I just reboot in next service window. In normal situation mission critical systems have some sort of redundancy not only to cope with planned service reboots but with other unplanned disasters
That is certainly true such activity often requires a bit of human babysitting, if only to verify that everything bounces back and syncs as it should.
If the process really is seamless then $4 could mean your (much more expensive) engineers spend their time on other productive things.
That said I'm not sure it's an idea that will take off in practice, even if it is a very clever idea. I think it's something that a lot of people will be nervous about (including me). With the current patching mechanisms you can be fairly clear what your system is running. This seems a bit too much like magic right now but it's entirely possible that one day it will just seem normal.
But in all seriousness, the only reason why Apple would even consider doing this, is if Google already abandoned them elsewhere
I'd have thought the only reason Apple would consider this is if Microsoft were offering them more money than Google. Assuming Bing is a suitably competent alternative Apple would be insane not to consider it as an option. Similarly Google would be insane to pin all their mobile hopes on Apple's platform.
I think anyone trying to make this into some drama is missing the fact that nothing here suggests either of the companies are making emotionally driven decisions, merely rational ones.
After all, Apple dropping Google is hardly a move that would make Google reconsider Android, it will merely make it more obvious why Google can't afford to put all their, er... apples in the one basket.
What kind of software are you running that require Apache to catch this?
Imperfect software, otherwise known as all software.
If you are serious about security then a multilayered approach is a must. Sure you try and have good software, but you also try to mitigate any potential unknown flaws.
There's additional overhead in doing the encryption/decryption at each end.
There's additional overhead in establishing (and re-establishing) a connection.
There could also be implications in regards to caching, ie a browser may not cache SSL served data on disk so you end up downloading more stuff (images, javascript, css) the first time mail is used after a browser is launched that may otherwise be cached on a non-ssl connection. The precise details here would depend on the browser, browser version, browser configuration and what the server does (what cache directives it sends etc).
If you are buying a hosting service from them on their hardware then I don't think it's unreasonable for them to want access to the machine as their responsibility includes the machine (and possibly the OS).
If you actually own the machine then it's a different story as their responsibility ends at the network port.
Obviously lesson plans produced at government funded public schools should be kept free and open so that they can be effectively refined and tailored for specific environments.
Obviously? In practice unless there is an incentive for sharing there is a good chance they won't be "kept free and open", rather they will remain completely undistributed and locked up.
Hilarious. You've taken a comment obviously relating to either domestic US flights, or flights through the US, and taken them completely out of context.
My statement was clearly exaggerated for effect.
The point, that the availability of free wifi at an airport is not likely to be a serious consideration in someones travel plans, is not unreasonable.
If you haven't booked your flights yet, you want to factor this into your plans.
Sure I've have a week in South Africa in the national parks and game reserves and another in a luxury resort in Indonesia but I'm tempted to chuck the whole thing in for some free wi-fi.
It's good for "enhanced" books though. I've been thoroughly enjoying The Death of Bunny Munro by Nick Cave.
The extra things an iPod can do (audio, video) can really complement the text if it's done well.
Of course you are still correct, our geography dictates that international connectivity is always going to be significantly more expensive than many other places in the world.
So it will cost $1600/annum or $133/month before we add any data costs.
That obviously isn't true because at that price no one (who had an option) would take it up. Whatever it costs to build access to it will have to be priced according to what the market will bear. Obviously that means someone (presumably the taxpayer) taking a hosing but that's where infrastructure usually comes from.
Australia is probably a worst case scenario for internet access. We have a low population density, our population centres are vast distances apart, our absolute population is pretty low and we don't have a lot of neighbour countries
With that in mind I don't think our access is all that bad. I can get 100gigs of ADSL2+ for $50 a month which isn't too bad.
Well, what happens when the user wants to sell the TV? Or even give it away?
A question that's probably much easier to ask than answer definitively.
Reasonably you might expect the reseller to have to include or extend the GPL licence to the buyer.
However it's possible the first sale doctrine might poke it's nose in and give the owner of that particular copy the right to dispose of it without requiring the authority of the copyright holder (and therefore without needing a licence from them).
I imagine there could be a lot of argument about that though.
SONY TVs come with the license for busybox at the back of the instruction manual.
Of, course, Sony are distributing GPLd software and would have no right to do so if they didn't obey the GPL and include that licence.
I don't think that necessarily means anything for the user though, the licence is there because Sony must include it, not because the user requires it to use the TV.
If the book is generally available then it clearly isn't a trade secret and I wouldn't need a licence, implied or otherwise, to be protected from being (successfully) prosecuted under trade secret law.
The specification of "any later version" isn't part of the GPLv2, it's part of the authors text describing which licence(s) the code is released under.
because that 200 million (+ similar amount in attorney fees) could have been spent on research by the ones actually designing and making the devices
I wonder why you think that is inherently better?
Given that we're looking at a case where a fresh approach taken by an independent research organisation arrived at an impressive solution that the people "actually designing and making" the devices weren't even beginning to think about I think it's fairly obvious that there is value in external research.
I remember the bad old days of wireless networking where you could eke out a bit more speed by choosing equipment from a single manufacturer that used their own particular proprietary, patented technology to get a speed boost. Personally I'd prefer an external organisation willing to licence that technology to everyone.
Their results should be for the good of all people, or for the good of all australian people if you want to be nationalist.
Indeed the reason's for CSIRO's existence is to benefit Australians. As an institution funded by Australians that is reasonable. What they are doing is in the interest of Australians.
Well, in this particular instance I think it's reasonable to say that "energy used to cool the car" probably has very little to do with distance, so anything that attempts to quantify and incorporate improvements in that area it in a "standard of gas mileage" is going to be a horrendous cludge at best.
A minimum standard of gas mileage is a good way of encouraging general innovation in the multitudinous areas relating to the actual drive of the car, especially as there is a lot of variety in that area anyway and different things would be useful improvements in different cases. As far as cooling the car goes though, reducing the amount of energy going into it seems almost universally applicable.
That's not how we do things in the USA. People are free to buy the products they want
What a crock of shit.
The USA that actually exists, rather than the fantasy one ideologues like to fantasise about, has all manner of regulations.
Far from existing "just so you can feed your own self-righteous sense of self worth" they exist for public benefit. For example lead content in paint is limited. Tetra-ethyl lead usage in petrol is banned. Both for fairly obvious reasons.
So if you want to argue against this, I suggest you do so by arguing there isn't sufficient public benefit to warrant intervention because pretending that there is a USA that doesn't legislate for the public interest (and with good reason) just makes you look delusional.
Slashdot Mirror
I just couldn't do the alternate winking fast enough to make them work.
That is certainly true such activity often requires a bit of human babysitting, if only to verify that everything bounces back and syncs as it should. If the process really is seamless then $4 could mean your (much more expensive) engineers spend their time on other productive things.
That said I'm not sure it's an idea that will take off in practice, even if it is a very clever idea. I think it's something that a lot of people will be nervous about (including me). With the current patching mechanisms you can be fairly clear what your system is running. This seems a bit too much like magic right now but it's entirely possible that one day it will just seem normal.
but telling people to check their email when their mail server is offline probably doesn't work for them.
Not costing them a dime is one thing. Not making them a dime is another.
I'd have thought the only reason Apple would consider this is if Microsoft were offering them more money than Google. Assuming Bing is a suitably competent alternative Apple would be insane not to consider it as an option. Similarly Google would be insane to pin all their mobile hopes on Apple's platform.
I think anyone trying to make this into some drama is missing the fact that nothing here suggests either of the companies are making emotionally driven decisions, merely rational ones.
After all, Apple dropping Google is hardly a move that would make Google reconsider Android, it will merely make it more obvious why Google can't afford to put all their, er... apples in the one basket.
Imperfect software, otherwise known as all software.
If you are serious about security then a multilayered approach is a must. Sure you try and have good software, but you also try to mitigate any potential unknown flaws.
There's additional overhead in doing the encryption/decryption at each end.
There's additional overhead in establishing (and re-establishing) a connection.
There could also be implications in regards to caching, ie a browser may not cache SSL served data on disk so you end up downloading more stuff (images, javascript, css) the first time mail is used after a browser is launched that may otherwise be cached on a non-ssl connection. The precise details here would depend on the browser, browser version, browser configuration and what the server does (what cache directives it sends etc).
or is it their machine that you are hosting on?
If you are buying a hosting service from them on their hardware then I don't think it's unreasonable for them to want access to the machine as their responsibility includes the machine (and possibly the OS).
If you actually own the machine then it's a different story as their responsibility ends at the network port.
I dunno, you don't get executed for having an unauthorised copy of the bible like in the good old days.
I know the USD has been slipping but surely grid electricity is still a cheaper source of energy then using your own greenback powered generator?
I don't see what clothing has to do with it.
Obviously? In practice unless there is an incentive for sharing there is a good chance they won't be "kept free and open", rather they will remain completely undistributed and locked up.
My statement was clearly exaggerated for effect. The point, that the availability of free wifi at an airport is not likely to be a serious consideration in someones travel plans, is not unreasonable.
Sure I've have a week in South Africa in the national parks and game reserves and another in a luxury resort in Indonesia but I'm tempted to chuck the whole thing in for some free wi-fi.
Doh!
I can only assume it's some sort of karmic payback for previous bad deeds.
It's good for "enhanced" books though. I've been thoroughly enjoying The Death of Bunny Munro by Nick Cave. The extra things an iPod can do (audio, video) can really complement the text if it's done well.
PPC-1 went live just this month didn't it?
Of course you are still correct, our geography dictates that international connectivity is always going to be significantly more expensive than many other places in the world.
That obviously isn't true because at that price no one (who had an option) would take it up. Whatever it costs to build access to it will have to be priced according to what the market will bear. Obviously that means someone (presumably the taxpayer) taking a hosing but that's where infrastructure usually comes from.
Australia is probably a worst case scenario for internet access. We have a low population density, our population centres are vast distances apart, our absolute population is pretty low and we don't have a lot of neighbour countries
With that in mind I don't think our access is all that bad. I can get 100gigs of ADSL2+ for $50 a month which isn't too bad.
A question that's probably much easier to ask than answer definitively.
Reasonably you might expect the reseller to have to include or extend the GPL licence to the buyer.
However it's possible the first sale doctrine might poke it's nose in and give the owner of that particular copy the right to dispose of it without requiring the authority of the copyright holder (and therefore without needing a licence from them).
I imagine there could be a lot of argument about that though.
Of, course, Sony are distributing GPLd software and would have no right to do so if they didn't obey the GPL and include that licence.
I don't think that necessarily means anything for the user though, the licence is there because Sony must include it, not because the user requires it to use the TV.
I don't think your argument holds.
If the book is generally available then it clearly isn't a trade secret and I wouldn't need a licence, implied or otherwise, to be protected from being (successfully) prosecuted under trade secret law.
The specification of "any later version" isn't part of the GPLv2, it's part of the authors text describing which licence(s) the code is released under.
I wonder why you think that is inherently better?
Given that we're looking at a case where a fresh approach taken by an independent research organisation arrived at an impressive solution that the people "actually designing and making" the devices weren't even beginning to think about I think it's fairly obvious that there is value in external research.
I remember the bad old days of wireless networking where you could eke out a bit more speed by choosing equipment from a single manufacturer that used their own particular proprietary, patented technology to get a speed boost. Personally I'd prefer an external organisation willing to licence that technology to everyone.
Indeed the reason's for CSIRO's existence is to benefit Australians. As an institution funded by Australians that is reasonable. What they are doing is in the interest of Australians.
Well, in this particular instance I think it's reasonable to say that "energy used to cool the car" probably has very little to do with distance, so anything that attempts to quantify and incorporate improvements in that area it in a "standard of gas mileage" is going to be a horrendous cludge at best.
A minimum standard of gas mileage is a good way of encouraging general innovation in the multitudinous areas relating to the actual drive of the car, especially as there is a lot of variety in that area anyway and different things would be useful improvements in different cases. As far as cooling the car goes though, reducing the amount of energy going into it seems almost universally applicable.
What a crock of shit.
The USA that actually exists, rather than the fantasy one ideologues like to fantasise about, has all manner of regulations.
Far from existing "just so you can feed your own self-righteous sense of self worth" they exist for public benefit. For example lead content in paint is limited. Tetra-ethyl lead usage in petrol is banned. Both for fairly obvious reasons.
So if you want to argue against this, I suggest you do so by arguing there isn't sufficient public benefit to warrant intervention because pretending that there is a USA that doesn't legislate for the public interest (and with good reason) just makes you look delusional.