You have the most useful and interesting response of anybody.
My point is that the organizer is going to become increasingly less likely to get public IPs as the years continue, not more. It may be that IPv6 has significant problems, but it is the only reasonable solution to the public IP problem the conference is having.
Yes, having a public IPv6 address is not nearly as nice as having a public IPv4 address right now. But it's relatively easy to set up and it's better than nothing because nothing is likely what you'll get if you want a public IPv4 address.
I've largely had decent luck with IPv6 in recent years. But I haven't looked at * records. I've run it on my home network since 2002 or 2003.
I'm not saying that anybody who puts up ads is evil or immoral or anything of the sort. But advertising is a useless intrusion into my mental space, and the effort of trying to ignore them takes cognitive effort I'd rather be putting into other things.
My favorite model is the Slashdot model. If you pay for a subscription, you don't see ads. Every site that has a long-term relationship with its customers that has ads should have an option to pay not to see them. An honestly priced option that only recovers the revenue lost from the advertising they don't see.
Yes, I know the most valuable demographic to advertisers is likely the people who subscribe. Tough. If your product is any good, I'll certainly hear about it from a friend at some point or find it when I'm actively searching for a solution.
It's only very recently then that Flash has been open. And, IMHO, it's not really open until there is an Open Source implementation that works with 95% of the Flash out there.
From what I understand, Vorbis is one of the highest quality audio codecs out there. It's certainly a heck of a lot better than mp3, which is what most people use instead. If you're going to be a troll, at least don't be a stupid one.
Only the router(s) need to understand IPv6. I would imagine that could be handled with one router running Linux, possibly with a trunk port to a managed switch that did 802.1q. Not that expensive, and they likely already have that anyway.
This year I tried to get public IPs again, but we just weren't able to get any meaningful number of them. So, we had to do NAT. This worked well, and I had no complaints beyond the first one: one of the guys couldn't establish a PPTP connection. I had forgotten to load the NAT protocol modules... I loaded those up and it went smoothly after that.
And you think that's going to be more likely to happen in future years?!
Next time, set up IPv6. Use 6to4 tunneling if you can't get an actual IPv6 drop from the network provider. But just get IPv6. Then everybody will have a public IP.
I am really interested too. I have never seen a really comprehensive discussion of the various design contraints of a multi-media container format and I think it would be helpful all-around to get all that down. It seems to me that it's time to come up with something that takes into account all the issues encountered so far and is a really good all-around container.
I've noticed that while most container formats support most codecs, there's a set of codecs you usually find associated with a given container format. A lot of people, for example, really mix up ogg, Vorbis and Theora. Even though those latter two codecs could technically be implemented with any container, everybody expects them in ogg.
I think, for a container format to succeed, it has to be general enough to contain anything, but have a lot of cultural associations such that in reality only a few codecs ever use it.
If Flash were completely open rather than the closed and proprietary format it is, you would suddenly discover tiny groups willing to re-write it from the ground up.
Javascript, for example, is getting new and faster engines every day. And that's because its speed has started to matter and its an open format.
Your argument about economics is disingenuous. It's not in Adobe's economic interest to do a rewrite (or at least, Adobe doesn't seem to think so). It's not that the idea itself is inherently economically unviable.
Yes, I would agree with you. The passports haven't been stolen, just copied. Copying isn't theft even in this situation in which I think the copying was unequivocally wrong. OTOH, I would still argue that their identity has been stolen.
In my preferred scheme, you don't talk to hostnames or IP addresses, you talk to public keys, and hostnames are just a helpful mnemonic for a public key that your client software manages for you. People can trade their opinions of what names correspond to which keys and you can use a voting reputation system based on the people you decide to trust.
That sounds really complicated, but I bet if some social networking features were built into browsers that it could actually be implemented fairly simply and clearly.
The non-automated version you describe does not do quite the same thing. It displays the secret to you without verifying that you also know it. It is good against current phishing attacks, but I suspect I could design a slightly more sophisticated phishing attack that would defeat it.
There is no good definition of exactly what you're trusting them with, no good independent verification that their trustworthiness is deserved, and as far as I know, no legal recourse if it isn't.
I consider the whole CA system to be fundamentally broken. But a new system would be so significantly different in both character and detail that I don't know how it could ever happen. UIs would have to be redesigned. Crypto geeks would have to start thinking about usability. I think the world would have to end first.
But I consider this to be one of the reasons the concept is broken.
In my opinion, as a half-baked measure that moves a little in the right direction, browsers would do better to just download the certificate from the website, and then warn you if the certificate ever changed when you went back to a website that claimed the same identity. Then you'd have to trust a CA at most once.
The/. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.
This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.
That, in fact, is not what is happening here. When there is a consistent bias in studies based on funding source, that is a very interesting result. One group or the other is fudging their results.
Global warming is the kind of cause that would end up with scientists fudging their results for a variety of reasons, financial, because they feel they have a moral obligation to do so in order to protect humanity from itself, and the respect of peers.
I don't notice a strong degree of partisanship in the question of RF radiation. It doesn't seem to me like finding evidence of it is really a political agenda item for anybody in particular except crank fringe groups who have no money or respect. So when I see a bias like this, my tendency is to suspect the people who have a clear financial motive.
For the record, I don't have a strong degree of trust in the results of either side of the global warming debate. The only thing I trust is the fact that our icecaps ARE melting and there is a well documented historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. And while correlation is not causation, in this particular case I don't really want to mess around with the consequences of being wrong.
If so many people are complaining about 'bizarre usage cases' then perhaps those cases aren't so bizarre.
I have good reasons for keeping all those tabs open that are not strongly supported by an extension like "Read It Later".
For example, a general case that applies is that I have several different conversations in the same forum that I'm following all at once. I've tried to use different management tools to handle that use-case, but none of them has been as effective or useful to me as lots of tabs.
And I have a bunch of random observations. Nothing so coherent that I'd call it a review, but still relevant here.
So far, I've been really pleased. It's very fast compared to Firefox.
Unfortunately, almost all of my Firefox plugins are geared towards privacy and security. I can't run any of them on Chrome, so I am only willing to use Chrome to browse a small subset of the websites I'm willing to browse with Firefox. Slashdot happens to be among those.
Strangely, now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox, Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been. Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.
I routinely keep at least 30 or 40 tabs of state in Firefox.
Incognito in Chrome also looks like a much more convenient (and in some ways better) privacy feature than anything I currently use on Firefox. Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.
Chrome does have some features that are almost as nice as Firebug built into it.
I really wish Firefox would just go multi-threaded, get a much better Javascript rendering engine and lose the horrible memory leaks. Last time I had to shut down Firefox it had a VSS of nearly 4G!
I wouldn't want to ride in a car who's source code wasn't open to public review. Though, I would also want a company I trusted to certify it (and I would pay them to do it), so there is still a liability issue.
Their liability should be limited though. And that is an interesting legal question.
Trains have a very limited number of sources and destinations. You have to ride with a whole bunch of people you may not want to actually interact with in any way on a train. They run on a schedule. As a means of transportation, they are almost exactly, but not quite unlike cars.
Slashdot Mirror
You have the most useful and interesting response of anybody.
My point is that the organizer is going to become increasingly less likely to get public IPs as the years continue, not more. It may be that IPv6 has significant problems, but it is the only reasonable solution to the public IP problem the conference is having.
Yes, having a public IPv6 address is not nearly as nice as having a public IPv4 address right now. But it's relatively easy to set up and it's better than nothing because nothing is likely what you'll get if you want a public IPv4 address.
I've largely had decent luck with IPv6 in recent years. But I haven't looked at * records. I've run it on my home network since 2002 or 2003.
I'm not saying that anybody who puts up ads is evil or immoral or anything of the sort. But advertising is a useless intrusion into my mental space, and the effort of trying to ignore them takes cognitive effort I'd rather be putting into other things.
My favorite model is the Slashdot model. If you pay for a subscription, you don't see ads. Every site that has a long-term relationship with its customers that has ads should have an option to pay not to see them. An honestly priced option that only recovers the revenue lost from the advertising they don't see.
Yes, I know the most valuable demographic to advertisers is likely the people who subscribe. Tough. If your product is any good, I'll certainly hear about it from a friend at some point or find it when I'm actively searching for a solution.
It's only very recently then that Flash has been open. And, IMHO, it's not really open until there is an Open Source implementation that works with 95% of the Flash out there.
From what I understand, Vorbis is one of the highest quality audio codecs out there. It's certainly a heck of a lot better than mp3, which is what most people use instead. If you're going to be a troll, at least don't be a stupid one.
Only the router(s) need to understand IPv6. I would imagine that could be handled with one router running Linux, possibly with a trunk port to a managed switch that did 802.1q. Not that expensive, and they likely already have that anyway.
If they don't have IPv6 enabled then they end up only using the IPv4 NATed private IP. No problem.
Is there a good place that lists which equipment is good and which isn't?
This year I tried to get public IPs again, but we just weren't able to get any meaningful number of them. So, we had to do NAT. This worked well, and I had no complaints beyond the first one: one of the guys couldn't establish a PPTP connection. I had forgotten to load the NAT protocol modules... I loaded those up and it went smoothly after that.
And you think that's going to be more likely to happen in future years?!
Next time, set up IPv6. Use 6to4 tunneling if you can't get an actual IPv6 drop from the network provider. But just get IPv6. Then everybody will have a public IP.
I am really interested too. I have never seen a really comprehensive discussion of the various design contraints of a multi-media container format and I think it would be helpful all-around to get all that down. It seems to me that it's time to come up with something that takes into account all the issues encountered so far and is a really good all-around container.
I've noticed that while most container formats support most codecs, there's a set of codecs you usually find associated with a given container format. A lot of people, for example, really mix up ogg, Vorbis and Theora. Even though those latter two codecs could technically be implemented with any container, everybody expects them in ogg.
I think, for a container format to succeed, it has to be general enough to contain anything, but have a lot of cultural associations such that in reality only a few codecs ever use it.
If Flash were completely open rather than the closed and proprietary format it is, you would suddenly discover tiny groups willing to re-write it from the ground up.
Javascript, for example, is getting new and faster engines every day. And that's because its speed has started to matter and its an open format.
Your argument about economics is disingenuous. It's not in Adobe's economic interest to do a rewrite (or at least, Adobe doesn't seem to think so). It's not that the idea itself is inherently economically unviable.
You just prove the OPs point. Why does all that hardware support exist? Who paid for it and why?
It's because the patent holders are using their monopoly profits for promotion.
Things 'just work' because someone put the time and effort into making that happen. Time and effort cost money.
Yes, I would agree with you. The passports haven't been stolen, just copied. Copying isn't theft even in this situation in which I think the copying was unequivocally wrong. OTOH, I would still argue that their identity has been stolen.
That's an interesting idea.
In my preferred scheme, you don't talk to hostnames or IP addresses, you talk to public keys, and hostnames are just a helpful mnemonic for a public key that your client software manages for you. People can trade their opinions of what names correspond to which keys and you can use a voting reputation system based on the people you decide to trust.
That sounds really complicated, but I bet if some social networking features were built into browsers that it could actually be implemented fairly simply and clearly.
The non-automated version you describe does not do quite the same thing. It displays the secret to you without verifying that you also know it. It is good against current phishing attacks, but I suspect I could design a slightly more sophisticated phishing attack that would defeat it.
There is no good definition of exactly what you're trusting them with, no good independent verification that their trustworthiness is deserved, and as far as I know, no legal recourse if it isn't.
I consider the whole CA system to be fundamentally broken. But a new system would be so significantly different in both character and detail that I don't know how it could ever happen. UIs would have to be redesigned. Crypto geeks would have to start thinking about usability. I think the world would have to end first.
But I consider this to be one of the reasons the concept is broken.
In my opinion, as a half-baked measure that moves a little in the right direction, browsers would do better to just download the certificate from the website, and then warn you if the certificate ever changed when you went back to a website that claimed the same identity. Then you'd have to trust a CA at most once.
Your comment is much funnier than the grandparent, though without the grandparent it couldn't have existed. :-)
The /. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.
This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.
That, in fact, is not what is happening here. When there is a consistent bias in studies based on funding source, that is a very interesting result. One group or the other is fudging their results.
Global warming is the kind of cause that would end up with scientists fudging their results for a variety of reasons, financial, because they feel they have a moral obligation to do so in order to protect humanity from itself, and the respect of peers.
I don't notice a strong degree of partisanship in the question of RF radiation. It doesn't seem to me like finding evidence of it is really a political agenda item for anybody in particular except crank fringe groups who have no money or respect. So when I see a bias like this, my tendency is to suspect the people who have a clear financial motive.
For the record, I don't have a strong degree of trust in the results of either side of the global warming debate. The only thing I trust is the fact that our icecaps ARE melting and there is a well documented historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. And while correlation is not causation, in this particular case I don't really want to mess around with the consequences of being wrong.
If so many people are complaining about 'bizarre usage cases' then perhaps those cases aren't so bizarre.
I have good reasons for keeping all those tabs open that are not strongly supported by an extension like "Read It Later".
For example, a general case that applies is that I have several different conversations in the same forum that I'm following all at once. I've tried to use different management tools to handle that use-case, but none of them has been as effective or useful to me as lots of tabs.
*nod* That makes sense. Perhaps I should qualify that with "multi-threaded JavaScript and rendering engine" or something like that.
If it's multi-threaded how come it never ever uses more than 100% of a CPU on my 4-core machine?
And I have a bunch of random observations. Nothing so coherent that I'd call it a review, but still relevant here.
So far, I've been really pleased. It's very fast compared to Firefox.
Unfortunately, almost all of my Firefox plugins are geared towards privacy and security. I can't run any of them on Chrome, so I am only willing to use Chrome to browse a small subset of the websites I'm willing to browse with Firefox. Slashdot happens to be among those.
Strangely, now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox, Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been. Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.
I routinely keep at least 30 or 40 tabs of state in Firefox.
Incognito in Chrome also looks like a much more convenient (and in some ways better) privacy feature than anything I currently use on Firefox. Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.
Chrome does have some features that are almost as nice as Firebug built into it.
I really wish Firefox would just go multi-threaded, get a much better Javascript rendering engine and lose the horrible memory leaks. Last time I had to shut down Firefox it had a VSS of nearly 4G!
I wouldn't want to ride in a car who's source code wasn't open to public review. Though, I would also want a company I trusted to certify it (and I would pay them to do it), so there is still a liability issue.
Their liability should be limited though. And that is an interesting legal question.
Trains have a very limited number of sources and destinations. You have to ride with a whole bunch of people you may not want to actually interact with in any way on a train. They run on a schedule. As a means of transportation, they are almost exactly, but not quite unlike cars.
Yes, I use public transportation as well. I haven't ever had a driver's license in fact. :-) I actually get a lot of programming done on the bus.