Society's laws are decided upon by elected representatives of the masses. If you don't like it, petition for change and get public support. Or leave. I doubt you'll find much public support for legalizing pedophilia.
Bestiality and child porn involve beings unable to reasonably deny their consent. Slavery used to occur regularly too, are you going to argue in favour of that next? How about lynching and persecution of people based on race? We've got a history of that as well.
I had a look at the coreboot supported motherboards page. It's a non-starter. Pretty much the only hardware newer than say, 2010 (i.e., EOL) is from Google, which has its own set of problems.
Or, alternatively, the lawyers/company in question have a legitimate concern about protecting hard-won IP that provides them with a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
How about software that is deliberately "bad" in an attempt to not integrate with other programs? Like GCC, and it's IDE-hostile development for example?
Actually, VMs with a proper hypervisor can SAVE hardware resources via memory sharing, memory compression, etc. I've replaced about 50 servers with 5 physical machines for example.
No, the GPL restricts me. If i have a project that borrows/licenses non-GPL code, and there is GPL3 licensed code that I could make use of in my project, the viral nature of the GPL prevents me from including it in my project as I have no authority to re-license the other included code that I do not own. So i need to reinvent the wheel. BSD has no such restriction - and I am free to include BSD licensed code, release the code I am authorised to release (without tainting the rest of the project), etc.
Given the complexity of modern CPUs and the widespread use of updatable microcode to hide bugs in, how do you think the open source world will be able to deal with this and remain competitive on performance? Actually, that goes for hardware in general - unless we can trust the firmware in our devices, we're screwed irrespective of OS. Given the average person can't just spin up their own hardware manufacturing plant (and even if there is documentation for driver development, firmware is typically closed), how do you propose we solve this problem?
IT departments forget that HTTPS is used for more than just browsing the web.
No, not necessarily. Some IT departments are just more paranoid than others about letting un-filtered https go through the firewall, due to the new generation of malware which is typically doing C&C over HTTPs to thousands of randomly generated and not blacklisted URLs.
You have a choice - you MITM/inspect HTTPs, you allow only whitelisted HTTPs connections (which is not really practical due to the ever changing whitelist), or you allow any and all malware C&C straight through the corporate firewall. Option 3 is not really acceptable.
carrier grade NAT double NAT, etc. is a lot more complex than an IPv6 network. the only real complexity in and ipv6 environment (excluding bugs in firmware, but that isn't TOO bad these days) is having to maintain dual stack until the laggards wake the fuck up and upgrade.
Yup, although eventually/soon I suspect people will be running a 6-4 gateway and (ironically) relying on NAT64 to access the legacy IPv4 internet (I also have ipv6 at home).
Because that won't scale enough. IPv6 "wastes" a lot of space for convenience. No more subnet masks, just use/64 everywhere. The address space is THAT big. It also makes someone sweeping your network for machines not really practical. Even scanning my home network for example (without sniffing for traffic) to locate a host will take 2^32x longer than scanning the entire ipv4 address space.
Slashdot Mirror
Society's laws are decided upon by elected representatives of the masses. If you don't like it, petition for change and get public support. Or leave. I doubt you'll find much public support for legalizing pedophilia.
Bestiality and child porn involve beings unable to reasonably deny their consent. Slavery used to occur regularly too, are you going to argue in favour of that next? How about lynching and persecution of people based on race? We've got a history of that as well.
I had a look at the coreboot supported motherboards page. It's a non-starter. Pretty much the only hardware newer than say, 2010 (i.e., EOL) is from Google, which has its own set of problems.
Or, alternatively, the lawyers/company in question have a legitimate concern about protecting hard-won IP that provides them with a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
How about software that is deliberately "bad" in an attempt to not integrate with other programs? Like GCC, and it's IDE-hostile development for example?
Actually, VMs with a proper hypervisor can SAVE hardware resources via memory sharing, memory compression, etc. I've replaced about 50 servers with 5 physical machines for example.
No, the GPL restricts me. If i have a project that borrows/licenses non-GPL code, and there is GPL3 licensed code that I could make use of in my project, the viral nature of the GPL prevents me from including it in my project as I have no authority to re-license the other included code that I do not own. So i need to reinvent the wheel. BSD has no such restriction - and I am free to include BSD licensed code, release the code I am authorised to release (without tainting the rest of the project), etc.
Giving away IP for free is entirely different to polluting the environment.
Given the complexity of modern CPUs and the widespread use of updatable microcode to hide bugs in, how do you think the open source world will be able to deal with this and remain competitive on performance? Actually, that goes for hardware in general - unless we can trust the firmware in our devices, we're screwed irrespective of OS. Given the average person can't just spin up their own hardware manufacturing plant (and even if there is documentation for driver development, firmware is typically closed), how do you propose we solve this problem?
You mean playing man-in-the-middle with your HTTPS? It's already been going on for years.
No, not necessarily. Some IT departments are just more paranoid than others about letting un-filtered https go through the firewall, due to the new generation of malware which is typically doing C&C over HTTPs to thousands of randomly generated and not blacklisted URLs.
You have a choice - you MITM/inspect HTTPs, you allow only whitelisted HTTPs connections (which is not really practical due to the ever changing whitelist), or you allow any and all malware C&C straight through the corporate firewall. Option 3 is not really acceptable.
FTP isn't the only thing that NAT breaks.
For generous definitions of "run". It breaks end to end connectivity, so one could argue that even single nat doesn't work at all really.
no.
Most likely the case ^^ . Recommended practice for IPv6 is to not allocate smaller than a /64 - I've got a /56 myself.
All of my apple gear purchased since 2007 supports ipv6. My FreeBSD boxes have supported it since about then or previously also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
next dumb question...
mDNS. next...
they can run tunnels over ipv4.
carrier grade NAT double NAT, etc. is a lot more complex than an IPv6 network. the only real complexity in and ipv6 environment (excluding bugs in firmware, but that isn't TOO bad these days) is having to maintain dual stack until the laggards wake the fuck up and upgrade.
This is exactly how IP (irrespective of version) is supposed to work... NAT is an ugly hack that breaks shit.
Your phone isn't trying to route at terabits per second.
Yup, although eventually/soon I suspect people will be running a 6-4 gateway and (ironically) relying on NAT64 to access the legacy IPv4 internet (I also have ipv6 at home).
You mean like this: ipv6 address NODE-PD ::1/64 ?
Because that won't scale enough. IPv6 "wastes" a lot of space for convenience. No more subnet masks, just use /64 everywhere. The address space is THAT big. It also makes someone sweeping your network for machines not really practical. Even scanning my home network for example (without sniffing for traffic) to locate a host will take 2^32x longer than scanning the entire ipv4 address space.