I'm sorry to point this out, but how exactly are you involved with kernel development? Do you have any experience or research in the area? Have you bothered to really sit down and take the time to compare what's out there and come up with something better? Have you had academic access to say, view the code in the NT kernel of modern Windows operating systems?
It's one thing to throw around words like "WE NEED MICROKERNELS!" and it's another thing to actually understand what it is you're talking about.
In an ideal world, this would be the case. But unfortunately we cannot trust the people in charge to ensure that they are doing nothing more nefarious.
Furthermore, what I consider to be priority should be different than what you consider priority. In a classic "Me" vs. "You", why should your VOIP/Skype traffic get any more priority than my WoW traffic? But that's what it would come down.
Many services these days are pushing the bounds of latency and fighting for the priority.
The problem is that the companies want to throw money around to make all of this happen. They want to charge you for the "voip" package. Or charge me for the "gaming" package. Then charge companies such as Activision Blizzard for "priority access to their customers".
Breaking up AT&T didn't do much of anything these days since most of the companies have gone back to being merged.
The best bet to network neutrality is either institute line sharing rules, or the US government fund the mass expansion of fiber lines which ISPs can then compete for consumers over those lines.
Unfortunately, the latter would require a ridiculous amount of tax dollars, get libertarian panties twisted in a bunch, and would never pass. The former would be hard enough to get through Congress.
The very fact that Glenn Beck airs such crazy outbursts of "other people" shows his tacit support of such things. They are being the messenger to get the message heard.
We should not be hearing these messages. Messages invoking violence, murder, or the stupidity of calling out Obama's birth origin.
If Al Franken is a crazy son of a bitch, the message he's trying to get across is the one I agree with. So if it takes a crazy son of a bitch to get that message across, by all means, Mr. Franken, go nuts.
I agree, but unfortunately I think it would be an even more damaging event to try and flush out patents than it would be to simply claim domain over h.264 patents.
A few hundred million is chump change in comparison to what we're spending on some things.
MPEG-LA has pledged to "never" charge for serving "free of charge" content over the web right now. That doesn't mean they're not going to charge for it in the future, they revisit the question over and over.
But the question comes down to what constitutes as "free view" over the web? If you look at major hits such as RayWilliamJohnson, people like that "profit" off of making videos on the internet. He's got t-shirt deals that now have his stuff being sold in Hot Topic stores across the country. He's a pretty big Youtube phenomenon as a result of videos being posted on the internet "for free".
You're right that everything "costs money" and some things have direct and indirect costs. The difference is that to ensure the internet remains open and competitive for everyone, we need to make sure that as much driving force behind the technology standards used by the vast majority of it are for the public good.
In layman's terms, we call what the MPEG-LA doing as a "bait and switch".
Last time I checked, this is a right granted in the US Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
In this case, if the US government were to seize the h.264 property and providing just compensation (I would imagine would be somewhat less the cost of what we're spending on these wars) to the creators, then put it into the public use--then we very well can do it.
Not that I know the specifics, but I would imagine that in the mean time there could be some wrappers created that would at least offer some hardware acceleration benefit to the format. With the upgrade momentum of smartphones, I suspect this would be a non-issue.
Let me put it in plain terms here: We've all been through this before--many times. It's nothing new, and won't stop with h.264 or any other codec. When a new technology comes out, you'll eventually need to upgrade.
I suspect the people responding right now are the same trolls that are starting to learn to use the internet in recent years. We've seen more and more of them on other sites I visit, and they don't understand what's really going on.
The difference is that taxes (should) go to the betterment of my society and my surroundings so that my family, friends, children, grandchildren, and people I don't know can have at least my life if not better than my life for their future.
Paying taxes is a completely different beast from being "forced" to pay for the h.264 codec licensing fees.
And when I say "forced", I'm implying that if every device on the market can *only* encode in h.264, and every player on the market can *only* play h.264, and modifying devices so they play other formats to *give me choice* is illegal, then you don't really have much of a "choice" do you not?
The point is the technology that is used on the internet should be royalty and licensing free. Period. If they want to be grinches about it, they can shove it up their ass.
Let's think about what you're saying here. Just imagine this world.
A) Pay per visitor for Ethernet B) Pay per visitor for IP C) Pay per visitor for TCP D) Pay per visitor for HTTP E) In addition to that, all vendors across all supply chains pay for rights to use these technologies. Cisco and Juniper pay royalty rights for the aforementioned technologies, end users pay for it in the devices. People and companies paying to run a business off of each of these technologies.
The only thing that concerns me about the web video format is that it needs to be unencumbered by royalties or other licensing. If I want to make a video, encode it, sell it, make ads off of a website, get 100 or 100,000 visitors, I should damn well be able to do that without having to pay a dime to anyone for the ability to make my own god damn videos--unless I optionally choose.
By using h.264, you pretty much guarantee that *someone* *somewhere* is paying for it. Could you imagine if say, the "David After Dentist" kid had to pay tons and tons of royalties to the MPAA for a video they created simply because they used the h.264 container format? To even conceive such a thing is such bullshit that this should absolutely be a non-issue.
Though this will never happen, the US government should claim eminent domain on all patents involving the h.264 technology, and then dare the large companies to make a move. After all, we're the ones with the guns.
A) Pay a decent, well reputable, knowledgeable coder $$$$ for his time to develop a website.
or
B) Pay some outsourced company $$ for their time to develop a website.
Most management usually goes for B. It generally makes them "look better" because it can "get the job done", they can "save money". Security is an afterthought to almost all management levels. The only reason that Gawker's management is even anything close to concerned now is because it's going to cut into ad revenue. But they, like any major company, skate on that thin ice until eventually it breaks.
This isn't surprising in the least bit. Companies don't give two shits about security until it bites them in the ass. Further more, I don't really expect them to make major strides in security, but "just enough" to make sure the "previous situation" doesn't happen again.
That said, there is something called "defense in depth", and it's something they should have implemented from the start. It was a failure at all levels of monitoring and management.
Re:The writing was idiotic (Spoilers?)
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
You must be a riot at Christmas parties.
Okay everyone, look, Santa isn't real, neither are elves and reindeers! Why are we decorating for this crap when it doesn't exist!? Why are we singing Christmas Carols about Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, and Rudolf the Red-nosed reindeer?!
You do get support if you're an enterprise customer. That said.....have you ever actually looked at Microsoft's support structure?
Microsoft has the most complex library of documentation on their products than any other OS vendor--period. MSDN and the MSKB are amazingly awesome resources that dwarf anything else you could possibly find by any other vendor for their own products. Not *everything* is covered in either of these, but a large majority of things are. Microsoft has been experimenting with open and free support options for many years for their products. It's part of what makes them so popular. They even have a wiki in experimentation phase right now that you can use. They've had newsgroups and forums for years.
Their documentation is also not very confusing. They have documentation all the way down to how various services work (including DNS) without having to hunt down documentation on each implementation. Not that DNS is difficult to understand, but BIND's documentation can be a bit confusing for someone who has never configured a DNS server before.
When you finally do need support, the support you do get is pretty expansive and detailed--and they *will* usually solve your issue, including very low level things such as analyzing crash dumps and why services aren't starting up.
Trust me when I say this, Microsoft's support is well worth the money.
Actually, won't. Debian/Ubuntu are very unique in the way they handle apache configuration--and each configuration is distro specific. Debian puts each set of configs within its own files. Modules go in their own files, you can enable/disable individual module configurations as-needed. The same thing with sites.
Apache, however, sees the whole thing as "one giant file", since you're using INCLUDE lines in the core httpd.conf(apache2.conf in debian) to use those subfolders (include/modules/*.conf).
This is precisely the problem. And you're exactly right. Here in the US, The government doesn't really regulate much of any free speech. There are a few things in that regarding depictions of underage children doing adult acts, but that's about it.
The "movie ratings" and ESRB are all completely private companies. And it's private companies that get to decide what media you consume and how you consume it.
The worst part about it is a rather significant amount of people, even the ones who are "educated", do not see this as a major problem. At least with government, you have actual legal recourse to get stupid laws overturned. But if for some reason a private movie company suddenly decides that showing a boy and a girl hold hands is R-rated material, they very well can do that--and there is nothing you, nor even the content creator, can do about it.
How's this for you?
Microsoft, Sony, nor Nintendo game consoles can play AO-rated games. In order to play them, you have to modify the console. Of course, this means violating the DMCA, of which there is a rather significant court case in the Supreme Court about this.
Walmart, for the longest time, refused to carry games and violent media due to cursing, blood, gore. Both Duke Nukem and Shadow Warrior required patches to re-enable this content after purchasing it from Walmart. Nowadays the games are less bloody and violent as a result to sell as many copies as possible. Very few games these days show any real amount of blood or dismemberment. I suppose Fallout: NV has some, but nothing quite on the level of Soldier of Fortune 1/2, nor blowing someone up with Quake 3's Quad BFG hits:P
With the movie-ratings board, essentially this is how they control: Not all movies have to be rated by the system, it is "voluntary". Except, in this case, voluntary means "you either want to release your movie or you don't." No movie theater is permitted to run unrated movies. In fact, if a movie theater starts showing unrated content, the MPAA will pull the rest of its content from the theater. So sure, you can play your unrated movies, you just can't play G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17 rated movies if you do.
Arguing for private censorship like this is horrendous. And it's absolutely terrible. You have no recourse against either of these acts. Hell, in the first case, it's completely illegal (in an indirect way) to let you enjoy the content you can purchase and play.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean so corporate overlords can be free to take our money while giving us the illusion of "choice"?
I'm sorry to point this out, but how exactly are you involved with kernel development? Do you have any experience or research in the area? Have you bothered to really sit down and take the time to compare what's out there and come up with something better? Have you had academic access to say, view the code in the NT kernel of modern Windows operating systems?
It's one thing to throw around words like "WE NEED MICROKERNELS!" and it's another thing to actually understand what it is you're talking about.
How do we work all that differently?
Just load everything locally onto the tablet, don't load plays over wifi--and they'll be good.
Honestly, they're no more or less secure than someone stealing your playbook at that point.
In an ideal world, this would be the case. But unfortunately we cannot trust the people in charge to ensure that they are doing nothing more nefarious.
Furthermore, what I consider to be priority should be different than what you consider priority. In a classic "Me" vs. "You", why should your VOIP/Skype traffic get any more priority than my WoW traffic? But that's what it would come down.
Many services these days are pushing the bounds of latency and fighting for the priority.
The problem is that the companies want to throw money around to make all of this happen. They want to charge you for the "voip" package. Or charge me for the "gaming" package. Then charge companies such as Activision Blizzard for "priority access to their customers".
Breaking up AT&T didn't do much of anything these days since most of the companies have gone back to being merged.
The best bet to network neutrality is either institute line sharing rules, or the US government fund the mass expansion of fiber lines which ISPs can then compete for consumers over those lines.
Unfortunately, the latter would require a ridiculous amount of tax dollars, get libertarian panties twisted in a bunch, and would never pass. The former would be hard enough to get through Congress.
The very fact that Glenn Beck airs such crazy outbursts of "other people" shows his tacit support of such things. They are being the messenger to get the message heard.
We should not be hearing these messages. Messages invoking violence, murder, or the stupidity of calling out Obama's birth origin.
If Al Franken is a crazy son of a bitch, the message he's trying to get across is the one I agree with. So if it takes a crazy son of a bitch to get that message across, by all means, Mr. Franken, go nuts.
Dear Microsoft,
If (Cost_Of_Slate > Cost_Of_Ipad) and (Size_Of_Slate > Size_Of_Ipad) and (Battery_Life_Of_Slate < Battery_Life_Of_Ipad) then
fail
end
I agree, but unfortunately I think it would be an even more damaging event to try and flush out patents than it would be to simply claim domain over h.264 patents.
A few hundred million is chump change in comparison to what we're spending on some things.
MPEG-LA has pledged to "never" charge for serving "free of charge" content over the web right now. That doesn't mean they're not going to charge for it in the future, they revisit the question over and over.
But the question comes down to what constitutes as "free view" over the web? If you look at major hits such as RayWilliamJohnson, people like that "profit" off of making videos on the internet. He's got t-shirt deals that now have his stuff being sold in Hot Topic stores across the country. He's a pretty big Youtube phenomenon as a result of videos being posted on the internet "for free".
You're right that everything "costs money" and some things have direct and indirect costs. The difference is that to ensure the internet remains open and competitive for everyone, we need to make sure that as much driving force behind the technology standards used by the vast majority of it are for the public good.
In layman's terms, we call what the MPEG-LA doing as a "bait and switch".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takings_Clause#Eminent_domain
More information for those that wish to invoke "Communism" to my argument.
L2Read the US Constitution.
Last time I checked, this is a right granted in the US Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
In this case, if the US government were to seize the h.264 property and providing just compensation (I would imagine would be somewhat less the cost of what we're spending on these wars) to the creators, then put it into the public use--then we very well can do it.
Not that I know the specifics, but I would imagine that in the mean time there could be some wrappers created that would at least offer some hardware acceleration benefit to the format. With the upgrade momentum of smartphones, I suspect this would be a non-issue.
Let me put it in plain terms here: We've all been through this before--many times. It's nothing new, and won't stop with h.264 or any other codec. When a new technology comes out, you'll eventually need to upgrade.
I suspect the people responding right now are the same trolls that are starting to learn to use the internet in recent years. We've seen more and more of them on other sites I visit, and they don't understand what's really going on.
The difference is that taxes (should) go to the betterment of my society and my surroundings so that my family, friends, children, grandchildren, and people I don't know can have at least my life if not better than my life for their future.
Paying taxes is a completely different beast from being "forced" to pay for the h.264 codec licensing fees.
And when I say "forced", I'm implying that if every device on the market can *only* encode in h.264, and every player on the market can *only* play h.264, and modifying devices so they play other formats to *give me choice* is illegal, then you don't really have much of a "choice" do you not?
If VP8 became the dominant codec used on the internet, the hardware acceleration will follow very quickly.
The point is the technology that is used on the internet should be royalty and licensing free. Period. If they want to be grinches about it, they can shove it up their ass.
Let's think about what you're saying here. Just imagine this world.
A) Pay per visitor for Ethernet
B) Pay per visitor for IP
C) Pay per visitor for TCP
D) Pay per visitor for HTTP
E) In addition to that, all vendors across all supply chains pay for rights to use these technologies. Cisco and Juniper pay royalty rights for the aforementioned technologies, end users pay for it in the devices. People and companies paying to run a business off of each of these technologies.
The only thing that concerns me about the web video format is that it needs to be unencumbered by royalties or other licensing. If I want to make a video, encode it, sell it, make ads off of a website, get 100 or 100,000 visitors, I should damn well be able to do that without having to pay a dime to anyone for the ability to make my own god damn videos--unless I optionally choose.
By using h.264, you pretty much guarantee that *someone* *somewhere* is paying for it. Could you imagine if say, the "David After Dentist" kid had to pay tons and tons of royalties to the MPAA for a video they created simply because they used the h.264 container format? To even conceive such a thing is such bullshit that this should absolutely be a non-issue.
Though this will never happen, the US government should claim eminent domain on all patents involving the h.264 technology, and then dare the large companies to make a move. After all, we're the ones with the guns.
The idiocy in your post is astounding.
The problem usually comes down to this:
A) Pay a decent, well reputable, knowledgeable coder $$$$ for his time to develop a website.
or
B) Pay some outsourced company $$ for their time to develop a website.
Most management usually goes for B. It generally makes them "look better" because it can "get the job done", they can "save money". Security is an afterthought to almost all management levels. The only reason that Gawker's management is even anything close to concerned now is because it's going to cut into ad revenue. But they, like any major company, skate on that thin ice until eventually it breaks.
This isn't surprising in the least bit. Companies don't give two shits about security until it bites them in the ass. Further more, I don't really expect them to make major strides in security, but "just enough" to make sure the "previous situation" doesn't happen again.
That said, there is something called "defense in depth", and it's something they should have implemented from the start. It was a failure at all levels of monitoring and management.
You must be a riot at Christmas parties.
Okay everyone, look, Santa isn't real, neither are elves and reindeers! Why are we decorating for this crap when it doesn't exist!? Why are we singing Christmas Carols about Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, and Rudolf the Red-nosed reindeer?!
I don't know where you do your pricing at, but if you're paying retail costs for a business Office scenario--you're doing it wrong.
You do get support if you're an enterprise customer. That said.....have you ever actually looked at Microsoft's support structure?
Microsoft has the most complex library of documentation on their products than any other OS vendor--period. MSDN and the MSKB are amazingly awesome resources that dwarf anything else you could possibly find by any other vendor for their own products. Not *everything* is covered in either of these, but a large majority of things are. Microsoft has been experimenting with open and free support options for many years for their products. It's part of what makes them so popular. They even have a wiki in experimentation phase right now that you can use. They've had newsgroups and forums for years.
Their documentation is also not very confusing. They have documentation all the way down to how various services work (including DNS) without having to hunt down documentation on each implementation. Not that DNS is difficult to understand, but BIND's documentation can be a bit confusing for someone who has never configured a DNS server before.
When you finally do need support, the support you do get is pretty expansive and detailed--and they *will* usually solve your issue, including very low level things such as analyzing crash dumps and why services aren't starting up.
Trust me when I say this, Microsoft's support is well worth the money.
Actually, won't. Debian/Ubuntu are very unique in the way they handle apache configuration--and each configuration is distro specific. Debian puts each set of configs within its own files. Modules go in their own files, you can enable/disable individual module configurations as-needed. The same thing with sites.
/modules/*.conf).
Apache, however, sees the whole thing as "one giant file", since you're using INCLUDE lines in the core httpd.conf(apache2.conf in debian) to use those subfolders (include
This is precisely the problem. And you're exactly right. Here in the US, The government doesn't really regulate much of any free speech. There are a few things in that regarding depictions of underage children doing adult acts, but that's about it.
:P
The "movie ratings" and ESRB are all completely private companies. And it's private companies that get to decide what media you consume and how you consume it.
The worst part about it is a rather significant amount of people, even the ones who are "educated", do not see this as a major problem. At least with government, you have actual legal recourse to get stupid laws overturned. But if for some reason a private movie company suddenly decides that showing a boy and a girl hold hands is R-rated material, they very well can do that--and there is nothing you, nor even the content creator, can do about it.
How's this for you?
Microsoft, Sony, nor Nintendo game consoles can play AO-rated games. In order to play them, you have to modify the console. Of course, this means violating the DMCA, of which there is a rather significant court case in the Supreme Court about this.
Walmart, for the longest time, refused to carry games and violent media due to cursing, blood, gore. Both Duke Nukem and Shadow Warrior required patches to re-enable this content after purchasing it from Walmart. Nowadays the games are less bloody and violent as a result to sell as many copies as possible. Very few games these days show any real amount of blood or dismemberment. I suppose Fallout: NV has some, but nothing quite on the level of Soldier of Fortune 1/2, nor blowing someone up with Quake 3's Quad BFG hits
With the movie-ratings board, essentially this is how they control: Not all movies have to be rated by the system, it is "voluntary". Except, in this case, voluntary means "you either want to release your movie or you don't." No movie theater is permitted to run unrated movies. In fact, if a movie theater starts showing unrated content, the MPAA will pull the rest of its content from the theater. So sure, you can play your unrated movies, you just can't play G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17 rated movies if you do.
Arguing for private censorship like this is horrendous. And it's absolutely terrible. You have no recourse against either of these acts. Hell, in the first case, it's completely illegal (in an indirect way) to let you enjoy the content you can purchase and play.