the traction of NoSQL and the immense opportunily (and necessity, IMHO) to make the server-side efficient and lean again (power is now a major cost in the data center, vs bandwidth) is really a lot of "back to the future".

Comment: Moot Point and useless debate. (Score 3, Interesting) 319

by marienf (#49082607) Attached to: Java Vs. Node.js: Epic Battle For Dev Mindshare

Javascript on the server-side is total bollocks. Now that the client has gone smart again, because the browser *is* the client-side env, therefore Javascript has clearly won as *the* client-side language, and this means the server may become lean and mean again, because it can dispense with all the GUI, HTML, etc.. nonsense. And that means it can be done in real programming languages again. The kind where mistakes will cause a crash, not just inefficiency, unreliability and an entire generation of ops that think "just restart" is "normal". Which means that bad developers are filtered out, not saved by a nanny language and environment. Which means there will be less, but far better developers. And good developers can make good code in any language. Whatever I may have said and thought about JS in the past decade or so, I changed my mind since owning Crockford's "Javascript: The Good Parts". ON THE CLIENT SIDE, that is. I have never like anything but C(++), on the server side, and experiencing J2EE Containers, PHP, RubyOnRails, and various python frameworks there has only entrenched me more into thinking there is not one among them that I ended up respecting. If I could do a full e-commerce solution in serverside C++ in 1998, and get excellent performance from the cheap boxen of that time, imagine what you could do today by doing it right, on the server-side, by not wasting CPU cycles on another interpretative layer and letting some dumb algorithm mis-handle your memory management for you.

Comment: General Boycott Is In Order. (Score 1) 106

by marienf (#49004513) Attached to: Kickstarted Firefox OS HDMI Dongle Delayed, DRM Support Being Added

Dear concerned netizens,

I believe the correct message to send would be for backers to retreat en masse and generally boycott this project. They could always come back when a more sane plan is announced.

While this is a sad development in itself, we can also take it as a great opportunity to create awareness around the many dangers of DRM: A general boycott now would, IMHO, get press attention and make a clear statement to media companies that buyers are sick and tired of being treated like farm animals. /. can make it happen!


Comment: agree with harmful (Score 4, Interesting) 104

by marienf (#48791517) Attached to: Chrome For OS X Catches Up With Safari's Emoji Support

Agree with this one. It regularly happens to me, as well.
I mean, I can sort of live with messages from people using Windows containing some sort of elongated lowercase j where, I learned years ago, they had inserted a smiley face and mistakenly assumed that this would be universally seen as such, but it's a whole different game where we're trying to be compact and logical, by using certain symbols such as brackets etc.. only to find one's correspondent is puzzled by the emotions conveyed by some round-headed Simpsons faces rendered by their email clients instead of what we meant. Not to mention the shame of apparently unpaired brackets.. Sorry for the long sentences: I'm in a hurry..

Comment: Re:Great, make the Internet even more infantile (Score 4, Insightful) 104

by marienf (#48791469) Attached to: Chrome For OS X Catches Up With Safari's Emoji Support

> Or are you suggesting the world should be ASCII only?

I agree that we should make sure that our legacy of >5000 years of written language can be represented using whatever means of communications are currently in vogue. This is covered by Unicode/UTF. Great, so far.

However, I'm also suggesting that during those 5000+ years of written, and what is probably about a million years of spoken language, we have developed words, some of which express emotional state and attitude, inperfectly, of course, but please refer to the Great Poets in any culture. It can be done, and it has been done exquisitely by some.

Humans have been struggling to express their emotions in words, for millenia, and we're making progress.. Therefore, I loathe seeing all those subtle possibilities of expression replaced by a small subset of visual babytalk, taking us back to the level of grunting and shrieking, basically.

Bottom line of what I'm trying to say is: There are plenty of baby-faces in the standards already. If some group (you mention the Japanese) want to occasionally forego their magnificent written culture and make baby-faces at each other: why not: The technology is already there and they have been known to do far crazier things over there. What I don't think we need is to *standardise* some visual NewSpeak to dumb down *everyone's* communications.

> What about all those BBS/ANSI characters from zillions of documents from the 80s?
Yeah, what about them? They can all be represented. What's your point? I've been using :-) and :-( and ~%-} and such for decades. They're no replacement for the appropriate choice of words! There's no reason to formalise them!

Oh speaking of which, I confess to sneaking in control characters on BBS chat systems, I also confess to sneaking in UTF symbols into XMPP chat systems (my nick "had 5 stars"). That was cute for all of 30 minutes. Today, when I see that email that despairs of it's own lack of contents by using some graphical UTF-8 in the Subject:, I have pity on the author (but not on the message itself).


Comment: Great, make the Internet even more infantile (Score 3, Insightful) 104

by marienf (#48791247) Attached to: Chrome For OS X Catches Up With Safari's Emoji Support

Oh great, more tiny pictures chosen by some arbitrary process, so that everyone's expression becomes more the same and more like the plastic people in soap operas, and even less language proficiency. A whole generation of TV-watchers and Social Media Addicts already talks that way, and now we want to have symbols so we can express THAT more efficiently in WRITING? Exactly what we need..

I make me don't want Net Neutrality after all. I'm now willing to pay for an Internet fast lane that requires an IQ test.

Oh but wait.. Apple.. right.. who cares..

Comment: Re:Frack! Propaganda, anyone? (Score 1) 104

by marienf (#48308407) Attached to: Chinese Hackers Mess With Texas By Attacking Fracking Firms

> Whoa - And the dastardly RIGHT-WING controlled media has covered it ALLLL up!!!!

No, the companies are. I've been corrected, in an earlier reply, on the fact that there are many real trade secrets involved in fracking. But that was not my point in the first place. And yes, the environmental and health issues surrounding fracking have been widely covered up. They must have been, or I would expect noone would tolerate fracking, anywhere!

Now about "right-wing" and "left-wing" those are just what I call "pro wrestling" terms: They are intended to give the illusion of choice, but in the industrialised world today, those wings are often both attached to the same fuselage, forming one plane, and piloted by one group.

Comment: Re:Frack! Propaganda, anyone? (Score 1) 104

by marienf (#48308395) Attached to: Chinese Hackers Mess With Texas By Attacking Fracking Firms

> It's important to point out that McCarthy was right - there really were Communists in the State Department.

I'm sure there were. But am I reading correctly that you are reducing the whole phenomenon to "communists in the state department"???

So.. if the entire McCarthy era red scare witch hunt was really just about "communists in the state department", I'm curious to hear how you would describe the extermination camps of WW2, for example.

> Some conservatives regard the term as inappropriate and deprecate > what they say are myths created about McCarthy.


Comment: Re:Frack! Propaganda, anyone? (Score 1) 104

by marienf (#48308375) Attached to: Chinese Hackers Mess With Texas By Attacking Fracking Firms

> You don't know what you're talking about.
That is an understatement: I don't know the ins and outs of petrochemical processes, at all. But that was not my point and I apologize for not making it clearer. My point was that I consider ANY investment in fossil fuels, of ANY level of sophistication to be a waste of money, that should have been spent in R&D on sources of emergy viable towards the future.

Now, I understand from your comment that you *do* know what you're taking about. So would you kindly share with us a few key figures about the fracking process, such as how much of what is pumped in, how much of it is recovered, and where the rest goes. I can find some stuff online, but if I quote that I suspect I'll get accusations of bad research and following propaganda, so.. enlighten us, please.


Comment: Frack! Propaganda, anyone? (Score 4, Insightful) 104

by marienf (#48301257) Attached to: Chinese Hackers Mess With Texas By Attacking Fracking Firms

> The technology revolution that is "fracking" has created billions in
> wealth for states like Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Wyoming.

This smells (PI) like corporate propaganda to me.

> Chinese firms are "aggressively" engaged in industrial espionage
> conducting espionage against innovative US firms

riiight.. McCarthy, anyone? And.. innovative?? Innovation? Involving fossil fuels? The only trade secrets they are likely protecting is the toxicity and environmental impact of fracking. So the next logical step is that the chinese or whoever steal the "secrets", realise how stupid phracking is, then cancel any such plans at home and invest massively in renewables.

So this is great news. The fracking disaster will end with the US.


Comment: Re:Why Fy? (Score 1) 260

by marienf (#47746175) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, except on the sports.
I agree not everyone can run wires all over the place, and that most studies are biased.

But that not everyone can run wires is like saying not everyone gets to escape air pollution: It's not fair, but it doesn't make air filters bad, or ridiculous.

Most studies are biased, but consider which bias is more likely: one forced by a billion-dollar wireless industry, or one invented by a bunch of scientists crying in the desert desperately risking their grants and careers trying to warn everyone ?

At what age did your friends start working on cell phone sites? The problem is especially acute for young children. But it's also a bit of a strange argument: We all know about the 95-year old uncle who has smoked all his life and is still going strong. There's always the exception, and there are many other factors at play in human health.

Tell me what you mean regarding that nuclear plant? It's a much different type of radiation.. I'm at 68.8 Km from the nearest nuclear power plant. It's such a small country that just about everyone is closer than 50 miles from one :-)

Comment: Re:Why Fy? (Score 1) 260

by marienf (#47746131) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?

While I certainly believe your experiment with the cigarette, and would expect cellphones, which are much closer (and much more powerful) to have worse effects, just like you would, it is far from certain that we may continue to rely on dose-response in the case of modulated microwaves. In some cases, lower exposure got worse results: some cellular defense mechanism failed to trigger at very low doses but damage still occurred.

Comment: Re:Why Crazy (was: Why Fy?) (Score 1) 260

by marienf (#47746109) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?

> You seem to be missing the fact that the sun produces more than just >visible light. Low-frequency RF, HF, UHF, VUHF, you name it -- the
> sun produces a ton of radiation of every wavelength, including the
> same type that a phone produces. If you walk outside, you will get
> hit by a thousand > times as much as a phone could ever produce.

That is not true on many levels. While the sun outputs a lot of
radiation at many walelengths, it does not produce all of these in equal
amounts, and while the bands we're talking about here (>800Mhz to say
4Ghz) are not absorbed much by the atmosphere, in the end, the amount of
energy reaching the earth's surface is still not that much.

The sun produces microwaves in several, specific bands, related to
different phenomena in different layers, but the most-studied appears to
be the 2.8Ghz solar flux.

For example, in the

2800 MHz Solar Flux .. graph you see a peak at about 30 x 10^-22 W/m2 of 2800Mhz solar flux.

That's .000000000000000000003 Watt per square meter at its peak.

I took out my flux
density meter. It has a range between 0.0 and 2000.0 uW/m2 in the
800Mhz to 2.5Ghz range.

This makes sense because the most conservative norms at this point (the
norms that I'm using), the 2008

BAUBIOLOGISCHE RICHTWERTE (German) have less than 0.1 uW/m2 as an ideal situation
for a bedroom.

I have a general background radiation in that range of about .2 uW/m2 in our garden, in the radio-shadow of the house opposed to the nearest Cell Mast. the HFE35C has a speaker so I can hear an impression of modulation of what I'm pointing the directional antenna at. Mostly, it's Wifi, GSM, 3G, etc.. which I've
learned to recognize.

The neighbour's Wifi, after some careful targetting, is about 7 uW/m2 on
the first floor, through the open window facing them.

That's .000007 Watt/m2 measured through at least one solid wall and
about 15 meters of air.

That's 2.3*10^15 (2,333,333,333,333,333) times the microwave flux from the sun at it's peak, at 2.8Ghz.

When I take any of our laptops and enable the Wifi, at one meter from the device I'm off the HFE35C's scale (greater than 2000 uW/m2).

A cell phone registers as a kind of explosion and is obviously, many time off the scale. Most cell towers, in line of sight, are, as well, from 50m or more.

So those are worse than 6.6*10^17 more intense than solar microwaves at
close range.

But all of this doesn't even really matter. Even if the sun would irradiate the surface with effectively the same or higher amounts of microwaves, I would still not expect much or any biological effects becasue of the type of modulation (not) occurring on the sun's microwaves. Unmodulated microwaves have biological effects only though thermal effect, and that has been proven to be negligeable at low exposures.

If you bother to read the research, it's the MODULATION that gets everyone worried today: Biological effects occur for low-level HF exposure when the RF is modulated, especially with square waves.. e.g. digital data.. What is a laughably safe dose for thermal effect (solar, Wifi, DECT, Bluetooth, ..) suddenly shows serious impact when modulated with square waves..

Best Me With Research, not Ridicule.
It's a lot of work and I'm going to give up if I get more lazy answers.

The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.