And you can go and check Apple's share price, at just $3.3 on Xmas 97, it was well on its way to collapse, to claim that Apple didn't need the money (if anything at least as a moral buster) sounds frankly preposterous.
I use mostly "apps" nowadays (Android devices) and rarely open my web browser, unless I am on my desktop.
Since we are speculating let me spin another theory: people using iPads to do web browsing continue to do so because they are a bit dumber than average (they are the people that queue, for days sometimes, to *buy* something that will be widely available a few days later) and haven't got the paradigm changes in personal computing (a web browser is beginning to be "old tech").
That is fine, but if my theory is correct, such numbers of iPads would only show that their owners are behind the technology trends, not that more devices are being bought.
One of the biggest banks in the world has done this and they continue to make money (their share price is going back to pre-2008 levels).
All this anti outsource nonsense is hysteria which finds its natural home in the complaints of the people most affected by the changes.
We have seen a reduction of living standards of people in most Western countries (bar Germany perhaps, who bring lots of foreign IT workers to the country *hint*) because simply put it is completely unsustainable that in a global economy Western technicians have a lavish lifestyle sustained by debt while their counterparts elsewhere have paltry incomes in spite of them saving more money instead of incurring in sparling out of control personal debt.
Sorry folks, but your "American Dream" nonsense of buy today and pay it later was completely unsustainable, specially when other countries are churning out thousands of technicians and Engineers perfectly capable of providing technical support (all this bullshit about they not being qualified is patent nonsense: if your companies can't find the talented people it is because they are not looking very hard).
Unbridled consumerism is the fat that needs to be trimmed from the Western worker, unless you are hopping that your counterparts elsewhere follow the same path, which may happen, but would be unsustainable, so something has got to give: either most new jobs go elsewhere (India, China, Singapore, Philippines, Mexico, you name it) or your standards of living are diminished (which in hindsight isn't a bad thing: you don't need to overeat so much, so many gadgets, or such inefficient cars).
People forget when Microsoft injected cash in Apple when it was going nowhere.
Mightier companies than Apple have fallen, and unfortunately for them it begins to look like they are living from a "perception marketing bubble".
Remember Nokia? It was washing the floor with the competition. Apple did very well to change some of the paradigms of the mobile phone platform, but they have contributed very little and the release of "cheaper" iPhones recognizes that the only differentiator now is in price not in features.
And that is the problem for Apple: to keep charging for a phone that does pretty much the same as any other you have to resort to gimmicks: selling golden phones for example, in technology that can take you only so far.
Proof: people wanted a phone just because it was golden. That is not innovation, is hype, sooner or later the bubble will burst and all the chickens will come home to roost.
The people in charge of ensuring electronics are safe are government and standard agencies, not manufacturers of competing products who use what seems like monopolistic practices parading as concern for their consumer.
People buying these gadgets are sophisticated enough not to appreciate Apple and its products with shoddy third parties.
Since most infrastructure is not located on these countries, they can't serve a warrant to a CA to break SSL for example, and their influence in standard bodies to corrupt those standards, as the NSA is allegedly doing, is negligible overall.
Also those countries don't have the infrastructure (and although there are many bright people there, I wonder if they have enough expertise) to carry out sophisticated hacking attempt at the level at which apparently the NSA may be operating.
Of course if you think pother countries are playing this game feel free to continue speculating, but in the balance of probabilities it seems unlikely.
You create dataset on top of a zpool. Then you impose quotas in your datasets, which can be resized at will (you want to reduce the dataset? Empty the data from it and change the quota accordingly. Want to enlarge the dataset? Just increase the quota).
Datasets are what you mount as what we traditionally understand as filesystems, that you can "resize" at your hears content.
If you are talking about zpools, there are commands to add or remove devices as needed, and the pool can even use a bigger (why would you put an smaller?) device as soon as it is detected, starting the resync automatically.
You clearly have not been paying attention to the news, have you?
After the leaks of Snowden regarding general malfeasance from security agencies against the encryption standards that we require to communicate safely and securely (like with your bank, just saying) you can't trust any software that you can't build (or know other people more capable can't build) from scratch.
The GPL guarantees that no stupid institution or individual has free reign to corrupt the computational resources you are using.
Other licenses wax lyrical on this, and the consequence is that your precious Apple OS and applications are now tainted, because you have no way to know if they have backdoors or not.
What does this have to do with ZFS you ask?
Well, encryption. ZFS has the capability to encrypt the datasets you are using, but unfortunately its license would not make it suitable for truly secure encryption in the cases where the company or individual implementing it (Oracle, ahem,ahem) chose not to make the source code available.
At that point you have no way to know if backdoors have been added to your implementation of ZFS.
So again, how is GPL, a license that is protecting your security, the problem?
Having a CA public key changed is a real PITA because there is no easy way to update such key in Joe Public's web browser.
Of course in your Intranet you can do whatever you want to Joe Employee's computer, and I am sure proper OSes, where their code can be inspected for added security, can comply with this task.
I have never flipped a burger in my life. I am hopelessly under-trained in that field of human expertise.
If in the other hand if you need a technologist that has worked in multiple countries, a piano player (at quite a decent level) or a film director & producer (credits on request) please let me know.
... should be left in the capable hands of bankers, insurers, airline operators, tech geniuses (specially if they have any experience running companies about 2000) and all other shrewd business people.
Lest not forget farmers which are great at administering subsidies and other varied industries that have become very adept at pork barrel politics, ensuring juicy subsidies and bailouts from the incompetent government come their way as soon as this is needed to boost their bonuses.
I have not met him, and since I am not a hacker I don't know if this is standard behaviour or not.
The only thing I would say, being an admirer and supporter of Linux and of him personally, is a Mexican saying: "lo cortes no quita lo valiente" (that loosely translated is "be brave, but be courteous").
You can in theory set up a system and throw the key (root password) away: the sys admins could manage the machine, but could not grant access rights to new users and would not have free reign in all the data (logs for example), that would be done by a different set of people (with no root capabilities whatsoever).
The technology exists, but it is used in very few instances.
Snowden does have credibility (the fact that people describe him as either a whistle-blower or a traitor proves this beyond question).
As for being used by somebody else, well, scrambling so publicly to be let in anywhere and ranting against the US government for closing his asylum options would tend to indicate that he was not being handled by anybody.
This chap did us all a great service, thanks to him we will need to make the internet secure, not keep pretending that it is.
I just don't get how anybody with decent intentions can fail to see this.
The BBC is obliged by its internal rules not to be biased.
People do complain and the BBC occasionally has to apologize when the standards that apply to it aren't met.
The empirical way to gauge this is to read how many people of all political stripes complain about the BBC being biased: when lefties and right wingers, establishment and anti-establishment all complain bitterly about BBC bias one knows bias doesn't exist.
What you are proposing is called a positive feedback system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback ) and as the article notes "Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations or divergences from equilibrium".
The Weimar Republic, the Brazilian Real and Zimbabwean currency should dispel this nonsense you are talking about.
That is why economists need to know a bit about maths, so they don't end sprouting bullshit.
The CAs' public keys come with your browser (or SSL client, it could be a web server or other piece of software). If you sign your own the problem becomes to distribute the keys.
Also it is trivial to stop the server with your private keys serving authentication requests. Governments will say terrorism, national security or one of those scary words and no judge will try to defend you rights, as shown in the UK they will even widen a narrow law to suit the needs of the security and/or intelligence bodies.
Slashdot Mirror
This help came "after 18 months of losses" ( http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/08/dayintech_0806/ )
And you can go and check Apple's share price, at just $3.3 on Xmas 97, it was well on its way to collapse, to claim that Apple didn't need the money (if anything at least as a moral buster) sounds frankly preposterous.
Slashdot isn't the same without them.
It counts web browser visits.
I use mostly "apps" nowadays (Android devices) and rarely open my web browser, unless I am on my desktop.
Since we are speculating let me spin another theory: people using iPads to do web browsing continue to do so because they are a bit dumber than average (they are the people that queue, for days sometimes, to *buy* something that will be widely available a few days later) and haven't got the paradigm changes in personal computing (a web browser is beginning to be "old tech").
That is fine, but if my theory is correct, such numbers of iPads would only show that their owners are behind the technology trends, not that more devices are being bought.
... running a company and living up to those lofty ideals when faced with a balance sheet showing diminishing profits.
One of the biggest banks in the world has done this and they continue to make money (their share price is going back to pre-2008 levels).
All this anti outsource nonsense is hysteria which finds its natural home in the complaints of the people most affected by the changes.
We have seen a reduction of living standards of people in most Western countries (bar Germany perhaps, who bring lots of foreign IT workers to the country *hint*) because simply put it is completely unsustainable that in a global economy Western technicians have a lavish lifestyle sustained by debt while their counterparts elsewhere have paltry incomes in spite of them saving more money instead of incurring in sparling out of control personal debt.
Sorry folks, but your "American Dream" nonsense of buy today and pay it later was completely unsustainable, specially when other countries are churning out thousands of technicians and Engineers perfectly capable of providing technical support (all this bullshit about they not being qualified is patent nonsense: if your companies can't find the talented people it is because they are not looking very hard).
Unbridled consumerism is the fat that needs to be trimmed from the Western worker, unless you are hopping that your counterparts elsewhere follow the same path, which may happen, but would be unsustainable, so something has got to give: either most new jobs go elsewhere (India, China, Singapore, Philippines, Mexico, you name it) or your standards of living are diminished (which in hindsight isn't a bad thing: you don't need to overeat so much, so many gadgets, or such inefficient cars).
People forget when Microsoft injected cash in Apple when it was going nowhere.
Mightier companies than Apple have fallen, and unfortunately for them it begins to look like they are living from a "perception marketing bubble".
Remember Nokia? It was washing the floor with the competition. Apple did very well to change some of the paradigms of the mobile phone platform, but they have contributed very little and the release of "cheaper" iPhones recognizes that the only differentiator now is in price not in features.
And that is the problem for Apple: to keep charging for a phone that does pretty much the same as any other you have to resort to gimmicks: selling golden phones for example, in technology that can take you only so far.
Proof: people wanted a phone just because it was golden. That is not innovation, is hype, sooner or later the bubble will burst and all the chickens will come home to roost.
The people in charge of ensuring electronics are safe are government and standard agencies, not manufacturers of competing products who use what seems like monopolistic practices parading as concern for their consumer.
People buying these gadgets are sophisticated enough not to appreciate Apple and its products with shoddy third parties.
There are very simple reasons for this:
Since most infrastructure is not located on these countries, they can't serve a warrant to a CA to break SSL for example, and their influence in standard bodies to corrupt those standards, as the NSA is allegedly doing, is negligible overall.
Also those countries don't have the infrastructure (and although there are many bright people there, I wonder if they have enough expertise) to carry out sophisticated hacking attempt at the level at which apparently the NSA may be operating.
Of course if you think pother countries are playing this game feel free to continue speculating, but in the balance of probabilities it seems unlikely.
In Linux , perhaps not much, although I find the zfs interface (zpool and zfs commands) and design very clear and intuitive.
Also perfromancewise I really don't know if ZFS can be beaten, at least for certain tasks: taking a snapshot looks like a trivial task.
In Solaris ZFS is tightly integrated with zones (virtualization) and clusters (resilience).
It is just amazing all what you can do with all these components working with each other (Linux is not even remotely close).
Uh?
You create dataset on top of a zpool. Then you impose quotas in your datasets, which can be resized at will (you want to reduce the dataset? Empty the data from it and change the quota accordingly. Want to enlarge the dataset? Just increase the quota).
Datasets are what you mount as what we traditionally understand as filesystems, that you can "resize" at your hears content.
If you are talking about zpools, there are commands to add or remove devices as needed, and the pool can even use a bigger (why would you put an smaller?) device as soon as it is detected, starting the resync automatically.
You clearly have not been paying attention to the news, have you?
After the leaks of Snowden regarding general malfeasance from security agencies against the encryption standards that we require to communicate safely and securely (like with your bank, just saying) you can't trust any software that you can't build (or know other people more capable can't build) from scratch.
The GPL guarantees that no stupid institution or individual has free reign to corrupt the computational resources you are using.
Other licenses wax lyrical on this, and the consequence is that your precious Apple OS and applications are now tainted, because you have no way to know if they have backdoors or not.
What does this have to do with ZFS you ask?
Well, encryption. ZFS has the capability to encrypt the datasets you are using, but unfortunately its license would not make it suitable for truly secure encryption in the cases where the company or individual implementing it (Oracle, ahem,ahem) chose not to make the source code available.
At that point you have no way to know if backdoors have been added to your implementation of ZFS.
So again, how is GPL, a license that is protecting your security, the problem?
From one of the search results:
"Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny, with Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per cent of all changes. "
In any case, if they release the code under the GPL I have no beef with that, I see it as a very small capitulation from their part.
The day they open the whole thing I'll forgive them. Maybe.
Having a CA public key changed is a real PITA because there is no easy way to update such key in Joe Public's web browser.
Of course in your Intranet you can do whatever you want to Joe Employee's computer, and I am sure proper OSes, where their code can be inspected for added security, can comply with this task.
... people think only short term.
I have never flipped a burger in my life. I am hopelessly under-trained in that field of human expertise.
If in the other hand if you need a technologist that has worked in multiple countries, a piano player (at quite a decent level) or a film director & producer (credits on request) please let me know.
... going to fight the surveillance state?
In *our* behalf?
Allow me the following outburst. Ha,ha,ha.
... should be left in the capable hands of bankers, insurers, airline operators, tech geniuses (specially if they have any experience running companies about 2000) and all other shrewd business people.
Lest not forget farmers which are great at administering subsidies and other varied industries that have become very adept at pork barrel politics, ensuring juicy subsidies and bailouts from the incompetent government come their way as soon as this is needed to boost their bonuses.
I have not met him, and since I am not a hacker I don't know if this is standard behaviour or not.
The only thing I would say, being an admirer and supporter of Linux and of him personally, is a Mexican saying: "lo cortes no quita lo valiente" (that loosely translated is "be brave, but be courteous").
You can in theory set up a system and throw the key (root password) away: the sys admins could manage the machine, but could not grant access rights to new users and would not have free reign in all the data (logs for example), that would be done by a different set of people (with no root capabilities whatsoever).
The technology exists, but it is used in very few instances.
Snowden does have credibility (the fact that people describe him as either a whistle-blower or a traitor proves this beyond question).
As for being used by somebody else, well, scrambling so publicly to be let in anywhere and ranting against the US government for closing his asylum options would tend to indicate that he was not being handled by anybody.
This chap did us all a great service, thanks to him we will need to make the internet secure, not keep pretending that it is.
I just don't get how anybody with decent intentions can fail to see this.
3 fails:
- You needing passwords from other people.
- They giving you those passwords.
-The password been shared and unique.
2 Questions:
- Did you leave?
- Did you technology that didn't require sharing passwords (or was it that you lacked knowledge, perhaps you may not know even now!).
The BBC is obliged by its internal rules not to be biased.
People do complain and the BBC occasionally has to apologize when the standards that apply to it aren't met.
The empirical way to gauge this is to read how many people of all political stripes complain about the BBC being biased: when lefties and right wingers, establishment and anti-establishment all complain bitterly about BBC bias one knows bias doesn't exist.
What you are proposing is called a positive feedback system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback ) and as the article notes "Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations or divergences from equilibrium".
The Weimar Republic, the Brazilian Real and Zimbabwean currency should dispel this nonsense you are talking about.
That is why economists need to know a bit about maths, so they don't end sprouting bullshit.
The CAs' public keys come with your browser (or SSL client, it could be a web server or other piece of software). If you sign your own the problem becomes to distribute the keys.
Also it is trivial to stop the server with your private keys serving authentication requests. Governments will say terrorism, national security or one of those scary words and no judge will try to defend you rights, as shown in the UK they will even widen a narrow law to suit the needs of the security and/or intelligence bodies.
We are really fucked.
if they think they will find a place in my mobile phone or tablet, they are loony.
(gosh, that is how long ago I replaced Windows95 with Slackware ... and never looked back).