I'm a bit dubious about identifying everything by a hash. Hashes have collisions, so you need a way to resolve collisions. Still, it looks interesting, even though the current design says that it operates on top of the web. (They might mean on top of IP, which is reasonable.)
The problem with identifying things by their hash is that a system will appear to be working fine, but then when you scale it up the percentage of collisions will start escalating. I didn't dig into it, but presumably they have a way to date versions, so that you can tell which are more recent, but it's not at all clear how you would refresh the version seen by people who had access to your prior version. Etc.
Well, I can see how that might work, but I'd need to understand more about what you're intending. I don't intent the mutable state to be externally readable, only to affect the messages that it passes in response to incoming messages.
What I think might happen with your proposal is that external read access to the state might be difficult to synchronize leading to various race conditions. I'm sure this can be worked around, but it seems to me that it could add greatly to the complexity.
The only thing I can think of gets rid of everything since the hosts file, and then builds a mesh system on top of that underlying structure. But I can't think of a way to make that scale.
Clearly the original problem was centralizing control in ICANN, but what alternative can you think of? If you allow different groups to claim the same address you need a decidable way to resolve collisions.
Haskell has it's poiints if you don't need to do i./o. Once in get into monads the whole thing becomes more trouble than it's worth. Even Erlang is better. (Actually, Erlang is rather good. My only real complaint is that I need local state, and to do that in Erlang you need to be continually fighting the system.)
There is a class of problems for which functional languages are optimal. But it doesn't hold most problems. If you allow local state then you can do parallelism by message passing, and expand the range of problems tremendously without adding significant complexity. But no language appears to do this, so I'm reduced to implementing it via oo-languages (yes, I could use C, but that's more difficult) and passing messages via something like ZMQ. This looks like it's going to work, but why isn't there a language that makes it easy?
I don't know whether it *has* been independently audited, but it could be if anyone wanted to bother. That's the first step. Then you need to give someone independent a reason to bother.
If you mean "That's the common price", then I must accept your assertion. If you mean "That's a reasonable price in quantity", then I can't.
If you had a shoe custom made to fit your foot, it would also be quite expensive. But when you buy them in a standard size, it costs a lot less. Presumably the army would be buying enough that they would be ordering standard sizes rather than doing custom fitting.
Actually you do need to extrapolate. Presumably that $2000/pair was the price for a evaluation lot, and if they bought a much larger batch the price would be lower. Of course, given military procurement practices that's not guaranteed.
IIRC, in the case of Toyota, while the code may indeed have been poorly written, they decided the real problem had to do with the design of the floor mats. (I never followed up to find out exactly WHAT the design problem was.)
There are reasons, but they are rare enough that there should be a requirement for a manual override control that automatically disengages after a minute, or possibly 30 seconds. And the control should need to be both depressed and twisted.
Despite the original comment, it's not just heels that are the problem with shoes, and predominately women's shoes. Sandals are also problematic, as are loafers (though less so).
There is a definite tendency for designs of women's clothing and accessories to be unsafe to use around moving machinery. And to lack conveniences, like pockets. And the excuse, when any is offered, is fashion. Often, however, there isn't even that excuse, and you can't find any other style to buy. My wife is always complaining about the lack of pockets in her pants, and she prefers to buy only pants with pockets...but sometimes there isn't a choice. Or the thing that looks like a pocket turns out to only be decoration when you open the package. Then you get to figure out whether it's worth the hassle of trying to return it...and whether there is anything decent to exchange it for.
It has been said that most designers of womens clothing dislike women. I don't know whether this is true or just a snark.
P.S.: I don't know about currently, but when I was growing up, driving "barefoot" was expensive for a woman, because it was just about guaranteed to put runs in their hose. (I trust the suggestion wasn't that they take off their hose before driving.)
P.P.S.: My wife is so much safer a driver than I am that I have personally revoked my own drivers license. And this is amazing because she doesn't have a good sense of the cars position. But it's still true.
If something like this pushes you to vote for Trump, then you'd already decided to do it anyway. This is just someone saying "You're abusing the staff so get out of my bar.".
My personal opinion is that she's a right wing Republican who's a realistic opportunist, and realized that she couldn't get voter support without claiming to be a Democrat.
Whether that works depends on what you're doing. Some specialized software is only available for certain operating systems. What makes this really nice is that some of it may work well on some version of MSWind, but not work at all on MSWind10.
Different people have different reasons for not wanting to upgrade, and some wouldn't object if it weren't being forced at an inconvenient time.
FWIW, my wife always wants to postpone upgrades as long as possible. I doubt that she's alone. She just doesn't like having to learn new icons, new control positions, etc. And I don't find her objections unreasonable even though the changes are rarely so stupid as to flummox me for very long. (P.S.: She's on Kubuntu.)
Actually, I think that malicious does plausibly describe the reported actions of Microsoft. Now whether they actually performed those actions I can't say, since I haven't used anything from them since around 2000.
While I agree that they probably didn't do it with the intent to harm, there is reasonable evidence that they acted with reckless disregard of the fact which they knew or had reason to know, would harm their customers.
An anonymous coward makes an assertion that says lots of other posters were wrong, stupid, or incompetent. Should I believe him?
OK, you are actually Anonymous Coward #52254331, but this doesn't provide me a feeling of certainty in your integrity. I do understand why you might not want to admit who you work for, however. (Several reasons.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a bit dubious about identifying everything by a hash. Hashes have collisions, so you need a way to resolve collisions. Still, it looks interesting, even though the current design says that it operates on top of the web. (They might mean on top of IP, which is reasonable.)
The problem with identifying things by their hash is that a system will appear to be working fine, but then when you scale it up the percentage of collisions will start escalating. I didn't dig into it, but presumably they have a way to date versions, so that you can tell which are more recent, but it's not at all clear how you would refresh the version seen by people who had access to your prior version. Etc.
That said, it looks like a promising approach.
Judging by your example the language would be useless for my purposes because of excessive inter-thread/process communication overhead.
OTOH, I think that you should probably look carefully at Erlang, as it seems to already handle the case you appear to be talking about quite well.
Well, I can see how that might work, but I'd need to understand more about what you're intending. I don't intent the mutable state to be externally readable, only to affect the messages that it passes in response to incoming messages.
What I think might happen with your proposal is that external read access to the state might be difficult to synchronize leading to various race conditions. I'm sure this can be worked around, but it seems to me that it could add greatly to the complexity.
The only thing I can think of gets rid of everything since the hosts file, and then builds a mesh system on top of that underlying structure. But I can't think of a way to make that scale.
Clearly the original problem was centralizing control in ICANN, but what alternative can you think of? If you allow different groups to claim the same address you need a decidable way to resolve collisions.
Haskell has it's poiints if you don't need to do i./o. Once in get into monads the whole thing becomes more trouble than it's worth. Even Erlang is better. (Actually, Erlang is rather good. My only real complaint is that I need local state, and to do that in Erlang you need to be continually fighting the system.)
There is a class of problems for which functional languages are optimal. But it doesn't hold most problems. If you allow local state then you can do parallelism by message passing, and expand the range of problems tremendously without adding significant complexity. But no language appears to do this, so I'm reduced to implementing it via oo-languages (yes, I could use C, but that's more difficult) and passing messages via something like ZMQ. This looks like it's going to work, but why isn't there a language that makes it easy?
I don't know whether it *has* been independently audited, but it could be if anyone wanted to bother. That's the first step. Then you need to give someone independent a reason to bother.
If you mean "That's the common price", then I must accept your assertion. If you mean "That's a reasonable price in quantity", then I can't.
If you had a shoe custom made to fit your foot, it would also be quite expensive. But when you buy them in a standard size, it costs a lot less. Presumably the army would be buying enough that they would be ordering standard sizes rather than doing custom fitting.
Actually you do need to extrapolate. Presumably that $2000/pair was the price for a evaluation lot, and if they bought a much larger batch the price would be lower. Of course, given military procurement practices that's not guaranteed.
While your comment is certainly correct about interdependencies and reliability, in THIS case I tend to believe the logs.
OTOH, it would certainly be a good idea to have them audited by an independent investigator.
IIRC, in the case of Toyota, while the code may indeed have been poorly written, they decided the real problem had to do with the design of the floor mats. (I never followed up to find out exactly WHAT the design problem was.)
You were doing fine up until your last sentence. Then your ability to self-examine was called into question.
Sorry, but biological evolution is too slow to keep up with technological evolution. So that approach is guaranteed to fail.
There are reasons, but they are rare enough that there should be a requirement for a manual override control that automatically disengages after a minute, or possibly 30 seconds. And the control should need to be both depressed and twisted.
Despite the original comment, it's not just heels that are the problem with shoes, and predominately women's shoes. Sandals are also problematic, as are loafers (though less so).
There is a definite tendency for designs of women's clothing and accessories to be unsafe to use around moving machinery. And to lack conveniences, like pockets. And the excuse, when any is offered, is fashion. Often, however, there isn't even that excuse, and you can't find any other style to buy. My wife is always complaining about the lack of pockets in her pants, and she prefers to buy only pants with pockets...but sometimes there isn't a choice. Or the thing that looks like a pocket turns out to only be decoration when you open the package. Then you get to figure out whether it's worth the hassle of trying to return it...and whether there is anything decent to exchange it for.
It has been said that most designers of womens clothing dislike women. I don't know whether this is true or just a snark.
P.S.: I don't know about currently, but when I was growing up, driving "barefoot" was expensive for a woman, because it was just about guaranteed to put runs in their hose. (I trust the suggestion wasn't that they take off their hose before driving.)
P.P.S.: My wife is so much safer a driver than I am that I have personally revoked my own drivers license. And this is amazing because she doesn't have a good sense of the cars position. But it's still true.
If something like this pushes you to vote for Trump, then you'd already decided to do it anyway. This is just someone saying "You're abusing the staff so get out of my bar.".
That would be an interesting argument to make if the sold the ads and earned a profit on them.
I think you need to go a decade further back, and across an ocean to find a reasonable parallel.
Now what it's impossible to determine is how much he means what he says, but the economic conditions have similarities also.
My personal opinion is that she's a right wing Republican who's a realistic opportunist, and realized that she couldn't get voter support without claiming to be a Democrat.
Perhaps they do, but I think she's just a pro-authoritarian.
Whether that works depends on what you're doing. Some specialized software is only available for certain operating systems. What makes this really nice is that some of it may work well on some version of MSWind, but not work at all on MSWind10.
No. Many users hate systemd, but most users don't even notice it.
That said, it is the same kind of change in a much more restrained way.
Different people have different reasons for not wanting to upgrade, and some wouldn't object if it weren't being forced at an inconvenient time.
FWIW, my wife always wants to postpone upgrades as long as possible. I doubt that she's alone. She just doesn't like having to learn new icons, new control positions, etc. And I don't find her objections unreasonable even though the changes are rarely so stupid as to flummox me for very long. (P.S.: She's on Kubuntu.)
Actually, I think that malicious does plausibly describe the reported actions of Microsoft. Now whether they actually performed those actions I can't say, since I haven't used anything from them since around 2000.
While I agree that they probably didn't do it with the intent to harm, there is reasonable evidence that they acted with reckless disregard of the fact which they knew or had reason to know, would harm their customers.
An anonymous coward makes an assertion that says lots of other posters were wrong, stupid, or incompetent. Should I believe him?
OK, you are actually Anonymous Coward #52254331, but this doesn't provide me a feeling of certainty in your integrity. I do understand why you might not want to admit who you work for, however. (Several reasons.)
When I asked my doctor about that, he said it was ok with the HIPAA because the feds had certified it as compliant.