The Canary Wharf project, as much as I detest the lousy architecture (it's a ruddy eyesore), was constructed extraordinarily fast. Twenty years ago. I don't see this being 20 years worth of improvement.
The world doesn't work via should, it works via is. If someone works in IT and is on-call, you can bet anything you like that they'll need their home hardware to run and support their work software and to hell with the should of things. The same is true of anyone telecommuting, or who otherwise needs to take work home with them. Their home environment has to be work-compatible.
Of course, you also need to consider that extremely few people like learning multiple OS'. I'm a freak in that I know lots, but I really AM a freak in that regard. If people use Windows 8 at work, they WILL use Windows 8 at home because "that is what they use". They won't think to do otherwise. More than a few, I suspect, are incapable of thinking otherwise. That is the way it has always been. The nicer alternatives, the better alternatives, the cleaner alternatives -- these don't exist for such people. The ones who pay the piper call the tune, which means the rest of us must live with their choices.
Yes, but as server farms don't use tablets, you can ignore them for this purpose. Since Google uses cheap COTS solutions (as do most cloud providers), there's little incentive for them to upgrade to newer hardware, so you can ignore them even if you do want to include server farms. So you're still back to the 1% of people this effects in any practical sense.
It means that if they copyright the pd work, they own all derivatives of that pd work, even if the derivative was made before they claimed copyright. It's the only way it could work.
Sadly, it's Disney that's likely to be placing the call. The way IP works in the US these days, it would not surprise me if corporations can (and do) retroactively seize control of works by others even from other countries if they have been made public domain.
Which, in effect, means there is no public domain, since this means there is retroactive copyright. Which is rather a frightening concept given how much has been put out in the public domain for the express purpose of nobody owning it.
Linux makes up 1% of the market, largely because we've tried to tell the industry to do things our way. It's a 1% that Microsoft can easily absorb, because ultimately geeks need paychecks as much as everyone else.
Ah yes, Microsoft Refund Day Take 2. You do remember how well that worked the last time? The fact that the media made us to look like fools? The fact that Linux declined in popularity at that time because we were made out to be a bunch of morons?
Ah, yes, I can see it now. The battle cry "a soldering iron in every kitchen, a microchip in every pot"!
Aside from the overheads in building a one-off (multiply all costs by ten, divide all compatibility by a hundred, mutilate all certification beyond recognition), the extraordinary difficulty in building a tablet (not exactly a tower unit, is it?) and the problems with vendors (you want to order what from Intel? To them, you are nothing and no-one), you've still got the smallish problem that perhaps 0.0001% of the population has the time, inclination, money or incentive to run a DIY shop merely to be able to run Linux versus something else.
Linux could have ruled the world a decade ago, but for such mantras.
You can imagine what you like. Chances are, imagination is all you're physically capable of. Me, well, since you don't give a shit about what others say what difference would it make what I said? You're not interested in being convinced, you're only interested in proving your ego right. And why should I spend my time and effort trying to convince a moron who won't listen of my skills? What's in it for me, besides a lot of pain and no gain?
You're not going to try to convince me it's worth my effort?
What a surprise. That's because talk's cheap and bitching is cheaper. You don't like the fact that there are people better than you, so you mod them down, harass them, beat them down. It's the only way you can walk taller than them.
Diplomacy is important - both Iran and Israel might like to try it for a change. Israel has badly damaged itself by continuous sabre-rattling. Had it genuinely bothered with diplomacy up to now, the world would have little objection to it launching a surgical war. Even if the world did verbally object, it wouldn't be strenuous. The problem is that Israel has been way too busy being a pulpit bully (and sometimes a physical bully), which means it has little diplomatic credibility. You don't get clean hands by washing them in the blood of your enemies.
Iran is no better, and arguably far worse. Sure their democratic leader got ousted in a CIA coup and replaced by a schill for western oil companies. Replacing the Shah with a religious dictator just swapped one lunatic for another. It didn't help Iran, which would have done far better by returning to the system they'd been prevented from having. THAT is how to "stick it to the man", not gunning down your own populace. Iran's suspicion of others is historically reasonable but nobody is going to change their mind by Iran screaming blue murder at them. The only intelligent solution would be for Iran to bite the bullet rather than other people's necks - go for honest, open, sincere diplomacy. No threats, no bluster, no iron-fist-in-an-iron-glove, but sincere "we're not stupid, we can solve this". Again, if they did this, honestly, openly, without any possible challenge from their foes, there would be a hell of a lot less objection if they then beat the crap out of anyone who abused them.
Very few people object to a conscientious, sincere and responsible person smashing the brains out of anyone trying to mug them, but many people object - with reason - to provocative, exploitive, malicious people doing exactly the same thing.
You'd be surprised at the number of winners who have indeed cried themselves to sleep over Pyrrhic victories. You'd also be surprised at the number of "losers" of a war who have been ultimately unchanged by that war, supplanting the "winners". (The DNA traces of the Normans in Britain essentially don't exist. Nor do the DNA traces of the Romans. The Celts and the Saxons comprise 95% of the population by genetic marker.)
I talk down to my mental inferiors, yes. Since that position is a choice, not a requirement, pick yourself up and be an equal for once.
I use the names of military strategists and philosophers in matters of military strategy and philosophy because they are the experts in matters of military strategy and philosophy. Hardly inapplicable. Far from it. Knowing how to win, when to win and why to win is 99% of ensuring you'll win. Cyber warfare is NO different from any other in this regard. Pay attention and win, ignore the experts and lose. Your ignorance confounds the limits of the imagination sometimes.
"Sky at Night" wasn't too bad, either. BBC2 do some excellent work when it comes to astronomy. Sometimes deliberately, via putting on excellent programs, sometimes accidentally by putting on late night rubbish. If it gets people looking up once in a while, then it's all good.
Wired had an excellent article on how to extract brewing yeast from 45 million year old amber, some time back. Unfortunately, it's beer yeast and not wine yeast, but there should be some way to improve the alcohol tolerance.
Yes, but he also stated that you shouldn't destroy infrastructure in the process (since the victor ends up having to rebuild it anyway and rebuilding efforts weaken you), nor should they be any greater of a drain on you than absolutely necessary. The "shock and awe" tactics used in Iraq 2 were a direct violation of this stipulation, with consequences that were entirely predictable as a result. Sun Tzu did not advocate total destruction, he advocated very surgical destruction.
However, I agree completely with your point that wars should be short, sharp and final if they absolutely have to be fought. I don't see that as being necessarily in conflict with being socially responsible (people and skills are resources and part of the infrastructure too and you ultimately have to replace what you destroy). Even in chess, it is only the poor players who try to capture everything, the best players are those who capture only what is necessary to achieve the objective.
The problem with "short, sharp, final" wars is that they're not the ones people tend to fight. Israel has not successfully demoralized their enemies, nor successfully ended conflict for more than a few months. All that seems to have happened is deeper entrenchment of rivalries and hatreds. What do the experts have to say about situations like that? Well, both Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi said that being predictable is usually a fatal error in war. That would suggest that a different tactic should be employed, rather than being so samey.
Should Israel defend itself? Absolutely. But it really shouldn't use methods likely to be a long-term failure. That won't achieve anything, as we have already seen. Israel has not, as a rule, been surgical. It has been considerably more so than many other nations (both inside and outside the Middle East), nonetheless it has steered round too many tumours and cut out far too much that has been healthy.
It won't stay limited, that's the problem. A DDoS or other cyberattack can shut down a reservoir (a major issue in a place like the Middle East) or disrupt other critical computers that should not be online but are. A stupid decision by a power station or an airport could result in major anger. And in a region where anger is usually accompanied by automatic weapons fire, rockets and mutilation of the enemy, it wouldn't take much to trigger a major confrontation.
It wouldn't need to be that major. A DDoS against an extremist group won't be met with returning ping floods, it'll be met with an all-out assault on the innocent (extremists of all brands have long figured out that killing innocents is by far the best strategy -- innocents don't shoot back, and their deaths have far greater potential to cause shock and terror than the deaths of militants - people expect militants to die, it's practically in the job description).
This tactic does have one thing going for it, as far as all sides other than the aforementioned innocent are concerned - unlike regular confrontations, a DDoS can be done from a safe, warm location where you're not going to get shot at. Since militants on both sides have invested a lot in Perpetual War, this cuts down on recruitment and training overheads. It might even make recruitment more cost-effective, since if innocents die and warriors don't, there's a considerable incentive to stop being an innocent.
Of course, once a hot war does break out, militants on both sides will get slaughtered (again with lots of innocents), but at worst it boosts their life expectancy and at best it boosts their odds of surviving the entire campaign more-or-less intact.
Yes, and to what effect? Iran's nuclear program has, by all estimates, been accelerating with every attack. Which is, frankly, no great surprise -- nuclear powers don't get messed with nearly as much as non-nuclear powers, so one should expect nations that consider themselves under threat to become nuclear powers as soon as possible. Whilst the Libyan situation is extremely complex, absolutely no dictator is going to go away with the message that they should reform - dictators don't think that way, even when they do think. Dictators will see that Libya has been attacked by foreign powers with the exception of one period - the time when Libya had weapons of mass destruction.
Cyber warfare won't make any difference. Israel has made it clear in the press that it doesn't distinguish between targeted killings and targeted website attacks, which means we can expect to see people fall over from sudden lack of organic essentials like brains, a heart, etc. This will lead to physical reprisals and another spiral of attacks and revenge. Limited wars NEVER stay limited, again as demonstrated in Libya. It is the nature of warfare of any kind to escalate beyond the control of one or all parties involved.
In the end, cyber warfare or physical warfare, there are no winners. You lose less badly than your opponent, that is all. Sun Tzu himself stated that the best strategy for warfare is to not be in one.
That is true. See Jamie Oliver's campaign for the typical reaction towards healthy eating even in normal folk, though, together with what happens when the population does eat well. (You can guess the former, the latter is about a 10-15% improvement in intelligence and a 33% reduction in sickness.)
Slashdot Mirror
It lost Rolemaster dominance to Mordor.
The Canary Wharf project, as much as I detest the lousy architecture (it's a ruddy eyesore), was constructed extraordinarily fast. Twenty years ago. I don't see this being 20 years worth of improvement.
The world doesn't work via should, it works via is. If someone works in IT and is on-call, you can bet anything you like that they'll need their home hardware to run and support their work software and to hell with the should of things. The same is true of anyone telecommuting, or who otherwise needs to take work home with them. Their home environment has to be work-compatible.
Of course, you also need to consider that extremely few people like learning multiple OS'. I'm a freak in that I know lots, but I really AM a freak in that regard. If people use Windows 8 at work, they WILL use Windows 8 at home because "that is what they use". They won't think to do otherwise. More than a few, I suspect, are incapable of thinking otherwise. That is the way it has always been. The nicer alternatives, the better alternatives, the cleaner alternatives -- these don't exist for such people. The ones who pay the piper call the tune, which means the rest of us must live with their choices.
Yes, but as server farms don't use tablets, you can ignore them for this purpose. Since Google uses cheap COTS solutions (as do most cloud providers), there's little incentive for them to upgrade to newer hardware, so you can ignore them even if you do want to include server farms. So you're still back to the 1% of people this effects in any practical sense.
I maded you a relativistic equation, but I eated it.
It means that if they copyright the pd work, they own all derivatives of that pd work, even if the derivative was made before they claimed copyright. It's the only way it could work.
Sadly, it's Disney that's likely to be placing the call. The way IP works in the US these days, it would not surprise me if corporations can (and do) retroactively seize control of works by others even from other countries if they have been made public domain.
Which, in effect, means there is no public domain, since this means there is retroactive copyright. Which is rather a frightening concept given how much has been put out in the public domain for the express purpose of nobody owning it.
People need jobs to live a good lifestyle.
Unfortunately, in modern work places, this ALSO means:
People do need Designed for Windows 8 computing devices.
Linux makes up 1% of the market, largely because we've tried to tell the industry to do things our way. It's a 1% that Microsoft can easily absorb, because ultimately geeks need paychecks as much as everyone else.
Ah yes, Microsoft Refund Day Take 2. You do remember how well that worked the last time? The fact that the media made us to look like fools? The fact that Linux declined in popularity at that time because we were made out to be a bunch of morons?
Ah, yes, I can see it now. The battle cry "a soldering iron in every kitchen, a microchip in every pot"!
Aside from the overheads in building a one-off (multiply all costs by ten, divide all compatibility by a hundred, mutilate all certification beyond recognition), the extraordinary difficulty in building a tablet (not exactly a tower unit, is it?) and the problems with vendors (you want to order what from Intel? To them, you are nothing and no-one), you've still got the smallish problem that perhaps 0.0001% of the population has the time, inclination, money or incentive to run a DIY shop merely to be able to run Linux versus something else.
Linux could have ruled the world a decade ago, but for such mantras.
Then the solution is simple. Eliminate all the users. I suggest hiring the daleks for that one, they seem enthused with the idea.
You can imagine what you like. Chances are, imagination is all you're physically capable of. Me, well, since you don't give a shit about what others say what difference would it make what I said? You're not interested in being convinced, you're only interested in proving your ego right. And why should I spend my time and effort trying to convince a moron who won't listen of my skills? What's in it for me, besides a lot of pain and no gain?
You're not going to try to convince me it's worth my effort?
What a surprise. That's because talk's cheap and bitching is cheaper. You don't like the fact that there are people better than you, so you mod them down, harass them, beat them down. It's the only way you can walk taller than them.
Diplomacy is important - both Iran and Israel might like to try it for a change. Israel has badly damaged itself by continuous sabre-rattling. Had it genuinely bothered with diplomacy up to now, the world would have little objection to it launching a surgical war. Even if the world did verbally object, it wouldn't be strenuous. The problem is that Israel has been way too busy being a pulpit bully (and sometimes a physical bully), which means it has little diplomatic credibility. You don't get clean hands by washing them in the blood of your enemies.
Iran is no better, and arguably far worse. Sure their democratic leader got ousted in a CIA coup and replaced by a schill for western oil companies. Replacing the Shah with a religious dictator just swapped one lunatic for another. It didn't help Iran, which would have done far better by returning to the system they'd been prevented from having. THAT is how to "stick it to the man", not gunning down your own populace. Iran's suspicion of others is historically reasonable but nobody is going to change their mind by Iran screaming blue murder at them. The only intelligent solution would be for Iran to bite the bullet rather than other people's necks - go for honest, open, sincere diplomacy. No threats, no bluster, no iron-fist-in-an-iron-glove, but sincere "we're not stupid, we can solve this". Again, if they did this, honestly, openly, without any possible challenge from their foes, there would be a hell of a lot less objection if they then beat the crap out of anyone who abused them.
Very few people object to a conscientious, sincere and responsible person smashing the brains out of anyone trying to mug them, but many people object - with reason - to provocative, exploitive, malicious people doing exactly the same thing.
You'd be surprised at the number of winners who have indeed cried themselves to sleep over Pyrrhic victories. You'd also be surprised at the number of "losers" of a war who have been ultimately unchanged by that war, supplanting the "winners". (The DNA traces of the Normans in Britain essentially don't exist. Nor do the DNA traces of the Romans. The Celts and the Saxons comprise 95% of the population by genetic marker.)
I talk down to my mental inferiors, yes. Since that position is a choice, not a requirement, pick yourself up and be an equal for once.
I use the names of military strategists and philosophers in matters of military strategy and philosophy because they are the experts in matters of military strategy and philosophy. Hardly inapplicable. Far from it. Knowing how to win, when to win and why to win is 99% of ensuring you'll win. Cyber warfare is NO different from any other in this regard. Pay attention and win, ignore the experts and lose. Your ignorance confounds the limits of the imagination sometimes.
"Sky at Night" wasn't too bad, either. BBC2 do some excellent work when it comes to astronomy. Sometimes deliberately, via putting on excellent programs, sometimes accidentally by putting on late night rubbish. If it gets people looking up once in a while, then it's all good.
Wired had an excellent article on how to extract brewing yeast from 45 million year old amber, some time back. Unfortunately, it's beer yeast and not wine yeast, but there should be some way to improve the alcohol tolerance.
Iron therefore I drink.
Yes, but he also stated that you shouldn't destroy infrastructure in the process (since the victor ends up having to rebuild it anyway and rebuilding efforts weaken you), nor should they be any greater of a drain on you than absolutely necessary. The "shock and awe" tactics used in Iraq 2 were a direct violation of this stipulation, with consequences that were entirely predictable as a result. Sun Tzu did not advocate total destruction, he advocated very surgical destruction.
However, I agree completely with your point that wars should be short, sharp and final if they absolutely have to be fought. I don't see that as being necessarily in conflict with being socially responsible (people and skills are resources and part of the infrastructure too and you ultimately have to replace what you destroy). Even in chess, it is only the poor players who try to capture everything, the best players are those who capture only what is necessary to achieve the objective.
The problem with "short, sharp, final" wars is that they're not the ones people tend to fight. Israel has not successfully demoralized their enemies, nor successfully ended conflict for more than a few months. All that seems to have happened is deeper entrenchment of rivalries and hatreds. What do the experts have to say about situations like that? Well, both Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi said that being predictable is usually a fatal error in war. That would suggest that a different tactic should be employed, rather than being so samey.
Should Israel defend itself? Absolutely. But it really shouldn't use methods likely to be a long-term failure. That won't achieve anything, as we have already seen. Israel has not, as a rule, been surgical. It has been considerably more so than many other nations (both inside and outside the Middle East), nonetheless it has steered round too many tumours and cut out far too much that has been healthy.
If you haven't read his work, it's no wonder you lose.
It won't stay limited, that's the problem. A DDoS or other cyberattack can shut down a reservoir (a major issue in a place like the Middle East) or disrupt other critical computers that should not be online but are. A stupid decision by a power station or an airport could result in major anger. And in a region where anger is usually accompanied by automatic weapons fire, rockets and mutilation of the enemy, it wouldn't take much to trigger a major confrontation.
It wouldn't need to be that major. A DDoS against an extremist group won't be met with returning ping floods, it'll be met with an all-out assault on the innocent (extremists of all brands have long figured out that killing innocents is by far the best strategy -- innocents don't shoot back, and their deaths have far greater potential to cause shock and terror than the deaths of militants - people expect militants to die, it's practically in the job description).
This tactic does have one thing going for it, as far as all sides other than the aforementioned innocent are concerned - unlike regular confrontations, a DDoS can be done from a safe, warm location where you're not going to get shot at. Since militants on both sides have invested a lot in Perpetual War, this cuts down on recruitment and training overheads. It might even make recruitment more cost-effective, since if innocents die and warriors don't, there's a considerable incentive to stop being an innocent.
Of course, once a hot war does break out, militants on both sides will get slaughtered (again with lots of innocents), but at worst it boosts their life expectancy and at best it boosts their odds of surviving the entire campaign more-or-less intact.
Yes, and to what effect? Iran's nuclear program has, by all estimates, been accelerating with every attack. Which is, frankly, no great surprise -- nuclear powers don't get messed with nearly as much as non-nuclear powers, so one should expect nations that consider themselves under threat to become nuclear powers as soon as possible. Whilst the Libyan situation is extremely complex, absolutely no dictator is going to go away with the message that they should reform - dictators don't think that way, even when they do think. Dictators will see that Libya has been attacked by foreign powers with the exception of one period - the time when Libya had weapons of mass destruction.
Cyber warfare won't make any difference. Israel has made it clear in the press that it doesn't distinguish between targeted killings and targeted website attacks, which means we can expect to see people fall over from sudden lack of organic essentials like brains, a heart, etc. This will lead to physical reprisals and another spiral of attacks and revenge. Limited wars NEVER stay limited, again as demonstrated in Libya. It is the nature of warfare of any kind to escalate beyond the control of one or all parties involved.
In the end, cyber warfare or physical warfare, there are no winners. You lose less badly than your opponent, that is all. Sun Tzu himself stated that the best strategy for warfare is to not be in one.
That is true. See Jamie Oliver's campaign for the typical reaction towards healthy eating even in normal folk, though, together with what happens when the population does eat well. (You can guess the former, the latter is about a 10-15% improvement in intelligence and a 33% reduction in sickness.)