This is yet another example of too many to name, of Red Hat being an all-around bunch of warm and fuzzy penguins, guys! And this is so typical of them: buy a proprietary product, and as soon as they decide to do something with it, they open source it first!
RedHat has NEVER deviated from their policy of releasing SRPMS for all their stuff. You can very literally roll your own distro simply by taking their SRPM and compiling them! And a number of groups have done just that: White Box Linux, CentOS and Scientific Linux.
Red Hat employs some of the most prolific contributors to the Linux Kernel and is a vital force in making Linux what it is today. Go Red Hat!
PS: No, I don't work for them, just a very happy customer!
I've been using B for too many years to count. It works fine at 11 Mbps, which is faster than the 6 Mpbs that my Internet connection provides, so I don't notice anything. Buying 802.11 N for me would be like buying a high-performance sports car in order to drive 35 MPH to work. Either way, I drive 35 MPH, so the difference is, for me, nought.
I guess you really notice the difference? Your 6 Mb Internet connection is actually noticably faster on your 802.11 N ??
Wireless companies have a much harder time adding more channels. Spectrum licenses cost billions of dollars and oftentimes will come in an entirely different frequency plan that isn't compatible with existing devices (see T-Mobile's AWS purchase for a good example).
All of which is a lame holdback to the days when radios were tuned by jiggering a wire on the surface of a crystal, and a frequency tolerance of 1% of frequency was considered fairly good. Ever wonder why there might be a 99.5 and a 99.7 on the FM dial, but never a 99.6? That's because of frequency separation. At the time the regulations were made, consumer radios couldn't reliably discern frequencies much finer. But nowadays? We could probably fit 1,000 channels into what we now fit just one.
See, theoretically speaking, there is an unlimited amount of bandwidth available. The only limit is the tolerances of frequency filtering! I think that the FCC should follow in the footsteps of the unregulated 2.4 Ghz spectrum, and allocate perhaps the frequency of a few TV stations to be used for unregulated, spread-spectrum radio use. I'd allow it a fairly high wattage, too - perhaps 1,000 watts. 1,000 watts isn't much compared to a standard radio/tv station where 100,000 watts is typical, but by comparison, a wifi is limited to (as I recall) 0.1 watt. 1,000 watts should cover a medium-sized city easily. If you use frequency hopping spread-spectrum with unlimited frequency division, you would see technology rapidly develop to produce incredibly bandwidth density in a *very* small radio frequency range, with a low error rate.
Wifi comes close. I'd like to see another level of the same type of activity occur!
This will never sell. It doesn't fit into the entertainment center paradigm. It looks like a puzzle box and a toy.
I hit the page for comments, and the first 5 amount to "It'll never work, get off my lawn". I'm reminded that when Apple came out with their first iPod, comments here on slashdork were loaded with downer reviews. Here's a couple of them
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
This, btw, was in the article summary. A little further down:
Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.
Or, next comment down:
Since when is Apple concerned about market share? They do what capitalism was born to do. Cater to a small market, and do it the right way.
Sure, not everyone was downer, but being pissy because you can't stick a remote on a 4" wide box? I don't know about you, but I have 2 or three FEET behind my flat-screen TV in my entertainment center, because although my 32" TV is just 3" thick, the stereo and media center computer are still like 2' deep, with piles of ugly cords carefully hidden in the back.
Don't tell me that this "won't fit" the media center paradigm. The media center paradigm needs to get rid of piles of wires and switch to bluetooth, with lightweight devices that fit wherever they look nice. (EG: on the bookshelf or mantle piece)
Can't comment on China, but the south Sahara (sub Sahara) has been getting noticably greener the last 10-15 years. Yes, the world is changing. Yes, we are a good part of the reason why. Yes, life will probably get harder. No, life win't end, but but life as we've known it will.
It's part of the process of humanity assuming control of our planet.
The combination of crappy layouts, shoddy design, counter-intuitive interface, and juvenile audience are all working together to render Myspace irrelevant. I just checked my myspace page, apparently for the first time since May of this year.
That brings up interesting questions about what happens when your musculo-skeletal system and your nervous system start fighting for calories. The stereotypical big dumb guy?
This stereotype is just that - a stereotype. Numerous studies have been done, and there is no particular correlation between intelligence and muscle tone and/or general body strength. If anything, stronger people tend to be smarter, as the greater strength implies good general health, which IS a factor in promoting intelligence. (sickly, weak people generally don't do well on IQ tests)
I am glad Google is building a good browser... it will keep everyone on their toes (especially since Microsoft has pretty much bowed out of the next-gen browser market with their unwillingness to implement standards in a timely fashion).
What I find interesting is just how rapidly this is happening! For our intranet-style application, we've pretty much dropped support for IE altogether, telling our customers to use Firefox, Safari, or Chrome - pretty much "anything but IE". We just write standards-compliant code and almost never bother with IE weirds anymore, we just tell our users to "upgrade to Firefox or Chrome", and they do.
IE8 was Microsoft's big chance, and they blew it. It's *still* not actually standards compliant, at a time when standards compliance is what the marketplace actually wants. Now, they've dumped lots of money and mindshare into a product that still manages to underwhelm.
Microsoft tried to hijack the web development environment with their "dot net" framework, a proprietary application stack with its associated vendor lockin, and an incompatible browser with loads of marketshare.
Hey, extensions are great - but for one detail: Security! The current extensions model is as insecure as hell. All extensions have full access to the browser process - there is NOTHING that stops a rogue extension that was helpfully installed when you tried to punch the monkey and clicked "Yes" to the annoying question from watching everything you do in the browser and send any input you type into a form back to a mother ship you didn't even know existed.
I appreciate that the idea of adding a decent security model into extensions and plugins is a hard, thorny problem to solve. But that is exactly why we really, desperately need it! The browser is, for many computing environments, the "Operating System". Although I write this on a Linux laptop, the computing platform I use for development isn't Windows or Linux or MacOS, it's Firefox/Chrome! I don't personally much care what O/S the end user uses.
Because of this importance, because the browser is fast becoming the only O/S that actually matters, it's vitally important that we develop SOME kind of framework for application level security. The utter lack of a current extensions security model is just begging for disaster!
DNS servers are just DNS servers. There's a pool of them that handle requests to a given server. If google Public DNS is implemented like other Google services, your queries will be handled by whichever google node is nearby, idle, and knows the address you're requesting.
And... how is this different than your "local" DNS server? how do you know that Google's DNS is "nearby, idle, and knows the address"?
This seems robust than the way even the existing root servers are implemented. Google has more sites than almost anyone else non-government (there are a few notable exceptions, but none of them have an architecture like google's) and is continually opening more.
Perchance, because this is pretty much how existing root servers are implemented? There was a slashdork article a while back about the challenges of running a root DNS server. Let me assure you, redundancy is paramount - they've NEVER all been down. Ever.
Again, I defy you to please clarify what you mean by "cloud" computing to be any different than "Internet" computing? Because there is no difference. The Internet IS the cloud. Drawing a distinction between the two is like drawing a distinction between your pants and your britches.
And, once again, DNS is a redundant, multi-point, caching, distributed-architecture protocol, and has been for some 20 years.
Do you not know what this means?
"Cloud based" is a marketing term that describes what hosted application providers have been doing in various forms for some 20 years.
On the other hand, I trust my hosting provider to provide sufficient DNS; but if I were hosting my application on a cloud somewhere, I'd want some cloud-based DNS;
Could you give me an example of an "Internet-based DNS" that isn't also "cloud-based"? The definition of "in the cloud" IS "on the Internet". Your arbitrary distinction simply makes no sense at all. You are asking for DNS with a "distributed architecture" but DNS itself IS a distributed architecture!
I hate to sound trollish, but your over-eager Google fanboyism betrays your underlying non-comprehension of the issues involved! DNS is a distributed architecture, and all that's necessary for you to provide extremely high availability is to provide two (or more) DNS servers at different locations. This eliminates the "single point of failure" and with each location providing better than 99.95% uptime, the odds of both going down at the same moment is measured in hundreds of years. When you consider DNS caching, due to its distributed architecture, (there's that word again) if your hosted DNS were actually completely down for an hour or so, that few of your customers would even notice, that makes the problem even that much more tractable.
PS: "Cloud-based" IS "Internet-based". Please don't treat "the cloud" as if it were different. "The cloud" only has relevance in sales meetings - it's otherwise just Internet-based computing! See what Larry Ellison has to say about this!
I don't think the news is that people are buying turntables to go along with their records. The news is that so many people are buying records that stores are beginning to stock record players again. And that IS surprising!
People are rediscovering quality. They are rediscovering the "old way" where dynamic range matters, where music isn't all dynamically depressed so that everything "plays loud". Really, it's sad, because a CD has the dynamic range to go from a barely audible whisper to something rivaling a jet engine at full power from 30 feet!
But because CDs are universally NOT mixed to take advantage of this, the quiet as well as the loud, records are often given more latitude for musical expression. They are cheap to make, and much of what's available on LP was mixed according to the demands of the song. And there's a mental equation that makes CDs, MP3s, and even cassettes all comparable "digital" tech, the record is obviously not that way. (Yes, I know about cassettes being analong, but I'm talking about market perception)
Sound aficionados then use records to say "I care about sound quality" because of the obvious difference it has to other media. And sadly, despite the technical inferiority, they actually get better sounding music from this much older medium.
Why should you pay to ship their crappola to them? Make THEM pay for their mistake!
See if you can't find a bit of mail from that company that's BRE. (Business Reply Envelope) Then, tape the BRE envelope to the box the printer is in so that the BRE account is clearly shown, and take it to the USPS, along with a big sign saying whey you refuse to do business with them taped out the outside.
There's nothing about a BRE that limits its scope to the envelope - anything you stick it to is shipped to them, paid by the BRE account at the USPS. And since BRE is first class, they'll be paying POSTAGE rates for that mail, not SHIPPING rates. Your average printer might rack up a few hundred in shipping fees.
Look.. Google's in the advertising and data aggregation business, yes. But... there is a level of suspicion and fear directed at Google that just seems extreme. Has Google actually done something "Evil" that I missed? Or it is just paranoia? I personally think that it's much more likely that OpenDNS or my ISP would do something crazy with this sort of information than Google.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Unfortunately, you have to be very, very careful with trademarks. Once it's gone, it's gone.
Red Hat was *forced* by law, in order to protect shareholder interests, to preserve its trademark. I don't begrudge them this, because in every other way, they've been just wonderful.
But go ahead and put this idea to the test! Make your own search engine! Make it a wrapper for google searches, call it "Gaggle". Be up front about the fact that you are doing Google searches, and see just how long it takes for Google's legal department to get in touch with you. Because it's the law, and they *have to* in order to preserve their brand name.
That's why Apple Computer's had such a hard time (legally) getting into the music business, because of Apple Records! Feel free to search to see just how much trouble Apple has had dealing with this little technicality...
Desktop uptake is still very low, but kernel is used by any device that runs Linux, whether it's a router, a smartphone, a server, or a netbook. This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.
If I hadn't already replied in this article, I probably would have modded you up. This point is hard for many to understand, but it's quite possible that the total number of Linux kernel installs may already rival the total number of Windows installs, since the types of devices that use Linux are so variable.
Along with its home turf of Internet servers that are otherwise invisible to the end user, it's commonly used on routers, printers, phones, sensors, calculators, digital cameras and camcorders, DVRs and "media centers", so-called "network-accessible" hard drives, digital picture frames, and too many other fixed-function "embedded" devices to name. The combination of stability, driver availability, consistent programming interface, footprint, and cost (free!) is a 1-2-3-4-5 punch to nearly any industry that relies on information processing.
Linux is just about *everywhere* but the desktop nowadays.
There's another company that has consistently been "nice" to the industry, refusing to do evil and in general being a stand-up, wonderful bunch of guys: Red Hat. I honestly think that there isn't a more decent company around than Red Hat. They fund a significant percentage of the kernel, driver, and UI development for the entire Linux world. Some of the very best and most productive developers behind the Linux kernel, GCC, and too many other projects to mention are employed at Red Hat!
And to this day, they have yet to throw a single shenanigan around releasing source RPMs. Google's shine is bright, but has a few smudges. Red Hat, on the other hand, is squeaky clean.
PS: No, I don't work for them, I'm just a very satisfied customer!
POTS works over low voltage DC. As I recall, it's somewhere in the vicinity of 48 volts, but don't quote me on that. It's entirely feasible to have a cheap, dedicated VOIP chip that runs on 48 volts and draws perhaps 50 to 100 miliamps of current - well within the normal range of today's POTS power draw.
VOIP doesn't have to be VOInternet. They coul just as easily have a dedicated IP network for telephony, then run something like PPPOÈ or VPN to gateway to the public Internet and do away with separate SL MODEMs.
You'd still probably need a long distance plan, even though the point of one is technically idiotic.
There needs to be sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was kidnapped, and not staying voluntarily.
Did you miss the point that he was eight years old at the time?
Well, if there's no evidence that he was forcibly detained, there will be no successful prosecution.
Yep. you missed the point that he was eight years old at the time!
Eight-year-olds do not have free will under California law. They have the legally recognized ability to tattle, and that's about it. On the other hand, there *are* strict child-labor laws in effect.
I have no sympathies for any particular religious group. I just hope the law is upheld and no prosecution based solely on unsupported claims is successful.
First is the question: are they actually a regligious group? See France's recent rulings for more information. There's certainly reasonable doubt on the question!
Second: The claims are very, VERY widely supported. Literally hundreds of people (and I mean literally, not figuratively) have come forth with their stories of harrassment, false imprisonment / kidnapping, extortion, and plenty more.
I'm not saying that removing an array element can't be done, and done easily.
I'm just asking you to justify the behavior of the "delete" command in Javascript. (No, I can't either) It's one of those WTF-ish moments. Logically, it's no different than
Javascript makes many hard things simple, and many simple things hard.
Need to find out what the user typed in box foo? While most client libraries require fairly detailed memory schemes in order to keep track of which box is which, Javascript reduces all that to getElementById(); - a win in any programmer's book!
But in the reverse, what about trimming that input? The offense to the mind that you have to use a USER DEFINED FUNCTION for trimming just boggles the mind. Sure, there are libraries for this, blah blah but still, the truth remains that there is no trim() function. The lack of any kind of meaningful class structure makes the special word "this" almost worthless because you can't be sure consistently what it's referring to. (yes, it is possible to figure it out, but why should you have to?) If you delete an array key directly with the delete command, eg: `delete myArray[4];` the length property doesn't get updated even though the number of elements in the array does. (WTF?!?!)
So javascript has its warts. Lots and lots of them. It is clearly a hacked-together language that is only successful because of its ubiquity, which is the same reason why it evolves so extremely slowly, which is why we still have to manually implement things like trim(), and why so many of us are doomed to deal with javascript with all of its warts.
Javascript, however, has been free of the browser for some time, due to the Mozilla's JS engine being modular. They call it spidermonkey, and I actually considered using it as a replacement for PHP on the server side in order to keep langauages consistent. Unfortunately, nobody's embedded it into Apache as a module (with any kind of stability) so this means that js scripts would have to run as separate executables, which causes all kinds of performance and security problems.
Hmmm... Is creating patents for things like this "evil"? Seeking to prevent others from saving energy (unless they pay a toll) is not good for this planet, and I'm not sure if passes for "good".
Just pretend they never had the idea at all and nothing has changed. There, feel better?
Worse, the poster misunderstood the nature of patents. Patents don't prevent anything. They only give you the legal right to a claim against someone else.
If I get a patent for my invention (say, an egg-cracking lawnmower) in so doing, I'm not preventing anybody else from making an egg-cracking lawnmower. However, if somebody else starts making egg-cracking lawnmowers, then my patent gives me a supportable right to sue the other company. I don't have to do anything, and if I don't, it's no different than not having a patent at all.
Today, patents are commonly "defensive" in nature, especially by big corporations. Meaning, I as a megacorp might get the patent with no intent to use it at all, unless I get sued by a competitor for patent infringement. Since the competitor is trying to do the same thing I'm doing, they are likely violating one of my numerous "defensive" patents, at which point I counter sue, and pay lawyers to do lunch for a while until a cross-licensing deal is reached. (They give me rights to use their patented idea, and in return, I give them rights to my patented idea)
Yes, it really is that bad - and why we really, REALLY need patent reform.
Where's the value/point in releasing another limited-utility webserver?
I see the point in having a few options for a particular category, so that you can choose between different optimizations for things like cost, performance, and compatibility. But why something of limited utility (only runs C scripts) compatibility (only runs on 'doze) AND cost? (not OSS, but it's free!)
I don't know. Even with a fairly "heavy" web server such as Apache, the performance increases by going with another "lighter" platform seldom represent more than a year or so of hardware advance.
I work with charter schools, and regular schools. It's an eye-popping exercise to attend staff meetings to discuss our services. At charter schools, it's an energetic experience! Teachers are engaged, excited, bubbling and happy. Charter schools are typically non-union.
But go to a union district, and staff meetings feel something like a funeral dirge - quiet, stiff, and teachers have the "deer in the headlights" look. I've listened to the administrators whine and complain about how they are over a barrel since they have craptastic teachers that they can't just fire for incompetence unless they basically catch them breaking the law!
Even poverty doesn't cause starvation. In the USA, arguably the biggest health risk faced by the poor is not starvation, but obesity. People living below the poverty line have abnormally high rates of obesity. Our only problem is too much food
Wealth is so much taken for granted that a significant percentage of the population of the USA actually votes AGAINST anyone who has a clue. They've gotten to the point where they view intellectuals as "bad people" and work against energy saving and economic development social programs!
Slashdot Mirror
This is yet another example of too many to name, of Red Hat being an all-around bunch of warm and fuzzy penguins, guys! And this is so typical of them: buy a proprietary product, and as soon as they decide to do something with it, they open source it first!
RedHat has NEVER deviated from their policy of releasing SRPMS for all their stuff. You can very literally roll your own distro simply by taking their SRPM and compiling them! And a number of groups have done just that: White Box Linux, CentOS and Scientific Linux.
Red Hat employs some of the most prolific contributors to the Linux Kernel and is a vital force in making Linux what it is today. Go Red Hat!
PS: No, I don't work for them, just a very happy customer!
I've been using B for too many years to count. It works fine at 11 Mbps, which is faster than the 6 Mpbs that my Internet connection provides, so I don't notice anything. Buying 802.11 N for me would be like buying a high-performance sports car in order to drive 35 MPH to work. Either way, I drive 35 MPH, so the difference is, for me, nought.
I guess you really notice the difference? Your 6 Mb Internet connection is actually noticably faster on your 802.11 N ??
Wireless companies have a much harder time adding more channels. Spectrum licenses cost billions of dollars and oftentimes will come in an entirely different frequency plan that isn't compatible with existing devices (see T-Mobile's AWS purchase for a good example).
All of which is a lame holdback to the days when radios were tuned by jiggering a wire on the surface of a crystal, and a frequency tolerance of 1% of frequency was considered fairly good. Ever wonder why there might be a 99.5 and a 99.7 on the FM dial, but never a 99.6? That's because of frequency separation. At the time the regulations were made, consumer radios couldn't reliably discern frequencies much finer. But nowadays? We could probably fit 1,000 channels into what we now fit just one.
See, theoretically speaking, there is an unlimited amount of bandwidth available. The only limit is the tolerances of frequency filtering! I think that the FCC should follow in the footsteps of the unregulated 2.4 Ghz spectrum, and allocate perhaps the frequency of a few TV stations to be used for unregulated, spread-spectrum radio use. I'd allow it a fairly high wattage, too - perhaps 1,000 watts. 1,000 watts isn't much compared to a standard radio/tv station where 100,000 watts is typical, but by comparison, a wifi is limited to (as I recall) 0.1 watt. 1,000 watts should cover a medium-sized city easily. If you use frequency hopping spread-spectrum with unlimited frequency division, you would see technology rapidly develop to produce incredibly bandwidth density in a *very* small radio frequency range, with a low error rate.
Wifi comes close. I'd like to see another level of the same type of activity occur!
This will never sell. It doesn't fit into the entertainment center paradigm. It looks like a puzzle box and a toy.
I hit the page for comments, and the first 5 amount to "It'll never work, get off my lawn". I'm reminded that when Apple came out with their first iPod, comments here on slashdork were loaded with downer reviews. Here's a couple of them
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
This, btw, was in the article summary. A little further down:
Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.
Or, next comment down:
Since when is Apple concerned about market share? They do what capitalism was born to do. Cater to a small market, and do it the right way.
Sure, not everyone was downer, but being pissy because you can't stick a remote on a 4" wide box? I don't know about you, but I have 2 or three FEET behind my flat-screen TV in my entertainment center, because although my 32" TV is just 3" thick, the stereo and media center computer are still like 2' deep, with piles of ugly cords carefully hidden in the back.
Don't tell me that this "won't fit" the media center paradigm. The media center paradigm needs to get rid of piles of wires and switch to bluetooth, with lightweight devices that fit wherever they look nice. (EG: on the bookshelf or mantle piece)
Can't comment on China, but the south Sahara (sub Sahara) has been getting noticably greener the last 10-15 years. Yes, the world is changing. Yes, we are a good part of the reason why. Yes, life will probably get harder. No, life win't end, but but life as we've known it will.
It's part of the process of humanity assuming control of our planet.
The combination of crappy layouts, shoddy design, counter-intuitive interface, and juvenile audience are all working together to render Myspace irrelevant. I just checked my myspace page, apparently for the first time since May of this year.
Nothing's changed...
That brings up interesting questions about what happens when your musculo-skeletal system and your nervous system start fighting for calories. The stereotypical big dumb guy?
This stereotype is just that - a stereotype. Numerous studies have been done, and there is no particular correlation between intelligence and muscle tone and/or general body strength. If anything, stronger people tend to be smarter, as the greater strength implies good general health, which IS a factor in promoting intelligence. (sickly, weak people generally don't do well on IQ tests)
I am glad Google is building a good browser... it will keep everyone on their toes (especially since Microsoft has pretty much bowed out of the next-gen browser market with their unwillingness to implement standards in a timely fashion).
What I find interesting is just how rapidly this is happening! For our intranet-style application, we've pretty much dropped support for IE altogether, telling our customers to use Firefox, Safari, or Chrome - pretty much "anything but IE". We just write standards-compliant code and almost never bother with IE weirds anymore, we just tell our users to "upgrade to Firefox or Chrome", and they do.
IE8 was Microsoft's big chance, and they blew it. It's *still* not actually standards compliant, at a time when standards compliance is what the marketplace actually wants. Now, they've dumped lots of money and mindshare into a product that still manages to underwhelm.
Microsoft tried to hijack the web development environment with their "dot net" framework, a proprietary application stack with its associated vendor lockin, and an incompatible browser with loads of marketshare.
The only thing they really had to sell was marketshare, and they are losing that as fast as the marketplace can move!
Hey, extensions are great - but for one detail: Security! The current extensions model is as insecure as hell. All extensions have full access to the browser process - there is NOTHING that stops a rogue extension that was helpfully installed when you tried to punch the monkey and clicked "Yes" to the annoying question from watching everything you do in the browser and send any input you type into a form back to a mother ship you didn't even know existed.
I appreciate that the idea of adding a decent security model into extensions and plugins is a hard, thorny problem to solve. But that is exactly why we really, desperately need it! The browser is, for many computing environments, the "Operating System". Although I write this on a Linux laptop, the computing platform I use for development isn't Windows or Linux or MacOS, it's Firefox/Chrome! I don't personally much care what O/S the end user uses.
Because of this importance, because the browser is fast becoming the only O/S that actually matters, it's vitally important that we develop SOME kind of framework for application level security. The utter lack of a current extensions security model is just begging for disaster!
DNS servers are just DNS servers. There's a pool of them that handle requests to a given server. If google Public DNS is implemented like other Google services, your queries will be handled by whichever google node is nearby, idle, and knows the address you're requesting.
And... how is this different than your "local" DNS server? how do you know that Google's DNS is "nearby, idle, and knows the address"?
This seems robust than the way even the existing root servers are implemented. Google has more sites than almost anyone else non-government (there are a few notable exceptions, but none of them have an architecture like google's) and is continually opening more.
Perchance, because this is pretty much how existing root servers are implemented? There was a slashdork article a while back about the challenges of running a root DNS server. Let me assure you, redundancy is paramount - they've NEVER all been down. Ever.
Again, I defy you to please clarify what you mean by "cloud" computing to be any different than "Internet" computing? Because there is no difference. The Internet IS the cloud. Drawing a distinction between the two is like drawing a distinction between your pants and your britches.
And, once again, DNS is a redundant, multi-point, caching, distributed-architecture protocol, and has been for some 20 years.
Do you not know what this means?
"Cloud based" is a marketing term that describes what hosted application providers have been doing in various forms for some 20 years.
On the other hand, I trust my hosting provider to provide sufficient DNS; but if I were hosting my application on a cloud somewhere, I'd want some cloud-based DNS;
Could you give me an example of an "Internet-based DNS" that isn't also "cloud-based"? The definition of "in the cloud" IS "on the Internet". Your arbitrary distinction simply makes no sense at all. You are asking for DNS with a "distributed architecture" but DNS itself IS a distributed architecture!
I hate to sound trollish, but your over-eager Google fanboyism betrays your underlying non-comprehension of the issues involved! DNS is a distributed architecture, and all that's necessary for you to provide extremely high availability is to provide two (or more) DNS servers at different locations. This eliminates the "single point of failure" and with each location providing better than 99.95% uptime, the odds of both going down at the same moment is measured in hundreds of years. When you consider DNS caching, due to its distributed architecture, (there's that word again) if your hosted DNS were actually completely down for an hour or so, that few of your customers would even notice, that makes the problem even that much more tractable.
PS: "Cloud-based" IS "Internet-based". Please don't treat "the cloud" as if it were different. "The cloud" only has relevance in sales meetings - it's otherwise just Internet-based computing! See what Larry Ellison has to say about this!
I don't think the news is that people are buying turntables to go along with their records. The news is that so many people are buying records that stores are beginning to stock record players again. And that IS surprising!
People are rediscovering quality. They are rediscovering the "old way" where dynamic range matters, where music isn't all dynamically depressed so that everything "plays loud". Really, it's sad, because a CD has the dynamic range to go from a barely audible whisper to something rivaling a jet engine at full power from 30 feet!
But because CDs are universally NOT mixed to take advantage of this, the quiet as well as the loud, records are often given more latitude for musical expression. They are cheap to make, and much of what's available on LP was mixed according to the demands of the song. And there's a mental equation that makes CDs, MP3s, and even cassettes all comparable "digital" tech, the record is obviously not that way. (Yes, I know about cassettes being analong, but I'm talking about market perception)
Sound aficionados then use records to say "I care about sound quality" because of the obvious difference it has to other media. And sadly, despite the technical inferiority, they actually get better sounding music from this much older medium.
Why should you pay to ship their crappola to them? Make THEM pay for their mistake!
See if you can't find a bit of mail from that company that's BRE. (Business Reply Envelope) Then, tape the BRE envelope to the box the printer is in so that the BRE account is clearly shown, and take it to the USPS, along with a big sign saying whey you refuse to do business with them taped out the outside.
There's nothing about a BRE that limits its scope to the envelope - anything you stick it to is shipped to them, paid by the BRE account at the USPS. And since BRE is first class, they'll be paying POSTAGE rates for that mail, not SHIPPING rates. Your average printer might rack up a few hundred in shipping fees.
AFAIK, it's perfectly legal... (YMMV, IANAL, yatta yatta)
Look.. Google's in the advertising and data aggregation business, yes. But ... there is a level of suspicion and fear directed at Google that just seems extreme. Has Google actually done something "Evil" that I missed? Or it is just paranoia? I personally think that it's much more likely that OpenDNS or my ISP would do something crazy with this sort of information than Google.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Unfortunately, you have to be very, very careful with trademarks. Once it's gone, it's gone.
Red Hat was *forced* by law, in order to protect shareholder interests, to preserve its trademark. I don't begrudge them this, because in every other way, they've been just wonderful.
But go ahead and put this idea to the test! Make your own search engine! Make it a wrapper for google searches, call it "Gaggle". Be up front about the fact that you are doing Google searches, and see just how long it takes for Google's legal department to get in touch with you. Because it's the law, and they *have to* in order to preserve their brand name.
That's why Apple Computer's had such a hard time (legally) getting into the music business, because of Apple Records! Feel free to search to see just how much trouble Apple has had dealing with this little technicality...
Desktop uptake is still very low, but kernel is used by any device that runs Linux, whether it's a router, a smartphone, a server, or a netbook. This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.
If I hadn't already replied in this article, I probably would have modded you up. This point is hard for many to understand, but it's quite possible that the total number of Linux kernel installs may already rival the total number of Windows installs, since the types of devices that use Linux are so variable.
Along with its home turf of Internet servers that are otherwise invisible to the end user, it's commonly used on routers, printers, phones, sensors, calculators, digital cameras and camcorders, DVRs and "media centers", so-called "network-accessible" hard drives, digital picture frames, and too many other fixed-function "embedded" devices to name. The combination of stability, driver availability, consistent programming interface, footprint, and cost (free!) is a 1-2-3-4-5 punch to nearly any industry that relies on information processing.
Linux is just about *everywhere* but the desktop nowadays.
There's another company that has consistently been "nice" to the industry, refusing to do evil and in general being a stand-up, wonderful bunch of guys: Red Hat. I honestly think that there isn't a more decent company around than Red Hat. They fund a significant percentage of the kernel, driver, and UI development for the entire Linux world. Some of the very best and most productive developers behind the Linux kernel, GCC, and too many other projects to mention are employed at Red Hat!
And to this day, they have yet to throw a single shenanigan around releasing source RPMs. Google's shine is bright, but has a few smudges. Red Hat, on the other hand, is squeaky clean.
PS: No, I don't work for them, I'm just a very satisfied customer!
POTS works over low voltage DC. As I recall, it's somewhere in the vicinity of 48 volts, but don't quote me on that. It's entirely feasible to have a cheap, dedicated VOIP chip that runs on 48 volts and draws perhaps 50 to 100 miliamps of current - well within the normal range of today's POTS power draw.
VOIP doesn't have to be VOInternet. They coul just as easily have a dedicated IP network for telephony, then run something like PPPOÈ or VPN to gateway to the public Internet and do away with separate SL MODEMs.
You'd still probably need a long distance plan, even though the point of one is technically idiotic.
There needs to be sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was kidnapped, and not staying voluntarily.
Did you miss the point that he was eight years old at the time?
Well, if there's no evidence that he was forcibly detained, there will be no successful prosecution.
Yep. you missed the point that he was eight years old at the time!
Eight-year-olds do not have free will under California law. They have the legally recognized ability to tattle, and that's about it. On the other hand, there *are* strict child-labor laws in effect.
I have no sympathies for any particular religious group. I just hope the law is upheld and no prosecution based solely on unsupported claims is successful.
First is the question: are they actually a regligious group? See France's recent rulings for more information. There's certainly reasonable doubt on the question!
Second: The claims are very, VERY widely supported. Literally hundreds of people (and I mean literally, not figuratively) have come forth with their stories of harrassment, false imprisonment / kidnapping, extortion, and plenty more.
Just take a look for yourself...
I'm not saying that removing an array element can't be done, and done easily.
I'm just asking you to justify the behavior of the "delete" command in Javascript. (No, I can't either) It's one of those WTF-ish moments. Logically, it's no different than
array[i]=null;
Which is just lame since it's called "delete".
Javascript makes many hard things simple, and many simple things hard.
Need to find out what the user typed in box foo? While most client libraries require fairly detailed memory schemes in order to keep track of which box is which, Javascript reduces all that to getElementById(); - a win in any programmer's book!
But in the reverse, what about trimming that input? The offense to the mind that you have to use a USER DEFINED FUNCTION for trimming just boggles the mind. Sure, there are libraries for this, blah blah but still, the truth remains that there is no trim() function. The lack of any kind of meaningful class structure makes the special word "this" almost worthless because you can't be sure consistently what it's referring to. (yes, it is possible to figure it out, but why should you have to?) If you delete an array key directly with the delete command, eg: `delete myArray[4];` the length property doesn't get updated even though the number of elements in the array does. (WTF?!?!)
So javascript has its warts. Lots and lots of them. It is clearly a hacked-together language that is only successful because of its ubiquity, which is the same reason why it evolves so extremely slowly, which is why we still have to manually implement things like trim(), and why so many of us are doomed to deal with javascript with all of its warts.
Javascript, however, has been free of the browser for some time, due to the Mozilla's JS engine being modular. They call it spidermonkey, and I actually considered using it as a replacement for PHP on the server side in order to keep langauages consistent. Unfortunately, nobody's embedded it into Apache as a module (with any kind of stability) so this means that js scripts would have to run as separate executables, which causes all kinds of performance and security problems.
Hmmm... Is creating patents for things like this "evil"? Seeking to prevent others from saving energy (unless they pay a toll) is not good for this planet, and I'm not sure if passes for "good".
Just pretend they never had the idea at all and nothing has changed. There, feel better?
Worse, the poster misunderstood the nature of patents. Patents don't prevent anything. They only give you the legal right to a claim against someone else.
If I get a patent for my invention (say, an egg-cracking lawnmower) in so doing, I'm not preventing anybody else from making an egg-cracking lawnmower. However, if somebody else starts making egg-cracking lawnmowers, then my patent gives me a supportable right to sue the other company. I don't have to do anything, and if I don't, it's no different than not having a patent at all.
Today, patents are commonly "defensive" in nature, especially by big corporations. Meaning, I as a megacorp might get the patent with no intent to use it at all, unless I get sued by a competitor for patent infringement. Since the competitor is trying to do the same thing I'm doing, they are likely violating one of my numerous "defensive" patents, at which point I counter sue, and pay lawyers to do lunch for a while until a cross-licensing deal is reached. (They give me rights to use their patented idea, and in return, I give them rights to my patented idea)
Yes, it really is that bad - and why we really, REALLY need patent reform.
Where's the value/point in releasing another limited-utility webserver?
I see the point in having a few options for a particular category, so that you can choose between different optimizations for things like cost, performance, and compatibility. But why something of limited utility (only runs C scripts) compatibility (only runs on 'doze) AND cost? (not OSS, but it's free!)
I don't know. Even with a fairly "heavy" web server such as Apache, the performance increases by going with another "lighter" platform seldom represent more than a year or so of hardware advance.
So.... Why?
I work with charter schools, and regular schools. It's an eye-popping exercise to attend staff meetings to discuss our services. At charter schools, it's an energetic experience! Teachers are engaged, excited, bubbling and happy. Charter schools are typically non-union.
But go to a union district, and staff meetings feel something like a funeral dirge - quiet, stiff, and teachers have the "deer in the headlights" look. I've listened to the administrators whine and complain about how they are over a barrel since they have craptastic teachers that they can't just fire for incompetence unless they basically catch them breaking the law!
It's shocking how different the two systems are.
Even poverty doesn't cause starvation. In the USA, arguably the biggest health risk faced by the poor is not starvation, but obesity. People living below the poverty line have abnormally high rates of obesity. Our only problem is too much food
We passed a tipping point a little while ago. Today, there are more people in the world who are obese than starving.
Wealth is so much taken for granted that a significant percentage of the population of the USA actually votes AGAINST anyone who has a clue. They've gotten to the point where they view intellectuals as "bad people" and work against energy saving and economic development social programs!