Could it be that Royal Mail now has comparable competition ? But BT OpenReach / WholeSale is still a monopoly that even cable operators find difficult to match. If find Cable operators are only interested in plucking the low hanging fruit.
I do understand the point raised that the business and consumer DSL broadband companies (BT Openworld) are a separate profit centre / company to other parts of BT.
My thoughts are that the landline wholesale infrastructure needs to have mandatory contractual stipulations forced upon it coming from an accountable elected committee. The stipulations don't need to be strict but they do need to force change to ensure progress continues to be made. It is unclear to me exactly what new "progress" has been made in the past 2 years. Things like addressing the last 15% of rural areas lacking any broadband connectivity from any supplier (these users are still on dialup!), surely a mix of GSM/WiMax/fiber optic solution is possible to cover the last 20 miles.
BT is the principal landline telecommunications supplier in the UK. Most of their income is generated from being a wholesale infrastructure supplier, so I don't understand why there is a "bandwidth delivery problem". Since BT must have the cheapest cost of getting bandwidth from one location in the UK to their customer base. BT can well afford to put multiple 10GbE into LINX and/or BBC directly and connect 1GbE into every local exchange/Point-of-Presence.
So the question has to be asked, what specific thing is it that stops these things from taking place ? Could is be that upgrading equipment at both ends of a fiber optic medium might increase bandwidth by 10 fold but decrease the comodity value of that same bandwidth by 8 fold. Which also has the effect of decreasing the comodity value of all other bandwidth products a telco has for sale. Net result is less profit.
BT inherited their network from the government when it was the "GPO", maybe it is time for the GPO to come back so that the monopoly position BT has is rebalanced against the technological improvements of the past 10 years that a state owned entity could push forward. Some people in the UK don't like privatisation and other people don't like nationalisation, but I say we should have both (at least 2 companies) and let the customer spend their money with the company who best serves their interests.
It is my understanding that when you are a content supplier, people pay you to get connected to you, since you have the content that your "consumers" are paying you to get to. Within reasons the cost of bandwidth is free to the BBC (over and above some ~£million costs to setup, own and manage). Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV, radio, news and media organisation. The money for connectivity flows in that direction, consumer to producer.
Surely one simple cure to this problem area is to employ last years (MD5), this years (SHA1) and next years (SHA2) digest recommendations all at the same time.
Ma and Pa implementations could select whichever one digest they thought was most secure for verification purposes (a performance verses risk balance). Military implementations would verify all three.
In my experience, the HTML rendering is not the major crash or performance bottleneck issue with Mozilla.
Users want separate processes for all plugins, i.e. a switchable mode in-process or out-of-process mode selectable for each plugin through Mozilla configuration. Let the plugins crash in their own, see ndiswrapper for some ideas on that.
Users want a JavaScript engine that operates in a thread of its own (an extra thread per tab as necessary, when there is JavaScript work to do, think like dynamic thread pooling of JavaScript worker threads, most of the time 1 or 2 threads will handle JS in all your tabs).
Users want all file/disk access to be in a separate thread to the UI. I believe network I/O already is (or is non-blocking at least).
Hey move the entire file configuration/ SQLLite/ management for mozilla to a separate process that doesn't crash (even if the main Mozilla UI does). Users also want that damn stupid Linux/ext4 issue fixed and the horrible performance fixed, yes mozilla is more crazy than linux, and nope as a user it is Mozilla that crashes not the Linux the OS. In order to get application level crash recovery you make all writes to your database journaled through your own logfile. It is only the writes to that journal that need to sync to disk. Yes Eric is right mozilla should be more efficient in reducing the probability that a write to disk needs to extend a file so syncs don't cause an inode flush to stall the fs transaction throughput.
But separate web pages in separate processes, just makes no sense to me. Most of the time requires little CPU as reading/thinking time dominates the moments of Mozilla klunkyness.
That depends if your main/only product is your life. Some people would be happy to take the money on offer at the time knowing that those who now owned the product would not be able to do as good a job as you with it, knowing that because you provided it as open source you could always take up the reigns again under a different name. You'd also have the insider knowledge about all the things you learned on your original journey to taking that big bankers cheque.
So it really is win win, sure you lost control of your brand name but you took a big chunk of cash to compensate. Sure you need to start all over again (building a company, employees, strategy, etc...) but wasn't that the original fun in the first place.
Those that matter in the community are wise enough to understand that if you start over and your product is good and starts to push the areas that matter again they will switch.
There will be once you run out of IPv4, as with most created problems they only get fixed after the suffering starts (climate change, fossil fuel supply and IPv4).
Everyone has understood for a long time it will cost money to setup IPv6 with zero gain today. Once the suffering starts that suffering will have a cost to a business and the decision markers (PHBs) can finally see IPv6 as a cost reduction and do something about it.
We donhttp://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/21/2033211#'t have long now folks (recessions excluded) until that time. Just be patient and flame any crack pot technical measure to extend Network Address Translation it has its uses but not to fix the problem IPv6 can already fix much better. To all the technical people in the world the time to start singing the IPv6 mantra it NOW!
The best example is when people say that it okay to be intolerant intolerant views. I'm not sure how it works, but I am told this is a totally rational, non-hypocritical viewpoint. I say it's bullshit.
Ah I've not heard it expressed like that. But I understand the viewpoint.
The consideration is that by definition an "intolerant viewpoint" would not work in a society, such a stance would breakdown the entire society as everybody is mutually intolerant of everybody else.
Think of this like the jungle, dog-eat-dog with no consequence, I do not tolerate this action so therefore I am allowed to do that action. You did not tolerate that action and therefore I think it is morally acceptable to retaliate. This escalation of will on another .
So yes I can see how it is both "rational" and "non-hypocritical" to not tolerate the "intolerant view". A hypocritial viewpoint is one that is one-sided and unbalanced; the same could be said for the "intolerant view".
Such matters come down to one person imposing their will on another, but the recipient of that imposition does not believe the other party has the moral right to dictate that imposition on them.
The GPL license, due to copyright laws, allows this dual-licensing, which basically means unequal rights for developers (those who hold the copyright and, thus, can fork it into a proprietary license, while demanding that everyone else stick to the GPL version).
I never saw that issue was ever a problem, nobody is suggesting that all users have equal rights to the Copyright holder.
My own personal stance is that most software patents should be outlawed and those that remain have a maximum royalty term reduced to 5 years and that anything anyone can recreate with their own bare hands under their own Copyright ownership is legally theirs. The point of patents is to provide an industrial environment for R&D efforts to be rewarded but the computer industry already has enough healthy innovation and does not require a protectionist system to cause innovation to take place.
The issue of licensing comes into play when that work is allowed to be used in some way by a non Copyright holder. Yes thats means you have less rights than the Copyright holder since its the legal privilege of the Copyright holder to grant non-Copyright holders a set of rights.
I certainly do not believe in any unequal right baloney. All your rights belongs to collective humanity. When all the food and land also belongs to the collective humanity maybe we can take that step on technology.
Take for example CYGWIN it is dual licensed and I've made it very clear before that I will not sign any Copyright handover for contributions. I would only contribute to the licenses under which I was allowed to use. I see nothing wrong with that.
There is also the question of public domain, to me something can ONLY be put into the public domain once some legal entity has both claimed Copyright ownership to the work and then subsequentially wavered their "Copy Rights" at the same time through a public domain license. Since someone needs to stand up and claim legal ownership of the work so that no on else can come along and claim you are not the Copyright holder in the first place and you've simply stolen the work and added a PD style license. You can not have nameless/ownerless public domain works.
Isn't the main issue against ISPs not the throttling of flows but the injection of fake TCP RST (Reset) packets and other such illegalities. Illegal from the PoV that the protocol specification and IETF have not ratified this behavior. http://www.eff.org/wp/detecting-packet-injection
What is needed is a "secure TCP" where all control information within the packets at TCP level are cryptographically signed like with a MAC checksum. (No SSL does not fix this problem! SSL sits on top of TCP and ISPs a messing with flows at TCP level)
This will however require kernel support at both endpoints. Maybe it could even be implemented as a series of TCP options.
I would not support actions that lead to an internet meltdown that the article suggests,/. is presuming that no flow or congestion control will be implemented via this UDP alternative to TCP (which remains to be confirmed and certainly the forum in the article indicates THERE WILL BE flow/congestion control implemented with the UDP alternative).
Why don't they just use a form of TCP protocol but apply techniques from "VJ Compression" and add a MAC code it should be possible to get the overhead of sequencing .
TCP header (no options) is 20 bytes. UDP header is 8 bytes. UDP provides you port info already for connection tuples. So you have a 12 byte budget to implement:
* reliable sequencing * flow-control/retransmission (window control/timestamps/selective-ack) * MAC/protocol security (the real reason IMHO why they need to resort to UDP in the first place)
That should be ample budget. We specifically don't need hi-performance delivery just a protocol that scales well enough in the domain of 30mbit at the users access point communicating to between 1 and 30 others.
Ah but my banks one-time-password generate also has a transaction signing function and into this I type in the amount too.
In the UK NatWest have a one-time-password genrator device that fits over your plastic card, talks to the chip. I use the cards pin to make it work. It has the functions "Identify" and "Respond" and "Sign".
The Identify function provide authentication, it basically proves I have possession of my cash point card. AKA the RSA one-time-password, I'd use this number during login online.
The Respond function is similar to the identify function but I have to feed in a 6 digit number to have it generate a 6 digit number. This is use to authorize transactions and proves I have possession of my cash point card (and know the pin) within the timeframe of the transaction.
The Sign function is similar to the identify but it also allow me to specify an amount for the transaction. This is the most secure mechanism and as you can see is not subject to replay attacks.
I know both these frameworks very well; I find it hard to understand how a customers/employers requirements can creep in such a way that either of these two frameworks as a solution get in the way of the underlying problem.
Both frameworks are additive to the underlaying standards. Hibernate additive to JDBC so can be used in conjunction with, instead of or even a healthy mix of both. Spring (for web-apps/web-services) is additive to the Servlet specification and can be used in conjunction with, instead of or even a healthy mix of both.
Neither mask, hide or remove the underlying technology features.
There does not seem to be any original article explaining the dead-end you have found yourself at when using either/both of these technologies. Maybe you should blog this so that slashdot fans can better understand your plight. I'm sure the respective authors and maintainers of those frameworks really do want to listen so such cases and improve things for the next iteration.
Unless of course you have a customer/employer who is now asking for your framework to land on the moon (the "moon-on-a-stick" requirement).
I understand your question was attempting to be a general developer question but it does seem you are unsure which avenue to take right now and you are asking the world for help. So please blog your plight.
When you're a good developer the answer is obvious. So lets see where the problem verses solution you created whet wrong so we can help make you a good developer.
Re:amazing what doesnt get asked
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 1
> Last I checked Java wasn't being used to write operating system components.....
Everyone accept the Kernel of the OS is best written in C/asm even C++ if appropriate higher level stuff to get raw performance from optimization and a consistent scheduling requirement (which garbage collection language's don't provide - hence Sun's warning not to use Java in life critical environments like nuclear power stations)
However the GUI and tooling parts of the OS are and have been written using Java for Sun Solaris and Sun's Desktop also much of HP and Oracle's tooling is also Java. So this really is a care of eating their own food, but I agree I don't see much of XP SP3 or Vista based on DotNET.
So maybe "last I checked" you were talking of Windows, I can only suggest you go out and see the world a little more.
Gee... while it might not electrocute the astronaut, it might zap his space suit control system and his life support, or conduct down the robot arm boom he is standing on and end up taking out a system in the ISS (or the robot arm itself). Its a very real danger for everyone up there.
This is excellent, it means those EU countries which won't accept iPhone will have to churn out something thats a whole lot better, this is good news for consumers!
I have no problem with people causing self-harm, I'd be more interested in the reasons for the self harm than in the actual acts. From this view point as a society we could try to find out which "false beliefs" or "imposed desires" are the root cause of the self harm, banish those and the matter of self harm will evaporate. This is inline with my line of thinking expressed in my previous posts.
Who cares if the government taxes drugs to high heavon, yes a black market will exist, but at least it will be higher quality merchandise at lower cost (generally the black market rate is lower than the cost after taxation since its the tax people try to avoid).
Your "civilised society" starts with yourself, not your projection on how you think society should be, but on the way you live your own life. I agree with your goals of preventing deaths but not at the cost of limiting your own free will (that god given right), so my solution would involve greater education and understanding but at the end of the day every person makes their own choices. I agree social co-operation is good too, but I don't think the society would breakdown nor was I advocating any self-sufficiency stance where one might downplay "society" as being insignificant.
Your point on depressed people, I can only echo my opening sentences, the problem here is a false belief that sets up the situation, you are never going to stop this from happening but limiting free will is not a way to go about trying to limit it in the cases where you think you saw it being the principal reason being due to too much free will. The collateral cost to the living is far too great to be burdened with the acts of the dead.
Maybe the difference of opinion here is that I can see the world in terms where own free will was limited and as a result of that a bad consequence occurred, where are you prefer to stick with the bad consequence part and try to strategies a solution for stopping bad consequences without considering the side effects.
Why do people self-harm, why do depressed people consider suicide, the person feels that they are in a hopeless situation that they can do little about, teach that person to think in a way where free will is encouraged and the causes of this self-destructions will end.
Isn't the biggest problem with heroin the crime associated with trying to finance the habit. If things were legal wouldn't the price of the drug drop and the quality improve (less toxic unknown chemicals), hell lets get the government involved in providing a quality standard and taxation. Making it illegal does not stop anyone who wants to do it; it simply makes the suffering worse for everyone (both the user and society).
As I claimed you can do what you like to yourself by your own free will that is your inalienable god given right. If you do so much heroin that you die, so what ?
Freedom is both. Freedom is the ability to act on your own free will (not as others desire you to do) providing the acts you commit are not detrimental to another.
All that remains is for common law to decide what acts are detrimental and what are not.
So you are correct, with freedom you can buy addictive drugs if that is your will or you can refuse addictive drugs if that is also your will (as opposed to being pushed them by a dealer). But at the end of the day it create a society of strong willed and morally balanced people which is exactly the world I'd like to live in.
I can't comment on the Linux TCP bugs you think you've found, maybe the linux-net list is the place to verify their nature.
But I don't think the experts you called upon for advice with sorting out an IP routing / network topology issue where all that expert, nothing sounds too complex or out of bounds in your scenario.
I'm happy that Solaris works for you, I too deploy Solaris and find its better at dealing with significant continuous I/O loads and memory pressure scenarios where as Linux has the edge on raw performance (getting stuff done faster) and networking (flexibility). Its also good that Solaris at least attempting to keep with Linux since vendor flexibility coupled with a bit of competition is always a good thing for everyone but even companies like Oracle are biasing towards Java/Linux and away from other options.
Check out "policy routing", its been in Linux now maybe 7 years./sbin/ip route add table 10 0/0 via 10.0.0.1 dev eth0/sbin/ip rule add from 10.0.0.0/24 table 10 pri 10
Should be along the lines of always routing traffic from 10.0.0.0/24 via gateway 10.0.0.1 on device eth0.
This problem isn't actually TCP code as your short sighted comment implies but I suppose you got the general networking area right in your thoughts so you aren't completely clueless. It's not recommended network practice to have two NICs in the same subnet (unless the NIC is designed for failover and is viewed as one from a MAC address perspective). Maybe the LARTC mailing list can help you at http://lartc.org/. May I wish you every success overcoming your problems but next time don't blame the tools when the user is naive.
I'm saying that a warrent should not be necessary to find out who the bill payer is, if anything that should be on public display for anyone you communicate with to audit. The detail of the bill payer for your internet service should be no more private than then details of the bill payer for your telephone service.
The main problem with the Internet is by the time a law enforcement agency has obtained consent fron a judge to find out further information the criminal has moved on, this makes law enforcement during the act impossible and gaining consent for something basic like the bill payers details is expensive to the tax payer.
Now if you were talking into the realm of wire tapping and traffic monitoring and divertion, I would be with you on the requirement for a warrent I don't see having accountable identity across the internet as an invasion of privacy since I never saw the Internet as an anonymous medium in the first place.
This is a poor way to achieve that goal. It would be much better for a private registry to be available to government by all responsible parties managing IP addresses to be able to tie each and every IP address back to the bill payer.
I think law enforcement agencies should have the right to lookup the current bill payer information 24x7 for any active IP address within a matter of minutes, this doesn't necessarly mean that the general public should have access to this facility, they can keep the current system of voluntary submission of correct information. It is true that this doesn't stop the harden crimincal element but bill payer information is generally very accurate and much more traceable back to someone who is related to the activities on the account in some way the ISP/colocation facility will make sure of that.
Maybe you should take a look at the IDEs. I just edit my Java code or my JSP and save and the IDE perform a hotcode replace (on java bytecode) or the servlet container performs a recompile (with JSPs).
* You loose the fertalizer and nutrients from the soil (these have to be manufacturered). * You loose all the oil burned up during haverting. * You loose all the oil burned up during processing.
The free solar enegy is already a given and when someone talks of efficiency; sunlight is not even a positive input.
It's the unreplaced parts of scheme which have to come from somewhere to allow the next round of crops to grow that the efficiency experts trumpt on about. The thinking is that oil is cheap and the enegy per barrel of crude is high. Once you have to replace that enegry per barrel of crude with enegry per barrel of alternative fuel the economics become unstuck.
The amount of enegy in a barrel of alternative fuel != amount of enegry in a barrel of crude. The cost to produce a barrel of alternative fuel != cost to produce a barrel of crude.
Over time with advances in technology for alternative fuel production will make it more efficient (just like has happened with the internal combusion engine itself). I also agree that some major effort / attempt to utlize sustainable alterative fuels should be made sooner rather than later. This is to promote those advances and to allow society to find, understand, debate and adapt to the possible repurcussions in trying to attempt that feat. This is a necessary growing pain which is best undertaken while we have crude oil to spend making mistakes.
LOL there is already in existance a solution to this problem. Signed DNS as a prerequisite to using.bank participation could be made mandatory. Then all we need is checking in the client application (much like the forwards DNS vs reverse DNS checks, and Certiciate Revocation List checks that are made for SSL certificates by browsers independantly of that the site claims).
How hard would it be to write software that modifies a system DLL to pervert those checks, who knows as Microsoft, they are touting Vista as a secure system at this time!
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be that Royal Mail now has comparable competition ? But BT OpenReach / WholeSale is still a monopoly that even cable operators find difficult to match. If find Cable operators are only interested in plucking the low hanging fruit.
I do understand the point raised that the business and consumer DSL broadband companies (BT Openworld) are a separate profit centre / company to other parts of BT.
My thoughts are that the landline wholesale infrastructure needs to have mandatory contractual stipulations forced upon it coming from an accountable elected committee. The stipulations don't need to be strict but they do need to force change to ensure progress continues to be made. It is unclear to me exactly what new "progress" has been made in the past 2 years. Things like addressing the last 15% of rural areas lacking any broadband connectivity from any supplier (these users are still on dialup!), surely a mix of GSM/WiMax/fiber optic solution is possible to cover the last 20 miles.
BT is the principal landline telecommunications supplier in the UK. Most of their income is generated from being a wholesale infrastructure supplier, so I don't understand why there is a "bandwidth delivery problem". Since BT must have the cheapest cost of getting bandwidth from one location in the UK to their customer base. BT can well afford to put multiple 10GbE into LINX and/or BBC directly and connect 1GbE into every local exchange/Point-of-Presence.
So the question has to be asked, what specific thing is it that stops these things from taking place ? Could is be that upgrading equipment at both ends of a fiber optic medium might increase bandwidth by 10 fold but decrease the comodity value of that same bandwidth by 8 fold. Which also has the effect of decreasing the comodity value of all other bandwidth products a telco has for sale. Net result is less profit.
BT inherited their network from the government when it was the "GPO", maybe it is time for the GPO to come back so that the monopoly position BT has is rebalanced against the technological improvements of the past 10 years that a state owned entity could push forward. Some people in the UK don't like privatisation and other people don't like nationalisation, but I say we should have both (at least 2 companies) and let the customer spend their money with the company who best serves their interests.
It is my understanding that when you are a content supplier, people pay you to get connected to you, since you have the content that your "consumers" are paying you to get to. Within reasons the cost of bandwidth is free to the BBC (over and above some ~£million costs to setup, own and manage). Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV, radio, news and media organisation. The money for connectivity flows in that direction, consumer to producer.
Surely one simple cure to this problem area is to employ last years (MD5), this years (SHA1) and next years (SHA2) digest recommendations all at the same time.
Ma and Pa implementations could select whichever one digest they thought was most secure for verification purposes (a performance verses risk balance). Military implementations would verify all three.
Now try to make a file that is valid now.
In my experience, the HTML rendering is not the major crash or performance bottleneck issue with Mozilla.
Users want separate processes for all plugins, i.e. a switchable mode in-process or out-of-process mode selectable for each plugin through Mozilla configuration. Let the plugins crash in their own, see ndiswrapper for some ideas on that.
Users want a JavaScript engine that operates in a thread of its own (an extra thread per tab as necessary, when there is JavaScript work to do, think like dynamic thread pooling of JavaScript worker threads, most of the time 1 or 2 threads will handle JS in all your tabs).
Users want all file/disk access to be in a separate thread to the UI. I believe network I/O already is (or is non-blocking at least).
Hey move the entire file configuration/ SQLLite/ management for mozilla to a separate process that doesn't crash (even if the main Mozilla UI does). Users also want that damn stupid Linux/ext4 issue fixed and the horrible performance fixed, yes mozilla is more crazy than linux, and nope as a user it is Mozilla that crashes not the Linux the OS. In order to get application level crash recovery you make all writes to your database journaled through your own logfile. It is only the writes to that journal that need to sync to disk. Yes Eric is right mozilla should be more efficient in reducing the probability that a write to disk needs to extend a file so syncs don't cause an inode flush to stall the fs transaction throughput.
But separate web pages in separate processes, just makes no sense to me. Most of the time requires little CPU as reading/thinking time dominates the moments of Mozilla klunkyness.
That depends if your main/only product is your life. Some people would be happy to take the money on offer at the time knowing that those who now owned the product would not be able to do as good a job as you with it, knowing that because you provided it as open source you could always take up the reigns again under a different name. You'd also have the insider knowledge about all the things you learned on your original journey to taking that big bankers cheque.
So it really is win win, sure you lost control of your brand name but you took a big chunk of cash to compensate. Sure you need to start all over again (building a company, employees, strategy, etc...) but wasn't that the original fun in the first place.
Those that matter in the community are wise enough to understand that if you start over and your product is good and starts to push the areas that matter again they will switch.
There will be once you run out of IPv4, as with most created problems they only get fixed after the suffering starts (climate change, fossil fuel supply and IPv4).
Everyone has understood for a long time it will cost money to setup IPv6 with zero gain today. Once the suffering starts that suffering will have a cost to a business and the decision markers (PHBs) can finally see IPv6 as a cost reduction and do something about it.
We donhttp://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/21/2033211#'t have long now folks (recessions excluded) until that time. Just be patient and flame any crack pot technical measure to extend Network Address Translation it has its uses but not to fix the problem IPv6 can already fix much better. To all the technical people in the world the time to start singing the IPv6 mantra it NOW!
The best example is when people say that it okay to be intolerant intolerant views. I'm not sure how it works, but I am told this is a totally rational, non-hypocritical viewpoint. I say it's bullshit.
Ah I've not heard it expressed like that. But I understand the viewpoint.
The consideration is that by definition an "intolerant viewpoint" would not work in a society, such a stance would breakdown the entire society as everybody is mutually intolerant of everybody else.
Think of this like the jungle, dog-eat-dog with no consequence, I do not tolerate this action so therefore I am allowed to do that action. You did not tolerate that action and therefore I think it is morally acceptable to retaliate. This escalation of will on another .
So yes I can see how it is both "rational" and "non-hypocritical" to not tolerate the "intolerant view". A hypocritial viewpoint is one that is one-sided and unbalanced; the same could be said for the "intolerant view".
Such matters come down to one person imposing their will on another, but the recipient of that imposition does not believe the other party has the moral right to dictate that imposition on them.
The GPL license, due to copyright laws, allows this dual-licensing, which basically means unequal rights for developers (those who hold the copyright and, thus, can fork it into a proprietary license, while demanding that everyone else stick to the GPL version).
I never saw that issue was ever a problem, nobody is suggesting that all users have equal rights to the Copyright holder.
My own personal stance is that most software patents should be outlawed and those that remain have a maximum royalty term reduced to 5 years and that anything anyone can recreate with their own bare hands under their own Copyright ownership is legally theirs. The point of patents is to provide an industrial environment for R&D efforts to be rewarded but the computer industry already has enough healthy innovation and does not require a protectionist system to cause innovation to take place.
The issue of licensing comes into play when that work is allowed to be used in some way by a non Copyright holder. Yes thats means you have less rights than the Copyright holder since its the legal privilege of the Copyright holder to grant non-Copyright holders a set of rights.
I certainly do not believe in any unequal right baloney. All your rights belongs to collective humanity. When all the food and land also belongs to the collective humanity maybe we can take that step on technology.
Take for example CYGWIN it is dual licensed and I've made it very clear before that I will not sign any Copyright handover for contributions. I would only contribute to the licenses under which I was allowed to use. I see nothing wrong with that.
There is also the question of public domain, to me something can ONLY be put into the public domain once some legal entity has both claimed Copyright ownership to the work and then subsequentially wavered their "Copy Rights" at the same time through a public domain license. Since someone needs to stand up and claim legal ownership of the work so that no on else can come along and claim you are not the Copyright holder in the first place and you've simply stolen the work and added a PD style license. You can not have nameless/ownerless public domain works.
Isn't the main issue against ISPs not the throttling of flows but the injection of fake TCP RST (Reset) packets and other such illegalities. Illegal from the PoV that the protocol specification and IETF have not ratified this behavior. http://www.eff.org/wp/detecting-packet-injection
What is needed is a "secure TCP" where all control information within the packets at TCP level are cryptographically signed like with a MAC checksum. (No SSL does not fix this problem! SSL sits on top of TCP and ISPs a messing with flows at TCP level)
This will however require kernel support at both endpoints. Maybe it could even be implemented as a series of TCP options.
I would not support actions that lead to an internet meltdown that the article suggests, /. is presuming that no flow or congestion control will be implemented via this UDP alternative to TCP (which remains to be confirmed and certainly the forum in the article indicates THERE WILL BE flow/congestion control implemented with the UDP alternative).
Why don't they just use a form of TCP protocol but apply techniques from "VJ Compression" and add a MAC code it should be possible to get the overhead of sequencing .
TCP header (no options) is 20 bytes. UDP header is 8 bytes. UDP provides you port info already for connection tuples. So you have a 12 byte budget to implement:
* reliable sequencing
* flow-control/retransmission (window control/timestamps/selective-ack)
* MAC/protocol security (the real reason IMHO why they need to resort to UDP in the first place)
That should be ample budget. We specifically don't need hi-performance delivery just a protocol that scales well enough in the domain of 30mbit at the users access point communicating to between 1 and 30 others.
Ah but my banks one-time-password generate also has a transaction signing function and into this I type in the amount too.
In the UK NatWest have a one-time-password genrator device that fits over your plastic card, talks to the chip. I use the cards pin to make it work. It has the functions "Identify" and "Respond" and "Sign".
The Identify function provide authentication, it basically proves I have possession of my cash point card. AKA the RSA one-time-password, I'd use this number during login online.
The Respond function is similar to the identify function but I have to feed in a 6 digit number to have it generate a 6 digit number. This is use to authorize transactions and proves I have possession of my cash point card (and know the pin) within the timeframe of the transaction.
The Sign function is similar to the identify but it also allow me to specify an amount for the transaction. This is the most secure mechanism and as you can see is not subject to replay attacks.
I know both these frameworks very well; I find it hard to understand how a customers/employers requirements can creep in such a way that either of these two frameworks as a solution get in the way of the underlying problem.
Both frameworks are additive to the underlaying standards. Hibernate additive to JDBC so can be used in conjunction with, instead of or even a healthy mix of both. Spring (for web-apps/web-services) is additive to the Servlet specification and can be used in conjunction with, instead of or even a healthy mix of both.
Neither mask, hide or remove the underlying technology features.
There does not seem to be any original article explaining the dead-end you have found yourself at when using either/both of these technologies. Maybe you should blog this so that slashdot fans can better understand your plight. I'm sure the respective authors and maintainers of those frameworks really do want to listen so such cases and improve things for the next iteration.
Unless of course you have a customer/employer who is now asking for your framework to land on the moon (the "moon-on-a-stick" requirement).
I understand your question was attempting to be a general developer question but it does seem you are unsure which avenue to take right now and you are asking the world for help. So please blog your plight.
When you're a good developer the answer is obvious. So lets see where the problem verses solution you created whet wrong so we can help make you a good developer.
> Last I checked Java wasn't being used to write operating system components .....
Everyone accept the Kernel of the OS is best written in C/asm even C++ if appropriate higher level stuff to get raw performance from optimization and a consistent scheduling requirement (which garbage collection language's don't provide - hence Sun's warning not to use Java in life critical environments like nuclear power stations)
However the GUI and tooling parts of the OS are and have been written using Java for Sun Solaris and Sun's Desktop also much of HP and Oracle's tooling is also Java. So this really is a care of eating their own food, but I agree I don't see much of XP SP3 or Vista based on DotNET.
So maybe "last I checked" you were talking of Windows, I can only suggest you go out and see the world a little more.
Gee... while it might not electrocute the astronaut, it might zap his space suit control system and his life support, or conduct down the robot arm boom he is standing on and end up taking out a system in the ISS (or the robot arm itself). Its a very real danger for everyone up there.
Since we can get 750 GiB right now does this mean we are stuck at that level of capacity for the next 4 years ?
In 4 years time how much will a 1 TiB unit cost ?
Surely solid state have taken over by then for desktop and frontend server needs ?
Leaving magnetic/optical based storage to the extremely huge volume market sector ?
This is excellent, it means those EU countries which won't accept iPhone will have to churn out something thats a whole lot better, this is good news for consumers!
I have no problem with people causing self-harm, I'd be more interested in the reasons for the self harm than in the actual acts. From this view point as a society we could try to find out which "false beliefs" or "imposed desires" are the root cause of the self harm, banish those and the matter of self harm will evaporate. This is inline with my line of thinking expressed in my previous posts.
Who cares if the government taxes drugs to high heavon, yes a black market will exist, but at least it will be higher quality merchandise at lower cost (generally the black market rate is lower than the cost after taxation since its the tax people try to avoid).
Your "civilised society" starts with yourself, not your projection on how you think society should be, but on the way you live your own life. I agree with your goals of preventing deaths but not at the cost of limiting your own free will (that god given right), so my solution would involve greater education and understanding but at the end of the day every person makes their own choices. I agree social co-operation is good too, but I don't think the society would breakdown nor was I advocating any self-sufficiency stance where one might downplay "society" as being insignificant.
Your point on depressed people, I can only echo my opening sentences, the problem here is a false belief that sets up the situation, you are never going to stop this from happening but limiting free will is not a way to go about trying to limit it in the cases where you think you saw it being the principal reason being due to too much free will. The collateral cost to the living is far too great to be burdened with the acts of the dead.
Maybe the difference of opinion here is that I can see the world in terms where own free will was limited and as a result of that a bad consequence occurred, where are you prefer to stick with the bad consequence part and try to strategies a solution for stopping bad consequences without considering the side effects.
Why do people self-harm, why do depressed people consider suicide, the person feels that they are in a hopeless situation that they can do little about, teach that person to think in a way where free will is encouraged and the causes of this self-destructions will end.
Enjoy your self-purpose in life.
Isn't the biggest problem with heroin the crime associated with trying to finance the habit. If things were legal wouldn't the price of the drug drop and the quality improve (less toxic unknown chemicals), hell lets get the government involved in providing a quality standard and taxation. Making it illegal does not stop anyone who wants to do it; it simply makes the suffering worse for everyone (both the user and society).
As I claimed you can do what you like to yourself by your own free will that is your inalienable god given right. If you do so much heroin that you die, so what ?
Freedom is both. Freedom is the ability to act on your own free will (not as others desire you to do) providing the acts you commit are not detrimental to another.
All that remains is for common law to decide what acts are detrimental and what are not.
So you are correct, with freedom you can buy addictive drugs if that is your will or you can refuse addictive drugs if that is also your will (as opposed to being pushed them by a dealer). But at the end of the day it create a society of strong willed and morally balanced people which is exactly the world I'd like to live in.
I can't comment on the Linux TCP bugs you think you've found, maybe the linux-net list is the place to verify their nature.
But I don't think the experts you called upon for advice with sorting out an IP routing / network topology issue where all that expert, nothing sounds too complex or out of bounds in your scenario.
I'm happy that Solaris works for you, I too deploy Solaris and find its better at dealing with significant continuous I/O loads and memory pressure scenarios where as Linux has the edge on raw performance (getting stuff done faster) and networking (flexibility). Its also good that Solaris at least attempting to keep with Linux since vendor flexibility coupled with a bit of competition is always a good thing for everyone but even companies like Oracle are biasing towards Java/Linux and away from other options.
Check out "policy routing", its been in Linux now maybe 7 years. /sbin/ip route add table 10 0/0 via 10.0.0.1 dev eth0 /sbin/ip rule add from 10.0.0.0/24 table 10 pri 10
Should be along the lines of always routing traffic from 10.0.0.0/24 via gateway 10.0.0.1 on device eth0.
This problem isn't actually TCP code as your short sighted comment implies but I suppose you got the general networking area right in your thoughts so you aren't completely clueless. It's not recommended network practice to have two NICs in the same subnet (unless the NIC is designed for failover and is viewed as one from a MAC address perspective). Maybe the LARTC mailing list can help you at http://lartc.org/. May I wish you every success overcoming your problems but next time don't blame the tools when the user is naive.
I'm saying that a warrent should not be necessary to find out who the bill payer is, if anything that should be on public display for anyone you communicate with to audit. The detail of the bill payer for your internet service should be no more private than then details of the bill payer for your telephone service.
The main problem with the Internet is by the time a law enforcement agency has obtained consent fron a judge to find out further information the criminal has moved on, this makes law enforcement during the act impossible and gaining consent for something basic like the bill payers details is expensive to the tax payer.
Now if you were talking into the realm of wire tapping and traffic monitoring and divertion, I would be with you on the requirement for a warrent I don't see having accountable identity across the internet as an invasion of privacy since I never saw the Internet as an anonymous medium in the first place.
This is a poor way to achieve that goal. It would be much better for a private registry to be available to government by all responsible parties managing IP addresses to be able to tie each and every IP address back to the bill payer.
I think law enforcement agencies should have the right to lookup the current bill payer information 24x7 for any active IP address within a matter of minutes, this doesn't necessarly mean that the general public should have access to this facility, they can keep the current system of voluntary submission of correct information. It is true that this doesn't stop the harden crimincal element but bill payer information is generally very accurate and much more traceable back to someone who is related to the activities on the account in some way the ISP/colocation facility will make sure of that.
Maybe you should take a look at the IDEs. I just edit my Java code or my JSP and save and the IDE perform a hotcode replace (on java bytecode) or the servlet container performs a recompile (with JSPs).
My understading of the enegery losses are:
* You loose the fertalizer and nutrients from the soil (these have to be manufacturered).
* You loose all the oil burned up during haverting.
* You loose all the oil burned up during processing.
The free solar enegy is already a given and when someone talks of efficiency; sunlight is not even a positive input.
It's the unreplaced parts of scheme which have to come from somewhere to allow the next round of crops to grow that the efficiency experts trumpt on about. The thinking is that oil is cheap and the enegy per barrel of crude is high. Once you have to replace that enegry per barrel of crude with enegry per barrel of alternative fuel the economics become unstuck.
The amount of enegy in a barrel of alternative fuel != amount of enegry in a barrel of crude.
The cost to produce a barrel of alternative fuel != cost to produce a barrel of crude.
Over time with advances in technology for alternative fuel production will make it more efficient (just like has happened with the internal combusion engine itself). I also agree that some major effort / attempt to utlize sustainable alterative fuels should be made sooner rather than later. This is to promote those advances and to allow society to find, understand, debate and adapt to the possible repurcussions in trying to attempt that feat. This is a necessary growing pain which is best undertaken while we have crude oil to spend making mistakes.
LOL there is already in existance a solution to this problem. Signed DNS as a prerequisite to using .bank participation could be made mandatory. Then all we need is checking in the client application (much like the forwards DNS vs reverse DNS checks, and Certiciate Revocation List checks that are made for SSL certificates by browsers independantly of that the site claims).
How hard would it be to write software that modifies a system DLL to pervert those checks, who knows as Microsoft, they are touting Vista as a secure system at this time!