The way to implement WebSQL is to copy SQLite 3.1.9. That is not exactly a baked specification, that is the kind of crap companies used to pull to make unimplementable "standards" for everyone who doesn't license their code and doing that a few times over a decade would make w3c compliant browsers pretty crappy.
So instead, invent something that's a piece of crap, and make the Web worse than what Android and iOS developers get for offline storage.
SQLite is public domain, there's no need to license it.
Sometimes worse is a better, and insisting on standards process purity in this case I think harmed developers and didn't help the Web at all. There was nothing wrong with SQLite from a licensing standpoint, and everyone could have used it, and reverse engineered a spec later.
Reverse engineering a spec from an active product which regularly fixes bugs or adds new features? I'm not saying that it couldn't work, but I am not very optimistic.
Plus, I don't remember that anybody in w3c or whatwg actively defended that approach.
It would have made much more sense to use that as a basis for a new, more formal spec than to pull some new NoSQL spec that nobody wanted out of their ass.
I'm also puzzled by the assisted suicide question. I would think being against it as a healthy person might be a sign of greedy self interest, i.e. their right to the sick family member over the needs of the family member.
There is also this little gem:
Primary psychopathy also had a non-significant trend towards morning chronotype, (b = .16, p < .10)
It sounds like people who have been abused by mainstream society or have awareness and anxiety about potential abuses tend towards nights and avoidance of banking hours as a loss avoidance, and people who feel they can actually exploit others (leadership skills, primary psychopaths, CEOs) like day time hours to seek their social gains.
Perhaps they need to look at a society that runs differently to understand the links. For example, Egypt tends toward later hours to avoid daytime heat. Are secondary psychopaths morning people in Egypt and leaders and/or primary psychopaths night time people?
"I think anonymity is authenticity, it allows you to share in a completely unvarnished, unfiltered, raw way and I think that's something that's extremely valuable." -- moot
I would interpret its table 11 as emphasizing the need for entertainment or other focus retention for success within a school curriculum. (I consider duolingo good at instant feedback but incapable of retaining focus without significant external motivation.)
Are there standards for these kind of general pseudo devices in virtual machines? (Or you would use the cut&past buffer for example?)
To my knowledge, secure sites use(d) hardware methods to guarantee a one way channel (snip half an ethernet cable, override peer/auto detection and then use udp.)
You'd host the queue service on a separate machine on the private network and communicate with it using either HTTP or standard TCP (all firewalled to restrict everything else)
So you have your gateway virtual machine which has one interface to the public web and one interface to the internal network. On that network you have two or more machines:
a) is the web server, which can't make any requests out to anywhere except other machines on the same local network. It can receive tor or http traffic in from the gateway
b) other servers hosting local services, which can't make any requests out at all but can receive queries from the web server on their http/queue port. A database server for your web application would also sit on a machine like this.
You can put b) on yet another separate network behind the web server if they don't need to route out over Tor (or even if they do).
Your slicing the tasks up and isolating them on separate machines to minimize the attack surface. Someone breaking into the web server will not be able to make any queries out to the web or to tor, and will only be able to query local services servers in b) such as the queue.
RabbitMQ has an HTTP interface, 0MQ uses TCP.
The other way to do it is to isolate every machine from every other machine and implement a SOA over Tor.
Taking the example of your web server needing to know the latest bitcoin price, you would implement an API on another hidden service and restrict access to it from only your web server. The web server would then have to be allowed to make queries out over Tor, but this can remain on the Tor network and can again be restricted to only your hidden 'proxy' services.
Most people associate Tor and hidden services with sites being slow and down all the time, but that is more a function of the level of experience in the field. Tor hidden sites have a different threat model so the ideal architecture is different to most common network architectures.
I personally like the idea of building a machine that terminates TOR (exclusively) into VMs, allowing no other outbound (non-whitelisted) traffic.
The biggest and most obvious threat to a lot of these hidden services are application-layer attacks.
You should not be using platforms that have the ability to do vast inspection of their runtime environment or make arbitrary outbound requests.
I'm not necessarily a fan of the "SOA-over-Tor" approach for something like a Bitcoin price: the explicitly-whitelisted bitcoin-price-checker-service communicating over a small-surface API (0MQ, Rabbit (albeit this is a bit of a larger attack surface, internally)) to another VM that has externally-terminated Tor-only outbound internet access is probably easier to work with.
I should spin up a CoreOS distribution with all guest VM outbound access turned off and try out host-level Tor termination.
There are ways to lose your trademarks if you use them or simply allow them to be used in the wrong contexts. I think their competitors would argue that this is one of those ways.
This is a bizarre statement. There are plenty of reasons to write software that don't revolve around "I want this software for my own personal benefit". For example the person in question may just want experience of programming, and/or they may wish to contribute to something that helps others rather than themselves.
(I suspect many people are in a similar position in their day job, given the existence of large amounts of software for which the target audience is not computer programmers.)
I wasn't really trying to distinguishing between personal quantifiable gains from other gains. My being annoyed for someone else whose showed me ridiculous workarounds is a perfect example of a reason I would fix software so >I< can feel better about reality, myself and experience less pain and embarrassment for my profession if I help them again in the future.
For pure experience programming, sure we write "garbage software" to make the changes in ourselves. But if it is worth sharing (even for edification or statistical analysis) then we go back to a personal reason otherwise it has little relevance to the larger topic of discussion, and I personally focus on the garbage in "garbage software" rather than software.
The way to implement WebSQL is to copy SQLite 3.1.9. That is not exactly a baked specification, that is the kind of crap companies used to pull to make unimplementable "standards" for everyone who doesn't license their code and doing that a few times over a decade would make w3c compliant browsers pretty crappy.