One key component of Swarm is that a supervisor process uses a clustering algorithm to determine how data should be distributed such that it minimizes the number of times a continuation must jump between different computers. Does Mosix have any equivalent?
Why has Mosix not achieved wider usage, for example, allowing web applications to scale up using multiple servers?
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Time: 7pm PT, San Francisco
Ok, so 7pm PT today - but then it says:
Thu, Jul 23th at 3am - London | 10pm - New York | Thu, Jul 23th at 12pm - Sydney | Thu, Jul 23th at 11am - Tokyo | Thu, Jul 23th at 10am - Beijing | Thu, Jul 23th at 7:30am - Mumbai
You can be pretty sure that this wasn't the idea of the engineers who built the website. The worst possible launch from an engineering standpoint is a high-profile one where your traffic spikes immediately on going live. The likely outcome is that your site goes down and all your PR effort results in nothing other than ridicule.
When I've been involved in launching websites I've always had to talk down the PR people from some kind of high-profile launch, to something as gradual as possible.
True Knowledge have been doing this for over a year. Anyone can add facts to their database, and it will attempt to use those facts to infer answers to questions. Its actually very cool, although doesn't yet support such notions as uncertainty.
This is not funny, this is insightful. If Mac were more popular, you would start seeing more crapware and horrible UIs for it as well.
So what? If you don't like the crapware, don't use it!
It is actually scary that people are seriously defending Apple here. If Microsoft was requiring that they get to approve every app that runs on Windows, and blatantly disapproving any app that they thought was "competitive", there would be uproar here on Slashdot.
Yeah, wouldn't computers have been much better if Atari, Commodore and the like had to approve every app that ran on their computers back in the early days? Think of all the junk we could have avoided!
It also has more revenue per employee than almost anything else. Facebook, the company, is tiny. For their growth period to a billion-dollar company
You realize that the "billion-dollar" number is a valuation, it doesn't have anything to-do with their revenue. Do you have anything to substantiate your "more revenue per employee" claim? I heard that they were losing money, although they were within an order of magnitude of breaking even (better than you can say for many tech startups).
Of course, they've pretty-much saturated their market, and they seem to be having a hard time making it profitable. I also have friends that had some success writing Facebook apps, but now they say that users are tired of those apps and interest in them has collapsed.
You need to research how Freenet works, its a completely different architecture and doesn't have entry or exit nodes, so its not vulnerable the attack you describe.
True Knowledge actually interprets your question using Natural Language Processing, and then looks through a massive database of user-contributed facts, combining them using sophisticated inference rules, to give you the answer you need. Even the inference rules are user-editable.
Talk about a strawman arguement! ISP's do not have the same rights as individuals.
ISPs are corporations, and at least in the US, corporations do have the same rights as individuals. Anyway, you are missing my point. Common carrier status is a bargain, the ISPs give up the right to censor content, but in doing so they aren't held responsible for that content. Freenet users make the same bargain. If you don't like that bargain, don't use Freenet, but many people do like that bargain.
I was pointing out that rights can be moderated by goverment, by design.
Yes, but the founders recognized that speech was special, because speech is integral to the democratic process, and if a government can control speech, then they can manipulate the process through which they are regulated by the citizenry. We believe that governments should have no right to regulate speech because then they can short-circuit the democratic process.
Last time I looked Gnunet didn't really have a scalable routing protocol. Also, I think Freenet has a much more active developer and user community, although Gnunet does seem to do a new release every few months.
You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to make other's repeat your free speech.
So you don't mind if your ISP blocks your access to websites they don't like, or drop emails they disagree with? Freenet users choose to give up the right to control your speech on Freenet. In doing so, they protect themselves from responsibility for what you say.
Additionally, it's already been established that certain things (like the child porn example I used), are NOT protected by free speech.
Yes, but what measures are tolerable to prevent it? Do you mind if all your mail is read by the government just in-case it contains child porn?
The same goes for certain other types of expression such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is none.
Common misconception, this is perfectly legal in the US ever since the Brandenburg v Ohio case in 1969.
The founding fathers recognized this fact and realised that government was a necessary evil that by it's very definition restricts or moderates certain natural rights. In a total anarchy you would be absolutely correct, but we do not live in one.
That is a Strawman argument. Just because I believe that governments shouldn't be permitted to monitor and control communication doesn't mean you believe we shouldn't have governments at all.
but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is
If you have the ability to choose what you host or don't host, then you become responsible for it. Its a bit like the concept of a "common carrier" in US telecommunications law. Freenet gives you freedom by preventing you from censoring the content you host. Its a feature, not a bug.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute
If not, then who gets to choose what speech is permissible?
In fact, if you bring it up with the Freenet developers they will gladly tell you this is intentional -- that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.
I'm the coordinator of the Freenet project and I'm calling bullshit on that one. I very much doubt any Freenet developer said that, and if they did, they weren't speaking on behalf of the project.
Yes, Freenet's low-level protocols could be better documented, but they are a work in progress, and in almost constant flux.
As for security through obscurity, we go to great lengths to explain to people how Freenet works, you can find a bunch of papers, and video lectures on our "Papers" page). Take a look at this video from three years ago explaining the 0.7 design before we'd even begun to code it.
Yes it would be wonderful if every tiny detail could be documented meticulously, but before we document it we have to design and test our ideas, and that means developing and releasing the reference implementation.
With Freenet 0.5 you are essentially broadcasting to the world that you are using Freenet. With Freenet 0.7's darknet mode, they can only determine you are running Freenet if they compromise one of your friends. Now sure, that is possible, but it requires much more effort on their part.
The only reason Freenet 0.5 works at all is that it has virtually no users.
Slashdot Mirror
Youtube has a 10 minute limit on videos, this video is 36 minutes.
One key component of Swarm is that a supervisor process uses a clustering algorithm to determine how data should be distributed such that it minimizes the number of times a continuation must jump between different computers. Does Mosix have any equivalent?
Why has Mosix not achieved wider usage, for example, allowing web applications to scale up using multiple servers?
Ok, so 7pm PT today - but then it says:
So 7pm tomorrow? WTF?
Their launch video page appears to be slashdotted. What a surprise :-|
When I've been involved in launching websites I've always had to talk down the PR people from some kind of high-profile launch, to something as gradual as possible.
True Knowledge have been doing this for over a year. Anyone can add facts to their database, and it will attempt to use those facts to infer answers to questions. Its actually very cool, although doesn't yet support such notions as uncertainty.
So what? If you don't like the crapware, don't use it!
It is actually scary that people are seriously defending Apple here. If Microsoft was requiring that they get to approve every app that runs on Windows, and blatantly disapproving any app that they thought was "competitive", there would be uproar here on Slashdot.
Yeah, wouldn't computers have been much better if Atari, Commodore and the like had to approve every app that ran on their computers back in the early days? Think of all the junk we could have avoided!
Any reference used to substantiate a fact added to a Wikipedia article must pre-date the addition of the fact.
Absolutely right. If you have a better product, but they have better sales people, you basically don't stand a chance.
Last time I checked, OCR was not one of the hardest problems of AI research.
You need to research how Freenet works, its a completely different architecture and doesn't have entry or exit nodes, so its not vulnerable the attack you describe.
Freenet, especially now that its reaching the point of widespread usability.
Sugar is awful, read here about installing Ubuntu and using XFCE, its far more usable.
True Knowledge actually interprets your question using Natural Language Processing, and then looks through a massive database of user-contributed facts, combining them using sophisticated inference rules, to give you the answer you need. Even the inference rules are user-editable.
Last time I looked Gnunet didn't really have a scalable routing protocol. Also, I think Freenet has a much more active developer and user community, although Gnunet does seem to do a new release every few months.
Yes, Freenet's low-level protocols could be better documented, but they are a work in progress, and in almost constant flux.
As for security through obscurity, we go to great lengths to explain to people how Freenet works, you can find a bunch of papers, and video lectures on our "Papers" page). Take a look at this video from three years ago explaining the 0.7 design before we'd even begun to code it.
Yes it would be wonderful if every tiny detail could be documented meticulously, but before we document it we have to design and test our ideas, and that means developing and releasing the reference implementation.
We hadn't "disabled" opennet in previous builds, it just hadn't been implemented yet.
Nope, IBM is guilty of abusing their patents, they aren't purely defensive. See this story from the 1980s.
With Freenet 0.5 you are essentially broadcasting to the world that you are using Freenet. With Freenet 0.7's darknet mode, they can only determine you are running Freenet if they compromise one of your friends. Now sure, that is possible, but it requires much more effort on their part. The only reason Freenet 0.5 works at all is that it has virtually no users.