If someone had submitted a patch which added the requested functionality and it had been rejected they might have a point, but this is just stupid. I predict the fork goes absolutely nowhere and all the drama will have caused some of the original developers to dig their heels. You're probably right, but who knows what skills the forkers might have? One thing's for certain, tho: if N people were able & wiling to contribute to this project, some fraction of N will now be contributing to one or the other.
Most good software I've ever seen was designed to solve the specific needs of a very few people, often needs the software author h(im/er)self had. I think the focus group method is practically guaranteed to lead to mediocre or poor designs. Now apply that same observation to just about anything else: movies, cars, architecture, books, etc.
I used to write software which was used to earn my company 8 billion dollars. Why are movie and television writers so special that they get paid for the rest of their life when they write yet another boilerplate television script? Because it's in their contract. Maybe your contract included a slice of the $8 billion, perhaps in the form of options. Or maybe you weren't valuable/smart enough to negotiate that. Perhaps if you'd participated in some sort of collective bargaining, you could have gotten yourself a better deal. Or maybe you got the best deal possible, given the market.
The idea of providing these services "for free" is laughable. Google's business is advertising. What is more valuable to Google than knowing every online activity for a demographic like "recent college graduates"? If Google would like to have access to that data, the Universities should be selling it to Google for what it's worth -- presumably much more than it costs to provide email. Of course, maybe members of the University communities wouldn't like to have their personal information auctioned off to the highest bidder.
This is no different than how MS subverted the IETF process in the early '90s. And not really fundamentally different than how MS subverted web standards to undermine Netscape.
What about the "I'm an idiot who bought a car with a nickel metal-hydride battery which when refined produces shitloads of sulfer dioxide. But that's okay since carbon isn't present which makes everything fucking hunky-dory." crowd? You must be referring to the (totally spurious) article comparing the Prius with the Hummer, where the Hummer comes out as more environmentally friendly. Perhaps some further research is warranted?
ps - I'm not sure if everyone becoming vegetarian would have a real impact on carbon footprint. not like you have to pump carbon out of the ground to feed your cows. You don't have to pump carbon out of the ground to feed your cows, but that's more or less how it's done on a large scale in the US. The corn & soybeans that most cows are mostly fed are produced with large scale use of hydrocarbons. And, one could pasture a cow on land that wouldn't support the cultivation of human foodstuffs. But again, that's not how it's typically done. Eating meat is by definition a lot less efficient than eating beans & grains. Most cows are fed beans & grains, and it takes way way more than a kilo of beans & grains to make a pound of stake. Not to mention that other greenhouse gas, methane! If everyone limited themselves to pastured, local cows, then there'd be no problem. There'd be a lot less beef, tho.
seems like you're better off keeping a moderately efficient car for as long as you can (maybe 10 years?) instead of dumping it before its time is up to get a hybrid. not just environmentally but financially. not having to make $300/mo payments seems like you could afford a little extra gasoline. If all you're concerned about is your personal welfare, then I'd have to say... it depends. Only an idiot would "dump" a working automobile. Clearly, you'd sell it, thus recouping some fraction of its value. And then you'd pay cash for the hybrid, you're unlikely to get a new car loan on a hybrid for less than 7%. I find that the best way to decide is to calculate the cost (to you) per mile. Depending on what you're driving today, how far you're driving, how fast you're driving, etc., a hybrid may or may not be a cost improvement. Ignoring fancy calculations like "carbon footprint". If you're interested in that sort of thing, I'd suggest becoming a vegetarian -- at least as effective and better for you. Also, buying food (and other stuff) that wasn't shipped thousands of miles helps.
If you follow the logic that fat people and smokers are going to cost insurance companies more, then what about people who partake of all manner of activities that increase the insurance companies' exposure to payouts, or who, in fact, through no fault of their own, carry genetic predispositions to hypertension, cancers, and other nasty and potentially expensive diseases. Personally, I'm ambivalent about charging people more for engaging in "dangerous activities". There's a difference between the activities you choose to engage in and your genetic traits, however. And anyway, I don't think you're posting on the right site if you expect people on slashdot to be overly concerned about ethical or morality questions. The prevailing attitude here seems to be that if "The Market" can't work it out, it's not a problem.
Choosing a good DNSBL (or three!) is definitely important, but IMHO, you should NEVER run DNSBL's without building a local override into the system. Having a whitelist is definitely important, but how you use the blacklist is even more important. The staff time required to simply maintain a whitelist of all the mistakes found in various blacklists is simply a waste. Better to use the blacklists in a mostly advisory capacity.
... NBC makes their revenue from selling commercials but isn't a "commercial company," etc.
The parallel with NBC is particularly apt: NBC's customers are those who wish to advertise. The product they sell is... you. Google is the same way: you (and everything Google can glean about you) are Google's primary product, sold to those who want access to you.
In TFA, I believe we hear Google offering to help certain businesses get "their message" out. In this case, they are acting indistinguishably from an ad or pr company. I guess by at least one measure, NBC is in fact an ad company: when the companies that purchase ad space on NBC dictate the content. And that happens all the time, either directly or indirectly.
I agree with the required reading comment. The real question is this: did the US plan to turn Iraq into another Saudi Arabia, or was there some other plan?
Microsoft has a totally different model. They want global dominance in cell phones because it'll help prop up their model of making the entire world have to use your stuff if they want compatibility and then you can extort money on things like office suites. They'll happily give away their mobile O.S. if it means propping up that model.
Neither one is particularly wrong per se. I think various legal systems tend to disagree. It's not OK to use your global dominance in one area to "extort money" from other areas. I hear they call it monopoly abuse.
We signed a looong lease before the revolution. If we tried to buy land in Cuba now to build a base, Castro would say "no way." But he's bound to honor the old agreement. Bound by what? A lease? Please.
Why on Earth would any university go out of their way to ban people from forwarding their personal university correspondence to the e-mail address of their choice?
The primary reason I hear for University IT admins wanting to ban off-campus forwarding is that commodity email providers frequently block said Universities for forwarding spam. Or I should say "spam" since the spam in question is frequently commercial email the recipient signed up for (but no longer wants), official University communication (the recipient doesn't want), etc. I think the facile argument is that Universities have this "directory" which is useful, but provisioning email isn't really all that useful. This argument misses that widespread forwarding to commodity email providers threatens to destroy the usefulness of said directory.
From StorageMojo's article: Further, these results validate the Google File System's central redundancy concept: forget RAID, just replicate the data three times. If I'm an IT architect, the idea that I can spend less money and get higher reliability from simple cluster storage file replication should be very attractive.
For best-of-breed open source IMAP, that means Cyrus IMAP replication. :w
It's all just a show: most of the security efforts I've seen in place do comparatively little to make anyone safer, they're just designed to make us *feel* safer. They're not security, they're a security blanket. Security theater. But in all fairness, there are limited options for combating terrorism -- terrorism is also a form of theater. There's "don't be a dick". There's "ignore it", since terrorism is less deadly than say cancer (500K dead per year in the US). And then there's counter-theater, which seems to be the current regime's favorite option. In this case, counter-theater includes disappearing a few hundred people to gitmo, attacking a few countries in the middle east, anti-parking measures at airports, attaching lasers to jet liners, etc.
My experience telecommuting is similar to my office experience. The further you advance, the less likely your manager is to have the first idea of what you do. The difference in the office is that a more or less clueless manager can use "presence" as a surrogate for "working".
Most Unix implementations have ACLs, typically very close to the POSIX ACL draft. Mac OS X is unique among "Unix" implementation in that it does not use anything like POSIX ACLs, but instead adopted Microsoft ACLs.
Perhaps you should review what "chagrin" means. Unix has ACLs. HFS+ has non-Unix ACLs. Get the point, now? Also, there's a (usually pretty small) limit to the number of groups you can be in.
HFS has going for it all the fun stuff we've come to love apple for, such as transparent file customization like icons, labels, meta data, and whatnot through resource forks. I assume that these can be made to work with ZFS by making hidden files.
You assume correctly, since most of that business is taken care of with Bundles. This is why it more or less works on UFS, which is already supported on Mac OS X, and has been for years. Forks & whatnot are really a legacy idea.
What I'd really like to see is both that kind of functionality along with NTFS's really excellent ACL permission system implemented.
That's funny! The HFS+ ACL system is Microsoft's ACL system, much to the chagrin of the Unix community.
Find a new one. And keep in mind that your new boss probably won't be as smart as you think you are, either. So it might be best if you tried to be the boss for a while. And while you're shopping around, be sure to avoid mentioning that you left you old job because you were asked to do work that you didn't want to do. You might highlight your skill in more or less running your small IT department, tho.
Slashdot Mirror
Would I need a "team of experts" and $30K of gear if I had worked as an engineer for Medtronic?
The idea of providing these services "for free" is laughable. Google's business is advertising. What is more valuable to Google than knowing every online activity for a demographic like "recent college graduates"? If Google would like to have access to that data, the Universities should be selling it to Google for what it's worth -- presumably much more than it costs to provide email. Of course, maybe members of the University communities wouldn't like to have their personal information auctioned off to the highest bidder.
:w
This is no different than how MS subverted the IETF process in the early '90s. And not really fundamentally different than how MS subverted web standards to undermine Netscape.
:wes
... NBC makes their revenue from selling commercials but isn't a "commercial company," etc.The parallel with NBC is particularly apt: NBC's customers are those who wish to advertise. The product they sell is ... you. Google is the same way: you (and everything Google can glean about you) are Google's primary product, sold to those who want access to you.
In TFA, I believe we hear Google offering to help certain businesses get "their message" out. In this case, they are acting indistinguishably from an ad or pr company. I guess by at least one measure, NBC is in fact an ad company: when the companies that purchase ad space on NBC dictate the content. And that happens all the time, either directly or indirectly.
Exactly how "not evil" can an ad company be? "Don't be evil" directly conflicts with Google's raison d'etre.
I agree with the required reading comment. The real question is this: did the US plan to turn Iraq into another Saudi Arabia, or was there some other plan?
Neither one is particularly wrong per se. I think various legal systems tend to disagree. It's not OK to use your global dominance in one area to "extort money" from other areas. I hear they call it monopoly abuse.
The primary reason I hear for University IT admins wanting to ban off-campus forwarding is that commodity email providers frequently block said Universities for forwarding spam. Or I should say "spam" since the spam in question is frequently commercial email the recipient signed up for (but no longer wants), official University communication (the recipient doesn't want), etc. I think the facile argument is that Universities have this "directory" which is useful, but provisioning email isn't really all that useful. This argument misses that widespread forwarding to commodity email providers threatens to destroy the usefulness of said directory.
Any other questions?
From StorageMojo's article: Further, these results validate the Google File System's central redundancy concept: forget RAID, just replicate the data three times. If I'm an IT architect, the idea that I can spend less money and get higher reliability from simple cluster storage file replication should be very attractive.
:w
For best-of-breed open source IMAP, that means Cyrus IMAP replication.
My experience telecommuting is similar to my office experience. The further you advance, the less likely your manager is to have the first idea of what you do. The difference in the office is that a more or less clueless manager can use "presence" as a surrogate for "working".
Most Unix implementations have ACLs, typically very close to the POSIX ACL draft. Mac OS X is unique among "Unix" implementation in that it does not use anything like POSIX ACLs, but instead adopted Microsoft ACLs.
Perhaps you should review what "chagrin" means. Unix has ACLs. HFS+ has non-Unix ACLs. Get the point, now? Also, there's a (usually pretty small) limit to the number of groups you can be in.
You assume correctly, since most of that business is taken care of with Bundles. This is why it more or less works on UFS, which is already supported on Mac OS X, and has been for years. Forks & whatnot are really a legacy idea.
That's funny! The HFS+ ACL system is Microsoft's ACL system, much to the chagrin of the Unix community.
Find a new one. And keep in mind that your new boss probably won't be as smart as you think you are, either. So it might be best if you tried to be the boss for a while. And while you're shopping around, be sure to avoid mentioning that you left you old job because you were asked to do work that you didn't want to do. You might highlight your skill in more or less running your small IT department, tho.