theknown99

Not at all. I agree, all newspapers have a bias to some degree.

The Guardian is just the Daily Mail of the left. Also notoriously sloppy when it comes to facts, spelling, etc.

The Guardians bias is basically:

BAD - Big companies, government, tories, rich people, MPs, bankers, anyone in power.

GOOD - The 'oppressed' masses, political correctness, the poor, publishing stolen state secrets etc

There is only a 'crisis' if you don't believe in a free market.

It's like saying there's a crisis when it comes to affordable supercars.

It's the Guardian. Its heavily biased reporting, warped to fit in with their agenda.

They were also focussed on trashing a church. What lovely protestors they were.

They achieved nothing, apart from being a nuisance.

Reinventing the first 90% of the wheel is quick. It's that last 10% that takes all the time.

Advertising, just like Google.

That seems insanely low for Google.

Your path to happiness? Don't be so obsessed with money. Build something that's fun, and meaningful, that makes you, and others happy.

Trivial? He was carrying stolen state secrets.

He was inconvenienced for a few hours.

Lets not go overboard here!

The BBC is pretty left leaning. I expect the vast majority of BBC workers read the Guardian.

I think the reason The Guardian is interesting is because they don't really need to sell their stories.

They happily make millions of pounds of losses each year, and are bankrolled by people who seem to not mind.

They are not driven by profit, they're driven by a moral crusade (A mistaken one IMHO, but still).

So they published stolen state secrets, and put people in danger. Yay them!

Makes 'phone hacking' seem lame in comparison.

It's funded by sales from some other profitable less biased papers/magazines.

Losses after losses... at some point, something's gotta give.

"Funded by a trust" isn't some magic get out of jail free card.

Circulation figures for other newspapers are doing pretty well actually. Print still has a long life ahead.

The Guardian has an agenda, and they routinely misinterpret things to sell news.

They're the "daily mail" of the left. Happily, judging by their circulation figures, they won't be around too much longer.

If only there was a way to replace the functionality provided by OpenSSL, by writing some code :(

hmm so I've written a webserver and am able to get thousands of concurrent requests on a small amazon instance without issues.

And you've written a webserver and you can't.

Interesting...

Well don't use them then!

Seriously. Writing a webserver isn't a big job. It's not very hard to program something that runs better than the ones you list, for specific use cases.

Have you tried writing your own webserver? Then tuning it to your particular use case?

> and install nginx

Yeah there's your problem...

It's cute when you make ridiculous assumptions about when people were born.

Lets stick to the facts...

You stated that Amazon instances couldn't cope. They can. They can cope just fine with thousands of simultaneous HTTP and HTTPS connections. If you can't get your amazon instance to do this, you're using crappy software.

> "The 10k problem is still not solved. A run of the mill VPS typically manages around 1k simultaneous connections and 10k requests/s. That is, over plain http. Over TLS this goes down to about 100 connections and 600 requests/s. A cheap amazon instance will usually be around 1/5th of all that."

Where the hell are you getting those poor figures from? Are you using Lisp or something?

> "and the prevalent implementation (OpenSSL) is not written for high performance servers (it basically dictates that you run blocking sockets in a thread per connection)."

Again - you're using crappy software. Don't use it.

The 10k problem is historically interesting, but for anyone who knows how to program, it's not really an issue.

Not really true unless you use crappy software.

I run a few thousand simultaneous connections on AWS small instances without any issues. (HTTP + HTTPS).

The key is writing good software. Which a lot of programmers are still really bad at.

Is it the default behavior of major carriers in Russia/China/Africa/etc as well as in Europe/America?

My experience has been that the majority of the countries where attacks come from do not really care.

Is there a legitimate reason why any ISP / hosting provider etc allows traffic to exit with an IP that doesn't belong to them?

Surely enforcing this would prevent any IP spoofing, which would cut down on these types of attacks?

(As far as I'm aware in this type of attack you send packets purporting to be from your target, to anything on the internet that will blindly send back a reply. Hopefully the reply will be bigger/more packets than your request was, thus amplifying the bandwidth).

If I'm mistaken please explain why...

Political correctness gone mad.

There was a law passed in the EU last year, which made it illegal to "discriminate" based on sex when giving out insurance.

So that means you're not allowed to give men cheaper life insurance, even though men live shorter lives than women, and you're not allowed to give women cheaper car insurance because statistically they're safer.

It's complete BS.

I also find it funny how if you tried to argue that homosexuality wasn't something "hard wired", you'd have a pretty tough time. But if you argue "being girlie and liking girlie things" is "hard wired", you have an equally tough time. It's all political "equality".

I think people will look back at this time period as very odd. Trying to pretend everyone is "equal", rather than embracing their differences, strengths and weaknesses.

"An open letter" is used when you've decided that you're really important and everyone really needs to read your opinion.

Even so, there's a point of fame/money/success beyond which most people are uncomfortable.

Look at lottery winners. I would certainly not want to win the lottery, because most winners end up having a terrible life.

Also, lots of people enjoy shooting things, but being the inventor of the gun must have been a pretty heavy burden. Just because something is enjoyable, doesn't necessarily mean it's "good" overall...

He won the lottery. He didn't develop something meaningful. That must be rough. Imagine if you hacked together a "hello world" program, and it made you a millionaire. Wouldn't that kinda suck?

Almost every time something is labeled as "an open letter", you can be sure it's going to be condescending self righteous egotistical BS.

It'll probably be the same time science makes it possible for you to request your unborn baby be ensured to be "not gay".

So there's plusses and minuses to science...

Should you talk to minors about S&M or pedophilia? Maybe teach them how to make bombs. Freedom of speech and everything!

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And the US is certainly not in a position to preach anything about freedom.