In fact, it does. I don't think the Civil War should've been fought. The Southern states would've failed on their own and would've one-by-one begged to come back into the Union. The Union could've been a safe haven for escaped slaves. I think it would've been better all around.
I think much of the cultural divide we face today is because of the Civil War.
Aside from that, I'm very suspicious of extra powers granted a president in wartime, and I don't think I would've been any too pleased to have seen habeas corpus suspended by Abraham Lincoln.
If Obama wasn't such a coward, Guantanamo Bay would be closed, habeas corpus would be restored, our former president his vice president, and a few other select members of his cabinet would be behind bars, and the people responsible for the economic meltdown would either be up on fraud charges, no longer running their companies, or the heads of bankrupt companies.
Considering as how her current box is an old Pentium III she was fairly happy that I'm building her a snappy new box even if one of my conditions for doing so was that it run Linux as the main OS and any Windows system on it not have any network access.
I also happen to know that with her usage pattern this will work out fine for her. She uses the web and plays a few non-online puzzle type games and writes stuff.
Everybody I know who owns a windows computer complains about how it gets slow after awhile. I know this is because they have software running that if they knew about it, they would never ever have agreed to have it there. This is endemic. Windows is an incredibly poor platform to use as a host.
I would never ever do things that way. I'm setting this up for my gf, and the Windows virtual machine will be set up with no external network access of any kind. Having Windows as a host OS kills much of the benefit you get from virtualization.
This is Open Source. There doesn't have to be a conflict of interest. Netscape and Mozilla got along fine for a long time. If there is a conflict of interest, it is created by Oracle. It's interesting that the Oracle employees won't explain precisely what the conflict of interest is.
You should be modded up because I think your more nuanced take on the matter is a clearer way to think about the issue. I also happen to agree with you. I tend to think the LibreOffice will become the version of choice, but I don't think it's 100% or even 90% certain.
I can see circumstances which could drive it in either direction, or even a third direction, in which there's a great deal of cooperation between OO.o and LO.
Oracle just made the third direction a lot harder. A normal member of the Open Source community would've seen the writing on the wall when the fork was made and realized a fight would benefit nobody. Oracle is clearly an entity that desires to cut off its nose to spite its face. I don't think the direction of cooperation is likely.
In fact, I'm really hoping the btrfs developers leave Oracle and some other Linux distribution or a foundation starts paying them. The fact they're Oracle employees is beginning to worry me. Oracle is not playing nice, and btrfs is too important to be in the hands of a company that doesn't play nice.
The only difference is that they are a small player. I'm certain that the big trading houses have programs that are expressly designed to affect the market with their trades. As soon as any program takes into consideration the effect its trade has on the market it's guilty of manipulating the market with its trade, no different from what these guys did.
I've watched a day trader at one of these operations use the tools the automation team gave him. It was like he was playing an RTS, and he was constantly making trades with the idea of moving the market in a particular direction. The system gave him tons of data to support him doing just that.
The only difference is that these guys made petty cash at the expense of one stupid program written by one larger trading house. They had the political clout to make a conviction stick. But if these guys deserve a conviction then there are likely hundreds more who deserve them even more.
do not constitute a reason for me to submit to having which applications I can and can't run decided by a third party.
Bandwidth should be managed on a user-by-user basis, not an application-by-application basis. If you have an application that sucks up all your bandwidth, then you shouldn't have anymore bandwidth to use. Carriers should advertise burst and long-term bandwidth rates and if you go above the long-term rate you should be subject to having your bandwidth capped at that rate.
No telling you which application you are allowed to run and which you aren't. No throttling based on port. If you're a customer, you are promised X bandwidth and no more. The carrier is allowed to deliver in excess of that if they so choose, but they aren't allowed to decide you use it for.
And the carrier should not be allowed to decide on a per-application basis whether or not you get to exceed the bandwidth cap. It must be based on a global, application agnostic bandwidth usage policy that chooses which customers get the extra bandwidth (if any) based on some algorithm that has nothing to do with what their traffic contains.
All stock trading changes the market. Does the system they beat have algorithms for anticipating the results of its own trades on the market? If so, why aren't the owners of the system being brought up on charges for manipulating the market?
No, the reason these guys were brought up on charges was because they aren't a big investment house, and beat a big investment house at its own game, not because they did something that's different from what any stock trader does.
Well, my wifi is sitting on one zone of a multizone firewall I have set up using a Linux box. I also run web servers, mail servers, and some other stuff, so I've made an attempt to harden my network a bit against people trying to break in.
I treat the wifi zone the same way as I treat the external Internet zone, except they get to talk to my DHCP server and use my caching relay DNS server and the rest of the world doesn't.
I do MAC filtering, yes, but I also do all of my communications over the wireless with an SSH tunnel. I'm only relying on the MAC filtering for a very limited and spoofable form of access control.
No, it's open because I want it open. One of these days I'll get some traffic prioritization set up and merely categorize by MAC address. Anybody can use my wireless connection, but I get first dibs on all the bandwidth to the outside world.
My Wi-Fi has no password, and that's a purposeful choice. While evaluating the passwords on WiFi that does have a password is a reasonable analysis, it's not reasonable to call any WiFi without a password as unsecured.
Mod the parent up. I know they admit to having read the article and all, but what the parent is saying is actually informative! Whoda thunk reading the article might mean you knew more about the subject?! Surely not me.
I do not think this approach is a bad plan, just as long as there is a clear, obvious accessible way to get rid of the blocks.
Of course, the problem of forum spam cannot be tackled this way, and the general problem of DDoS attacks isn't really fixed by this solution either. But it would significantly cut down on the spam.
Well, I've run a home email server since I was 16. In 1987 it was running a UUCP stack Dale Schumacher wrote/ported for Atari ST series computers, but I was on the UUCP map and had a bang path. I was just as real a server as anybody else.
I was one of the very first DSL customers in my area, and as soon as I had it I had my own SMTP server running. That was about 1998 or so.
The only time I've ever generated any kind of bot traffic is when I inadvisably provided hosting for a friend's Windows 2000 Server box. I figured out it quickly and disconnected his machine.
So, I think you're wrong. And while I think I'm pretty unusual, I do think there are a fair number of other people like me. Tossing me out on my keister because I'm just doing something you find to be somehow 'just wrong' is the wrong approach.
Yeah, my main worry is they'd use it as an excuse to cut people off for other reasons. But since they're already doing that, I guess that worry is moot.
But I think an ISP should do some investigation to make sure they're cutting off the right people. No being cut off for running a mail server for example.
What would be the most amusingly effective is to infiltrate the computers of these organizations and start running filesharing software on them handing out copies of stuff that you just know the MPAA, RIAA or some other organization is going to be really hot about.
Explaining to a judge how their filesharing was totally innocent even though their IP addresses were flagged would be really fun to watch. Also, in 3-strikes jurisdictions, watching their ISPs kick them off the net would also be huge fun.
I have a lot more respect for the Pirate Party than these Anonymous DDOS attacks. Though I guess I didn't mind too much when they turn-abouts-fair-played the one company awhile back. Ultimately though, resorting to the same tactics as RIAA or whatever other group doesn't help anybody and just makes the attempt to get lawmakers to see reason even more difficult.:-(
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, it does. I don't think the Civil War should've been fought. The Southern states would've failed on their own and would've one-by-one begged to come back into the Union. The Union could've been a safe haven for escaped slaves. I think it would've been better all around.
I think much of the cultural divide we face today is because of the Civil War.
Aside from that, I'm very suspicious of extra powers granted a president in wartime, and I don't think I would've been any too pleased to have seen habeas corpus suspended by Abraham Lincoln.
If Obama wasn't such a coward, Guantanamo Bay would be closed, habeas corpus would be restored, our former president his vice president, and a few other select members of his cabinet would be behind bars, and the people responsible for the economic meltdown would either be up on fraud charges, no longer running their companies, or the heads of bankrupt companies.
If you read TFA with fewer mental filters you'll see that the US Army is guilty in a direct fashion as well.
Considering as how her current box is an old Pentium III she was fairly happy that I'm building her a snappy new box even if one of my conditions for doing so was that it run Linux as the main OS and any Windows system on it not have any network access.
I also happen to know that with her usage pattern this will work out fine for her. She uses the web and plays a few non-online puzzle type games and writes stuff.
Because you are not a teenager.
Everybody I know who owns a windows computer complains about how it gets slow after awhile. I know this is because they have software running that if they knew about it, they would never ever have agreed to have it there. This is endemic. Windows is an incredibly poor platform to use as a host.
It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like a little more information than a simple bald assertion by a random Slashdot poster.
I would never ever do things that way. I'm setting this up for my gf, and the Windows virtual machine will be set up with no external network access of any kind. Having Windows as a host OS kills much of the benefit you get from virtualization.
This is Open Source. There doesn't have to be a conflict of interest. Netscape and Mozilla got along fine for a long time. If there is a conflict of interest, it is created by Oracle. It's interesting that the Oracle employees won't explain precisely what the conflict of interest is.
You should be modded up because I think your more nuanced take on the matter is a clearer way to think about the issue. I also happen to agree with you. I tend to think the LibreOffice will become the version of choice, but I don't think it's 100% or even 90% certain.
I can see circumstances which could drive it in either direction, or even a third direction, in which there's a great deal of cooperation between OO.o and LO.
Oracle just made the third direction a lot harder. A normal member of the Open Source community would've seen the writing on the wall when the fork was made and realized a fight would benefit nobody. Oracle is clearly an entity that desires to cut off its nose to spite its face. I don't think the direction of cooperation is likely.
In fact, I'm really hoping the btrfs developers leave Oracle and some other Linux distribution or a foundation starts paying them. The fact they're Oracle employees is beginning to worry me. Oracle is not playing nice, and btrfs is too important to be in the hands of a company that doesn't play nice.
The only difference is that they are a small player. I'm certain that the big trading houses have programs that are expressly designed to affect the market with their trades. As soon as any program takes into consideration the effect its trade has on the market it's guilty of manipulating the market with its trade, no different from what these guys did.
I've watched a day trader at one of these operations use the tools the automation team gave him. It was like he was playing an RTS, and he was constantly making trades with the idea of moving the market in a particular direction. The system gave him tons of data to support him doing just that.
The only difference is that these guys made petty cash at the expense of one stupid program written by one larger trading house. They had the political clout to make a conviction stick. But if these guys deserve a conviction then there are likely hundreds more who deserve them even more.
do not constitute a reason for me to submit to having which applications I can and can't run decided by a third party.
Bandwidth should be managed on a user-by-user basis, not an application-by-application basis. If you have an application that sucks up all your bandwidth, then you shouldn't have anymore bandwidth to use. Carriers should advertise burst and long-term bandwidth rates and if you go above the long-term rate you should be subject to having your bandwidth capped at that rate.
No telling you which application you are allowed to run and which you aren't. No throttling based on port. If you're a customer, you are promised X bandwidth and no more. The carrier is allowed to deliver in excess of that if they so choose, but they aren't allowed to decide you use it for.
And the carrier should not be allowed to decide on a per-application basis whether or not you get to exceed the bandwidth cap. It must be based on a global, application agnostic bandwidth usage policy that chooses which customers get the extra bandwidth (if any) based on some algorithm that has nothing to do with what their traffic contains.
All stock trading changes the market. Does the system they beat have algorithms for anticipating the results of its own trades on the market? If so, why aren't the owners of the system being brought up on charges for manipulating the market?
No, the reason these guys were brought up on charges was because they aren't a big investment house, and beat a big investment house at its own game, not because they did something that's different from what any stock trader does.
Actually, most wifi routers have their own DNS servers these days and set up NAT automatically.
Well, my wifi is sitting on one zone of a multizone firewall I have set up using a Linux box. I also run web servers, mail servers, and some other stuff, so I've made an attempt to harden my network a bit against people trying to break in.
I treat the wifi zone the same way as I treat the external Internet zone, except they get to talk to my DHCP server and use my caching relay DNS server and the rest of the world doesn't.
I do MAC filtering, yes, but I also do all of my communications over the wireless with an SSH tunnel. I'm only relying on the MAC filtering for a very limited and spoofable form of access control.
No, it's open because I want it open. One of these days I'll get some traffic prioritization set up and merely categorize by MAC address. Anybody can use my wireless connection, but I get first dibs on all the bandwidth to the outside world.
My Wi-Fi has no password, and that's a purposeful choice. While evaluating the passwords on WiFi that does have a password is a reasonable analysis, it's not reasonable to call any WiFi without a password as unsecured.
Mod the parent up. I know they admit to having read the article and all, but what the parent is saying is actually informative! Whoda thunk reading the article might mean you knew more about the subject?! Surely not me.
I do not think this approach is a bad plan, just as long as there is a clear, obvious accessible way to get rid of the blocks.
Of course, the problem of forum spam cannot be tackled this way, and the general problem of DDoS attacks isn't really fixed by this solution either. But it would significantly cut down on the spam.
Well, I've run a home email server since I was 16. In 1987 it was running a UUCP stack Dale Schumacher wrote/ported for Atari ST series computers, but I was on the UUCP map and had a bang path. I was just as real a server as anybody else.
I was one of the very first DSL customers in my area, and as soon as I had it I had my own SMTP server running. That was about 1998 or so.
The only time I've ever generated any kind of bot traffic is when I inadvisably provided hosting for a friend's Windows 2000 Server box. I figured out it quickly and disconnected his machine.
So, I think you're wrong. And while I think I'm pretty unusual, I do think there are a fair number of other people like me. Tossing me out on my keister because I'm just doing something you find to be somehow 'just wrong' is the wrong approach.
Yeah, my main worry is they'd use it as an excuse to cut people off for other reasons. But since they're already doing that, I guess that worry is moot.
But I think an ISP should do some investigation to make sure they're cutting off the right people. No being cut off for running a mail server for example.
A well written and reasoned response. :-) I'll have to think more carefully about my feelings on the subject.
I prefer the term 'copyright protectionists' as I think it conveys more clearly exactly what the problem is and therefor makes a better soundbite
The thousands of lives question is, when does it get there?
What would be the most amusingly effective is to infiltrate the computers of these organizations and start running filesharing software on them handing out copies of stuff that you just know the MPAA, RIAA or some other organization is going to be really hot about.
Explaining to a judge how their filesharing was totally innocent even though their IP addresses were flagged would be really fun to watch. Also, in 3-strikes jurisdictions, watching their ISPs kick them off the net would also be huge fun.
I have a lot more respect for the Pirate Party than these Anonymous DDOS attacks. Though I guess I didn't mind too much when they turn-abouts-fair-played the one company awhile back. Ultimately though, resorting to the same tactics as RIAA or whatever other group doesn't help anybody and just makes the attempt to get lawmakers to see reason even more difficult. :-(