Given the fantastic growth in the number of Internet-enabled mobile devices, and that the infrastructure for such devices is still in rapid development, it makes sense that this is where you'd see IPv6 completely implemented first.
IPv6-only. Linux has worked on IPv6 for a long time, and in general, will work on IPv6-only, but some specific tools and applications present in some Linux distributions will not.
The problem under discussion is a shortage of IPv4 addresses, not a shortage of domain names. A device needs an IP address to send and receive anything via TCP/IP, as on the Internet. Domain names are an optional convenience.
One advantage of diceware-style passphrases is that you don't have to remember twenty or thirty random characters; you just have to remember four or five common words. Even if you don't actually memorize the passphrase, you need only glance at the display from a password safe to be reminded of "correct horse battery staple", and can easily type it, whereas you have to keep looking back at "bee0bdb64e1fd508a5983dccc66" to type it correctly.
I don't dislike the Windows interface. But I don't see it having any significant advantages over free desktop environments. I can say the same of OS X; in general, most user interfaces for general purpose desktops and workstations have been functionally equivalent for years, and the differences are matters of taste. Frankly, if you look at photos of the monitors of computers at the Xerox PARC laboratory from the 60s, you can see most of the basic elements that most graphical user interfaces have been using ever since. They don't really vary that much.
The thing people really care about in choosing an operating system is whether they can use the applications they want or need to use. And given how frequently the application wanted is a Web browser, serving as the interface to internal or external services, even that question doesn't matter much.
Google has enormous resources, and yet hasn't succeeded in gaining significant market share in tablets in competition with Apple; Microsoft is gearing up to make a play in that market. Microsoft has enormous resources, and hasn't succeeded in gaining significant market share in smartphones, in competition with Apple and Google.
As far as I know, Canonical has a tiny staff, little in the way of resources, no revenue model that's proven to work, and relies upon the contributions of its user community. This last is important, and is as it should be for FOSS. The trouble is, Canonical has been risking the loss of its user community by pushing major changes to the default user interface, apparently in an effort to move to a unified user experience across desktops, mobile devices, and entertainment devices. Personally, I like the Unity interface, but I'm unhappy with the way Canonical has ignored criticism of it.
So tiny Canonical is going to make a play in markets that are hotly contested by some of the wealthiest, most powerful, and most ambitious corporations in the world, and in so doing, is apparently sacrificing its greatest strength. All in all, this seems like a suicidal move, and a sorry end to a promising effort at popularizing Linux.
Not an entirely fair comparison, given that Yoda is a major character in five movies, and the Lord of the Rings was one of the most popular works of fiction of all time and widely read well before the movies came out, whereas Natiri only shows up in the one movie.
Avatar was overhyped, but I enjoyed watching it. The 3D was uncomfortable; my stepson kept taking off the glasses to watch.
It's a funny graphic, but certainly not in any way ironic -- unless perhaps it's ironic that hipsters are making the classic joke about how the rapid pace of technical innovation makes them feel old.
When I look for jobs, there are more job openings for Windows sysadmins than Linux sysadmins, but still more which expect familiarity with both. I've not seen any jobs advertised calling for familiarity with DOS.
The last time I had a Comcast technician out, he was curious about the command-line tool I was using, mtr. At that point, we could actually talk like two technicians.
Indeed. We found the technical solution to hunger when we invented agriculture. Before that, poverty wasn't even a concept. Poverty has always been artificial.
If there's a password you're actually expecting to need to type yourself now and then, use a passphrase or something similar. Even if you aren't concerned with memorizing the passphrase, five or six randomly selected words are usually much easier to type quickly and accurately, and you just need to look at your password vault for a reminder.
As far as I've been able to make out, while QR codes have different possible applications, the only application for which I've ever seen them used is for encoding URLs in posted advertisements. And in every case, the URL was printed adjacent to the QR code block, and usually was short and obvious, e.g., on a poster for www.example.com, there's the URL, http://www.example.com/ and a QR code, that when scanned and translated, presents the URL, http://www.example.com/. Since I'd have to take a photo of the QR code block, let it analyze the image, and accept the presented URL and open a Web browser from that link, I've ended up taking more time and going through more steps than I would have by just typing in the damned URL to begin with.
In practice, the only reason to bother with QR codes at all is for the sake of novelty, and that wears thin very quickly. If QR codes as a malware vector becomes common, I think everyone will just stop using them entirely.
Professional writers are discovering that they can make far more money by self-publishing on the Internet than they can by working through a publisher, and by charging much less for their works, at that.
Any of us can think of many ways to kill a large number of people, if we're unconcerned with our own survival and unconcerned with which specific people we kill. It is noteworthy how rarely any such thing actually happens.
If you look at Websites comparing photos of models before and after digital retouching, you'll start to see how dangerous this can be. It's not just airbrushing out a blemish once in a while, but deleting the evidence of the existence of major body structures. It's physically impossible to look like a published photo of a model. (I've tried to look for good before-and-after examples, but unfortunately, contemporary fashion photography is frequently NSFW, so I had to stop.) There are also frequent cases of non-white models having their photos retouched so that they look white.
i had thought this was common knowledge. But a few years ago, I was taking a psychology class at a community college, which mostly had young students. I remember several young women actually gasping with shock when the instructor mentioned, in passing, that models of photos were generally retouched and that it was actually physically dangerous to try to look like the models, as even professional models cannot have the body shapes of those models.
It's not just IT. Our entire society has converted over to metrics.
That's been the trend for a few centuries now. "Rationalization" is a synonym. It's the best and worst feature of capitalism: everything is discussed in terms of measurable quantities, and everything is reduced to a question of profit, a sort of measure of efficiency. The problem most often discussed is who ends up controlling profit. A secondary problem is that there are things that cannot be readily rationalized, and those things tend to be ignored by the powerful.
If there's one thing I've learned about IT security, it's that it's almost impossible to secure data anyway. Maybe it would make more sense to follow development models in which there's no such thing as stealing.
I used calculus as an example, mostly because of my own troubles with it as an older college student, which I suppose was confusing in context. It may have been clearer if I'd used, say, the quadratic equation as an example. The point I was trying to make was that rigorous study of mathematics is usually posited as very practical, for most people it isn't past a certain, fairly early point. A deeper understanding of mathematics can be joyous, but most people seem to remember mathematics as miserable, pointless drudgery, neither practical nor life enriching. This is tragic.
Slashdot Mirror
A network that is heavily used by a chronically underfunded institution -- that's what kind.
I was trying to remember which tools I'd read about lacking proper IPv6 support, but I hadn't remembered Perl. That's a real problem.
Another reason I need to get on with learning Python.
You may find this video informative.
Given the fantastic growth in the number of Internet-enabled mobile devices, and that the infrastructure for such devices is still in rapid development, it makes sense that this is where you'd see IPv6 completely implemented first.
IPv6-only. Linux has worked on IPv6 for a long time, and in general, will work on IPv6-only, but some specific tools and applications present in some Linux distributions will not.
The problem under discussion is a shortage of IPv4 addresses, not a shortage of domain names. A device needs an IP address to send and receive anything via TCP/IP, as on the Internet. Domain names are an optional convenience.
It's a trade-off of length for memorability.
One advantage of diceware-style passphrases is that you don't have to remember twenty or thirty random characters; you just have to remember four or five common words. Even if you don't actually memorize the passphrase, you need only glance at the display from a password safe to be reminded of "correct horse battery staple", and can easily type it, whereas you have to keep looking back at "bee0bdb64e1fd508a5983dccc66" to type it correctly.
I don't dislike the Windows interface. But I don't see it having any significant advantages over free desktop environments. I can say the same of OS X; in general, most user interfaces for general purpose desktops and workstations have been functionally equivalent for years, and the differences are matters of taste. Frankly, if you look at photos of the monitors of computers at the Xerox PARC laboratory from the 60s, you can see most of the basic elements that most graphical user interfaces have been using ever since. They don't really vary that much.
The thing people really care about in choosing an operating system is whether they can use the applications they want or need to use. And given how frequently the application wanted is a Web browser, serving as the interface to internal or external services, even that question doesn't matter much.
However, despite the huge variety of android tablets on the market, none of them have really been all that successful in gaining market share.
Google has enormous resources, and yet hasn't succeeded in gaining significant market share in tablets in competition with Apple; Microsoft is gearing up to make a play in that market. Microsoft has enormous resources, and hasn't succeeded in gaining significant market share in smartphones, in competition with Apple and Google.
As far as I know, Canonical has a tiny staff, little in the way of resources, no revenue model that's proven to work, and relies upon the contributions of its user community. This last is important, and is as it should be for FOSS. The trouble is, Canonical has been risking the loss of its user community by pushing major changes to the default user interface, apparently in an effort to move to a unified user experience across desktops, mobile devices, and entertainment devices. Personally, I like the Unity interface, but I'm unhappy with the way Canonical has ignored criticism of it.
So tiny Canonical is going to make a play in markets that are hotly contested by some of the wealthiest, most powerful, and most ambitious corporations in the world, and in so doing, is apparently sacrificing its greatest strength. All in all, this seems like a suicidal move, and a sorry end to a promising effort at popularizing Linux.
That seems to me like the most appropriate response.
Not an entirely fair comparison, given that Yoda is a major character in five movies, and the Lord of the Rings was one of the most popular works of fiction of all time and widely read well before the movies came out, whereas Natiri only shows up in the one movie.
Avatar was overhyped, but I enjoyed watching it. The 3D was uncomfortable; my stepson kept taking off the glasses to watch.
It's a funny graphic, but certainly not in any way ironic -- unless perhaps it's ironic that hipsters are making the classic joke about how the rapid pace of technical innovation makes them feel old.
When I look for jobs, there are more job openings for Windows sysadmins than Linux sysadmins, but still more which expect familiarity with both. I've not seen any jobs advertised calling for familiarity with DOS.
The last time I had a Comcast technician out, he was curious about the command-line tool I was using, mtr. At that point, we could actually talk like two technicians.
Indeed. We found the technical solution to hunger when we invented agriculture. Before that, poverty wasn't even a concept. Poverty has always been artificial.
If there's a password you're actually expecting to need to type yourself now and then, use a passphrase or something similar. Even if you aren't concerned with memorizing the passphrase, five or six randomly selected words are usually much easier to type quickly and accurately, and you just need to look at your password vault for a reminder.
As far as I've been able to make out, while QR codes have different possible applications, the only application for which I've ever seen them used is for encoding URLs in posted advertisements. And in every case, the URL was printed adjacent to the QR code block, and usually was short and obvious, e.g., on a poster for www.example.com, there's the URL, http://www.example.com/ and a QR code, that when scanned and translated, presents the URL, http://www.example.com/. Since I'd have to take a photo of the QR code block, let it analyze the image, and accept the presented URL and open a Web browser from that link, I've ended up taking more time and going through more steps than I would have by just typing in the damned URL to begin with.
In practice, the only reason to bother with QR codes at all is for the sake of novelty, and that wears thin very quickly. If QR codes as a malware vector becomes common, I think everyone will just stop using them entirely.
Professional writers are discovering that they can make far more money by self-publishing on the Internet than they can by working through a publisher, and by charging much less for their works, at that.
See A Newbie's Guide to Publishing.
Publishing companies add nothing of value to the process, and are simply parasitic.
Any of us can think of many ways to kill a large number of people, if we're unconcerned with our own survival and unconcerned with which specific people we kill. It is noteworthy how rarely any such thing actually happens.
If you look at Websites comparing photos of models before and after digital retouching, you'll start to see how dangerous this can be. It's not just airbrushing out a blemish once in a while, but deleting the evidence of the existence of major body structures. It's physically impossible to look like a published photo of a model. (I've tried to look for good before-and-after examples, but unfortunately, contemporary fashion photography is frequently NSFW, so I had to stop.) There are also frequent cases of non-white models having their photos retouched so that they look white.
i had thought this was common knowledge. But a few years ago, I was taking a psychology class at a community college, which mostly had young students. I remember several young women actually gasping with shock when the instructor mentioned, in passing, that models of photos were generally retouched and that it was actually physically dangerous to try to look like the models, as even professional models cannot have the body shapes of those models.
I think that a lot of organizations are going to have to eventually upgrade their obsolete software.
It's not just IT. Our entire society has converted over to metrics.
That's been the trend for a few centuries now. "Rationalization" is a synonym. It's the best and worst feature of capitalism: everything is discussed in terms of measurable quantities, and everything is reduced to a question of profit, a sort of measure of efficiency. The problem most often discussed is who ends up controlling profit. A secondary problem is that there are things that cannot be readily rationalized, and those things tend to be ignored by the powerful.
"There was some error message, so I rebooted, but now I've just got a blank screen."
I wish people wouldn't ignore error messages.
If there's one thing I've learned about IT security, it's that it's almost impossible to secure data anyway. Maybe it would make more sense to follow development models in which there's no such thing as stealing.
I used calculus as an example, mostly because of my own troubles with it as an older college student, which I suppose was confusing in context. It may have been clearer if I'd used, say, the quadratic equation as an example. The point I was trying to make was that rigorous study of mathematics is usually posited as very practical, for most people it isn't past a certain, fairly early point. A deeper understanding of mathematics can be joyous, but most people seem to remember mathematics as miserable, pointless drudgery, neither practical nor life enriching. This is tragic.