Christianity, by any mainstream understanding, is very much about charity.
Really? Christianity has never been a particularly ascetic religion, unlike some other major religions like Buddhism. While monks and nuns may have owned little personally, churches, monasteries and other Christian places of worship have typically held great wealth, massive decorations, statues and altars, intricate glass windows, huge collections of art and so on. They've always been high on moral guidance but when it comes to actual charity and sharing of the wealth it's always been more about sending people on a guilt trip to get even more tribute or recruitment drives under the guise of education and bringing civilization. For most of Christianity's history sins, confession, penance, purgatory and hell has been a far greater part of the religion than today. Particularly purgatory, even if you would eventually go to heaven it'd be nasty getting there.
Nowadays it seems most people think that they're going to heaven without much fuss for just being a decent human being and a tad worship. I guess it just shows that Christianity has been the most morphable since many are neither misogynic - the Bible is, homophobic - the Bible is, believe in hereditary sin - that we're still to blame for eating the forbidden fruit - and so on yet still call themselves Christians. I'll just cherry pick a quote from the charitable parts of Revelations - that's New Testament, it's a little FYI about what Christ has planned for all the people that didn't quite live up to his standards, like not believing in him and such:
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8, KJV).
Generally hard to find benchmarks, but the AMD processors usually lie between the i3 and i5 in terms of single threaded performance and the i3 and i5 trounce the Atom.
I guess it must be hard, with the blindfold on and all. Here is a list for example, where the FX-8350 is even beaten by the Phenom II x6 and performs worse than the Intel Pentium G840 in single threaded performance. Anyway comparing 6W/2 = 3W and 140W/16 = 8.75W those Piledriver cores had better do much more than one Atom core. Intel is again trying to create a two-front war against AMD, should they go lower to match the Atoms or higher to match the Xeons or spread themselves too thin doing both. Worst thing is, this is really just a spinoff of their smartphone/tablet work - that they release a 6W server chip I think is only because they can, why risk anyone else taking the market.
However, I am amazed that they are using the Atom branding for what is essentially a very different underlying chip.
Why so surprised, Intels are selling "Pentiums" now that have nothing to do whatsoever with any Pentium architecture only watered down versions of Intel Core processors. Same with the Celerons it's more a price segment than an actual technology.
The initial range of Atoms were lacklustre enough that the name seems somewhat tarnished now.
The initial range of Atoms sold really well, it was only after AMD started making decent APUs and the tablet market stole the whole show that they disappeared into obscurity. Maybe to people watching the battle of AMD vs Intel they're a bit lackluster but I think to most it was just about having a computer for light work at all.
Not only that, but non PC based work is on the rise and Apple's marketshare is slowly on the decline.
Yes, but not in any significant amount to Microsoft so what's Microsoft to do, offer Office for Android? I'm sure Google would love that. Or they can try using Office as leverage to sell Win8 tablets, but from what I hear that's not going so well....
It will all eventually settle, and we'll have three dominant world economies: Asia, Europe, and the Americas (North and South).
If the wealth really redistributes remember that Asia is well over four billion people, Americas and Europe less than a billion each (in that order). And that's a pretty wide group of countries, depending on whose definition of "western" you use like for example Huntington including the US, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia then the western world is less than a billion put together. Given that, it's not unlikely that the Asian economy will become at least as big if not bigger than the western one. Of course Asia is a pretty big mix of various countries all by itself, far more than China.
Sorry, but no. There are bunches and bunches of PHBs out there who will perpetually doubt that anyone can make a Microsoft server as good as Microsoft and would be more than a little afraid that by doing this, they would be in violation of some sort of license requirement. At the very least, it would void any support services if an exchange server were to connect to a Samba 4 AD domain. PHBs care a lot about stuff like that even if people rarely if ever use Microsoft's support.
If PHBs ran the world we'd still be browsing with IE on an IIS server - or more likely, banging rocks together - but fortunately there's the "I don't know what you just said, just make it happen" and "There's no money in the budget for that, so we'll try the shoestring solution" PHBs that get enough out of the way to not entirely choke IT. (Or more likely, make IT not choke the PHBs...)
Instead you need lawyers speaking in French, German and English. Which for Italian speaking inventors might be very expensive. Previously this wasn't required, because if someone wanted to have their patent valid in Italy, he had to translate it.
Unless you live in France or Germany, I'm pretty sure native+English would suffice just fine. Despite what the EU says about promoting language plurality in practice there's a massive shift of momentum towards English and a decline in both German and French as a foreign language. But I do see the lawyers making a small fortune on arguing whether patent X written in Italian is in fact prior art to patent Y written in English, fighting over linguistic details in legal documents is a fight only lawyers will win.
Well, there's two different things here - will certain places run out of work or will the world "run out" of work, as certain post-post-post-modern world futurists have predicted. Despite what is happening in the US and parts of Europe, if you look at the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, China, India) or the OECD report you'll see that the world isn't exactly running out of jobs, they're just not created in the "Old World". In fact despite all the trouble in the developed world, extreme poverty is on its way down:
More recent post-2008 analysis reveals that, while the food, fuel and financial crises over the past four years had at times sharp negative impacts on vulnerable populations and slowed the rate of poverty reduction in some countries, global poverty overall kept falling. In fact, preliminary survey-based estimates for 2010 - based on a smaller sample size than in the global update -indicate that the $1.25 a day poverty rate had fallen to under half of its 1990 value by 2010.
Most other indicators like literacy, life expectancy etc. also indicate that the world is overall moving forwards. I think it's more globalization that's catching up to us, if you outsource the low-end jobs and keep the high-end jobs here then eventually they graduate and take the high-end jobs too. If anyone thought you could keep design and management here without hands-on knowledge from production and maintenance they were fooling themselves. Sure it doesn't happen right away, it takes a decade or two. Coincidentally, it's now a decade or two since outsourcing became the "big thing".
Tor only anonymizes the source of the data; Anything between the exit node and destination is sent in the clear and likely they've made some mistake that'll allow it to be blockable.
They control both ends of the communication, they could easily use for example HTTPS as their transport protocol. If they didn't that's rather naive and will probably be fixed in the next release.
My first instinct is to think so what? Shouldn't non-profit foundations have ambitious fund raising targets that they fall short of most of the time? Is FreeBSD in danger of ceasing to be a viable operating system because the target wasn't met?
Last year their target was $400k and they reached $426k so they're not intentionally making too ambitious targets. That this is an annual campaign and they're $146k short of matching last year indicates interest has dropped significantly. Looking at their donors it's now practically run by Netapp that's moved up to double platinum ($100k+), accounting for more than a third of their total donations. The more disturbing part for them should be that the donor list is much, much shorter than last year.
By making one questionable move after another we begin to believe Ubuntu's business model has failed.
No wonder, when they're trying to make money off a user base that froths like a rabid dog whenever they feel they're being monetized. That tend to get furious any time a website uses a workaround to get past their ad blocker without the slightest bit of irony in that they use an ad blocker as a workaround to get content without ads. Or get their panties in a bunch over product placement after advertisers switched to those because everyone was skipping ads on their DVR/PVR. Ubuntu may be free as in beer and in speech, but it's also free as in "There's no such thing as a free lunch". You're not required to say yes to anything of course, but if the "free" lunch never results in any business you're not going to get invited to any more lunches.
Red Hat figured this out long ago when they killed Red Hat Linux, spun off Fedora and bet everything on RHEL that had paying customers, they could offer a damn good desktop distro but they couldn't make any money off it. Now Ubuntu is starting to feel in the same bind, they're spending lots of money building Ubuntu for the desktop but they're not making any money off it so they're aiming for smart TVs and tablets and trying to cash in on their users without them disappearing in a puff of smoke. I wouldn't be surprised if they disappear out, a new company comes in thinking they can become another Facebook or Youtube if only they get enough users but in the end "We lose money on every sale, but we make up for it on volume" is not a good business model, not even for Linux distros.
Why the hell is there a chat client in a mail program to start with? I saw this new 'feature' and died a little inside. It is a classic sign on developers losing their direction.
Because the "do one thing and do it well" is in conflict with the advantages of gathering all the ways to contact a person in the same place. Oh right he's not online in the chat so I'll have to launch another, completely different application to send him a message. There's a reason most chats newer than IRC offer a way to send offline messages, essentially acting more like email light than instant messages.
Today's email user cannot even remember their correspondents' email address nor figure out how to use a contact list, so they just reply willy-nilly to any other message they find from that person in their inbox, or grieve their lost friend if no such message exists.
With even free webmail offering to store a gazillion emails, why would old messages ever get lost? And if they f*ck up my account, chances are they'll lose the contact list too. I'll gladly admit I don't maintain a contact list, the only one I use is the company directory. For me it's more work than it's worth, particularly in business including contact information in the signature is pretty standard, meaning what's in the last email is the most recent you got - and probably far more correct than when you first added the person to your contact list three years ago. The only thing that is missing is an alternative in my email client, the choices are "Reply", "Reply All" and "Forward", there's no "New message to same recipient(s)" that I've seen. So I'm one of those trashing up your threads, but it's not ignorance it's convenience.
Your rock however must be small indeed because BSD is certainly "mainstream", as has been discussed on/. ad nauseam.
I don't know how accurate the stats are, but w3techs puts FreeBSD at 1.1% of all web servers, that's roughly as mainstream as Linux is on the desktop - in other words not at all. It used to big be yes, but my impression is that Linux got corporate backing and raised the quality significantly while BSD remained a mostly amateur project. Particularly they were rather late with production grade SMP support which started a lot of migration to Linux and while a lot of web hosting companies used it in-house and small companies offered support there never formed a big professional support organization like Red Hat was for Linux. Not to mention Linus has by some small miracle managed to keep it together under one banner instead of forking into three branches with duplication of effort.
Sweden is 450,000 km^2. USA is 9,800,000 km^2. Building infrastructure basically becomes exponentially more expensive as the area increases.
And the world (land area) is 148,429,000 km^2, clearly building an Internet is impossible. Intra-European bandwidth is just as important to us as Intra-US bandwidth is to the US, Sweden is just as well connected to Norway, Denmark and Finland as California is to Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. You just pretend like they're not comparable because you don't like the results of the comparison.
Here in Europe the business interests are regulated more, but the government itself is eroding privacy fast, your privacy now very much depends on promises on how they'll not use your data.
And the problem with that is that most governments are so big that when things do go wrong, it can magically be no-one's fault and no-one's responsibility to make things right, even though the consequences for the innocent victim can be severe. My sig says what it says for a reason...
Oh, I'm not that worried that the government will do so carelessly. What I do worry about is that there'll be something like 9/11, a Patriot Act and then all those protections will have disappeared in a puff of dust in the name of national security and public safety. Particularly things that are presented as a temporary emergency measure against a vaguely defined enemy in a "war" that doesn't end. No government wants to relinquish power.
Pardon me for saying so, but what's so vitally important or different about IPv6? Is the Internet going to change in some way once we're all on IPv6? My impression is that it's more like the Y2K problem, a bunch of people have to work on a bunch of code to fix all the places it assumes an IP is a dotted quad and fits in 32 bits, but when all is said and done nobody is really going to notice the difference, except that it continues to work and scale. I don't really think you got "lots of experience and training" by fixing the Y2K problem in 1995, any more than you got implementing IPv6 in 2005 or 2010. For most software your IP is just an opaque identifier they can try connecting to, nothing more or less. On the network side, you still have the same basic configuration of subnets and gateways. Maybe a few high end network jobs will change in some way, but that is all.
It's a requirement that you should make yourself aware of once you decide to make changes and redistribute them. You don't have to agree to anything just to use or even modify the software.
Wrong, one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights is:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
So unless you're permitted by fair use you have to agree to the GPL to modify it, but the GPL doesn't require you to do anything unless you're distributing it. </Hermes Conrad>
The answer to that was in the part you quoted. "so I can ssh to them and scp stuff around." Presumably, he didn't mean "while I'm sitting in my house"
And how exactly would he have been doing that for the last 8 years when "the rest of the world" for the most part haven't used IPv6, so none of his boxes could be reached? If you need to connect to an IPv4/IPv6 bridge then you could have just as easily done a port forward instead.
Why not let the fans fix it? Is the source really worth that much?
Probably not, but releasing code is not free. Do they own all the code, if not where did they license it from, what does the license say, who needs to sign off on this, are we taking a risk that someone will sue over some patent or rogue developer who copied code without permission, can someone find exploits or multi player cheats in the code and whatever. Particularly the artwork is almost certainly not free, so it'd be an engine release where you need the original licensed game to be legal. So after all that work, people still have to fix the code and nobody's going to be that very grateful for having to rewrite a big chunk just to get it back to working order. I think you'd probably end up with less bad PR just saying that was it, no more multi player than stringing people along with false hope.
Of course, his opinion is that any corporation is out to screw you so it's like using a broken clock to predict the time. Unless of course you think all corporations are evil and you should go live in some hippie commune that make everything they need themselves.
I'm genuinely interested to know which areas you think the US is better in. As someone who lives in Europe, my perception is that neither the US government (any of its three branches) nor US big business has any interest at all in protecting the privacy of its own citizens, or pretty much any rights at all for anyone other than its own citizens.
Well, for one Europe is many countries. In Norway I feel they're butting in on very many things, but always under the promise that it won't be used for anything bad: 1. Probably the most telltale sign here in Norway is that we no longer need to submit our tax report. The government sends out a pre-filled report and unless you've got any objections you don't need to do anything. On it, the employers have reported your income, the property registry any properties, the car registry any cars, banks report wealth and interest income, any stocks or funds held on a Norwegian commodity account, you get your tax class, child benefits, pretty much anything and everything that's already in a registry about you somewhere. Most people actually don't need to change anything unless they have foreign holdings of some sort. 2. Gambling machines are only permitted using personalized electronic user cards, which enforce a 400 NOK/day gambling limit to curb gambling addiction. Coincidentally, they have a huge registry of gamblers and how much they play, but they promise not to use it for anything bad. 3. If I pay more than 10k NOK = 1780 USD to anyone in cash, I can be criminally punished as an accessory to their tax fraud, regardless of any actual knowledge. Big money transfers should always leave an electronic trace, but of course they promise to not use it for anything bad. 4. Very many places now they've set up "average speed" speeding cameras that always photographs everyone and match them to find speeders getting too fast from A to B, while deleting the rest. At least that's what they say, but of course they promise not to use it for anything bad. 5. Lately they've been very efficient in killing off physical tickets bought with cash in favor of personal electronic tickets, which together with electronic card readers mean they collect tons of data on your movement. Automated toll roads that simply take your picture rather than pay the toll with anonymous cash is already standard. But of course they promise to use it only for statistics and not for anything bad.
I could probably go on for a long while like this and in almost every case the public accepts it because right now the safeguards seem pretty solid, the watchdogs reliable and the government dialed mostly towards good. But if the dial is ever set to evil, lord help us because what we do is becoming extremely transparent to the government. If there was ever a need to return to the old ways we might find they don't exist anymore. In that sense I have the impression that the US government is a bit more hands off, it's mostly the corporations that have pretty much free reign to collect data on you. Here in Europe the business interests are regulated more, but the government itself is eroding privacy fast, your privacy now very much depends on promises on how they'll not use your data.
I've been using IPv6 for 8 years or so and I really don't care what other people do. The main value for me is that all boxen on the LAN have their own IPv6 IPs so I can ssh to them and scp stuff around.
Really, that was it? What was wrong with giving them a 192.168.x.x or even 10.x.x.x IPv4 address, you have over 16 million "boxen" on your network so you ran out?
But why are trying to make it difficult for Oracle & Novell to provide support for RHEL?
You mean why are they trying to make it difficult for Oracle & Novell to offer the work of Red Hat as their own? Yes, the source code is open but I understand that they don't want to give their competitors an easy way to search their patches and offer them as their own solutions after Red Hat engineers spent all the time reproducing the issue, digging through the source code, finding the bug and making a patch for it. They never did this while is was only the non-commercial CentOS, it was when Oracle starting talking about Unbreakable Linux and offering their own Linux distribution. Red Hat contributes more back to Linux than probably any other company in the community but I perfectly understand that if you want that particular flavor that is RHEL or the benefits of Red Hat's support system they want you to pay for that.
Certain people in the Linux community is militantly opposed to anyone holding anything back or doing anything less than idealistic or noble in order to bring in money. It doesn't matter if it's using dual licencing, trying to make money off search results like Ubuntu and Firefox or trying to protect their own support business like Red Hat or whatever. Everybody is supposed to be so altruistic and work only for the community and not a shred for themselves or to turn a profit. For sure many people are particularly individual contributors but many also share only out of self-interest, because getting their code integrated, maintained and improved by the community is worth more than the benefits of keeping an in-house fork. To them your whole question is backwards, why should we help our competitors steal our own business?
Today, you spend $100,000 to get a degree so you can work in an entry level position. A generation or two ago, you just graduated high school for the entry level position and somebody with a college degree want into a junior management or mid-level position. Face. it, most work fits in the category of being unskilled and monotonous. We just don't like to think about it when it applies to our own field.
A generation or two ago most jobs were simpler. No, I'm serious a lot more jobs have moved into the "skilled and monotonous" category. Let's take for example being a lumberjack, not that many years ago it was mostly manual labor with axe and saw. Even after you got decent chain saws, it was a lot of hard labor. Today most logging is done with lots of machinery like feller bunchers, harvesters, forwarders and other heavy machinery. You can't just get into one of these and work it, you have to learn it. Of course once you do it's the same thing over and over again, chop trees and transport trees day in and day out. There's a lot of work like that, boring as fuck but you still couldn't grab a kid fresh out of high school and make him do it.
What does that mean in practice? That there's a real barrier to entry, you won't learn it unless there's jobs available that justify the investment and you can't do it as a short time gig for some quick cash. In practice the unskilled worker who'll pick up stray jobs have had slimmer and slimmer pickings, the number of "warm body" jobs you can perform with a minimum of training have been decreasing sharply being replaced first by machinery and later with robots or electronics. And the few jobs that are left like taxi drivers, retail clerks, fast food clerks etc. have a constant draft of people seeking in-between jobs until they get a new job in their field of work, so the "career" unskilled worker is pretty much boned.
This future is not going to change, we're going to need more and more highly skilled labor. Tough for all the people that don't really can or want to be all that highly skilled and want to drop out after high school, but I don't see how we could change that without simply creating busywork like in this story:
The story goes that Milton Friedman was once taken to see a massive government project somewhere in Asia. Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren't there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman's response: "Then why not use spoons instead of shovels?"
I'm sorry but we don't need many people with shovels. We need people with a degree to even find an entry level job for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Christianity, by any mainstream understanding, is very much about charity.
Really? Christianity has never been a particularly ascetic religion, unlike some other major religions like Buddhism. While monks and nuns may have owned little personally, churches, monasteries and other Christian places of worship have typically held great wealth, massive decorations, statues and altars, intricate glass windows, huge collections of art and so on. They've always been high on moral guidance but when it comes to actual charity and sharing of the wealth it's always been more about sending people on a guilt trip to get even more tribute or recruitment drives under the guise of education and bringing civilization. For most of Christianity's history sins, confession, penance, purgatory and hell has been a far greater part of the religion than today. Particularly purgatory, even if you would eventually go to heaven it'd be nasty getting there.
Nowadays it seems most people think that they're going to heaven without much fuss for just being a decent human being and a tad worship. I guess it just shows that Christianity has been the most morphable since many are neither misogynic - the Bible is, homophobic - the Bible is, believe in hereditary sin - that we're still to blame for eating the forbidden fruit - and so on yet still call themselves Christians. I'll just cherry pick a quote from the charitable parts of Revelations - that's New Testament, it's a little FYI about what Christ has planned for all the people that didn't quite live up to his standards, like not believing in him and such:
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8, KJV).
Generally hard to find benchmarks, but the AMD processors usually lie between the i3 and i5 in terms of single threaded performance and the i3 and i5 trounce the Atom.
I guess it must be hard, with the blindfold on and all. Here is a list for example, where the FX-8350 is even beaten by the Phenom II x6 and performs worse than the Intel Pentium G840 in single threaded performance. Anyway comparing 6W/2 = 3W and 140W/16 = 8.75W those Piledriver cores had better do much more than one Atom core. Intel is again trying to create a two-front war against AMD, should they go lower to match the Atoms or higher to match the Xeons or spread themselves too thin doing both. Worst thing is, this is really just a spinoff of their smartphone/tablet work - that they release a 6W server chip I think is only because they can, why risk anyone else taking the market.
However, I am amazed that they are using the Atom branding for what is essentially a very different underlying chip.
Why so surprised, Intels are selling "Pentiums" now that have nothing to do whatsoever with any Pentium architecture only watered down versions of Intel Core processors. Same with the Celerons it's more a price segment than an actual technology.
The initial range of Atoms were lacklustre enough that the name seems somewhat tarnished now.
The initial range of Atoms sold really well, it was only after AMD started making decent APUs and the tablet market stole the whole show that they disappeared into obscurity. Maybe to people watching the battle of AMD vs Intel they're a bit lackluster but I think to most it was just about having a computer for light work at all.
Not only that, but non PC based work is on the rise and Apple's marketshare is slowly on the decline.
Yes, but not in any significant amount to Microsoft so what's Microsoft to do, offer Office for Android? I'm sure Google would love that. Or they can try using Office as leverage to sell Win8 tablets, but from what I hear that's not going so well....
It will all eventually settle, and we'll have three dominant world economies: Asia, Europe, and the Americas (North and South).
If the wealth really redistributes remember that Asia is well over four billion people, Americas and Europe less than a billion each (in that order). And that's a pretty wide group of countries, depending on whose definition of "western" you use like for example Huntington including the US, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia then the western world is less than a billion put together. Given that, it's not unlikely that the Asian economy will become at least as big if not bigger than the western one. Of course Asia is a pretty big mix of various countries all by itself, far more than China.
Sorry, but no. There are bunches and bunches of PHBs out there who will perpetually doubt that anyone can make a Microsoft server as good as Microsoft and would be more than a little afraid that by doing this, they would be in violation of some sort of license requirement. At the very least, it would void any support services if an exchange server were to connect to a Samba 4 AD domain. PHBs care a lot about stuff like that even if people rarely if ever use Microsoft's support.
If PHBs ran the world we'd still be browsing with IE on an IIS server - or more likely, banging rocks together - but fortunately there's the "I don't know what you just said, just make it happen" and "There's no money in the budget for that, so we'll try the shoestring solution" PHBs that get enough out of the way to not entirely choke IT. (Or more likely, make IT not choke the PHBs...)
Instead you need lawyers speaking in French, German and English. Which for Italian speaking inventors might be very expensive. Previously this wasn't required, because if someone wanted to have their patent valid in Italy, he had to translate it.
Unless you live in France or Germany, I'm pretty sure native+English would suffice just fine. Despite what the EU says about promoting language plurality in practice there's a massive shift of momentum towards English and a decline in both German and French as a foreign language. But I do see the lawyers making a small fortune on arguing whether patent X written in Italian is in fact prior art to patent Y written in English, fighting over linguistic details in legal documents is a fight only lawyers will win.
Well, there's two different things here - will certain places run out of work or will the world "run out" of work, as certain post-post-post-modern world futurists have predicted. Despite what is happening in the US and parts of Europe, if you look at the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, China, India) or the OECD report you'll see that the world isn't exactly running out of jobs, they're just not created in the "Old World". In fact despite all the trouble in the developed world, extreme poverty is on its way down:
More recent post-2008 analysis reveals that, while the food, fuel and financial crises over the past four years had at times sharp negative impacts on vulnerable populations and slowed the rate of poverty reduction in some countries, global poverty overall kept falling. In fact, preliminary survey-based estimates for 2010 - based on a smaller sample size than in the global update -indicate that the $1.25 a day poverty rate had fallen to under half of its 1990 value by 2010.
Most other indicators like literacy, life expectancy etc. also indicate that the world is overall moving forwards. I think it's more globalization that's catching up to us, if you outsource the low-end jobs and keep the high-end jobs here then eventually they graduate and take the high-end jobs too. If anyone thought you could keep design and management here without hands-on knowledge from production and maintenance they were fooling themselves. Sure it doesn't happen right away, it takes a decade or two. Coincidentally, it's now a decade or two since outsourcing became the "big thing".
Tor only anonymizes the source of the data; Anything between the exit node and destination is sent in the clear and likely they've made some mistake that'll allow it to be blockable.
They control both ends of the communication, they could easily use for example HTTPS as their transport protocol. If they didn't that's rather naive and will probably be fixed in the next release.
My first instinct is to think so what? Shouldn't non-profit foundations have ambitious fund raising targets that they fall short of most of the time? Is FreeBSD in danger of ceasing to be a viable operating system because the target wasn't met?
Last year their target was $400k and they reached $426k so they're not intentionally making too ambitious targets. That this is an annual campaign and they're $146k short of matching last year indicates interest has dropped significantly. Looking at their donors it's now practically run by Netapp that's moved up to double platinum ($100k+), accounting for more than a third of their total donations. The more disturbing part for them should be that the donor list is much, much shorter than last year.
By making one questionable move after another we begin to believe Ubuntu's business model has failed.
No wonder, when they're trying to make money off a user base that froths like a rabid dog whenever they feel they're being monetized. That tend to get furious any time a website uses a workaround to get past their ad blocker without the slightest bit of irony in that they use an ad blocker as a workaround to get content without ads. Or get their panties in a bunch over product placement after advertisers switched to those because everyone was skipping ads on their DVR/PVR. Ubuntu may be free as in beer and in speech, but it's also free as in "There's no such thing as a free lunch". You're not required to say yes to anything of course, but if the "free" lunch never results in any business you're not going to get invited to any more lunches.
Red Hat figured this out long ago when they killed Red Hat Linux, spun off Fedora and bet everything on RHEL that had paying customers, they could offer a damn good desktop distro but they couldn't make any money off it. Now Ubuntu is starting to feel in the same bind, they're spending lots of money building Ubuntu for the desktop but they're not making any money off it so they're aiming for smart TVs and tablets and trying to cash in on their users without them disappearing in a puff of smoke. I wouldn't be surprised if they disappear out, a new company comes in thinking they can become another Facebook or Youtube if only they get enough users but in the end "We lose money on every sale, but we make up for it on volume" is not a good business model, not even for Linux distros.
Why the hell is there a chat client in a mail program to start with? I saw this new 'feature' and died a little inside. It is a classic sign on developers losing their direction.
Because the "do one thing and do it well" is in conflict with the advantages of gathering all the ways to contact a person in the same place. Oh right he's not online in the chat so I'll have to launch another, completely different application to send him a message. There's a reason most chats newer than IRC offer a way to send offline messages, essentially acting more like email light than instant messages.
Today's email user cannot even remember their correspondents' email address nor figure out how to use a contact list, so they just reply willy-nilly to any other message they find from that person in their inbox, or grieve their lost friend if no such message exists.
With even free webmail offering to store a gazillion emails, why would old messages ever get lost? And if they f*ck up my account, chances are they'll lose the contact list too. I'll gladly admit I don't maintain a contact list, the only one I use is the company directory. For me it's more work than it's worth, particularly in business including contact information in the signature is pretty standard, meaning what's in the last email is the most recent you got - and probably far more correct than when you first added the person to your contact list three years ago. The only thing that is missing is an alternative in my email client, the choices are "Reply", "Reply All" and "Forward", there's no "New message to same recipient(s)" that I've seen. So I'm one of those trashing up your threads, but it's not ignorance it's convenience.
Your rock however must be small indeed because BSD is certainly "mainstream", as has been discussed on /. ad nauseam.
I don't know how accurate the stats are, but w3techs puts FreeBSD at 1.1% of all web servers, that's roughly as mainstream as Linux is on the desktop - in other words not at all. It used to big be yes, but my impression is that Linux got corporate backing and raised the quality significantly while BSD remained a mostly amateur project. Particularly they were rather late with production grade SMP support which started a lot of migration to Linux and while a lot of web hosting companies used it in-house and small companies offered support there never formed a big professional support organization like Red Hat was for Linux. Not to mention Linus has by some small miracle managed to keep it together under one banner instead of forking into three branches with duplication of effort.
Sweden is 450,000 km^2. USA is 9,800,000 km^2. Building infrastructure basically becomes exponentially more expensive as the area increases.
And the world (land area) is 148,429,000 km^2, clearly building an Internet is impossible. Intra-European bandwidth is just as important to us as Intra-US bandwidth is to the US, Sweden is just as well connected to Norway, Denmark and Finland as California is to Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. You just pretend like they're not comparable because you don't like the results of the comparison.
Here in Europe the business interests are regulated more, but the government itself is eroding privacy fast, your privacy now very much depends on promises on how they'll not use your data.
And the problem with that is that most governments are so big that when things do go wrong, it can magically be no-one's fault and no-one's responsibility to make things right, even though the consequences for the innocent victim can be severe. My sig says what it says for a reason...
Oh, I'm not that worried that the government will do so carelessly. What I do worry about is that there'll be something like 9/11, a Patriot Act and then all those protections will have disappeared in a puff of dust in the name of national security and public safety. Particularly things that are presented as a temporary emergency measure against a vaguely defined enemy in a "war" that doesn't end. No government wants to relinquish power.
Pardon me for saying so, but what's so vitally important or different about IPv6? Is the Internet going to change in some way once we're all on IPv6? My impression is that it's more like the Y2K problem, a bunch of people have to work on a bunch of code to fix all the places it assumes an IP is a dotted quad and fits in 32 bits, but when all is said and done nobody is really going to notice the difference, except that it continues to work and scale. I don't really think you got "lots of experience and training" by fixing the Y2K problem in 1995, any more than you got implementing IPv6 in 2005 or 2010. For most software your IP is just an opaque identifier they can try connecting to, nothing more or less. On the network side, you still have the same basic configuration of subnets and gateways. Maybe a few high end network jobs will change in some way, but that is all.
It's a requirement that you should make yourself aware of once you decide to make changes and redistribute them. You don't have to agree to anything just to use or even modify the software.
Wrong, one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights is:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
So unless you're permitted by fair use you have to agree to the GPL to modify it, but the GPL doesn't require you to do anything unless you're distributing it. </Hermes Conrad>
The answer to that was in the part you quoted. "so I can ssh to them and scp stuff around." Presumably, he didn't mean "while I'm sitting in my house"
And how exactly would he have been doing that for the last 8 years when "the rest of the world" for the most part haven't used IPv6, so none of his boxes could be reached? If you need to connect to an IPv4/IPv6 bridge then you could have just as easily done a port forward instead.
Why not let the fans fix it? Is the source really worth that much?
Probably not, but releasing code is not free. Do they own all the code, if not where did they license it from, what does the license say, who needs to sign off on this, are we taking a risk that someone will sue over some patent or rogue developer who copied code without permission, can someone find exploits or multi player cheats in the code and whatever. Particularly the artwork is almost certainly not free, so it'd be an engine release where you need the original licensed game to be legal. So after all that work, people still have to fix the code and nobody's going to be that very grateful for having to rewrite a big chunk just to get it back to working order. I think you'd probably end up with less bad PR just saying that was it, no more multi player than stringing people along with false hope.
Of course, his opinion is that any corporation is out to screw you so it's like using a broken clock to predict the time. Unless of course you think all corporations are evil and you should go live in some hippie commune that make everything they need themselves.
I'm genuinely interested to know which areas you think the US is better in. As someone who lives in Europe, my perception is that neither the US government (any of its three branches) nor US big business has any interest at all in protecting the privacy of its own citizens, or pretty much any rights at all for anyone other than its own citizens.
Well, for one Europe is many countries. In Norway I feel they're butting in on very many things, but always under the promise that it won't be used for anything bad:
1. Probably the most telltale sign here in Norway is that we no longer need to submit our tax report. The government sends out a pre-filled report and unless you've got any objections you don't need to do anything. On it, the employers have reported your income, the property registry any properties, the car registry any cars, banks report wealth and interest income, any stocks or funds held on a Norwegian commodity account, you get your tax class, child benefits, pretty much anything and everything that's already in a registry about you somewhere. Most people actually don't need to change anything unless they have foreign holdings of some sort.
2. Gambling machines are only permitted using personalized electronic user cards, which enforce a 400 NOK/day gambling limit to curb gambling addiction. Coincidentally, they have a huge registry of gamblers and how much they play, but they promise not to use it for anything bad.
3. If I pay more than 10k NOK = 1780 USD to anyone in cash, I can be criminally punished as an accessory to their tax fraud, regardless of any actual knowledge. Big money transfers should always leave an electronic trace, but of course they promise to not use it for anything bad.
4. Very many places now they've set up "average speed" speeding cameras that always photographs everyone and match them to find speeders getting too fast from A to B, while deleting the rest. At least that's what they say, but of course they promise not to use it for anything bad.
5. Lately they've been very efficient in killing off physical tickets bought with cash in favor of personal electronic tickets, which together with electronic card readers mean they collect tons of data on your movement. Automated toll roads that simply take your picture rather than pay the toll with anonymous cash is already standard. But of course they promise to use it only for statistics and not for anything bad.
I could probably go on for a long while like this and in almost every case the public accepts it because right now the safeguards seem pretty solid, the watchdogs reliable and the government dialed mostly towards good. But if the dial is ever set to evil, lord help us because what we do is becoming extremely transparent to the government. If there was ever a need to return to the old ways we might find they don't exist anymore. In that sense I have the impression that the US government is a bit more hands off, it's mostly the corporations that have pretty much free reign to collect data on you. Here in Europe the business interests are regulated more, but the government itself is eroding privacy fast, your privacy now very much depends on promises on how they'll not use your data.
I've been using IPv6 for 8 years or so and I really don't care what other people do. The main value for me is that all boxen on the LAN have their own IPv6 IPs so I can ssh to them and scp stuff around.
Really, that was it? What was wrong with giving them a 192.168.x.x or even 10.x.x.x IPv4 address, you have over 16 million "boxen" on your network so you ran out?
But why are trying to make it difficult for Oracle & Novell to provide support for RHEL?
You mean why are they trying to make it difficult for Oracle & Novell to offer the work of Red Hat as their own? Yes, the source code is open but I understand that they don't want to give their competitors an easy way to search their patches and offer them as their own solutions after Red Hat engineers spent all the time reproducing the issue, digging through the source code, finding the bug and making a patch for it. They never did this while is was only the non-commercial CentOS, it was when Oracle starting talking about Unbreakable Linux and offering their own Linux distribution. Red Hat contributes more back to Linux than probably any other company in the community but I perfectly understand that if you want that particular flavor that is RHEL or the benefits of Red Hat's support system they want you to pay for that.
Certain people in the Linux community is militantly opposed to anyone holding anything back or doing anything less than idealistic or noble in order to bring in money. It doesn't matter if it's using dual licencing, trying to make money off search results like Ubuntu and Firefox or trying to protect their own support business like Red Hat or whatever. Everybody is supposed to be so altruistic and work only for the community and not a shred for themselves or to turn a profit. For sure many people are particularly individual contributors but many also share only out of self-interest, because getting their code integrated, maintained and improved by the community is worth more than the benefits of keeping an in-house fork. To them your whole question is backwards, why should we help our competitors steal our own business?
Today, you spend $100,000 to get a degree so you can work in an entry level position. A generation or two ago, you just graduated high school for the entry level position and somebody with a college degree want into a junior management or mid-level position. Face. it, most work fits in the category of being unskilled and monotonous. We just don't like to think about it when it applies to our own field.
A generation or two ago most jobs were simpler. No, I'm serious a lot more jobs have moved into the "skilled and monotonous" category. Let's take for example being a lumberjack, not that many years ago it was mostly manual labor with axe and saw. Even after you got decent chain saws, it was a lot of hard labor. Today most logging is done with lots of machinery like feller bunchers, harvesters, forwarders and other heavy machinery. You can't just get into one of these and work it, you have to learn it. Of course once you do it's the same thing over and over again, chop trees and transport trees day in and day out. There's a lot of work like that, boring as fuck but you still couldn't grab a kid fresh out of high school and make him do it.
What does that mean in practice? That there's a real barrier to entry, you won't learn it unless there's jobs available that justify the investment and you can't do it as a short time gig for some quick cash. In practice the unskilled worker who'll pick up stray jobs have had slimmer and slimmer pickings, the number of "warm body" jobs you can perform with a minimum of training have been decreasing sharply being replaced first by machinery and later with robots or electronics. And the few jobs that are left like taxi drivers, retail clerks, fast food clerks etc. have a constant draft of people seeking in-between jobs until they get a new job in their field of work, so the "career" unskilled worker is pretty much boned.
This future is not going to change, we're going to need more and more highly skilled labor. Tough for all the people that don't really can or want to be all that highly skilled and want to drop out after high school, but I don't see how we could change that without simply creating busywork like in this story:
The story goes that Milton Friedman was once taken to see a massive government project somewhere in Asia. Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren't there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman's response: "Then why not use spoons instead of shovels?"
I'm sorry but we don't need many people with shovels. We need people with a degree to even find an entry level job for them.