Yes: the different release schedules mean that in nearly any given month, I can turn to a different distro for a full release, tested by their independent beta populations, without waiting for the "synchronized Christmas".
I understand that synchronization will make Shuttleworth's life easier, on the supply side. But it will reduce the diversity in the Linux ecosystem. People will not have switching opportunities between different distros when they want to get a new complete (and supported) release before their current distro's is ready. Which might be good for Shuttleworth, with the dominant market share, but it's not good for anyone else.
Which is why I think the other distros won't go for it. And why I'm happy about it.
Yes, I'm special. But I contributed to this discussion because my rating of CBS and CNet is probably not that special, and pretty widespread among Slashdotters (and many others).
You, on the other hand, have merely spouted off some obnoxious, trite insult. Which doesn't make you "special", except maybe like in the Special Olympics, going for the gold in "Attention Whoring".
I think the last time I happened to hit a CNet page was back in 2002 or 3, which is about the last time I watched CBS-TV.
Both those huge "studios" are better off producing content that's syndicated and embedded into smaller, more precisely targeted outlets. Like topical websites with video, video blogs, and viral email links. There is no "synergy" for me in their bundling their content into a branded outlet. Especially when that brand logo is seared into the lower left corner of my screen.
the QS22 boasts an open environment, utilizing the flexibility of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the primary operating system and the open development environment of Eclipse.
That means that a PS3 running Linux, even with its ridiculously low 512MB RAM, can be used as a $500 development platform for these CellBE BladeServers.
And, in turn, some QS22 SW might be usable on the PS3, if it can be ported to use the tiny RAM. Or if someone hooks an i-RAM bank to the SATA port as swap/ramdisk, using perhaps iSCSI over its Gb-e for storage.
Anonymous jock Coward posts in "WorldWide Telescope" story, and doesn't realize Star Trek missions are the most famous space trajectories in the world (hence the "Trek").
Go play with your balls somewhere the smart people can't scare you.
I want to see all this space imagery available in a 3D interface that's zoomable (and rotatable and translatable) so we can fly around these bodies in 3D. Jumping to addresses. And even a 4D interface, which lets us trace a path through spacetime, with dT 0, or just staying put as the objects travel around our viewpoint.
Celestia is approximately what I'm talking about, but it seems really unfit for actually visiting a planet's surface - the skins are relatively lo-rez 2D textures, and the UI is inadequate for "beaming down". And that whole UI should be navigable in realtime with not just a simple keyboard interface, but also PS3 joystick or even a Wii.
And an archive of "famous" trajectories, like all the known spacecraft missions, orbits of various bodies like comets and galactic collisions, Star Trek missions, and custom "tours" especially from astronomy schools and clubs.
Yes, I want the worlds and I want them now. But Google and MS seem bent on giving them to me, so I'm telling them just how I want it.
If the robosails (or motorboats) can dump the contraband, especially with some kind of self-destruct, then smugglers around the world will surely appreciate it. I can see the current generation of Fatherland^WHomeland Security marketers making a case for completely "closing" (with invasive surveillance and expensive interdiction) all maritime boundaries, and even monitoring boats (live and robot) that go outside the boundaries to where they could meet a roboboat in international waters.
In fact this "SF movie threat" could be an easy argument for total global surveillance, an excuse for tracking literally everything that moves on 72% of the Earth's surface.
"Funny" how the same people who will make that argument will also make the argument for completely unchecked international trade. And already refuse to fund securing ports, like here in NYC where we've got the country's #1 or #2 largest port (depending on measurement unit or quarterly business) and the #1 proven terrorist target and longtime smuggler's crossroads.
"The industry has grown up," he tells PM. "It used to be that only NASA or the Air Force could do such things."
NASA and the Air Force still are. Someone show me a private corp with anywhere near the success rate as NASA, even with its private contractors (like Boeing, etc).
How can anyone be surprised or impressed with the Bush regime cheerleading our turning over our space program to private corporations, after deliberately leaving us without new public programs to replace the capacity we developed over the past 4 decades? Now that most of Bush's cronies he's had running the government will be forced to leave government with him and his collapsing Republican Party, of course all our public effort must be replaced with private ones on the public budget.
The only thing that's overdue in this story is demands to privatize the ongoing Star Wars. I expect that will be the last big push as Bush packs his bags to return to Texas, where they've surrounded Houston with private contractors suucking at the public tit, and ex-government employees always welcome.
I didn't say tailing them around the country or invading their privacy. I have further clarified more specifically what I'm talking about, though it's the principle of somehow mitigating the risk we're creating in them rather than any specific implementation that I'm talking about. I said that they should register their employers with a government office that also helps place them in good jobs that also protect Americans. Since I'm repeating myself, I'm done in this thread.
Possibly. Sometimes the whole house of cards collapses. In the wake of that Qualcomm defeat, lots of analysis said it was now safe for free H.264 implementations, and several were launched. It might be that H.264 was truly dependent on only that one patent, and can be implemented without conflict with any that remain.
Patent exclusion proof is incumbent on the patentholder. I'd like to see an analysis from a third party, like a court ruling on an H.264 patent defense since that upset, indicating just which valid patents still protect H.264. There's a difference between actual "essential" patents, and extras thrown in to encumber a tech with a toll gate.
How long before the first robosail is snatched by human pirates on the high seas? An unmanned robot boat will have to have a lot more extensive (and expensive) AI and "interaction" HW than a defenseless, naive one.
And how long before the pirates relaunch some of those captured robot boats back at us, with that interaction HW designed as a new defacto industry standard, regardless of any ISO specs?
NASA would have to pay for copying the tapes, though I would reimburse it (which transaction would add to the cost).
A NASA server would be paid by me and every taxpayer. And be much lower cost than the tape transfer process. And, with much wider distribution of that top-notch pro-American propaganda, be well worth every penny. I would hope it to scale up to become a significant cost, considering the return on that investment would be so high.
No, you denied that there was any NSA blowback, and it was trivial to point to lots of it - that we even know of.
And when you denied it, you were such a rude asshole that you deserve a beating - return insults are just countering in a language you should understand.
And now that you are calling black white, and projecting your own defects onto my legitimate arguments, demonstrating all you want to do is bitch, not get at the truth of the risks of these NSA programmes that we're escalating, you're toast. Bitch.
Nuclear scientists are tracked currently. NSA staff and trainees, like Binalden and his Qaeda, are known to blow back on us, and we should have learned by now that we need to take steps to minimize these risks we create.
These NSA staff are being trained to attack secure systems like these academic targets, just as the academies and their cadets are being trained in securing from such attacks.
Your argument is ignorant, stupid and obnoxious. From an Anonymous Coward, to boot. Just sit down and shut up, and you might learn something.
All I'm talking about is that they use a Federal registry as they change employers. Which should also work to help place them in jobs they like that also help protect us, which is why they were trained that way in the first place.
Government service includes all kinds of compromises in exchange for certain kinds of training. Nuclear physicists are just one precedent for mitigating the risks we create by inventing new destructive techniques and training people who can blow back on us.
There's nothing unethical about that, so long as the tracking is accepted as a condition of the training. What's unethical is to create these risks and then release them into the wild without taking even the basic measures to minimize them.
In January last year, a court ruled that one of the patents on which H.264 is based was invalid. It's not clear whether patent exclusions from H.264 are valid anymore.
"Someone like me" would have read my post and seen where I noted how these NSA crackers aren't like infantrymen. But for soemone like you, who thinks I should dignify a response like "maybe we should just kill them" when all I suggest is tracking their post-government employment, I'll also point out that we require people to register weapons like infantry are trained to operate, when we allow private ownership of those weapons at all. Since these people's weapons are skills with commodity hardware, all we can do to mitigate the blowback risk is to track what they're doing with those skills, which will deter most blowback and keep us prepared for when there is some.
We don't just take the word of our most skilled "ex" spies - we track them. Someone like you, an idiot who obviously knows nothing about security personnel management or blowback, thinks that spies can all be merely trusted on their honor, and that $billions in intel programmes can't spare a few $million to mitigate the extra risk the original programmes create.
Or we could just kill them. If we were an obnoxious fool like you, we might even consider that is the only alternative to doing nothing.
Not quite to the degree you probably mean by "tight leash", which implies control and not just registering updated employment info.
And not necessarily all government crackers, perhaps just the ones trained in techniques created by (or for) the government. Though keeping tabs of some degree, even if just an initial registration with their skillset and a risk analysis, would be worthwhile. These stakes are high, these people are extraordinarily (by definition) more risky than the general public, and we already have good reason to track some people in the public who we know pose risks. Since the cost of tracking these risks we create would be low if conducted sensibly, its risk mitigation cost:benefit analysis is good.
I'm not talking about tracking the cadets being trained in nothing but defensive methods. I'm talking about the NSA staff who are being trained to attack the academies' systems. Those NSA trainees are learning a lot more serious stuff, new stuff, that can't be learned in a publicly offered course. Including specific experience cracking the latest military security coming out of the academies.
Is Binladen's Qaeda "FUD"? As blown out of proportion and abused as their 9/11/2001 (and 1993) attacks have been, we all should surely have learned at least the lesson that creating attackers can blowback when they're left unattended in a world of rich potential enemies.
Just registering "our" crackers' DNA isn't going to do anything to ensure they don't blow back on us. I'm talking about tracking these people's careers, probably combined with a referral program to help them get jobs assisting legitimate employers. Like I said, people with physical violence skills have lots more legitimate options in more fully mature private security and police industries than there are for legitimate crackers. The renta/cop job market is much larger than the high-caliber criminal job market, but the market for "white hats" is not nearly as much bigger than the market for "black hats". Blowback is a proven problem for the NSA, and Binladen is neither an isolated or vanishingly rare example. We should keep these dangerous people in the system, even if just for easily finding them for investigation later, as part of the balance we use to mitigate the risks we create, not just the ones that come knocking from the outside.
BTW, white hat hackers are the "good guys", securing systems, even when they're cracking them to test the security. "Black hats" are bad guys, whether or not they are actively cracking a system, or perhaps just securing a "bad" system.
Yes, I noted that. But crime pays. The economy, already pretty stagnant or bad, is going rapidly down the toilet. Jobs illegally cracking systems will decrease slower, perhaps even rise as their bosses get comparatively more stable and profitable compared to the failing legal economy. But even in good times, there are plenty of bad guys with money to buy "evil henchmen" who can outbid the good guys with ethical jobs.
The point is that we're sending lots of potential threats out there. The programme whose value is minimizing those threats should at least be tracking those new threats it creates, to help ensure they don't turn against that original mission that created them.
As just one example, I'll note that Binladen's Qaeda was created by the NSA/CIA/Pentagon to "do bad things for a good reason", and that blew back seriously enough to outbalance practically all the good it ever did us. We need to at least keep account of what we're creating before it becomes extremely expensive to do so retroactively, searching for some virtual cave out on the Internet somewhere.
Copying and mailing tapes is a helluva lot more expensive than running an Internet server. The bandwidth and administration costs would be well worth the hugely powerful publicity for the US government and the American people, to say nothing of the educational and economic benefit of circulating the content among the public that paid to create it.
And I'd live to hear why you're willing to bet that the NSA is doing anything like what I described. The evidence we have of how the NSA, CIA, Pentagon and other military/intel agencies operate speaks directly to the contrary: creating new weapons and dangerous people for a legitimate programme, then letting them spread around to threaten us when the immediate mission (and its budget) is through.
Anyone with enough competence in BSD to have an opinion about it worth caring about would be able to tell that if BSD isn't defined as a collection of bugs, then BSD isn't dying.
A sense of humor would also suffice instead. Likewise you fail it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes: the different release schedules mean that in nearly any given month, I can turn to a different distro for a full release, tested by their independent beta populations, without waiting for the "synchronized Christmas".
I understand that synchronization will make Shuttleworth's life easier, on the supply side. But it will reduce the diversity in the Linux ecosystem. People will not have switching opportunities between different distros when they want to get a new complete (and supported) release before their current distro's is ready. Which might be good for Shuttleworth, with the dominant market share, but it's not good for anyone else.
Which is why I think the other distros won't go for it. And why I'm happy about it.
The Cathedral is obsessive about monopolizing the calendar. But in the Bazaar, we can each have whichever calendar we want, with machines to translate among them.
Yes, I'm special. But I contributed to this discussion because my rating of CBS and CNet is probably not that special, and pretty widespread among Slashdotters (and many others).
You, on the other hand, have merely spouted off some obnoxious, trite insult. Which doesn't make you "special", except maybe like in the Special Olympics, going for the gold in "Attention Whoring".
I think the last time I happened to hit a CNet page was back in 2002 or 3, which is about the last time I watched CBS-TV.
Both those huge "studios" are better off producing content that's syndicated and embedded into smaller, more precisely targeted outlets. Like topical websites with video, video blogs, and viral email links. There is no "synergy" for me in their bundling their content into a branded outlet. Especially when that brand logo is seared into the lower left corner of my screen.
That means that a PS3 running Linux, even with its ridiculously low 512MB RAM, can be used as a $500 development platform for these CellBE BladeServers.
And, in turn, some QS22 SW might be usable on the PS3, if it can be ported to use the tiny RAM. Or if someone hooks an i-RAM bank to the SATA port as swap/ramdisk, using perhaps iSCSI over its Gb-e for storage.
Anonymous jock Coward posts in "WorldWide Telescope" story, and doesn't realize Star Trek missions are the most famous space trajectories in the world (hence the "Trek").
Go play with your balls somewhere the smart people can't scare you.
I want to see all this space imagery available in a 3D interface that's zoomable (and rotatable and translatable) so we can fly around these bodies in 3D. Jumping to addresses. And even a 4D interface, which lets us trace a path through spacetime, with dT 0, or just staying put as the objects travel around our viewpoint.
Celestia is approximately what I'm talking about, but it seems really unfit for actually visiting a planet's surface - the skins are relatively lo-rez 2D textures, and the UI is inadequate for "beaming down". And that whole UI should be navigable in realtime with not just a simple keyboard interface, but also PS3 joystick or even a Wii.
And an archive of "famous" trajectories, like all the known spacecraft missions, orbits of various bodies like comets and galactic collisions, Star Trek missions, and custom "tours" especially from astronomy schools and clubs.
Yes, I want the worlds and I want them now. But Google and MS seem bent on giving them to me, so I'm telling them just how I want it.
If the robosails (or motorboats) can dump the contraband, especially with some kind of self-destruct, then smugglers around the world will surely appreciate it. I can see the current generation of Fatherland^WHomeland Security marketers making a case for completely "closing" (with invasive surveillance and expensive interdiction) all maritime boundaries, and even monitoring boats (live and robot) that go outside the boundaries to where they could meet a roboboat in international waters.
In fact this "SF movie threat" could be an easy argument for total global surveillance, an excuse for tracking literally everything that moves on 72% of the Earth's surface.
"Funny" how the same people who will make that argument will also make the argument for completely unchecked international trade. And already refuse to fund securing ports, like here in NYC where we've got the country's #1 or #2 largest port (depending on measurement unit or quarterly business) and the #1 proven terrorist target and longtime smuggler's crossroads.
NASA and the Air Force still are. Someone show me a private corp with anywhere near the success rate as NASA, even with its private contractors (like Boeing, etc).
How can anyone be surprised or impressed with the Bush regime cheerleading our turning over our space program to private corporations, after deliberately leaving us without new public programs to replace the capacity we developed over the past 4 decades? Now that most of Bush's cronies he's had running the government will be forced to leave government with him and his collapsing Republican Party, of course all our public effort must be replaced with private ones on the public budget.
The only thing that's overdue in this story is demands to privatize the ongoing Star Wars. I expect that will be the last big push as Bush packs his bags to return to Texas, where they've surrounded Houston with private contractors suucking at the public tit, and ex-government employees always welcome.
I didn't say tailing them around the country or invading their privacy. I have further clarified more specifically what I'm talking about, though it's the principle of somehow mitigating the risk we're creating in them rather than any specific implementation that I'm talking about. I said that they should register their employers with a government office that also helps place them in good jobs that also protect Americans. Since I'm repeating myself, I'm done in this thread.
Possibly. Sometimes the whole house of cards collapses. In the wake of that Qualcomm defeat, lots of analysis said it was now safe for free H.264 implementations, and several were launched. It might be that H.264 was truly dependent on only that one patent, and can be implemented without conflict with any that remain.
Patent exclusion proof is incumbent on the patentholder. I'd like to see an analysis from a third party, like a court ruling on an H.264 patent defense since that upset, indicating just which valid patents still protect H.264. There's a difference between actual "essential" patents, and extras thrown in to encumber a tech with a toll gate.
How long before the first robosail is snatched by human pirates on the high seas? An unmanned robot boat will have to have a lot more extensive (and expensive) AI and "interaction" HW than a defenseless, naive one.
And how long before the pirates relaunch some of those captured robot boats back at us, with that interaction HW designed as a new defacto industry standard, regardless of any ISO specs?
NASA would have to pay for copying the tapes, though I would reimburse it (which transaction would add to the cost).
A NASA server would be paid by me and every taxpayer. And be much lower cost than the tape transfer process. And, with much wider distribution of that top-notch pro-American propaganda, be well worth every penny. I would hope it to scale up to become a significant cost, considering the return on that investment would be so high.
No, you denied that there was any NSA blowback, and it was trivial to point to lots of it - that we even know of.
And when you denied it, you were such a rude asshole that you deserve a beating - return insults are just countering in a language you should understand.
And now that you are calling black white, and projecting your own defects onto my legitimate arguments, demonstrating all you want to do is bitch, not get at the truth of the risks of these NSA programmes that we're escalating, you're toast. Bitch.
Goodbye.
NSA blowback
Fuck you, Anonymous spyloving coward.
Nuclear scientists are tracked currently. NSA staff and trainees, like Binalden and his Qaeda, are known to blow back on us, and we should have learned by now that we need to take steps to minimize these risks we create.
These NSA staff are being trained to attack secure systems like these academic targets, just as the academies and their cadets are being trained in securing from such attacks.
Your argument is ignorant, stupid and obnoxious. From an Anonymous Coward, to boot. Just sit down and shut up, and you might learn something.
All I'm talking about is that they use a Federal registry as they change employers. Which should also work to help place them in jobs they like that also help protect us, which is why they were trained that way in the first place.
Government service includes all kinds of compromises in exchange for certain kinds of training. Nuclear physicists are just one precedent for mitigating the risks we create by inventing new destructive techniques and training people who can blow back on us.
There's nothing unethical about that, so long as the tracking is accepted as a condition of the training. What's unethical is to create these risks and then release them into the wild without taking even the basic measures to minimize them.
In January last year, a court ruled that one of the patents on which H.264 is based was invalid. It's not clear whether patent exclusions from H.264 are valid anymore.
"Someone like me" would have read my post and seen where I noted how these NSA crackers aren't like infantrymen. But for soemone like you, who thinks I should dignify a response like "maybe we should just kill them" when all I suggest is tracking their post-government employment, I'll also point out that we require people to register weapons like infantry are trained to operate, when we allow private ownership of those weapons at all. Since these people's weapons are skills with commodity hardware, all we can do to mitigate the blowback risk is to track what they're doing with those skills, which will deter most blowback and keep us prepared for when there is some.
We don't just take the word of our most skilled "ex" spies - we track them. Someone like you, an idiot who obviously knows nothing about security personnel management or blowback, thinks that spies can all be merely trusted on their honor, and that $billions in intel programmes can't spare a few $million to mitigate the extra risk the original programmes create.
Or we could just kill them. If we were an obnoxious fool like you, we might even consider that is the only alternative to doing nothing.
Not quite to the degree you probably mean by "tight leash", which implies control and not just registering updated employment info.
And not necessarily all government crackers, perhaps just the ones trained in techniques created by (or for) the government. Though keeping tabs of some degree, even if just an initial registration with their skillset and a risk analysis, would be worthwhile. These stakes are high, these people are extraordinarily (by definition) more risky than the general public, and we already have good reason to track some people in the public who we know pose risks. Since the cost of tracking these risks we create would be low if conducted sensibly, its risk mitigation cost:benefit analysis is good.
I'm not talking about tracking the cadets being trained in nothing but defensive methods. I'm talking about the NSA staff who are being trained to attack the academies' systems. Those NSA trainees are learning a lot more serious stuff, new stuff, that can't be learned in a publicly offered course. Including specific experience cracking the latest military security coming out of the academies.
Is Binladen's Qaeda "FUD"? As blown out of proportion and abused as their 9/11/2001 (and 1993) attacks have been, we all should surely have learned at least the lesson that creating attackers can blowback when they're left unattended in a world of rich potential enemies.
Just registering "our" crackers' DNA isn't going to do anything to ensure they don't blow back on us. I'm talking about tracking these people's careers, probably combined with a referral program to help them get jobs assisting legitimate employers. Like I said, people with physical violence skills have lots more legitimate options in more fully mature private security and police industries than there are for legitimate crackers. The renta/cop job market is much larger than the high-caliber criminal job market, but the market for "white hats" is not nearly as much bigger than the market for "black hats". Blowback is a proven problem for the NSA, and Binladen is neither an isolated or vanishingly rare example. We should keep these dangerous people in the system, even if just for easily finding them for investigation later, as part of the balance we use to mitigate the risks we create, not just the ones that come knocking from the outside.
BTW, white hat hackers are the "good guys", securing systems, even when they're cracking them to test the security. "Black hats" are bad guys, whether or not they are actively cracking a system, or perhaps just securing a "bad" system.
Yes, I noted that. But crime pays. The economy, already pretty stagnant or bad, is going rapidly down the toilet. Jobs illegally cracking systems will decrease slower, perhaps even rise as their bosses get comparatively more stable and profitable compared to the failing legal economy. But even in good times, there are plenty of bad guys with money to buy "evil henchmen" who can outbid the good guys with ethical jobs.
The point is that we're sending lots of potential threats out there. The programme whose value is minimizing those threats should at least be tracking those new threats it creates, to help ensure they don't turn against that original mission that created them.
As just one example, I'll note that Binladen's Qaeda was created by the NSA/CIA/Pentagon to "do bad things for a good reason", and that blew back seriously enough to outbalance practically all the good it ever did us. We need to at least keep account of what we're creating before it becomes extremely expensive to do so retroactively, searching for some virtual cave out on the Internet somewhere.
Copying and mailing tapes is a helluva lot more expensive than running an Internet server. The bandwidth and administration costs would be well worth the hugely powerful publicity for the US government and the American people, to say nothing of the educational and economic benefit of circulating the content among the public that paid to create it.
I'm talking about the NSA attackers.
And I'd live to hear why you're willing to bet that the NSA is doing anything like what I described. The evidence we have of how the NSA, CIA, Pentagon and other military/intel agencies operate speaks directly to the contrary: creating new weapons and dangerous people for a legitimate programme, then letting them spread around to threaten us when the immediate mission (and its budget) is through.
How about fuck you?
Anyone with enough competence in BSD to have an opinion about it worth caring about would be able to tell that if BSD isn't defined as a collection of bugs, then BSD isn't dying.
A sense of humor would also suffice instead. Likewise you fail it.