This is cross-facility transaction management: registry and filesystem updates combined into a single transaction. The example in TFA that an entire install can be atomic: multiple filesystems, registry, everything appears complete and as requested, all at once, or it never happened.
It's extensible, if TFA is to be believed at all, and the facility works. It's actually there and in use, rather than an it'll be there someday and won't it be wizzo promise, so I'm in "trust-but-verify" mode. It'll be interesting to see if it's actually extensible by coders excluded from the Blessed Realm.
Whether it belongs in the kernel or not is all but irrelevant: so what if it could be implemented as a userland service? Where they choose to put their code is up to them. They wanna play micro-kernel, Giga-kernel, or kernel-a-la-carte, that's up to them; the only question is whether the result is as reliable as they want us to believe.
If it is, it will make building absolutely-bulletproof applications a whole hell of a lot easier. I know something about that. Being able to say ~`if (!quickcheck()) die(fromhere());`~ without leaving a mess means, just for starters, that you don't have to concoct a file format for complex data; you can just use the filesystem, and that choice won't complicate your life. Big win. Big.
The fact of innocence is useless as a political defense. Nobody with two functioning neurons and any experience of office politics is unaware of this. Perhaps you've lived your life solely in the company of competent, honest people who have neither time nor desire for ignorant posturing?
All you have to do is examine that video critically. False premises. Characterization. Posturing. Strawmen. False dichotomies. Flattery. It goes on and on and on.
It's a "dirty little secret", according to him, that a lot of F/OSS runs on more Window machines than Linux machines.
It's a "dirty little secret", according to him, that a lot of F/OSS projects are abandoned playthings.
It's a "dirty little secret", according to him, that the testing effort that goes into those abandoned playthings doesn't match what goes into Microsoft Windows.
On, and on, and on.
Think about those assertions. Strip the characterization. Consider the assertions. Now look at the characterization again.
Anyone who objects to the/. estimation of Microsoft's character should examine that video critically. Before watching it, maybe spend some time with "On Sophistical Refutations". I can't make myself watch it again. I can feel my revulsion, physically.
The real goal of the project is to democratize information by making data (such as political and environmental data) that's currently publicly accessible in name only, truly accessible to the people.
I'd like to see maps of the disparities between exit-poll and actual vote tally numbers, one map per election. This will make it possible, and not just "possible": once someone has putatively done the work, it'll be easy to check, because the raw data are available from trustworthy sources (cue cynicism in 3) so anyone can redo the map to check for distortions.
This makes whole classes of questions easier for mere mortals to answer, and simultaneously makes their answers easier for mere mortals to understand. It's huge.
It's time to stop tolerating ISPs that tolerate infected PCs. Is spam the only thing a zombie can do? No. Will this stop ddos botnets? Not a chance. One thing at a time, and spam leaves a trail. The Heinlein strategy: ~when you don't know how to solve a problem, do any part of it you do understand, then look at it again.~
Get as many as possible of the major email services - gmail, hotmail, yahoo, aol, all their equivalents in other countries - to backtrack inbound spam envelopes to a retail ISP. Crank up the heat on the worst offenders until they shut off zombies. Private warnings, name and shame, SMTP brownouts and blackouts, BGP blackhole.
The ISPs all have AUPs. Seems simple enough: they warn spam sources, point them at instructions and commercial offers of help for a full disinfect, then if they stay infected shut them off until they pay for an ISP-provided (and expensive) brainwipe. That'll make lots of new niches in which the scum who'd otherwise be sending spam can turn a buck, and take the load off everybody but the clueless.
Now, obviously, this is *too* simple somehow, or otherwise somebody'd be doing this already. What is it?
If the people writing these laws could be bothered to specify when these laws could be applied, there wouldn't be an uproar.
Arguing that a law serves a valid purpose misses the point entirely. People objecting to laws rarely object to the good parts. The CDA served a good purpose. The DMCA serves a good purpose. Captain Copyright served a good purpose. With friends like that, good purposes don't need enemies.
The usual question at the border is whether you have a criminal record. The guy might have heard what he expected to hear, and answered that. Who the hell knows what "incident" means?
Nope. Look at this from the individual's perspective, and from the server's perspective:
From the individual's point of view, you can casually create digital identities: no server has anything to correlate with that you don't want to give them, because making a digital identity is easy. Your privacy is as secure as you want to keep it.
From the server's point of view: you can demand any criteria you like. No doubt there will be OpenID servers that support financial transactions by guaranteeing all digital identities can be legally bound to a financial one. But again: creating digital identities is cheap. There's no reason even a legally-traceable-OpenID server couldn't issue one-off digital identities essentially free.
So the difference is that it *isn't* a single sign-on. The server doesn't contact passport.net, the server contacts whoever you tell it to. If the server has a OpenID-server whitelist whose sole entry is "OpenPassport.net", that's its business. No doubt lots of leeches will set their servers up exactly that way, and lots of bloodbags will willingly patronize those businesses. But it's still a free country here. They can do what they want.
Problem is, it's the truest statement in his whole screed.
Fairplay's rules are DRM, well maintained and reasonably implemented.
Before flaming, I plead "truest", not "true": people pay for iTMS content, to the extent that they do, because if you have to crack Fairplay to do what you want to do with the music, you're behaving either criminally or idiotically (i.e. if you want to play it on something besides iTunes or an iPod, wtf did you buy at iTMS in the first place?) -- and thus iTMS rules... the DRMed market.
Here: let me fix his statement so it's actually "true", not just truthy:
Macrovision: Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of DRM'd content, not decrease it.
But of course that's not the message Daring Fireball is parodying, and not the message Amoroso wants to get across. In Amoroso's fantasy world, he gets paid everytime anybody hears or sees or says anything at all, so he's going to speak as if that's the real world. Being a bigshot, he can get lots of people dancing to that tune, and hurt small fry that refuse to. Aren't lies fun? And so profitable, too! Must be nice being low-level royalty.
why on earth would Microsoft bother to invent new tools and processes?
Please name what you consider to be the most important and valuable software tools and processes nobody would have bothered to invent without patent protection.
Then, please, name what you consider to be the most important and valuable software tools and processes people did bother to invent without patent protection.
'Twas a demo. "Don't like my rates? Tomorrow at 2PM I'll hit the D, E and G root servers so hard it'll make global headlines. You don't have to trust me: you're getting your money's worth."
Strawman:
We're discussing the lies put out by companies filling BellEast's role in your example, not BellNorth. Nobody's questioning backbone-transit charges or companies here. Thank you for distorting the discussion.
Misdirection:
It's what the BellEasts are after that's addressed by Net Neutrality: they want to arbitrarily refuse to deliver traffic to their retail customers. The backbones don't care *because they aren't affected*. Your response completely fails to address any relevant argument or issue. Thank you for distorting the discussion.
Camouflage:
"Most people" indeed don't know the difference. This is relevant... how is it relevant? Is it relevant? Nope: It isn't relevant here, not at all. Thank you for distorting the discussion.
Preemption:
... screw it. There's those and at least two more. That's one of the neater jobs I've seen. So many, so red, and such fat dead fish have rarely graced the name "herring" in such a small package.
It's not "holding back" data. It's refusing to route it at all. They want to be able to arbitrarily refuse to route traffic to their customers from anybody, at any time, unless they have specifically contracted to deliver that traffic. They will of course not admit to this, and when asked will go on and on about whatever distortion they think they can get you to listen to instead, but the simple fact remains that whatever they say they want can not be achieved, at all, without that. What they say shifts with the wind of debate among the technically ignorant. But that prerequisite never wavers.
I think you want the upstream headroom to be sure TCP ACKs aren't being crowded out of the pipe; if BT queues up a big batch of data, especially with usual separate-router setup these days, where the router's upstream link is a lot slower than its link to the PC, the ACKs get bogged down in traffic. That produces all kindsa nasty effects on TCP's congestion detection, and I think BT watches the acknowledgement rates too, trying to find the best receivers.
So the sender's TCP sees a sloooowwww link, much slower than it actually is, and feeds new packets in very gingerly to avoid swamping the route. Then BT sees traffic is just taking forever to get to you and figures the quickest way to seed everybody is to seed to the quick links first. It's right, too. It's just got no way of distinguishing between you and a 33.6kbps modem, because the only thing it sees is your data-acknowledgement rates.
Bah. The man fell for the chestnut about neurons not understanding Chinese. He understands physics, not computers, but even so he should have been able to see that trick for what it is.
Gee, you're right. Humans aren't curious, or adventurous. They have no sense of wonder, no desire for experience, no appreciation of the sublime, no desire to go anywhere just because it's there, no ability to achieve greatness just to express their appreciation of the divine. And to whatever extent they do have those things, they're just children's dreams, and everyone knows how worthless *those* are.
You wouldn't be worth a sneer if children weren't reading.
I believe range coding is just as effective as arithmetic coding, faster, and patent-free. And there's this "Quantized Indexing" method that's supposed to be better and much faster.
Slashdot Mirror
This is cross-facility transaction management: registry and filesystem updates combined into a single transaction. The example in TFA that an entire install can be atomic: multiple filesystems, registry, everything appears complete and as requested, all at once, or it never happened.
It's extensible, if TFA is to be believed at all, and the facility works. It's actually there and in use, rather than an it'll be there someday and won't it be wizzo promise, so I'm in "trust-but-verify" mode. It'll be interesting to see if it's actually extensible by coders excluded from the Blessed Realm.
Whether it belongs in the kernel or not is all but irrelevant: so what if it could be implemented as a userland service? Where they choose to put their code is up to them. They wanna play micro-kernel, Giga-kernel, or kernel-a-la-carte, that's up to them; the only question is whether the result is as reliable as they want us to believe.
If it is, it will make building absolutely-bulletproof applications a whole hell of a lot easier. I know something about that. Being able to say ~`if (!quickcheck()) die(fromhere());`~ without leaving a mess means, just for starters, that you don't have to concoct a file format for complex data; you can just use the filesystem, and that choice won't complicate your life. Big win. Big.
Because some people would quote Richelieu from admiration?
The fact of innocence is useless as a political defense. Nobody with two functioning neurons and any experience of office politics is unaware of this. Perhaps you've lived your life solely in the company of competent, honest people who have neither time nor desire for ignorant posturing?
Nope, I see that's not the explanation.
Hilf is the "dirty little secret" man?
All you have to do is examine that video critically. False premises. Characterization. Posturing. Strawmen. False dichotomies. Flattery. It goes on and on and on.
It's a "dirty little secret", according to him, that a lot of F/OSS runs on more Window machines than Linux machines.
It's a "dirty little secret", according to him, that a lot of F/OSS projects are abandoned playthings.
It's a "dirty little secret", according to him, that the testing effort that goes into those abandoned playthings doesn't match what goes into Microsoft Windows.
On, and on, and on.
Think about those assertions. Strip the characterization. Consider the assertions. Now look at the characterization again.
Anyone who objects to the /. estimation of Microsoft's character should examine that video critically. Before watching it, maybe spend some time with "On Sophistical Refutations". I can't make myself watch it again. I can feel my revulsion, physically.
I'd like to see maps of the disparities between exit-poll and actual vote tally numbers, one map per election. This will make it possible, and not just "possible": once someone has putatively done the work, it'll be easy to check, because the raw data are available from trustworthy sources (cue cynicism in 3) so anyone can redo the map to check for distortions.
This makes whole classes of questions easier for mere mortals to answer, and simultaneously makes their answers easier for mere mortals to understand. It's huge.
It's time to stop tolerating ISPs that tolerate infected PCs. Is spam the only thing a zombie can do? No. Will this stop ddos botnets? Not a chance. One thing at a time, and spam leaves a trail. The Heinlein strategy: ~when you don't know how to solve a problem, do any part of it you do understand, then look at it again.~
Get as many as possible of the major email services - gmail, hotmail, yahoo, aol, all their equivalents in other countries - to backtrack inbound spam envelopes to a retail ISP. Crank up the heat on the worst offenders until they shut off zombies. Private warnings, name and shame, SMTP brownouts and blackouts, BGP blackhole.
The ISPs all have AUPs. Seems simple enough: they warn spam sources, point them at instructions and commercial offers of help for a full disinfect, then if they stay infected shut them off until they pay for an ISP-provided (and expensive) brainwipe. That'll make lots of new niches in which the scum who'd otherwise be sending spam can turn a buck, and take the load off everybody but the clueless.
Now, obviously, this is *too* simple somehow, or otherwise somebody'd be doing this already. What is it?
If the people writing these laws could be bothered to specify when these laws could be applied, there wouldn't be an uproar.
Arguing that a law serves a valid purpose misses the point entirely. People objecting to laws rarely object to the good parts. The CDA served a good purpose. The DMCA serves a good purpose. Captain Copyright served a good purpose. With friends like that, good purposes don't need enemies.
You don't consider being forced to watch advertising a problem?
You don't consider having the terms of your "agreement" dictated to you after you've already handed over your money a problem?
The usual question at the border is whether you have a criminal record. The guy might have heard what he expected to hear, and answered that. Who the hell knows what "incident" means?
"Does this mean I don't get the bicycle, Dad?"
Nope. Look at this from the individual's perspective, and from the server's perspective:
From the individual's point of view, you can casually create digital identities: no server has anything to correlate with that you don't want to give them, because making a digital identity is easy. Your privacy is as secure as you want to keep it.
From the server's point of view: you can demand any criteria you like. No doubt there will be OpenID servers that support financial transactions by guaranteeing all digital identities can be legally bound to a financial one. But again: creating digital identities is cheap. There's no reason even a legally-traceable-OpenID server couldn't issue one-off digital identities essentially free.
So the difference is that it *isn't* a single sign-on. The server doesn't contact passport.net, the server contacts whoever you tell it to. If the server has a OpenID-server whitelist whose sole entry is "OpenPassport.net", that's its business. No doubt lots of leeches will set their servers up exactly that way, and lots of bloodbags will willingly patronize those businesses. But it's still a free country here. They can do what they want.
Problem is, it's the truest statement in his whole screed.
Fairplay's rules are DRM, well maintained and reasonably implemented.
Before flaming, I plead "truest", not "true": people pay for iTMS content, to the extent that they do, because if you have to crack Fairplay to do what you want to do with the music, you're behaving either criminally or idiotically (i.e. if you want to play it on something besides iTunes or an iPod, wtf did you buy at iTMS in the first place?) -- and thus iTMS rules... the DRMed market.
Here: let me fix his statement so it's actually "true", not just truthy:
But of course that's not the message Daring Fireball is parodying, and not the message Amoroso wants to get across. In Amoroso's fantasy world, he gets paid everytime anybody hears or sees or says anything at all, so he's going to speak as if that's the real world. Being a bigshot, he can get lots of people dancing to that tune, and hurt small fry that refuse to. Aren't lies fun? And so profitable, too! Must be nice being low-level royalty.
When was the last time you watched what happens when you type just the hostname (sans `http://`) into IE6's address bar?
Please name what you consider to be the most important and valuable software tools and processes nobody would have bothered to invent without patent protection.
Then, please, name what you consider to be the most important and valuable software tools and processes people did bother to invent without patent protection.
'Twas a demo. "Don't like my rates? Tomorrow at 2PM I'll hit the D, E and G root servers so hard it'll make global headlines. You don't have to trust me: you're getting your money's worth."
That. Was. Tasty.
Yeh. Screw this "legal equivalent" crap...
Strawman: We're discussing the lies put out by companies filling BellEast's role in your example, not BellNorth. Nobody's questioning backbone-transit charges or companies here. Thank you for distorting the discussion. Misdirection: It's what the BellEasts are after that's addressed by Net Neutrality: they want to arbitrarily refuse to deliver traffic to their retail customers. The backbones don't care *because they aren't affected*. Your response completely fails to address any relevant argument or issue. Thank you for distorting the discussion. Camouflage: "Most people" indeed don't know the difference. This is relevant ... how is it relevant? Is it relevant? Nope: It isn't relevant here, not at all. Thank you for distorting the discussion.
Preemption:
... screw it. There's those and at least two more. That's one of the neater jobs I've seen. So many, so red, and such fat dead fish have rarely graced the name "herring" in such a small package.
It's not "holding back" data. It's refusing to route it at all. They want to be able to arbitrarily refuse to route traffic to their customers from anybody, at any time, unless they have specifically contracted to deliver that traffic. They will of course not admit to this, and when asked will go on and on about whatever distortion they think they can get you to listen to instead, but the simple fact remains that whatever they say they want can not be achieved, at all, without that. What they say shifts with the wind of debate among the technically ignorant. But that prerequisite never wavers.
So the sender's TCP sees a sloooowwww link, much slower than it actually is, and feeds new packets in very gingerly to avoid swamping the route. Then BT sees traffic is just taking forever to get to you and figures the quickest way to seed everybody is to seed to the quick links first. It's right, too. It's just got no way of distinguishing between you and a 33.6kbps modem, because the only thing it sees is your data-acknowledgement rates.
Thomas will tell you. Search on bill number for HR5252. Search on keyword for "neutrality" to find more; the one we want is HR5417
Bah. The man fell for the chestnut about neurons not understanding Chinese. He understands physics, not computers, but even so he should have been able to see that trick for what it is.
Umm.
<knock/><knock/>
Hello?
1m/15cm=6+packing room. 1m^2 = 36 stacks. Say 450disks/stack+packing room. 36*450=8,100,000 DVDs.
144Tb/s. I want to see the machine can suck down data as fast as one guy with a forklift can unload.
That's a spot-on order of magnitude with one truck. Wanna guess at the rwnd for 100km of interstate?
Gee, you're right. Humans aren't curious, or adventurous. They have no sense of wonder, no desire for experience, no appreciation of the sublime, no desire to go anywhere just because it's there, no ability to achieve greatness just to express their appreciation of the divine. And to whatever extent they do have those things, they're just children's dreams, and everyone knows how worthless *those* are.
You wouldn't be worth a sneer if children weren't reading.
I believe range coding is just as effective as arithmetic coding, faster, and patent-free. And there's this "Quantized Indexing" method that's supposed to be better and much faster.