Additionally, you forget one thing: The reason certain tools use certain ports or network protocols are because they were unencumbered. Once any portion of the design becomes encumbered with filtering, security checks or anything else deemed "censorship", it will be rebuilt to avoid not just the problem, but the entire *class* of such problems. This will happen for information, and to a slowly degree, hardware hacking, in a neverending march.
Right now, you can write a P2P client that will check for credentials, register with an authorizing service, and track usage and even use a fob. But the trend of it is not going that way. I see no home-grown networks springing up that will steal mindshare from the existing "free beer" mentality.
Without overdoing the paraphrasing of folks prior to this post, the it's not the information that must be tracked, but the ability to transfer such information with adequate private security - meaning someone must remove the ability for the internet to work as an open standard completely.
Of course, such a thing would be completely ludicrous, since the tools and instructions to build an IP network out of almost anything readily exist, and exist off the 'net, most importantly.
With any movement to privatize the internet through capitalization or censorship, the public can move to their own. Bandwidth, wireless networking, dual core and public knowledge of computer/information theory must be explored religiously to keep such info public and non-commoditized.
Also, as more and more different markets use the internet, and rely on the cost-of-business of a certain clientel to be online - anything blocking, slowing, filtering, or scaring them off (notice that scaring doesn't require any change in reality), these businesses will complain. The internet is now so etched into business models that any tinkering with the "fast information-of-any-kind per price" theme will bump into negative feedback. I foresee the "pay as you enter" model sticking around for a long time, and folks starting server "channels" that bypass any packet-derived categorization. SSL may get expanded and ubiquitous, for example.
More than ever, it looks like Google is ready to link together all these recent conepts into a cohesive web platform for All Things Information. They're not replacing books, but allowing you to search them more in-depth, same with music, etc.
I'm not sure it'll sell, but it should be an interesting product. I like that they've started with real innovation on searching, cateloging, etc, instead of just branding alone. However, in the end the market will leapfrog, it always has.
Compare their lineup to, say, the world of MSN or AOL, which was attempting to brand existing behaviors "email" and "search" and "shop" done pretty much as you have it elsewhere. Yahoo added customer references, then Amazon adds one-click and historical records/you-created-this-page nonsense. Google will probably have as much of all those products, but tied into a dashboard of widgets.
Sadly, nobody has come up with a better concept on ads. Crazy-bad moving ads on a static page of text are the bane of internet viewing. Google's putblished test-only ads, which I like, but perhaps only by their integrating their paying advertising into their lists (with a deliniation for showing such) can we drop this.
Unless these new products are kept simple, users will again migrate to the "meat and potato" sites like craigslist and similar for simplicity. Google's biggest risk is it's newfound audience, and the push to throw ads at them everywhere. The day we see Punch the Monkey on Google, we've pretty much seen this behemouth ready for an undercut.
Re:Lets hope they open source it
on
Google to Buy Opera?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I disagree. Google's intro of a new browser into the market would serve them immensely. Their combination of widget offerings, amazon-like habit tracking, and the willingness "to deal" with potential advertisers all combine to one thing, which is already apparent:
Google is hoping to strike a balance between:
a novel (cleaner,simplified) presentation level, combined with intuitive features and applications (widgets, earth, search, books, shopping, ads)
a business model of selling to a targeted audience of savvy web surfers that enjoy the interface and come to rely on the content packager with a level of trust.
Get ready for a huge amount of intertie for targeted information at the Google level. Yahoo+Amazon with lots of slick tools. I see google coming to the table with incredible market-stealing bundling with nice Apple-like tools. Perhaps not a winner, but Google is waiting for all the AOL-ish [l]users to look for something new and cool.
Interesting how the less-intelligent, personal-attack responses are from AC's, while the interesting contributors are not. Or not so new.
While I'm at now (US northwest), a lot of the programming is.NET based. If you are living elsehwere and have a Java-only view of openings, then great! both are alive in well in the world. Claiming either is a the single choice for all is a sure sign of an incompetent developer. Worse yet, the AC's here trolling are probably not developers at all (sigh of relief actually).
Exactly. With the amount of interpretation (or indifference) to certain passages, you could substitute quite a few *better* books than the bible.
Basically, the fever of religion kept the bible going through history, but many other texts/stories survived. Gparent post is lost to the details of myth origination, morphing and transfer.
Do we give up? It's been this way for so long, and grown so out of control, they're changing how lives should be run (across many religions and areas). It may be mankind's curse of intellect to imagine unreal influences, then fight over how to appease them. Perhaps we'd be better off a few evolutionary steps backward. (see I _can_ get back on-topic)
That's exactly the point...the Game and it's rules are one and the same. The rules include *any* and *all* things done by GM, etc. So, you either accept the entire thing, struggling within it to change it, or you walk away in protest, publishing all the gory details.
I think Rob should quit the game. He may feel like his efforts were better spent playing *anything* else besides a game that elicits such a post. Plus, I agree with original parent, if he's still playing, this is just whining, not a real protest.
Sorry, Rob that your moniker got dropped/grabbed/verboten. Happens to many of us. Your post might be better framed as a discussion about the psychological/sociological effects of avatars in general, but as a diary entry, it doesn't grab me.
This topic comes around now and then. Sadly, skilled labor is more apt to follow the metaphor that "information wants to be free" than nonskilled labor solidarity slogans.
The knowledge to write good code isn't a secret. If you can get it better elsewhere ("better" being a very subjective and detailed term) then do it!
If programming comes outsourced and completely shuffled around to the lowest labor market, I'd be delighted to see requirements/process achieve this capability. And of course, I'd start to look for a newer industry to keep my standard of living. But in the end, there's no bullying a global market into not trying to get the cheapest price. It's doing it now and examining the quality - with mixed results.
The registry and analogous flat file data stores try to achieve the same goals. I think the registry makes several mistakes:
- Consolidating all settings into one proprietary data store. This imposes a new security mechanism over that of simple file access. This unique data store does nothing by itself to "secure" the data, it's just a box. One can lock the entire box but simple users do effect changes in the registry.
- INI files are plaintext versions of some sort of file. Their manipulation could be by hand (trad *nix style), or employ one of several storage syntax mediums (XML being one) which allows general tools to work across the items.
- File-based security on INI files is stronger, and more easily managed with existing tools, than key-based security on the hive-based registry entries. Combining with journaling/versioning, INI files hold more depth than a registry (which has to import/export to a file-based representation to achieve this).
- Line-item security on INI files is not as strong, hence the danger people have in by-hand editing. This can be overcome using a syntax that allows for tool-based editing, where then INI files expose their keys, and a security table holds a File/Key/Role association.
- Shared INI files for library management (aka COM) have the same write-contention isses as the registry, so no differences there. GAC-style libraries are directory-based, which seems to lend evidence that both file and registry stores for libraries are based done higher up in the file system.
If you answer this question, you fuel a discussion that should be constrained to a very very small domain of C development. Otherwise, you're going to see needless flag waving about coding standards in domains where it doesn't need to exist. Don't feed the dirty C programmer (we like other info, really, we do).
and frankly, the TFA depends on architecture, where most modern compilers make both snippets equal.
There is simple technology to begin your process by having you just put the file in a directory. It would:
- Be informed when the file was dropped, and upon such event, compress w/pw, rename, and copy to newly-created customer-specific (web facing) dir. Then archive to another machine/dir
- Passwords, like the dir names, should be something reflective of the customer, but not difficult to remember nor easy to discern. Perhaps their last name and last x digits of their [phone/zip code/ssn/creditcard] + some transaction number.
- Login screen compares passwords, redirects to preview/download panel, where all photos are there "checkbox & go"-style download. Download access is logged by the web server.
- This same program can check the file exposure times until either a deadline or a logfile says it's been downloaded x times. Then delete from the directory.
- If your customer calls and says they need to download again, or restart the process, you can send email to a dedicated address, which can be picked up by the program to pull from archive and re-publish.
- Having this amount of infrastructure would get you ready for a paypal integration, where the shopping cart was filled by the checkboxes, then the paypal rediection after purchase takes them to a family of zips to download. But you're right, don't do this until your clients prefer it to dealing direct.
- Given you're on a Mac, it wouldn't make too much difference. However, your host may prefer you run these automation programs from your own server. This would ftp the files up once you dropped the images locally. Anyway, minor concern.
Most of this could be accomplished with maybe 2 or 3 full days of programming by an experienced person, or maybe a week of nights to get all the pieces in place/kinks worked out.
don't forget that emmisions per mile are lower, but emmisions per gallon of gas are higher. the smaller engines may not run hot enough to burn away some of the nastier exhaust.
this isn't really a cure-all on pollution either.
personally, i think the battery technology/infrastructure has to be the bigger push.
So why can't Apple simply license content from new/indie music sources? If apple funded a marketing site that let people podcast slightly-lower-quality new music, then giving folks a bunch of funky search capabilities (sounds like, reminds one of, from the makers of) they have a sweet engine to pump new music into their iPods.
Shit, they should simply gather together local radio shows that debut music. I'd love to see a "what's new in [location]" podcast search.
I know quite a few startups are trying this, but without the market share of Apple, the resources aren't going to be there to collect all this.
Finally, they funnel the bands to the indie labels that are on their iPod preferred-vendor list, and voila, we're off to the races to skip the RIAA. Perhaps I'm missing something?
So retailers now will have to report the customers records to the state, so that the state can chase them down, because I certainly don't see folks lining up to track all their purchases and pay the taxes themselves. If the government starts demanding tax payments from businesses based on total sales, local and mail-order, this has large implications for existing catalog and overseas sales. This also forms a complete mess on a per-state basis, or even on a per-country basis. The internet is a muc bigger equalizer than most governments understand.
Do we also have to account for personal transactions? ebay/craigslist-style exchanges between private citizens surely can't apply. But wait! Aren't online retailers already using these channels to tap that market? Who/where do we draw the line?
This is government bloat, and I must be missing the point. Perhaps the entire argument for sales taxes should be revisited.
Actually, this is just another step towards proving that information wants to be free. If enough accounts embed enough bogus files into enough places, who's to stop any of this? you can hide information in images, code, etc - zillions of file formats.
And in fact, this is what people said about any public access to data storage. The internet is full of enough buckets to hide stuff - amd those buckets are dynamic enough - that no single agency or entity is going to find all of it.
The best way to combat "evildoers" should be preventing their physical acts, just like we don't prevent hate speech until it converts to (certain) actions. Otherwise you're on a very slippery slope about what cannot be communicated, and I'd like to see us error on the side of free speech, completely free.
So, the next step is to reverse engineer the compiler itself. It's be fascinating to see *all* of the changes Intel put in its compiler.
You were pretty lucky/savvy to know the flags to set to trick the compiler. I wonder how many folks just tried to optimize perfectly adequate sections of their code because of such a dirty trick.
I have to admit, though: Building a compiler that simple "doesn't optimize" for the competition still doesn't seem too extraordinary for the market these days.
Islamists are Muslims, which is just a religion. There's nothing in your statement to qualify it to a more direct, smaller culture of death, such as suicide bombers. If you replace your words with Jews it sounds awfully like the anti-semetic propaganda of pre-WWII.
You cannot blame the ideology of religious-based terrorism on any one country right now. Clerics (or religious leaders) in every country, including the US are embracing fundamentalism. I can't speak to the reasons for this, but suffice it to say, it is everywhere and it is divisive.
The intolerance of any religious group against any other group must be tamed by the religions themselves. The pressure for tradition, land and resources is causing conflict. Perhaps the swift modernization of the information age is causing groups everywhere to "rush to arms" to save their worldview which is probably now outdated. The world's new (and ever-changing) situations are delivering a perceived unfairness to these groups (religious, labor, political, social) and they are reacting.
Warfare follows the historic steps exactly; we have truly learned nothing. These incidents will occur until entire countries must choose a position, and then each position will fight each other. I can only hope I am within the borders of a abstaining country when it happens.
Then I sure hope your mom like paying for gas. Oil prices seem to be trending up. Overall, there has to be a better method by just reducing one's radius of locality. Sleep/Work/Play in a smaller circle and you'll need your ass carted around less, and can bike/walk more.
Like some./ readers, I got the OpenBSD image when 3.7 was released just this year. I dropped it onto an older box and have been exploring ever since. I used the packages for several items (like Gnome) but ports for others (Postgresql 8).
I've been very happy with several concepts:
- The dependency trees are spot-on and very automated. Correct versions and complete coverage.
- The ability to undo or rollback a package is smooth (like when I took a 7.x Postgres package and pkg_delete'd it to try the port)
- The published docs, man pages and organization of the system is superb. I picked up "Absolute OpenBSD" and "BSD Hacks" and have been toured confidently around the system by these and the man pages they point to.
- The post-install notes are a great help.
For me, it's a great "warm and fuzzy" to gather the documentation sources into a list and be able to dive down rabbit holes for long periods without feeling like a flea market is on my box. Cheers to the BSD folks, especially the package maintainers.
"Everybody can run their own wires if they want to offer service" ??
I'm like to see your model extended to power and water. "everybody gets the chance to install" doesn't make much sense. The only concept your free-for-all has going for it is the lower impact of running wires on poles, than in digging for pipes and rigging transformers for power.
You may be surprised at this, but by removing the burden of maintaining the infrastructure, companies often excel at the service level. They pay only a fraction of the physical cost, since the market shares the burden, and they strive to offer more innovative value-added concepts to the service level. Phone companies demonstrate this, but so does the new availability of sat. radio, wireless ethernet, etc. The infrastructure commoditizes, so "what else you got?" comes out of the consumers mouths.
Also, the maintenance of said infrastructure can be sub-contracted out through bid and term-contracts by area. If standards of performance are not kept, a new vendor is selected to run the show for the term. I call this a more even balance. It doesn't remove the (existing) potential of cronyism and abuse, but it fragments the market based on specialization of service (wires/electricity/physical versus routing/bandwidth/add-ons). This is a similar model to that proposed to run public schools in many places.
Markets already naturally fragment in this fashion, where a new competitor springs up that "only does X, so we're cheaper". In the power industry, I write software to track accountability between users of shared infrastructure (lines). Not only does this model work, but the cost of your power depends on it.
Any attack made by you against this post would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data you have obtained. This post is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.
Whoa. First, abandon that term immediately. "Crackery" hurts my ears.
If two script kiddies want to one-up each other in a hacking contest, there's many an entry-level point for this. I remember fondly of Corewars and it's ilk, then onto the ACM computing contests, etc. Today, the real world of white-hat hacking is, IMO, the OSS contributors. I am simply wowed each time I stumble through Sourceforge or such and find programming elegance.
However, you're missing something. The "sport" has to involve a sense of publicity and real-world control. Hence, these trolls needs to act on the internet at large, not in a little sandbox network. This is the concept of having your peers see your handiwork and claiming "dominance" over things by way of a hack. It's a game that teaches you lots of computing tricks but not necessarily a lot of elegance.
So, your idea is cute, but it already exists: OSS projects are waiting for cool ideas. If someone had real brains for coding, they'd find where their skills could apply and help build the better [system]. But these kids are just out for kicks, and oh, your credit card number.
I call bullshit. Comparing any market more "free" than another professes huge ignorance of trade and tarrifs, quotas and limits that exist in every industry. This, however, can be forgiven since the depth and detail of how governments adjust their markets is quite a quagmire indeed.
Let me enlighten you just a bit: Investigate the total construction materials of commonplace items such as shoes. Specifically, leather. The US requires very exact amount of it, from US markets alone. This, in the perspective of any other market, is protectionist and unfair. Now expand this one idea into hundreds of thousands of rules, from lumber to food, textiles, inks&dyes, metals, etc. And these rules exist for every market, not just the US.
The perceived "non-free" cronyism of India or Mexico may indeed not be the same as the US, but markets don't act uniformly across a country, and don't stop at borders. Markets are not tightly regulated anywhere, since they are by nature fluid and constantly reactive to many forces, only one of which is government oversight.
The workers that arrive from another country (state? neighborhood?) and take work for less wages are part of the market not outside of it. What you are observing is market globalism, where good and services are no longer held in check by geographic bondaries. Just like information. If you had to pay a "import tax" to read any web page not hosted in your direct neighborhood, would you be angry by it's subsequent removal and the loss of jobs that said tax funded?
Suffice it to say that there are 6.5 billion people in the world who have (mostly) a lower standard of living than you. If their manufacture/machine/coding output beats your per price, than it's time to raise the bar and do something else. Your job is just a step away from being done by a machine anyway, since that's what takes away jobs from those cheap industrial countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, you forget one thing: The reason certain tools use certain ports or network protocols are because they were unencumbered. Once any portion of the design becomes encumbered with filtering, security checks or anything else deemed "censorship", it will be rebuilt to avoid not just the problem, but the entire *class* of such problems. This will happen for information, and to a slowly degree, hardware hacking, in a neverending march.
Right now, you can write a P2P client that will check for credentials, register with an authorizing service, and track usage and even use a fob. But the trend of it is not going that way. I see no home-grown networks springing up that will steal mindshare from the existing "free beer" mentality.
Without overdoing the paraphrasing of folks prior to this post, the it's not the information that must be tracked, but the ability to transfer such information with adequate private security - meaning someone must remove the ability for the internet to work as an open standard completely.
Of course, such a thing would be completely ludicrous, since the tools and instructions to build an IP network out of almost anything readily exist, and exist off the 'net, most importantly.
With any movement to privatize the internet through capitalization or censorship, the public can move to their own. Bandwidth, wireless networking, dual core and public knowledge of computer/information theory must be explored religiously to keep such info public and non-commoditized.
Also, as more and more different markets use the internet, and rely on the cost-of-business of a certain clientel to be online - anything blocking, slowing, filtering, or scaring them off (notice that scaring doesn't require any change in reality), these businesses will complain. The internet is now so etched into business models that any tinkering with the "fast information-of-any-kind per price" theme will bump into negative feedback. I foresee the "pay as you enter" model sticking around for a long time, and folks starting server "channels" that bypass any packet-derived categorization. SSL may get expanded and ubiquitous, for example.
More than ever, it looks like Google is ready to link together all these recent conepts into a cohesive web platform for All Things Information. They're not replacing books, but allowing you to search them more in-depth, same with music, etc.
I'm not sure it'll sell, but it should be an interesting product. I like that they've started with real innovation on searching, cateloging, etc, instead of just branding alone. However, in the end the market will leapfrog, it always has.
Compare their lineup to, say, the world of MSN or AOL, which was attempting to brand existing behaviors "email" and "search" and "shop" done pretty much as you have it elsewhere. Yahoo added customer references, then Amazon adds one-click and historical records/you-created-this-page nonsense. Google will probably have as much of all those products, but tied into a dashboard of widgets.
Sadly, nobody has come up with a better concept on ads. Crazy-bad moving ads on a static page of text are the bane of internet viewing. Google's putblished test-only ads, which I like, but perhaps only by their integrating their paying advertising into their lists (with a deliniation for showing such) can we drop this.
Unless these new products are kept simple, users will again migrate to the "meat and potato" sites like craigslist and similar for simplicity. Google's biggest risk is it's newfound audience, and the push to throw ads at them everywhere. The day we see Punch the Monkey on Google, we've pretty much seen this behemouth ready for an undercut.
Google is hoping to strike a balance between:
Get ready for a huge amount of intertie for targeted information at the Google level. Yahoo+Amazon with lots of slick tools. I see google coming to the table with incredible market-stealing bundling with nice Apple-like tools. Perhaps not a winner, but Google is waiting for all the AOL-ish [l]users to look for something new and cool.
Quick! JAVA is the new BSD!
Interesting how the less-intelligent, personal-attack responses are from AC's, while the interesting contributors are not. Or not so new.
.NET based. If you are living elsehwere and have a Java-only view of openings, then great! both are alive in well in the world. Claiming either is a the single choice for all is a sure sign of an incompetent developer. Worse yet, the AC's here trolling are probably not developers at all (sigh of relief actually).
While I'm at now (US northwest), a lot of the programming is
Exactly. With the amount of interpretation (or indifference) to certain passages, you could substitute quite a few *better* books than the bible.
Basically, the fever of religion kept the bible going through history, but many other texts/stories survived. Gparent post is lost to the details of myth origination, morphing and transfer.
Do we give up? It's been this way for so long, and grown so out of control, they're changing how lives should be run (across many religions and areas). It may be mankind's curse of intellect to imagine unreal influences, then fight over how to appease them. Perhaps we'd be better off a few evolutionary steps backward. (see I _can_ get back on-topic)
it's even your quote: "struggling within it to change it"
So - following your suggestion, one complains to the United Nations.
Rob is bringing his laundry to
That's exactly the point...the Game and it's rules are one and the same. The rules include *any* and *all* things done by GM, etc. So, you either accept the entire thing, struggling within it to change it, or you walk away in protest, publishing all the gory details.
I think Rob should quit the game. He may feel like his efforts were better spent playing *anything* else besides a game that elicits such a post. Plus, I agree with original parent, if he's still playing, this is just whining, not a real protest.
Sorry, Rob that your moniker got dropped/grabbed/verboten. Happens to many of us. Your post might be better framed as a discussion about the psychological/sociological effects of avatars in general, but as a diary entry, it doesn't grab me.
This topic comes around now and then. Sadly, skilled labor is more apt to follow the metaphor that "information wants to be free" than nonskilled labor solidarity slogans.
The knowledge to write good code isn't a secret. If you can get it better elsewhere ("better" being a very subjective and detailed term) then do it!
If programming comes outsourced and completely shuffled around to the lowest labor market, I'd be delighted to see requirements/process achieve this capability. And of course, I'd start to look for a newer industry to keep my standard of living. But in the end, there's no bullying a global market into not trying to get the cheapest price. It's doing it now and examining the quality - with mixed results.
The registry and analogous flat file data stores try to achieve the same goals. I think the registry makes several mistakes:
- Consolidating all settings into one proprietary data store. This imposes a new security mechanism over that of simple file access. This unique data store does nothing by itself to "secure" the data, it's just a box. One can lock the entire box but simple users do effect changes in the registry.
- INI files are plaintext versions of some sort of file. Their manipulation could be by hand (trad *nix style), or employ one of several storage syntax mediums (XML being one) which allows general tools to work across the items.
- File-based security on INI files is stronger, and more easily managed with existing tools, than key-based security on the hive-based registry entries. Combining with journaling/versioning, INI files hold more depth than a registry (which has to import/export to a file-based representation to achieve this).
- Line-item security on INI files is not as strong, hence the danger people have in by-hand editing. This can be overcome using a syntax that allows for tool-based editing, where then INI files expose their keys, and a security table holds a File/Key/Role association.
- Shared INI files for library management (aka COM) have the same write-contention isses as the registry, so no differences there. GAC-style libraries are directory-based, which seems to lend evidence that both file and registry stores for libraries are based done higher up in the file system.
If you answer this question, you fuel a discussion that should be constrained to a very very small domain of C development. Otherwise, you're going to see needless flag waving about coding standards in domains where it doesn't need to exist. Don't feed the dirty C programmer (we like other info, really, we do).
and frankly, the TFA depends on architecture, where most modern compilers make both snippets equal.
There is simple technology to begin your process by having you just put the file in a directory. It would:
- Be informed when the file was dropped, and upon such event, compress w/pw, rename, and copy to newly-created customer-specific (web facing) dir. Then archive to another machine/dir
- Passwords, like the dir names, should be something reflective of the customer, but not difficult to remember nor easy to discern. Perhaps their last name and last x digits of their [phone/zip code/ssn/creditcard] + some transaction number.
- Login screen compares passwords, redirects to preview/download panel, where all photos are there "checkbox & go"-style download. Download access is logged by the web server.
- This same program can check the file exposure times until either a deadline or a logfile says it's been downloaded x times. Then delete from the directory.
- If your customer calls and says they need to download again, or restart the process, you can send email to a dedicated address, which can be picked up by the program to pull from archive and re-publish.
- Having this amount of infrastructure would get you ready for a paypal integration, where the shopping cart was filled by the checkboxes, then the paypal rediection after purchase takes them to a family of zips to download. But you're right, don't do this until your clients prefer it to dealing direct.
- Given you're on a Mac, it wouldn't make too much difference. However, your host may prefer you run these automation programs from your own server. This would ftp the files up once you dropped the images locally. Anyway, minor concern.
Most of this could be accomplished with maybe 2 or 3 full days of programming by an experienced person, or maybe a week of nights to get all the pieces in place/kinks worked out.
mug
don't forget that emmisions per mile are lower, but emmisions per gallon of gas are higher. the smaller engines may not run hot enough to burn away some of the nastier exhaust.
this isn't really a cure-all on pollution either.
personally, i think the battery technology/infrastructure has to be the bigger push.
So why can't Apple simply license content from new/indie music sources? If apple funded a marketing site that let people podcast slightly-lower-quality new music, then giving folks a bunch of funky search capabilities (sounds like, reminds one of, from the makers of) they have a sweet engine to pump new music into their iPods.
Shit, they should simply gather together local radio shows that debut music. I'd love to see a "what's new in [location]" podcast search.
I know quite a few startups are trying this, but without the market share of Apple, the resources aren't going to be there to collect all this.
Finally, they funnel the bands to the indie labels that are on their iPod preferred-vendor list, and voila, we're off to the races to skip the RIAA. Perhaps I'm missing something?
So retailers now will have to report the customers records to the state, so that the state can chase them down, because I certainly don't see folks lining up to track all their purchases and pay the taxes themselves. If the government starts demanding tax payments from businesses based on total sales, local and mail-order, this has large implications for existing catalog and overseas sales. This also forms a complete mess on a per-state basis, or even on a per-country basis. The internet is a muc bigger equalizer than most governments understand.
Do we also have to account for personal transactions? ebay/craigslist-style exchanges between private citizens surely can't apply. But wait! Aren't online retailers already using these channels to tap that market? Who/where do we draw the line?
This is government bloat, and I must be missing the point. Perhaps the entire argument for sales taxes should be revisited.
Actually, this is just another step towards proving that information wants to be free. If enough accounts embed enough bogus files into enough places, who's to stop any of this? you can hide information in images, code, etc - zillions of file formats.
And in fact, this is what people said about any public access to data storage. The internet is full of enough buckets to hide stuff - amd those buckets are dynamic enough - that no single agency or entity is going to find all of it.
The best way to combat "evildoers" should be preventing their physical acts, just like we don't prevent hate speech until it converts to (certain) actions. Otherwise you're on a very slippery slope about what cannot be communicated, and I'd like to see us error on the side of free speech, completely free.
So, the next step is to reverse engineer the compiler itself. It's be fascinating to see *all* of the changes Intel put in its compiler.
You were pretty lucky/savvy to know the flags to set to trick the compiler. I wonder how many folks just tried to optimize perfectly adequate sections of their code because of such a dirty trick.
I have to admit, though: Building a compiler that simple "doesn't optimize" for the competition still doesn't seem too extraordinary for the market these days.
Thanks for the correction. I'm not above standing up to be corrected, but your style leaves something to be desired.
As to the rest of your tirade, it doesn't seem to answer my thought.
Islamists are Muslims, which is just a religion. There's nothing in your statement to qualify it to a more direct, smaller culture of death, such as suicide bombers. If you replace your words with Jews it sounds awfully like the anti-semetic propaganda of pre-WWII.
You cannot blame the ideology of religious-based terrorism on any one country right now. Clerics (or religious leaders) in every country, including the US are embracing fundamentalism. I can't speak to the reasons for this, but suffice it to say, it is everywhere and it is divisive.
The intolerance of any religious group against any other group must be tamed by the religions themselves. The pressure for tradition, land and resources is causing conflict. Perhaps the swift modernization of the information age is causing groups everywhere to "rush to arms" to save their worldview which is probably now outdated. The world's new (and ever-changing) situations are delivering a perceived unfairness to these groups (religious, labor, political, social) and they are reacting.
Warfare follows the historic steps exactly; we have truly learned nothing. These incidents will occur until entire countries must choose a position, and then each position will fight each other. I can only hope I am within the borders of a abstaining country when it happens.
Then I sure hope your mom like paying for gas. Oil prices seem to be trending up. Overall, there has to be a better method by just reducing one's radius of locality. Sleep/Work/Play in a smaller circle and you'll need your ass carted around less, and can bike/walk more.
Like some
I've been very happy with several concepts:
- The dependency trees are spot-on and very automated. Correct versions and complete coverage.
- The ability to undo or rollback a package is smooth (like when I took a 7.x Postgres package and pkg_delete'd it to try the port)
- The published docs, man pages and organization of the system is superb. I picked up "Absolute OpenBSD" and "BSD Hacks" and have been toured confidently around the system by these and the man pages they point to.
- The post-install notes are a great help.
For me, it's a great "warm and fuzzy" to gather the documentation sources into a list and be able to dive down rabbit holes for long periods without feeling like a flea market is on my box. Cheers to the BSD folks, especially the package maintainers.
"Everybody can run their own wires if they want to offer service" ??
I'm like to see your model extended to power and water. "everybody gets the chance to install" doesn't make much sense. The only concept your free-for-all has going for it is the lower impact of running wires on poles, than in digging for pipes and rigging transformers for power.
You may be surprised at this, but by removing the burden of maintaining the infrastructure, companies often excel at the service level. They pay only a fraction of the physical cost, since the market shares the burden, and they strive to offer more innovative value-added concepts to the service level. Phone companies demonstrate this, but so does the new availability of sat. radio, wireless ethernet, etc. The infrastructure commoditizes, so "what else you got?" comes out of the consumers mouths.
Also, the maintenance of said infrastructure can be sub-contracted out through bid and term-contracts by area. If standards of performance are not kept, a new vendor is selected to run the show for the term. I call this a more even balance. It doesn't remove the (existing) potential of cronyism and abuse, but it fragments the market based on specialization of service (wires/electricity/physical versus routing/bandwidth/add-ons). This is a similar model to that proposed to run public schools in many places.
Markets already naturally fragment in this fashion, where a new competitor springs up that "only does X, so we're cheaper". In the power industry, I write software to track accountability between users of shared infrastructure (lines). Not only does this model work, but the cost of your power depends on it.
Any attack made by you against this post would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data you have obtained. This post is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.
Whoa. First, abandon that term immediately. "Crackery" hurts my ears.
If two script kiddies want to one-up each other in a hacking contest, there's many an entry-level point for this. I remember fondly of Corewars and it's ilk, then onto the ACM computing contests, etc. Today, the real world of white-hat hacking is, IMO, the OSS contributors. I am simply wowed each time I stumble through Sourceforge or such and find programming elegance.
However, you're missing something. The "sport" has to involve a sense of publicity and real-world control. Hence, these trolls needs to act on the internet at large, not in a little sandbox network. This is the concept of having your peers see your handiwork and claiming "dominance" over things by way of a hack. It's a game that teaches you lots of computing tricks but not necessarily a lot of elegance.
So, your idea is cute, but it already exists: OSS projects are waiting for cool ideas. If someone had real brains for coding, they'd find where their skills could apply and help build the better [system]. But these kids are just out for kicks, and oh, your credit card number.
I call bullshit. Comparing any market more "free" than another professes huge ignorance of trade and tarrifs, quotas and limits that exist in every industry. This, however, can be forgiven since the depth and detail of how governments adjust their markets is quite a quagmire indeed.
Let me enlighten you just a bit: Investigate the total construction materials of commonplace items such as shoes. Specifically, leather. The US requires very exact amount of it, from US markets alone. This, in the perspective of any other market, is protectionist and unfair. Now expand this one idea into hundreds of thousands of rules, from lumber to food, textiles, inks&dyes, metals, etc. And these rules exist for every market, not just the US.
The perceived "non-free" cronyism of India or Mexico may indeed not be the same as the US, but markets don't act uniformly across a country, and don't stop at borders. Markets are not tightly regulated anywhere, since they are by nature fluid and constantly reactive to many forces, only one of which is government oversight.
The workers that arrive from another country (state? neighborhood?) and take work for less wages are part of the market not outside of it. What you are observing is market globalism, where good and services are no longer held in check by geographic bondaries. Just like information. If you had to pay a "import tax" to read any web page not hosted in your direct neighborhood, would you be angry by it's subsequent removal and the loss of jobs that said tax funded?
Suffice it to say that there are 6.5 billion people in the world who have (mostly) a lower standard of living than you. If their manufacture/machine/coding output beats your per price, than it's time to raise the bar and do something else. Your job is just a step away from being done by a machine anyway, since that's what takes away jobs from those cheap industrial countries.