Slashdot Mirror

I support your views that the selfish speed measurements in TFA fail to capture the design constraints of a TCP replacement, but I don't think your characterization of Google's involvement in the tcpm list is a fair one. They are not at all ignorant of the design constraints, as you can see from their paper. The tcpm threads I've read look more like heckling bike-shedders who, at best, may have done a little research a decade ago, and are now directing their intellectual efforts toward being obstructionist to the only people left doing real research. What TCP research is there outside Google, which is practical, and useful to the web? The other problem is the baseline of strangling conservatism founded from a self-aggrandizing position of "responsibility," which is not consistent with the track record of this area of research: overconservatism probably played a part in the congestion-collapse of the Internet in the 80's which you arrogant eggheads then scrambled to fix. It was not the case that the default resistance to any change in TCP saved the internet, nor is it remotely true that we're unaware of risky corner-cases existing in TCP now that most proposals aim primarily to smooth out, nor is it even true we're not beginning to see the effects of these corner-cases to an extent that could predict another collapse-like event. How about, this time, we respond to the very real problems we see on the web: video doesn't work, bandwidth isn't fairly divided in the specific low-hanging-fruit case of multiple streams unordered with respect to one another, cellular networks discard half their packets under congestion, TCP adds too much jitter over the network when new applications (even web browsing) benefit from much less jitter than we're seeing. I understand and agree that deconstructionism has some value, but Google isn't the only one risking being "bad for the Internet." You, sir, also risk that, and honestly at this point I trust Google not to break the Internet more than I trust the get-off-my-lawn retirees on tcpm that claim to exist only for said purpose.

The decline is solely from Chrome becoming mainstream and Google advertising it on their site, where lots of mom and pop Firefox users probably "accidentally" switch to Chrome because of some warning or advertisement from Google.

The reality is both Chrome and Firefox are great browsers, and only a tiny fraction of people are upset with the changes from version to version. Generally, most of us should just be happy that people are NOT using IE6 anymore.

Although personally, Chrome has not kept up with important CSS3 features nearly as well as Firefox, and now IE10 and IE11 have passed Chrome in my book. I mean, something as BASIC as linear gradients you'd expect to work in all modern browsers, but only Firefox and IE10+ can get it right. See bug 41756 - http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41756#c71

Frankly, Germany would be better off selling excess electricity to the Swiss, who then pump their lakes full, and then buying that electricity back when needed. This is around 70% efficient, and a hell of a lot friendlier to the environment.

Most wind energy is produced in northern Germany. The current power grid is already unable to distribute the peak power to southern Germany. So storing it in Switzerland will not work. Norway would be a better place. But there is probably no single solution and having batteries helps as well....

I made that joke in a comment last week. Your favorite meal is copy pasta.

And when you made that joke, it was somehow novel? With a quick search of that phrase used on Slashdot alone: "About 3,240 results"

More like time for Fat Phil to go on a diet. You are what you eat, and you, sir, are full of shit.

Official word

Then you're an idiot, particularly for taking what's reported on a news website at face value.

So can get a supported version of Kit Kat on all past versions of my Nexus Phones?

Google said there's an 18 month update window, and anything Nexus than the Nexus 4 (like the Galaxy Nexus) won't get Kitkat:

https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/3468085

Is Google releasing Android 4.4 as a system update for Galaxy Nexus?

No, Galaxy Nexus phones won’t be receiving the update for Android 4.4 (KitKat).

Why isn’t Galaxy Nexus receiving the update to Android 4.4?

Galaxy Nexus, which first launched two years ago, falls outside of the 18-month update window when Google and others traditionally update devices.

It would seem, the mAH doesn't seem to matter: KitKat (and presumably, with ART as well, as people have reported, but not the example I'm about to cite) have improved battery performance immensely. Here is one example of many.

Personally, I am getting 4 hours screen-on with 16 hours standby, and still have 15% battery left, using Dalvik, Google now (all options on), WiFi+LTE (but GPS and bluetooth off), which is more than acceptable IMO and great.

So maybe, much like the CPU MHz, we should stop concentrating on the numbers so much, and instead concentrate on the actual results.

https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5iR9b

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=nissan+leaf
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=tesla+model+s

Just by looking at those two cars, which one would you expect to be involved in far more high speed collisions, and hence large impacts involving the battery, due to it being driven by idiot hoons?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=nissan+leaf
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=tesla+model+s

Just by looking at those two cars, which one would you expect to be involved in far more high speed collisions, and hence large impacts involving the battery, due to it being driven by idiot hoons?

citation
stSHn/
noun
noun: citation;plural noun: citations;noun: cit.

1.
a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, esp. in a scholarly work.
"there were dozens of citations from the works of Byron"
synonyms: quotation, quote, extract, excerpt, passage, line;
reference, allusion
"a citation from an eighteenth-century text"
a mention of a praiseworthy act or achievement in an official report, esp. that of a member of the armed forces in wartime.
synonyms: commendation, mention, honorable mention
"a citation for gallantry"
a note accompanying an award, describing the reasons for it.
"the Nobel citation noted that his discovery would be useful for energy conversion technology"
Law
a reference to a former tried case, used as guidance in the trying of comparable cases or in support of an argument.
2.
Law
a summons.
"a traffic citation"
synonyms: summons, ticket, subpoena, writ, court order

What was your point?

What is the issue with creating a Google+ account?

The issue is that using "John Doe" as your name when it is not your name is in violation of their Names Policy, you are subject to having the account suspended or canceled.

This is so much bullshit on so many levels. Using a real-life and permanent name in conjunction with social networking activity is, in my opinion, extremely stupid. Making this a requirement for participation is frightening.

This! A thousand times this! At first, it was a friendly offer to sign up for G+ for free. OK, that's cool; not gonna use it, but thanks for the offer. Then it became "you must have a G+ account in order to participate in youtube or whatever". Now they are moving on to the new strategy of requiring a G+ account for participation in third party sites. So far, I have managed to avoid the G+ account requirement...but I have no doubt that someday soon I will finally be caught in their web. Sigh

What is the issue with creating a Google+ account?

The issue is that using "John Doe" as your name when it is not your name is in violation of their Names Policy, you are subject to having the account suspended or canceled.

This is so much bullshit on so many levels. Using a real-life and permanent name in conjunction with social networking activity is, in my opinion, extremely stupid. Making this a requirement for participation is frightening.

This! A thousand times this! At first, it was a friendly offer to sign up for G+ for free. OK, that's cool; not gonna use it, but thanks for the offer. Then it became "you must have a G+ account in order to participate in youtube or whatever". Now they are moving on to the new strategy of requiring a G+ account for participation in third party sites. So far, I have managed to avoid the G+ account requirement...but I have no doubt that someday soon I will finally be caught in their web. Sigh

What is the issue with creating a Google+ account?

The issue is that using "John Doe" as your name when it is not your name is in violation of their Names Policy, you are subject to having the account suspended or canceled.

This is so much bullshit on so many levels. Using a real-life and permanent name in conjunction with social networking activity is, in my opinion, extremely stupid. Making this a requirement for participation is frightening.

G+ has taken some steps in the right direction, but IMO this has been more talk and less action than is necessary and their behavior with forcing G+ membership for Google store/youtube comments is abhorant.

Preserving anonymity, pseudonyms, and online identity separate from 'real life", insofar as is possible, is essential to a healthy Internet.

AC

What is the issue with creating a Google+ account?

The issue is that using "John Doe" as your name when it is not your name is in violation of their Names Policy, you are subject to having the account suspended or canceled.

This is so much bullshit on so many levels. Using a real-life and permanent name in conjunction with social networking activity is, in my opinion, extremely stupid. Making this a requirement for participation is frightening.

G+ has taken some steps in the right direction, but IMO this has been more talk and less action than is necessary and their behavior with forcing G+ membership for Google store/youtube comments is abhorant.

Preserving anonymity, pseudonyms, and online identity separate from 'real life", insofar as is possible, is essential to a healthy Internet.

AC

But they aren't silencing critics.

Official word

Is there a citation for this?

I don't know if translations of the original declassified documents (the so-called "Khrushev Special File") to English are readily available online, but you can find books that cite them, e.g. here.

Note that at the point the figures were compiled, it was a classified special report made on Kruschev's personal request by the Ministry of Interior to let him assess the scope of the then-existing gulag system and its application in Stalin's period, in his preparation to the denunciation of Stalin's cult of personality (which would happen two years later). So there's no reason to believe that the numbers were deliberately understated for propaganda purposes.

Sure, check out these results, 226 pictures of exotic gas powered cars on fire, some due to wrecks, some just driving, and some just sitting around, and that's just from one site on the net that users submit photos to.

A similar system was demonstrated in Switzerland 10 years ago, but was considered as not viable and never implemented since.

http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.serpentine.ch%2Fp_realisations%2FPilote_Ouchy.html (sorry original site only in french)

Mozilla has similar plans: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SZx7NlaMeFxA55-u8blvgCsPIl041xaJO5YLdu6HyOk/edit?pli=1#heading=h.8hzkmge855kv

Youtube downloaders => Install them on Chrome dev channel, canary or switch to Linux/Mac/ChromeOS If you still want them on Windows stable, turn on developer mode in chrome://extensions And AdBlock is very much alive on Webstore: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom It's obvious that Google is doing this to prevent crapware (installed by many naive Windows users) from hijacking your browser. If you're not a naive Windows user, why not move to dev channel?

Did you read the thread I linked to?

It's roughly 50% Windows admins whose GPO-fu is weak bitching because their registry hacks don't work anymore, and 50% Chromium developers telling them that, yes, sorry, Chrome queries group policy state directly, only falling back to the registry under specific conditions (and noting that they make no assurance that that fallback will continue in the future.)

If that isn't enough, try a look at 'policy_loader_win.h'. It's fairly clear about reading the registry, rather than grovelling through the policies directly, is a fallback behavior that occurs only if grovelling through the policies doesn't work out.

If you think Gasoline is dangerous.... you should see how dangerous desktop screen savers can be.

AdBlock Plus for Chrome, from the official Google site: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-plus/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon

There are many other ad blockers available on there too. If you are going to lie you should at least think of something that isn't so trivially easy to disprove.

Perhaps not... Apparently, I'm not too deeply versed in Windows technical arcana, but apparently some applications are configured by group policy indirectly (group policy changes the registry in the appropriate places, the application reads the registry in those places and acts accordingly) and some applications use an OS-provided API to query the applied group policies directly and apply those(exactly where the policies are stored in this instance is not clear to me. The domain controller presumably has them, in a networked environment; but where on the client they persist if it goes off the grid for a bit, or in the case of a locally managed machine, I don't know).

As of version 28, (according to the thread in the above link, because of malware leading Chrome around by the nose through modifications of the registry entries), Chrome switched from the registry-based mechanism to the new mechanism. Modifications to the registry are now ignored, and only policies applied by the OS-supported group policy manipulation mechanisms will apply.

I assume that these policies have to live somewhere, and thus can be edited (even if the OS protects them hard enough that you need a hex editor and a liveCD to do it); but it won't be a simple regedit.exe job.

Apple is worth a bit more than $100 Billion. They have over $140 billion in cash alone. Their current value as defined by Wall Street is is about $465B, the largest such capitalization value of any company in the world.

Google not in France Not obligated to do shit for the Frogs Court orders, Just ignore them.

Google Paris
8 Rue de Londres
75009 Paris
France
Phone: +33 (0)1 42 68 53 00
Fax: +33 (0) 1 42 68 53 01

http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/

We're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming everyone wants what we want.

Don't worry, that's something Microsoft seems to have learned from us Linux folks.

The font smoothing in IE 10 causes headaches for you and your users and you want to turn that crappy "ClearType" of?
No. Not gonna happen. "We are right any you are all wrong!!"

Funny thing is, there the difference is not so much "FOSS" vs. "Proprietary", it's "Configurable" against "Locked Down". These days there seems to be a pretty mix-and-match going. A lot of FOSS moving to the "Locked Down" model, too, while on the other hand there is also a lot of configurable proprietary software around.

Are you sure about that? http://www.google.com/racing/

I'm surprised no one brought up the fact that Apple dropped a Patriot Act dead man's switch into their report:

"Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. We would expect to challenge such an order if served on us."

frankly I think this is all overblown. When I look at my google ad settings to see what kind of profile it had on me 90% of it was wrong.

If they want to continue building useless profiles then I say let them. Personally I like having adverts for things that i'm interested in. It makes them less annoying in general.

faster-then-light communication patent
http://www.google.com/patents/US6025810

Just in time...an article about an NSA employee that tried to blow the whistle on them back in 2007.

I remember someone in Congress saying that Edward Snowden should have gone through the proper channels to blow the whistle. That's what this guy did. You can read the article to see how that worked out for him.

I wonder why Edward Snowden got attention when he blew the whistle, and no one up until that point did? Hard to say...though it may have had something to do with his hot girlfriend.

IPv6 is certainly not the only way forward and is overkill (64 bits for your local network?) for replacing IPv4 as well as being too complex. The correct solution is compression within the current 32 bits - that way you can fit many more than 4 billion addresses. I hear there's a google project on this.

I thought you might be trolling because you can't map a 128bit address space into a 32bit space without collisions when you have >32bits of unique information to store. It looks like there is a patent on this: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013066969A1?cl=en registered to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Television_Laboratories,_Inc. not Google. They are a consortium that develops cable modem standards (DOCSIS).

The patent is for a form of NAT which handles 1-1 mapping and allows for collisions with actual/virtual ipv4 addresses by remapping those as well. Each IPv4 device behind the cable model would get a unique IPv6 that the world can see and would see external addresses as a translated IPv4 address. Apparently it is expected to break down when the number of unique connections exceeds 33K/day. Looks like a good transitional form of NAT for consumers who are still running older systems that don't support IPv6. It is not a general solution that could replace IPv6, in fact it requires IPv6 at the ISP level.

Who do you think you are? Obama?

Good try, but this was a little further north.

I suspect this will be looked at as one of the great political suicide speaches of all time.

Here is the Russian MIG 28 and here is the T-38.

As you can clearly see, the T-38 is an inferior knock-off of the Russian aircraft. In Russian, our canopies have to deal with Eagles and very large women.

- Checkoff

Here is the Russian MIG 28 and here is the T-38.

As you can clearly see, the T-38 is an inferior knock-off of the Russian aircraft. In Russian, our canopies have to deal with Eagles and very large women.

- Checkoff

Sure, why not?

Did you even read the summary? Here - let me make it easy for you:

Right now, companies such as Apple, Google and others that issue so-called transparency reports are only allowed to report the volume of requests they get in increments of 1,000.

Did you get that? They didn't provide more detail because they are legally not allowed to beyond a range of 1000. If they could provide more detail, they would.

In fact, they are filing an amicus brief in the efforts of gaining permission to disclose numbers in greater detail.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/05/apple-court-filing-asks-for-transparency-on-government-user-information-requests

Oh, and the list of companies fighting for permission to provide greater detail? Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook and LinkedIn. Notice Google, who you claim publishes the precise number of NSL requests, is on that list.

Let's have a look at Google's transparency report for the US:

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/

Oh. Look at that - Google does not provide precise numbers of NSL, as you claim.

It's simple - the US makes it illegal for companies to disclose in any detail greater than units of 1000 how many requests for information they receive. Thus the numbers for the US are, shockingly, in units of 1000. For Apple and Google.

The pressures that they use to fracture rock are in the THOUSANDS of pounds, the pressures they're injecting CO2 at are in the HUNDREDS.

The CO2 isn't fracturing the rock.

Depends on how the rocks are sited and where the CO2 is injected. A pressure of "hundreds of pounds" doesn't guarantee that no rock crushing forces are generated. Bad luck could result in rocks being configured in such a way that when you injected the CO2, it pushed them together in such a way that unexpected movement occured.

If you inject 100psi of well contained CO2 under a large 50ft by 50ft slab of rock it's going to generate about 36 million pounds force on that slab. In comparison, a 50ft cube of granite weighs around 21 million pounds

you're assuming, though, that the concrete isn't porous, and that all of the force would be applied on the face of that slab as opposed to pushing the CO2 through that slab. We're talking about a rock that required thousands of pounds of pressure on a liquid (less likely to flow through pores) to fracture in the first place, we crammed sand INTO the fractures to increase flow (and keep them open), and now we're only putting hundreds of pounds of CO2 pressure into these fractures.

I'll still hold, the CO2 isn't fracturing the rock.

The pressures that they use to fracture rock are in the THOUSANDS of pounds, the pressures they're injecting CO2 at are in the HUNDREDS.

The CO2 isn't fracturing the rock.

Depends on how the rocks are sited and where the CO2 is injected. A pressure of "hundreds of pounds" doesn't guarantee that no rock crushing forces are generated. Bad luck could result in rocks being configured in such a way that when you injected the CO2, it pushed them together in such a way that unexpected movement occured.

If you inject 100psi of well contained CO2 under a large 50ft by 50ft slab of rock it's going to generate about 36 million pounds force on that slab. In comparison, a 50ft cube of granite weighs around 21 million pounds

you're assuming, though, that the concrete isn't porous, and that all of the force would be applied on the face of that slab as opposed to pushing the CO2 through that slab. We're talking about a rock that required thousands of pounds of pressure on a liquid (less likely to flow through pores) to fracture in the first place, we crammed sand INTO the fractures to increase flow (and keep them open), and now we're only putting hundreds of pounds of CO2 pressure into these fractures.

I'll still hold, the CO2 isn't fracturing the rock.

The pressures that they use to fracture rock are in the THOUSANDS of pounds, the pressures they're injecting CO2 at are in the HUNDREDS.

The CO2 isn't fracturing the rock.

Depends on how the rocks are sited and where the CO2 is injected. A pressure of "hundreds of pounds" doesn't guarantee that no rock crushing forces are generated. Bad luck could result in rocks being configured in such a way that when you injected the CO2, it pushed them together in such a way that unexpected movement occured.

If you inject 100psi of well contained CO2 under a large 50ft by 50ft slab of rock it's going to generate about 36 million pounds force on that slab. In comparison, a 50ft cube of granite weighs around 21 million pounds

The pressures that they use to fracture rock are in the THOUSANDS of pounds, the pressures they're injecting CO2 at are in the HUNDREDS.

The CO2 isn't fracturing the rock.

Depends on how the rocks are sited and where the CO2 is injected. A pressure of "hundreds of pounds" doesn't guarantee that no rock crushing forces are generated. Bad luck could result in rocks being configured in such a way that when you injected the CO2, it pushed them together in such a way that unexpected movement occured.

If you inject 100psi of well contained CO2 under a large 50ft by 50ft slab of rock it's going to generate about 36 million pounds force on that slab. In comparison, a 50ft cube of granite weighs around 21 million pounds

so what is the maxtrix of which trump which?

Surely there must be some way of finding that information.

there is an alternative that doesn't use Proof Of Work that is a distributed database: Confidence Chains

Obviously, many services already exists which provide bounties for open source development:
https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+bounty

So really, from first glance this doesn't sound new in any way.

The writer of the article thinks the 'voting system' (multiple people pledge to pay for a feature/bugfix) is a novel idea though. I've not looked at the others, it might be.

Sounds a bit like kickstarter as well.

"Open source" is still a techie term, but is referenced repeatedly on the site (just not in the most obvious places):
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afairphone.com+%22open+source%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I also noticed some of their job postings stressed "open hardware".

In any case, your question is a good one and I would hope help prompt clarification from Fairphone. I'd expect that Fairphone has hardware that is more open than most, but that full openness would be a future goal not yet attained.

While unemployment generally may be high, in the tech sector it is very low.

How about some actual, you know, statistics.

Tech companies, led by Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, are lobbying Congress to relax immigration rules so they can hire more foreign talent because they believe domestic talent has gotten too scarce and too expensive.

And that's evidence of a shortage? They've been pushing for more of this crap for 20 years, rain or shine.

I also notice that almost the entire article is about Silicon Valley, which despite its pretenses of being cosmopolitan, or even "globalized" (whatever the hell that means), is one of the most provincial places there is. Here's a clue: there are parts of the US outside of the Bay Area. Amazing but true! Some of those places are tech hubs with lower salaries. Having trouble finding people at a reasonable price? Branch out. It's hardly a new business strategy. The geniuses who claim to have destroyed the barriers to long distance communication don't want to take advantage of it (except to India of course). I know that denizens of the valley are afraid to get on a plane to someplace like, say Pittsburgh, where they have a dreaded thing called "snow", but you can tough it out. Look on the bright side - the plane trip is much shorter than across the Pacific. You can even use Google maps to find this place called "Pittsburgh" .

The sr-71 was retired, but then brought out of retirement, which many people thought strange since it's rplacement, the aurora had already been made as a revel model.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lockheed+aurora&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS531US531&espv=210&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JQZ4UrbZLomEiwKxiYHQBg&ved=0CDsQsAQ&biw=1547&bih=969

But now, it (the sr-71) is being replaced? If history is any indication, there have been at least 3 new spy planes since the sr-71 already. What about the top secret shuttle like orbit capable craft that has been covered? I have to ask WTF do we need with another plane. Probably answer is this is just mis-direction.