Because I want the hierarchical ID data easily accessible to joins against other, more relational data. And I don't want the dependency on multiple DBs that might require more skills or even extra DBAs. While getting all the management features (replication, clustering, transactions) of an RDBMS.
I said LDAP was cool, and said how useful I think it is. Then I detailed how much more useful it would be with an integrated datastore open to the rest of the apps.
If you don't understand how a unified data layer for a network-available query interface is useful, refrain from commenting on it.
LDAP authentication is cool, but LDAP is just an interface. Unfortunately, it usually comes bundled monolithically with a dedicated datastore, the BerkeleyDB. Which is neat and fast, working well for "standalone LDAP". But it ghettoizes ID info away from other apps which don't already have an LDAP interface. Some of which need relational access for their app logic, or just higher performance than massive volumes of LDAP queries will permit. The OpenLDAP server is stuck this way. Its basic features are really good, but that's as far as it goes.
So where's the HOWTO for porting OpenLDAP to Postgres for its datastore? There's some HOWTOs for porting it to MySQL, but MySQL doesn't scale as well as Postgres, and existing Postgres installs are out of luck. The few existing LDAP/Postgres HOWTOs seem inconclusive, untested. And some of the commercial products that advertise the feature don't even respond to emails to sales departments asking about the cutover.
As long as Slashdot is staring down "LDAP Auth in Linux", how about taking it to (and over) the Postgres wall?
So Garrett didn't fit in with the rest of the Debian community, despite his technical aptitude. There are plenty of social specs that take priority in communities, even mailing lists, which are often independent of technical qualities. Garrett apparently didn't like the Debian "anything goes" style in developer discussion, so he left.
No problem. He can switch to Ubuntu's team. Sounds like they'll be glad to have him. And interested people in the Debian community can still use Garrett's Ubuntu work to improve Debian, as it's all GPL. This is the strength of openness, both in the software and in the groups of people. When we can choose how and with whom (and with what) we work, we can work the way most productive for us. And thereby, for everyone else in the cycle.
The place for offering "help" in the user interface is in the client software. Perhaps the DNS error needs a metadata field for offering messages, perhaps hyperlinked, for exception handling. But those must be presented by the user agent, like the browser, not tricking the browser into "passthru" to server misdirection. That violates the DNS specs. And makes that essential global system vulnerable to unpredicted failures when dependant systems get nonstandard results.
These ISPs attract marketing people with dreams of empire and ignorance of Internet. Execs put them in power over the engineers, and just rip across the careful system designs that make the Net work. Then they cry when their stuff doesn't work, and blame the engineers.
But they compete with each other on how well their stuff works. As long as we can switch ISPs among a pool with critical mass size, they'll exploit each others' weaknesses to grab customers. These "DNS hijacks" are going to be with us forever, avoidable only while we have a choice between independent, competing ISPs.
Power efficiency was the reason cited by Apple for dumping IBM/PowerPC for x86. If AMD can clean Intel's clock with coolness, I wonder how long until Apples are Intel's biggest competition again.
So apparently the time division of a channel is "first-come, first served". It seems like a "good" strategy for maximizing bandwidth on one's own network in a contentious space is to flood the segment with null packets, blocking other networks from getting a hold on the channel, until real data is swapped in with real packets. With no cost per packet, I don't know why nodes wouldn't practice that defensive "goaltending" strategy as a matter of course.
Only a single AP can transmit on a single channel; APs sensing existing other APs on a channel jump to another. Only a single network is on each AP. Therefore, only a single network is on each channel at one time, though a single network can jump among different channels.
Maybe if you're between 2 APs separated by more than their transmit radius, but less than double it, you'll get both "sharing" a single channel, because they each can't sense the other to switch. But that'll make your own node unable to arbitrate the collisions.
The WiFi bandwidth has 17 data channels, each of which can be controlled by only one network at one time. How can a single node sniff more than 17 networks simultaneously.
"Looking backwards"? This story is a journal from nuthinbutspam(999551). Not only are Slashdot editors apparently publishing journals, but we're almost up to a million registered Slashdotters (and an infinitude of infinitesimal ACs). And the warning signal for the E6 milestone is "nuthin but spam".
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades of Max Headroom.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
"At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President."
We have rights that we create governments to protect. From anyone. The British king is little threat these days, but many corporations threaten our rights daily. We use our government to protect us from them, or we're done.
We have ways of protecting ourselves from government, too. Saying government abuse is worse than corporate abuse is a false choice: we don't want either. Giving up on the bases you are citing just hands us to corporations. Why would we do that?
What's my point? The one I've been repeating in every patient reply to the illiterates in this post who can't read the original simple point:
Not just "trust" as in "the president seems like a decent person", but Reagan's promise to "trust but verify". Real Congressional oversight. Real punishment for violators. Real institutional processes for keeping data within the scope of only the required transaction. Real trustworthy government processes that make "security" both use and protect data.
Try to read the posts before you bring up inanities like Kennedy's pre-congress tragedy, before you start making points made moot by my original post. How annoying, and frankly, trolling.
Who's got a phased array radio network routing TCP/IP to mobile devices? Phased arrays offer huge bandwidth and little penalty for fast moving endpoints.
The criteria are already established in detail in the 4th Amendment's due process and warrants on probable cause, as brought up by another poster in this thread. With whom I agree 100%.
We need more privacy, not more, to be safe and free. Along with the legal checks and balances defined in the law after centuries of experience, like the FISA that Bush violated.
Another broken regulating mechanism is exposure of these crimes by the press. The New York Times published the story of NSA spying breaking the FISA law only after a year sitting on it, because the reporter was publishing it independently in a book. A year during which Bush got narrowly reelected, without the voters knowing they were reelecting such a criminal.
It's clear that we need more personal privacy and more public exposure. That means more rigorous laws and enforcement, including media competition so they don't protect their government patrons as much as expose their competitors'.
You took the flamebait? You are the flamebait. Your original post concluded with "Flame On!!:)".
I took the bait, replied without flaming, though apparently you can't tell the difference between holding your own contradictory words up to your face and a flame.
Along the way, you admitted "Ok yea sure, I was trying to be offensive there,", while I offered "The Internet lesson is that you can say something to someone who won't play along with the denial that people in a familiar echo chamber will play. You just might learn something new." . Which you'd probably think is nothing but a "flame", because '"Liberal" = Likes to try new things.'.
You prefer the old things, like "I keep trying to make neutral statements, and I keep getting attacked", the old conservative pretense of partisanship masked with neutrality denials.
You keep flamebaiting, flaming, denying, and ignoring your own serious defects. If I wanted to just flame you, I'd just point out that you're from Florida. Damn right I win.
Wait, I thought the NSA spying operations at AT&T were a fishing expedition, looking for political espionage/blackmail content, but people told me I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now you're telling me that I was just a typo conspiracist?
You're right. Probable cause is required to search a subset of the records. But even then, like when the cops search a bus for a runaway theif, they must be limited to searching people's "effects" solely at that moment, within scope of the warrant and that search transaction. They cannot video the contents of your wallet and pockets to review later.
Once we've given up the 4th Amendment protection of our privacy rights, we're not only "less safe". We're damaged beyond recognition.
I totally agree with you. And I respect your zero tolerance 100%. We do need even more security than that, because even these warrants get abused, especially when issued by unaccountable courts, like secret courts (with retroactive lattitude, like FISA's 72 hours). And even when issued under kangaroo court proceedings like under "good faith mistakes" by cops who get a warrant for a known lawbreaker address to poke around neighbors' homes in bad neighborhoods. Warrants are necessary, but insufficient. Modern info age understandings of privacy have spawned a new generation of gaming the 4th Amendment - it's long past time to use them to strengthen it. In fact, I propose a new Privacy Amendment to emphasize the same rights and required protection that the 4th Amendment made explicit from the implicit protection in the rest of the Constitution. Then I'll be a lot safer, and more free.
That system requires "common carriage", "network neutrality" distribution regardless of origin/destination/content (within standard specs). I'd love to see it applied end-to-end in data networks. It doesn't require the consumer own the "last mile", but controlling multiple (competing) delivery points can ensure it works.
Right now we mostly have separate electric, gas, water, sewage, phone and cable lines into our premises. Each of those lines can carry data (metal pipes), some more efficiently (from water, except when plastic, up to cableco coax). I expect fuelcells to pit electric wiring against gas pipes for energy competition, spurring a shuffle that could see all those networks exploited for their power and data capacity. That could make the networks redundant, oversupplied, cheap and reliable. So I expect the corporations, mostly monopolies, which currently operate them all to move to delivering services across them, rather than the infrastructure. Eventually we will probably even see governments owning all those financially underperforming networks, like they do most rail, roads and waterways, while commoditized traffic drives competition and innovation in unprecedented value for users. If the telcos don't kill us all first;).
So much for your "Legit Question" for me. You misspelled "Loaded Question".
Cynthia McKinney was voted down in her Democratic primary after she abused her power (to nearly negligible effect) in public view. Democrats voted her out. William Jefferson was caught on evidence, deserted by the Party, removed from power, and will probably go to jail. Patrick Kennedy's drunken crash showed zero evidence of any corruption in his government responsibilities, nor did his unacceptable (though universally accepted) wrist-slap punishment. By a judge, not Congress.
So even your irrelevant mediagenic Republican talking points show either no Democratic Party "corruption", or in fact the working power of exactly the kinds of checks on power that I posted.
I'd offer you to try again when you've got something. But you've worn out your welcome with your weaselly loaded question, after your unbroken history of dishonest whining in threads with me. You are exactly the kind of system gaming Republican that shows only that Republicans can't be trusted unless punishment kicks in after you're exposed as an abuser. Consider yourself cut off, now that you've verified that you can't be trusted.
It doesn't really cost a fortune to light up that fiber, regardless of what Verizon's execs tell anyone (including people in the COs), compared to their increased revenue. Except when gluts reduce the supply/demand profitability. I work with the NYC City Council's Tech Committee on exactly those kinds of issues, including "dark fiber". The "municipal broadband" movement somehow inspires ISPs to find "cost efficiencies" whenever cities threaten complacent incumbents with actual competition.
It's very simple to see the economics. Especially when you consider that lighting the dark fiber returns proportionally more capacity product, while amortizing the sunk costs in the pulled fibers, and the rest of the infrastructure, including marketing and management IT.
The ISPs have made so much noise about the costs of dark fiber that they seem to have conveniently convinced themselves, too. But those of us who don't benefit from that position, but pay for it, can see through it. Their lack of planning foresight contributes to raising the profits on what they do deploy, though local inefficiencies abound.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I want the hierarchical ID data easily accessible to joins against other, more relational data. And I don't want the dependency on multiple DBs that might require more skills or even extra DBAs. While getting all the management features (replication, clustering, transactions) of an RDBMS.
I said LDAP was cool, and said how useful I think it is. Then I detailed how much more useful it would be with an integrated datastore open to the rest of the apps.
If you don't understand how a unified data layer for a network-available query interface is useful, refrain from commenting on it.
LDAP authentication is cool, but LDAP is just an interface. Unfortunately, it usually comes bundled monolithically with a dedicated datastore, the BerkeleyDB. Which is neat and fast, working well for "standalone LDAP". But it ghettoizes ID info away from other apps which don't already have an LDAP interface. Some of which need relational access for their app logic, or just higher performance than massive volumes of LDAP queries will permit. The OpenLDAP server is stuck this way. Its basic features are really good, but that's as far as it goes.
So where's the HOWTO for porting OpenLDAP to Postgres for its datastore? There's some HOWTOs for porting it to MySQL, but MySQL doesn't scale as well as Postgres, and existing Postgres installs are out of luck. The few existing LDAP/Postgres HOWTOs seem inconclusive, untested. And some of the commercial products that advertise the feature don't even respond to emails to sales departments asking about the cutover.
As long as Slashdot is staring down "LDAP Auth in Linux", how about taking it to (and over) the Postgres wall?
I am your master at every level, Anonymous shitty Coward. Kneel before ZOD!
So Garrett didn't fit in with the rest of the Debian community, despite his technical aptitude. There are plenty of social specs that take priority in communities, even mailing lists, which are often independent of technical qualities. Garrett apparently didn't like the Debian "anything goes" style in developer discussion, so he left.
No problem. He can switch to Ubuntu's team. Sounds like they'll be glad to have him. And interested people in the Debian community can still use Garrett's Ubuntu work to improve Debian, as it's all GPL. This is the strength of openness, both in the software and in the groups of people. When we can choose how and with whom (and with what) we work, we can work the way most productive for us. And thereby, for everyone else in the cycle.
The place for offering "help" in the user interface is in the client software. Perhaps the DNS error needs a metadata field for offering messages, perhaps hyperlinked, for exception handling. But those must be presented by the user agent, like the browser, not tricking the browser into "passthru" to server misdirection. That violates the DNS specs. And makes that essential global system vulnerable to unpredicted failures when dependant systems get nonstandard results.
These ISPs attract marketing people with dreams of empire and ignorance of Internet. Execs put them in power over the engineers, and just rip across the careful system designs that make the Net work. Then they cry when their stuff doesn't work, and blame the engineers.
But they compete with each other on how well their stuff works. As long as we can switch ISPs among a pool with critical mass size, they'll exploit each others' weaknesses to grab customers. These "DNS hijacks" are going to be with us forever, avoidable only while we have a choice between independent, competing ISPs.
Power efficiency was the reason cited by Apple for dumping IBM/PowerPC for x86. If AMD can clean Intel's clock with coolness, I wonder how long until Apples are Intel's biggest competition again.
So apparently the time division of a channel is "first-come, first served". It seems like a "good" strategy for maximizing bandwidth on one's own network in a contentious space is to flood the segment with null packets, blocking other networks from getting a hold on the channel, until real data is swapped in with real packets. With no cost per packet, I don't know why nodes wouldn't practice that defensive "goaltending" strategy as a matter of course.
Only a single AP can transmit on a single channel; APs sensing existing other APs on a channel jump to another. Only a single network is on each AP. Therefore, only a single network is on each channel at one time, though a single network can jump among different channels.
Maybe if you're between 2 APs separated by more than their transmit radius, but less than double it, you'll get both "sharing" a single channel, because they each can't sense the other to switch. But that'll make your own node unable to arbitrate the collisions.
The WiFi bandwidth has 17 data channels, each of which can be controlled by only one network at one time. How can a single node sniff more than 17 networks simultaneously.
"Looking backwards"? This story is a journal from nuthinbutspam (999551). Not only are Slashdot editors apparently publishing journals, but we're almost up to a million registered Slashdotters (and an infinitude of infinitesimal ACs). And the warning signal for the E6 milestone is "nuthin but spam".
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades of Max Headroom.
Spoken like a Republican.
Interesting. Like what kind of SW?
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
"At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President."
We have rights that we create governments to protect. From anyone. The British king is little threat these days, but many corporations threaten our rights daily. We use our government to protect us from them, or we're done.
We have ways of protecting ourselves from government, too. Saying government abuse is worse than corporate abuse is a false choice: we don't want either. Giving up on the bases you are citing just hands us to corporations. Why would we do that?
What's my point? The one I've been repeating in every patient reply to the illiterates in this post who can't read the original simple point:
Not just "trust" as in "the president seems like a decent person", but Reagan's promise to "trust but verify". Real Congressional oversight. Real punishment for violators. Real institutional processes for keeping data within the scope of only the required transaction. Real trustworthy government processes that make "security" both use and protect data.
Try to read the posts before you bring up inanities like Kennedy's pre-congress tragedy, before you start making points made moot by my original post. How annoying, and frankly, trolling.
Moderation +3
40% Insightful
30% Interesting
20% Troll
NSA asTrollMods must have got their budget cut.
Quite a bit longer than Laura Bush has been infesting the White House.
Who's got a phased array radio network routing TCP/IP to mobile devices? Phased arrays offer huge bandwidth and little penalty for fast moving endpoints.
The criteria are already established in detail in the 4th Amendment's due process and warrants on probable cause, as brought up by another poster in this thread. With whom I agree 100%.
We need more privacy, not more, to be safe and free. Along with the legal checks and balances defined in the law after centuries of experience, like the FISA that Bush violated.
Another broken regulating mechanism is exposure of these crimes by the press. The New York Times published the story of NSA spying breaking the FISA law only after a year sitting on it, because the reporter was publishing it independently in a book. A year during which Bush got narrowly reelected, without the voters knowing they were reelecting such a criminal.
It's clear that we need more personal privacy and more public exposure. That means more rigorous laws and enforcement, including media competition so they don't protect their government patrons as much as expose their competitors'.
Instead we get the Bush campaign slogan "Don't worry, be happy."
You took the flamebait? You are the flamebait. Your original post concluded with "Flame On!! :)".
I took the bait, replied without flaming, though apparently you can't tell the difference between holding your own contradictory words up to your face and a flame.
Along the way, you admitted "Ok yea sure, I was trying to be offensive there,", while I offered "The Internet lesson is that you can say something to someone who won't play along with the denial that people in a familiar echo chamber will play. You just might learn something new." . Which you'd probably think is nothing but a "flame", because '"Liberal" = Likes to try new things.'.
You prefer the old things, like "I keep trying to make neutral statements, and I keep getting attacked", the old conservative pretense of partisanship masked with neutrality denials.
You keep flamebaiting, flaming, denying, and ignoring your own serious defects. If I wanted to just flame you, I'd just point out that you're from Florida. Damn right I win.
Wait, I thought the NSA spying operations at AT&T were a fishing expedition, looking for political espionage/blackmail content, but people told me I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now you're telling me that I was just a typo conspiracist?
You're right. Probable cause is required to search a subset of the records. But even then, like when the cops search a bus for a runaway theif, they must be limited to searching people's "effects" solely at that moment, within scope of the warrant and that search transaction. They cannot video the contents of your wallet and pockets to review later.
Once we've given up the 4th Amendment protection of our privacy rights, we're not only "less safe". We're damaged beyond recognition.
I totally agree with you. And I respect your zero tolerance 100%. We do need even more security than that, because even these warrants get abused, especially when issued by unaccountable courts, like secret courts (with retroactive lattitude, like FISA's 72 hours). And even when issued under kangaroo court proceedings like under "good faith mistakes" by cops who get a warrant for a known lawbreaker address to poke around neighbors' homes in bad neighborhoods. Warrants are necessary, but insufficient. Modern info age understandings of privacy have spawned a new generation of gaming the 4th Amendment - it's long past time to use them to strengthen it. In fact, I propose a new Privacy Amendment to emphasize the same rights and required protection that the 4th Amendment made explicit from the implicit protection in the rest of the Constitution. Then I'll be a lot safer, and more free.
That system requires "common carriage", "network neutrality" distribution regardless of origin/destination/content (within standard specs). I'd love to see it applied end-to-end in data networks. It doesn't require the consumer own the "last mile", but controlling multiple (competing) delivery points can ensure it works.
;).
Right now we mostly have separate electric, gas, water, sewage, phone and cable lines into our premises. Each of those lines can carry data (metal pipes), some more efficiently (from water, except when plastic, up to cableco coax). I expect fuelcells to pit electric wiring against gas pipes for energy competition, spurring a shuffle that could see all those networks exploited for their power and data capacity. That could make the networks redundant, oversupplied, cheap and reliable. So I expect the corporations, mostly monopolies, which currently operate them all to move to delivering services across them, rather than the infrastructure. Eventually we will probably even see governments owning all those financially underperforming networks, like they do most rail, roads and waterways, while commoditized traffic drives competition and innovation in unprecedented value for users. If the telcos don't kill us all first
So much for your "Legit Question" for me. You misspelled "Loaded Question".
Cynthia McKinney was voted down in her Democratic primary after she abused her power (to nearly negligible effect) in public view. Democrats voted her out.
William Jefferson was caught on evidence, deserted by the Party, removed from power, and will probably go to jail.
Patrick Kennedy's drunken crash showed zero evidence of any corruption in his government responsibilities, nor did his unacceptable (though universally accepted) wrist-slap punishment. By a judge, not Congress.
So even your irrelevant mediagenic Republican talking points show either no Democratic Party "corruption", or in fact the working power of exactly the kinds of checks on power that I posted.
I'd offer you to try again when you've got something. But you've worn out your welcome with your weaselly loaded question, after your unbroken history of dishonest whining in threads with me. You are exactly the kind of system gaming Republican that shows only that Republicans can't be trusted unless punishment kicks in after you're exposed as an abuser. Consider yourself cut off, now that you've verified that you can't be trusted.
It doesn't really cost a fortune to light up that fiber, regardless of what Verizon's execs tell anyone (including people in the COs), compared to their increased revenue. Except when gluts reduce the supply/demand profitability. I work with the NYC City Council's Tech Committee on exactly those kinds of issues, including "dark fiber". The "municipal broadband" movement somehow inspires ISPs to find "cost efficiencies" whenever cities threaten complacent incumbents with actual competition.
It's very simple to see the economics. Especially when you consider that lighting the dark fiber returns proportionally more capacity product, while amortizing the sunk costs in the pulled fibers, and the rest of the infrastructure, including marketing and management IT.
The ISPs have made so much noise about the costs of dark fiber that they seem to have conveniently convinced themselves, too. But those of us who don't benefit from that position, but pay for it, can see through it. Their lack of planning foresight contributes to raising the profits on what they do deploy, though local inefficiencies abound.