talaketu

American countries?

Ad units do appear differently from organic results - this was ventilated in the original case, where the judgement was that there was definitely misleading conduct - on behalf of the advertiser.

It seems that the on appeal, the full bench decided that google was actually responsible - given their algorithms were responsible for placing the ad in the context.

This doesn't seem to be quite the same as the ambush marketing you mention. That would be more placing an ad for "dell" when searching for "elegant mobile personal computer".

Environmental localizations should be controlled by a configuration management system, not the application source version control system.

Not the best week to boast of rails opinionated best practice defaults in a django thread.

> use env vars to identify which environment an app is running in

Be aware about issues between mod_wsgi and that approach - http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/ApplicationIssues#Appl...

Also, there is the Paul Samuelson parable about the best lawyer in town who is also the best typist, and whether she should do her own typing.

Yes, a provocative thought. But I don't really buy it.

I think it's clearer to see the distinction between an information model and a storage model: The fundamental goal of an information model is to provide a mechanism to convert input information into output information. But if the model is so degenerate that it just echos back the same data in the same format that was put in (at a different time), then it's probably better to call it a storage model.

The relational model is a logic system that lets us use predicate calculus to infer from one set of propositions taken to be true, a second set which is by implication true. That is, it provides a means to obtain encoded answers in response to encoded questions applied to a body of encoded facts.

And a KV store is clearly a storage model.

And there are some in-between, such as the CouchDB document store, that can transform one body of information to another, but also pay attention to physical storage issues.

Do you recognize the threat of malware (such as a random script you download) just copying the private key and shipping it off?

A passphrase defeats that threat. And integrating the ssh agent with something like the gnome keyring means you never even have to remember your passphrase.

The key idea is the very general principle that you increase security by reducing the scope of resources that you must trust.

cperciva is giving 2 examples: (1) use a service provider that doesn't require your trust. (2) limit the exposure of customer sensitive information to your employees that you must trust to keep it private.

I agree this is a better strategy than simply updating a privacy policy, as far as actual security is concerned.

That would be optimistic locking.

Imagine a scenario in which you need to generate a large number of samples based on a discrete random variable with a large number of outcomes n. If you had a library that implemented both algorithms, which should you use?

Are you skeptical that a domain for that scenario exists?

The discrepancy is that Halpin's use of the phrase relates to the correspondence between the real world and the database - to the modelling relationship itself, whereas Meijer and Bierman's use solely relates to the valid states of the database - separate from any meaning that might be taken.

You highlighted the element of referential integrity within their description, whereas I highlighted atomicity. But both are just operational characteristics of the database.

Halpin's CWA comes into play even within a database that is not being updated and has only one relation. Eg. Consider a relation P that models the fact type that person with NAME was born on DOB. P = { {NAME: Bob, DOB: 2/2/22} }

CWA answers the query "Was Mary born on 2/2/22?" with False.

> Referential integrity implies a closed-world assumption where transactions on the database are serialized by (conceptually) suspending the world synchronously, applying the required changes, and resuming the world again when referential integrity has been restored successfully, rolling back any changes otherwise. Assuming a closed world is, we claim, both a strength and a weakness of the relational model. [...] The closed-world assumption, however, is in direct contradiction with distribution and scale-out. The bigger the world, the harder it is to keep closed.

This is the first time I have heard the expression "Closed World Assumption" used to refer to transactional atomicity.

For example, the Terry Halpin textbook "Information Modeling and Relational Databases" describes the CWA thus:

> When modeling a business domain, one may take different positions with respect to the completeness of the information captured in the model. The Closed World Assumption (CWA) is the assumption that all relevant facts are known (i.e, appear in the model, either as asserted facts or derived facts) and that all the relevant business rules are known.)

I find this discrepancy in academic terminology difficult to reconcile.

Tetris in sed? Awesome!

Alternatively, if you don't accept a license, then you are not bound to it. Which was reportedly the case here: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050421023821...

From the article:

> The subject line of one e-mail read: “This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously.” “I swear to God I’m going to kill you!,” part of the message to Biden said.

Not sure why you think he didn't threaten to kill. Seems he was found guilty.

You are not arguing that he did not intentionally make the threat, are you? You're just saying the threat wasn't serious. I don't really know how you can be sure of that, but it doesn't really matter - it was a very clear death threat taken very seriously.

Oh come on. It's PSF's shop. Their catalog. Their speech. Their freedom.

Do you think the "reasonable HN people" who can agree bitcoin is overrepresented are the same ones giving it all the attention?

I for one find bitcoin far more "intellectually gratifying" than the hiring thread, which, with great respect to our host, has no interest for me.

Issues related to the expectation of privacy will depend on jurisdiction.

But copyright is interesting. Generally, copyright is held by the photographer. Who is the photographer in this case? The one who blindly operated the camera by remote control? Or the one who unknowingly pointed the camera to the subject? Perhaps there is no copyright here.

An utterly useless analogy. Obviously that line of enquiry is going nowhere.

How about arresting a journalist in order to seize his iPad is like holding the owner hostage while his TV gets stolen?

That's Herb Sutter.

People are speculating on the future value of a conserved and limited quantity. Bitcoin consumes energy to mine.