coolj

Also...

    Observable.throw(Exception.new("woops!")).subscribe(Class.new(Observer) do
    [...]
    end.new)

http://rxrb.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#lib/Rx.rb (bottom)

Even if the method were named sanely and consistently `Observable::on_error`, I still don't want to write code like the above.

BTW, I don't see any class variables in the re-opened Enumerable module.

They wouldn't have to give that up by writing a text log. They'd just be presenting more than one source of truth about the the log, from less secure to more secure.

OK, fair enough. Going with your figure (which I think is pretty low), what is the benefit to 99% of users from breaking tools for %1 of users? As far as I can tell it just a bit of additional storage space. Do 99% of users actually benefit from that extra storage?

Good point, but not my example.[1] I found it a bit weak tbh. I think a more common and compelling case is where you need to treat the system log as a file input to some existing tool / system. Sure, you can install a traditional logger if you need it in such a case, but what do you gain by not including it? A little bit of disk space?

I wonder if there's an unstated motive behind the proposal to promote a more pervasive use of systemd. I mean, being honest, admins aren't going to go to the journal unless they need something the traditional log file doesn't provide (which would be rarely if rsyslog and ilk are pulling everything they can out of journal anyway).

Nobody is going to switch to journalctl | fgrep OMGERROR unless they have to (well, they won't have to, but admins are lazy, and if that's the default way, then they will use it rather than installing a new package). Just look how long it took (is taking) for admins to move to ip vs ifconfig/route/etc...

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/182...

I didn't know that either. From reading the linked thread in OP, it seems like the idea is that the systemd journal comes in at a lower level (started from initrd? kernel module? no idea...), so it helps with debugging early boot process before /var is mounted. But I also think there should be standard syslog for reasons I just mentioned in another comment. Seems like there are good reasons to have both.

It sounds like systemd journal is a good thing, especially for early boot debugging. That said, I don't get the proposal to remove the standard logger. Sure, the logs are duplicated...but having important data stored redundantly seems like a good thing. Plus, you still keep the "everything's a file" philosophy, so you can continue to access the log file in situations where accessing a binary is unfeasible or impossible.

The example of a box where /usr is hosed and you only have access to in-memory programs like the shell, is maybe not the best example. Perhaps a more practical one is the need to monitor / alert on certain log entries in a legacy or upstream system that expects to open and watch a file.

As all distros I know of include a log file rotation facility that deletes old system logs after some set period, having duplicated data in the journal and in traditional system log on disk seems like it would be a problem only in special cases.

Cost-to-benefit, it seems to me there should still be a traditional syslog provider included by default.

> It's usually much more straightforward to build a pipeline from left to right, particularly for people who are just learning this stuff.

True, however, people pointing out UUOC are in fact pointing out that you should not be building a pipeline at all. If you want to apply an awk / sed / wc / whatever command to a file, then you should just do that instead of piping it through a extraneous command.

Sure, as people always mention, in your actual workflow you might have a cat or grep already, and are building a pipeline incrementally; there's no reason to remove previous stuff to be "pure" or whatever. But if you're giving a canonical example, there's no reason to add unneeded commands.

I've been looking for something like this. Thanks for sharing!

> To a lawyer (like 30-35 of 55 framers of the Constitution), "reasonable" is a signal to balance competing interests.

That is certainly a legal use of "reasonable", but I don't believe it's the one used in the 4th Amendment.

The word "(un)reasonable" is not describing how a decision is made, as used in the expression "reasonable person", which means "someone who uses such qualities as attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment which a society requires of its members to protect their own interests and the interests of others.”[1]

In the 4th Amendment, "reasonable" is describing a disposition or action derived from or based on examining and validly inferring from evidence, as in "reasonable belief", where it "considers whether an officer acted on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy, and that would justify a person of average caution to believe that a crime has been or is being committed..."[2]

Without evidence on which to base belief (suspicion) that a crime has been or is being committed, a search is ispo facto "unreasonable", and therefore unconstitutional, regardless of any benefits to interested parties.

My 2 cents, IANAL, etc.

[1] Barron's, cited at http://www.answers.com/topic/reasonable-man

[2] Barron's cited at http://www.answers.com/topic/reasonable-belief

I can't really tell if I agree with you or not, but that was a hell of a story. I feel like I just watched an episode of Magnum P.I.

I had never heard of this guy before this thread, but the original article cites Joe Bidan claiming Jewish industry leaders brought about changing perceptions of gay marriage:

> Indeed, just last week, Vice President Joe Biden praised so-called Jewish leaders in Hollywood and elsewhere for promoting gay marriage and other leftist causes, stating at a reception hosted by the Democratic National Committee, "Think of all that. I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether its in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense ... and I might add, it is all to the good."

The article you cite removes this context and starts quoting at the very next paragraph, as if the Klayman guy is just saying it, rather than repeating Biden. (He may very well be saying it himself, I'm not familiar with him, but that kind of misrepresentation should be called out in any case.)

Defcon 19: Adam Baldwin - Pillaging DVCS Repos For Fun And Profit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tq8tUDKUH0

INAL but I believe they could be charged under the Espionage Act (18 USC sec. 793) for leaking national security secrets, which is a felony, and they would lose privilege.

Diamonds as well. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-de-beers-2011-12?o...

I hope so. But we have no insight into how much information was put in the "locked mailboxes." From what we do know, it's reasonable to assume the NSA has been gathering as much information on as many people as is/was legally permissible.

> In your world, only people with "particular qualifications" are allowed to have a say on this topic.

In the real world ("my world"), economics involves multiple actors in complex, dynamic relationships, which require precise, controlled examination, in order to derive theories that enable accurate predictions and insight into causes and effects.

I'm not sure how others feel, but for me the systematic nature and the scope of collection are what get my hackles up. Requesting specific information on a specific individual because of the suspicion that a crime has been committed is perfectly reasonable. Collecting information on everyone in order to search for illegal activity feels like a serious violation of privacy. We can debate about the kind of information they can get through NSLs only being "metadata", etc., but that's the crux of the issue for me.

"A random guy with some money and no particular qualifications to address economic theory, addresses economic theory"

These companies are making themselves look really bad to anyone paying attention. Nobody is reporting that they joined a program to volunteer illegal access to user data, so these assurances are canards. What is being reported is that the NSA has been running a secret program to legally collect user data from these companies. If these companies want my respect, they need to admit that these reports are true, declare their opinion against the practice, and state their position on legal reform to make such practices illegal.

Wait...you can change the script the extension runs, at any time, without user notification? Yeah...no....

Sure, those are traits we use to distinguish different rights among sentient (but not sapient) animals--but it's all rather arbitrary.

How do we define "suffering"? Is it the same emotional experiences we call "fear" and "sadness", i.e., the ability to have the concept "I am afraid/sad"? That means the animal needs to at least have a primitive form of understanding and introspection to qualify (e.g., great apes, chimps, bonobos).

If we go to the other extreme, we must admit we don't have a reliable method for communicating with animals (famous "dog whisperers" aside). We can only infer "suffering" is taking place when the animal reacts negatively to a negative external stimulus. But bacteria respond negatively to a negative external stimulus as well. Sure, there's mind-bogglingly more complexity in a mammalian brain than a bacterium, but if we reduce "suffering" to the observation of a negative reaction to a negative external stimulus, we must say even single cell organisms are "suffering."

Hard to strike the right balance.

> But that's a tenuous sort of morality...

If you use anything made with/from animal labor or products, you are practicing the same form of morality, you've just changed what's acceptable from "murdering" to "enslaving", "robbing", etc.

It is also no more tenuous than arbitrarily drawing the line at bugs or bacteria. Thousands of innocent insects had to die to bring us a banana (--death from pesticides, from mechanical crushing during harvest, from geting squashed on the windscreen of the delivery trucks).

Look at how fast and wide the field of physics has grown in the past 70 years. The proliferation of new theories, discoveries, inventions, and solutions, across such vast practical and theoretical disciplines in physics, almost makes me think the "Einsteins" of our generation are not individuals, but groups of people working together. With the ability to share data quickly and effectively, we have become able to have multiple persons working on the same problems at the same time, which has allowed us to accomplish some unbelievable things. We've built particle detectors to observe elementary particles that are fundamental to the Standard Model. We've discovered carbon nanotubes and graphene. We've potentially discovered dark matter. We have our geniuses too, and some are famous (e.g., Hawking), but maybe they are not as famous as their predecessors because their contributions seem to blend with the overall march of science and our expectation of radical advance (jetpacks and all)?

> Despite the reduction in deaths from paracetamol, the study found there had been no decline in overdose cases after 1998.

Is the attempted-suicide overdose rate in decline? That seems to be the main question as to whether the law helped.

"It's like I'm superman, and lexicon Luther has a big chunk of vocabulary confounding kryptonite and he's jabbing it right in my thesaural gland..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du_RTMmofWM

INAL, but my understanding is that you can use a generic phrase like "cloud servers", where both "cloud" and "servers" have pre-established meanings in the space, as long as you don't use the name for a product competing in the same space. E.g., you could call a service providing base images for clouds "Image Marketplace," but not "AWS Marketplace".

A trademark is different from a software patent. A trademark addresses specific product branding in a specific market; a software patent -- at least the ones in question -- address a generic process that's not limited to a specific market. Consider the trademark on the Wikipedia name versus a (hypothetical) software patent on "a method for storing and displaying user-generated content."

It's not 8x, but Rackspace is lobbying[1] for a bill that would allow courts to make patent trolls pay for all of the cost incurred by the defending party in a failed suit[2].

[1] http://www.rackspace.com/blog/patent-trolls-make-them-pay/ (last paragraph) [2] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.845%3A

It looks like they are taking a different approach to the problem (though the bill still hasn't passed yet):

> The next legislative effort will likely center around what is known as the SHIELD Act, which has been introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) and Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). This bill would require plaintiffs to pay defendants’ legal costs if the suit is unsuccessful. -- http://www.rackspace.com/blog/patent-trolls-make-them-pay/

While this is a less drastic strategy, I think it's a more realistic one. It would have an immediate, deterrent effect on all trolls--big and small--because there would be direct, legal repercussion for their actions. This way, you don't need new infrastructure and new funding to support a watchdog group, and nobody can "slip through the cracks"--trolls paying for all the costs of a failed suit is just part of the system they are using to file the suits. This may not prevent the "big players" from throwing their weight around with patent litigation, but it would certainly help the current situation quite a bit, imo.

Here's the relevant text of the bill:

> [I]n an action disputing the validity or alleging the infringement of a computer hardware or software patent, upon making a determination that the party alleging the infringement of the patent did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding, the court may award the recovery of full costs to the prevailing party, including reasonable attorney's fees [...] -- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr6245ih/pdf/BILLS-112...

[EDIT: Link to bill wasn't including the trailing colon ':', linked to PDF]

> [Cloud hosting] leaves me helpless in the case of an outage

Not if you design your application correctly. HA is really not that hard to do, in the cloud or otherwise, so that single points of failure (e.g., vm or dyno outages) do not result in service unavailability. Also, consider that if you're not building HA into your apps, you are still at the mercy of things beyond your control with local physical servers. What if your upstream network provider accidentally publishes a BGP route that sends all your traffic into the void? Or, in a timely example, what if your authoritative nameservers get DoS'd? Build HA apps, aim to physically separate key redundant infrastructure pieces (built in to most big PAAS services and configurable in most big IAAS services), and you'll have no worries using a cloud service.