Seems like you'd have trouble finding your way out of the../paper/bag directory if you need to call HP support for help understanding the output of the pwd command. Maybe *NIX isn't for you.
Ok...the summary states he said "The age of these machines are [sic] wacked down a little bit..." when if you actually listen to the presentation on that link you can tell he said "The 'Edge' on these machines are locked down a little bit..." Which makes a hell of a lot more sense to convey that security functions are making certain necessary features unavailable for the demo. Bogdan Popa, who wrote the linked article on Softpedia, needs to get the earwax out of his ears.
Stream Sniping is where players watch the Twitch stream of another player that they're in the game with to get a fix on the location of the Streamer and using it to get an advantage on the Streamer. It's similar to the old days where you could do 4 player Deathmatch in Goldeneye on a shared screen, and get accused of screen sniping each other in a similar way.
The reason stories like this make it to the front page is because we give it a hell of a lot of comments and even more views. As of this response the story has been on the page for nearly an hour and a half has already broken more than 135 comments while the actual tech story about a backdoor in Cisco's Umbrella platform has been up nearly two hours and....there's 10. 10 comments.
The Slashdot editors are simply responding to the communities actions as to what stories to pull to the front page and ignoring our denouncements. Actions speak louder that words. If we actually responded to the tech stories more than this trash...we'd see more of those. But... judging by the comment volumes alone, tech stories just don't interest the community much.
Actually, "sharts" (a shit that's the result of trying too hard to push out a fart) does fit better to the way the government treats us. If government officials ever gave a shit about us, it's completely accidental.
Smart TVs are getting to where they will leech onto any open WiFi signal they can attach to to pull down updates, even if you disable WiFi in the TV's settings. Not so bad when you're out in the middle of nowhere and tech savvy enough that you can just outright perform a block at your router against the TV's MAC address. On the other hand, if live in a neighborhood, apartment, or town-home community where everyone else is a grandmother with an open default network on the other hand and your TV will attach itself to the best signal that allows it to pull an IP.
It's not even recent that TVs that have started doing this. I have an older Samsung directly wired into my network behind a pfsense firewall and have its WiFi disabled I also used to have an Open WiFi guest network available that logged all connections and also behind its own firewall rules. Guess what the TV would do? At about 2am every day it'd silently enable its WiFi and connect to that guest network in the hopes of pulling an update. IT's stopped since I found the buried setting that allows me to explicitly opt-out of automatic updates... but if I weren't as technically able and diligent, the TV would have been able to successfully connect to the update server nightly. Take your average user ability and blocking the TV from connecting is an exercise in futility.
The differences between the efficiency gains of using gas/diesel over using a horse were staggering and the arguments you quoted hypothetically would be idiotic. That said moving to electric is a not-negligible efficiency loss.
184 horses in 10 days to go coast to coast (1900 miles) carrying a single pouch required 184 changing stations on the route: Pony Express
1 Ford model T running the same trip would have a tank range of almost 145 miles (est 18mpg * 10 gallon tank with an 8 gallon draw). This makes a need for 14 fuel stations on the route, about 8 days or less travel time assuming 12 hr driving days and capacity for 50 or more travel pouches equivalent to what the pony express had.
A clear efficiency gain using early affordable automobiles. Compare that to the current transition we're facing:
1 Semi in roughly 3 days (assuming average 55 mph speed and 11 hrs of service per day after every 10 consecutive hrs off-duty) on a similar route with a gross weight between 30-40 tons, required stopping only once on the way to fill up 225 - 300 gallons of fuel and 30 minute breaks after 8 hrs of active driving.
1 Electric semi going the same distance with a presumed 400 mile range (information on google is sparse as far as the range of a pure battery powered Semi truck) will mean a required 90 minute (or more depending on number of chargers vs chargers in use) stop every 6 - 7 hours of drive time at least 5 times during the trip to recharge. Oh...and with trucking, 30 minutes for an 80% charge is not going to cut it, the battery needs to go 100% to get the max range they can between stops
Since the 11 hrs of service max is read from the end point of the 10 consecutive hours off-duty, recharge/break time does not figure into it, so in reality a Diesel Semi is going to have 10.5 hours active drive time (577.5 miles) and the Electric Semi is going to have 9.5 hours active drive time (522.5 miles) or significantly less as the more ubiquitous electric freight gets, the more wait time there is to get a bay. Losing half a day's drive time on waiting to recharge and actually recharging would not be an unreasonable estimation. That means the 1900 mile trip would take about 3.29 days using Diesel and 3.63 days at absolute best using Electric. In trucking, losing over 1/3 of a day in the course of a haul is a major setback as it can mean the difference between getting the next load that day and getting a head start on the next haul, or having to wait until the next day (or more) for a hookup.
This shows that there's a clear efficiency loss in going with mass produced electric. I'll grant you that the loss is not as drastic as the gain from going from Pony Express to mass produced auto; but the parent's argument of excessive charge times being a real problem is a valid one that needs to have a "good enough" solution before we start pushing forward with electric vehicles everywhere. We're not there yet. We're not even close to satisfactorily solving that problem for mass scale use.
I couldn't help but triple take when I saw that it was a Wall Street Journal link. From reading the summary I was certain it had to be from the Onion. I mean...this piece of gold:
...Mr. Sisco, an M.B.A. student in Provo, Utah, made his discovery after inviting friends over to watch the Super Bowl in 2014. The online stream he found to watch the game didn't have regular commercials -- disappointing half of his guests who were only interested in the ads.
That's 4 jokes in one right there. I'm actually disappointed that this WASN'T an Onion story.
Article is a consumerist pipe dream. There's no substance of what you're looking for. NASA is just taking bids on contractors to apply a theoretical engine design to a model. There's nothing concrete yet...nothing physical.
Sure...in software there's no one to say that you have to program an elegant way to fail when you have what seems like garbage data coming in...except for the fact that the "garbage" data is really what the endpoint is expecting and other, more user oriented systems, handle without any issue. Systemd is behaving like a damn government bureaucracy that is completely detatched from the way the world works.
Also...as has been brought up several times in this post but has yet to be answered: WHAT THE FUCK IS AN INIT SYSTEM DOING NAME RESOLUTION FOR? There is no sane reason that name resolution should be available at boot time, unless you're doing a network boot; but in that case it's the pxe boot on the network card that's handling it. The system itself has no need for name resolution until the network interface is brought up, which should be well after the init system has confirmed the system is stable and handed off control to the Kernel.
I'm so glad that Poettering isn't involved in developing hardware, because with this philosophy he'd never be in compliance with part 15 of the FCC's rules:
Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
For the place I'm moving into, my plan is going to be similar to yours: Since I'm going to have roommates I was looking at having two Cable Modems on the line, one for their account and one for ours (two families of power users that run dangerously close to each of their caps). Run those into a 5 port ubiquity router with a few managed switches connected to that running virtual networks. Run that to a patch panel that runs physical wires to each bedroom and the home office, enough lines that each device could have a physical run back to the network closet. And then for wireless devices, run three different AP zones, two on my network one on the roommates' on non conflicting channels.
Were you here for the Bennett Haselton time frame a year or two ago? This is at least slightly better than that. At least they're trying to use a nicely scented lavender wax on the turd they're polishing this time.
One provider on the pole - The local government municipality. From there, you connect a box your chosen ISP gives you to your end of the line, municipality CO performs switching (likely automated based on MAC addressing of connected device...like cable companies do already) to connect you to the ISP of your choice. Municipality keeps up the line infrastructure, and your internet service is connected through an ISP that doesn't have direct operational jurisdiction over the lines; just the boxes at either end of municipality's infrastructure.
Suppose Congress decided that all ISPs should be taxed at a 95% rate...
Strawman. Of course spending on lobbying on this hypothetical and non-existant case makes sense and will protect an investment made in infrastructure. No one here has stated that money shouldn't be spent on lobbying to protect investments. We are arguing that money spent on lobbying shouldn't be an investment in itself, and in an actual competitive environment, it couldn't be.
Competition has nothing to do with this issue.
I disagree. Competition is everything to do with this issue. In addition to the Net Neutrality issue, ISP A has used lobbying to prevent a potential ISP B (municpal broadband) from building out their own infrastructure in A's jurisdiction. They have also used lobbying to ensure that other existing ISPs aren't able to encroach on eachother's territories to increase regional competition. Net Neutrality is in part ensuring that ISPs cannot give preference to traffic generated by their own content applications (i.e. Cox's contour service) over that of other content application/producers (i.e. Hulu, Youtube, Twitch, Netflix, etc). This is exactly an example of the ISPs lobbying against fair competition of content. so,
yes, competition is the crux of this whole issue.
If the INDUSTRY, as a whole, had spent that money on routers instead, exactly how much money could the industry, as a whole, expect in return?
Given that the INDUSTRY as a whole has made a climate against competition in the ISP marketplace through their lobbying efforts, they can't expect any real return on investment in any of their infrastructure. Take away the regional monopoly structure and introduce REAL competition in the ISP marketplace, returns on router and technology upgrades would be exponential.
You haven't said anything that negates the parent's comment. The theory is that if the environment were more competitive, R&D would have a better ROI than lobbying. The current environment of ISPs in the US is a distinct lack of competition, so there's a greater ROI in lobbying than there is in R&D... because in the current state, building out better infrastructure isn't going to get them many more customers, and in many markets there aren't any other options for customers to move to, so they won't lose anything by letting their current infrastructure age and stagnate. In this case it makes more sense to lobby to build more walls against competition.
So, to reiterate: Parent didn't say that Lobbying/bribing is a poor investment in itself. He said it's a poor investment under the condition that the environment is competitive; and the fact that lobbying/bribing is currently creating a better ROI than R&D would correlates to the fact that there's not nearly enough competition in the ISP market.
Sorry Kid, we're not in power yet. The last of the boomers aren't relinquishing the reigns like they need to be doing. Instead we're busy trying to corral the ones we can get a hold of and throw them in nursing homes where they can stop being a menace to themselves and others. In another 20 to 30 years maybe enough of them will have died off or at least have been sequestered away that we can start cleaning up the mess they've left the world and actually make some damn headway to putting human life back on the track to social improvements.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like you'd have trouble finding your way out of the ../paper/bag directory if you need to call HP support for help understanding the output of the pwd command. Maybe *NIX isn't for you.
Letting your emotions control your reason may cause trouble for yourself and those around you.
So, no. Not a replacement for logic. More like a slaver of.
If you're gonna make an omelette, you have crack a few skulls.
...or something like that. I just remember he smashed a porcelain mask when he said it.
As informative as your post is, it is unfortunately a WOOOOOOOOSH moment.
Ok...the summary states he said "The age of these machines are [sic] wacked down a little bit..." when if you actually listen to the presentation on that link you can tell he said "The 'Edge' on these machines are locked down a little bit..." Which makes a hell of a lot more sense to convey that security functions are making certain necessary features unavailable for the demo. Bogdan Popa, who wrote the linked article on Softpedia, needs to get the earwax out of his ears.
Stream Sniping is where players watch the Twitch stream of another player that they're in the game with to get a fix on the location of the Streamer and using it to get an advantage on the Streamer. It's similar to the old days where you could do 4 player Deathmatch in Goldeneye on a shared screen, and get accused of screen sniping each other in a similar way.
The reason stories like this make it to the front page is because we give it a hell of a lot of comments and even more views. As of this response the story has been on the page for nearly an hour and a half has already broken more than 135 comments while the actual tech story about a backdoor in Cisco's Umbrella platform has been up nearly two hours and....there's 10. 10 comments.
The Slashdot editors are simply responding to the communities actions as to what stories to pull to the front page and ignoring our denouncements. Actions speak louder that words. If we actually responded to the tech stories more than this trash...we'd see more of those. But... judging by the comment volumes alone, tech stories just don't interest the community much.
"The echo chamber is getting worse every day."
Kinda like Lando's deal with the Empire?
or, in your case, playing pinball: A video to help you.
Actually, "sharts" (a shit that's the result of trying too hard to push out a fart) does fit better to the way the government treats us. If government officials ever gave a shit about us, it's completely accidental.
Smart TVs are getting to where they will leech onto any open WiFi signal they can attach to to pull down updates, even if you disable WiFi in the TV's settings. Not so bad when you're out in the middle of nowhere and tech savvy enough that you can just outright perform a block at your router against the TV's MAC address. On the other hand, if live in a neighborhood, apartment, or town-home community where everyone else is a grandmother with an open default network on the other hand and your TV will attach itself to the best signal that allows it to pull an IP.
It's not even recent that TVs that have started doing this. I have an older Samsung directly wired into my network behind a pfsense firewall and have its WiFi disabled I also used to have an Open WiFi guest network available that logged all connections and also behind its own firewall rules. Guess what the TV would do? At about 2am every day it'd silently enable its WiFi and connect to that guest network in the hopes of pulling an update. IT's stopped since I found the buried setting that allows me to explicitly opt-out of automatic updates... but if I weren't as technically able and diligent, the TV would have been able to successfully connect to the update server nightly. Take your average user ability and blocking the TV from connecting is an exercise in futility.
Welcome to the future.
The differences between the efficiency gains of using gas/diesel over using a horse were staggering and the arguments you quoted hypothetically would be idiotic. That said moving to electric is a not-negligible efficiency loss.
184 horses in 10 days to go coast to coast (1900 miles) carrying a single pouch required 184 changing stations on the route: Pony Express
1 Ford model T running the same trip would have a tank range of almost 145 miles (est 18mpg * 10 gallon tank with an 8 gallon draw). This makes a need for 14 fuel stations on the route, about 8 days or less travel time assuming 12 hr driving days and capacity for 50 or more travel pouches equivalent to what the pony express had.
A clear efficiency gain using early affordable automobiles. Compare that to the current transition we're facing:
1 Semi in roughly 3 days (assuming average 55 mph speed and 11 hrs of service per day after every 10 consecutive hrs off-duty) on a similar route with a gross weight between 30-40 tons, required stopping only once on the way to fill up 225 - 300 gallons of fuel and 30 minute breaks after 8 hrs of active driving.
1 Electric semi going the same distance with a presumed 400 mile range (information on google is sparse as far as the range of a pure battery powered Semi truck) will mean a required 90 minute (or more depending on number of chargers vs chargers in use) stop every 6 - 7 hours of drive time at least 5 times during the trip to recharge. Oh...and with trucking, 30 minutes for an 80% charge is not going to cut it, the battery needs to go 100% to get the max range they can between stops
Since the 11 hrs of service max is read from the end point of the 10 consecutive hours off-duty, recharge/break time does not figure into it, so in reality a Diesel Semi is going to have 10.5 hours active drive time (577.5 miles) and the Electric Semi is going to have 9.5 hours active drive time (522.5 miles) or significantly less as the more ubiquitous electric freight gets, the more wait time there is to get a bay. Losing half a day's drive time on waiting to recharge and actually recharging would not be an unreasonable estimation. That means the 1900 mile trip would take about 3.29 days using Diesel and 3.63 days at absolute best using Electric. In trucking, losing over 1/3 of a day in the course of a haul is a major setback as it can mean the difference between getting the next load that day and getting a head start on the next haul, or having to wait until the next day (or more) for a hookup.
This shows that there's a clear efficiency loss in going with mass produced electric. I'll grant you that the loss is not as drastic as the gain from going from Pony Express to mass produced auto; but the parent's argument of excessive charge times being a real problem is a valid one that needs to have a "good enough" solution before we start pushing forward with electric vehicles everywhere. We're not there yet. We're not even close to satisfactorily solving that problem for mass scale use.
...Mr. Sisco, an M.B.A. student in Provo, Utah, made his discovery after inviting friends over to watch the Super Bowl in 2014. The online stream he found to watch the game didn't have regular commercials -- disappointing half of his guests who were only interested in the ads.
That's 4 jokes in one right there. I'm actually disappointed that this WASN'T an Onion story.
Article is a consumerist pipe dream. There's no substance of what you're looking for. NASA is just taking bids on contractors to apply a theoretical engine design to a model. There's nothing concrete yet...nothing physical.
Sure...in software there's no one to say that you have to program an elegant way to fail when you have what seems like garbage data coming in...except for the fact that the "garbage" data is really what the endpoint is expecting and other, more user oriented systems, handle without any issue. Systemd is behaving like a damn government bureaucracy that is completely detatched from the way the world works.
Also...as has been brought up several times in this post but has yet to be answered: WHAT THE FUCK IS AN INIT SYSTEM DOING NAME RESOLUTION FOR? There is no sane reason that name resolution should be available at boot time, unless you're doing a network boot; but in that case it's the pxe boot on the network card that's handling it. The system itself has no need for name resolution until the network interface is brought up, which should be well after the init system has confirmed the system is stable and handed off control to the Kernel.
For the place I'm moving into, my plan is going to be similar to yours: Since I'm going to have roommates I was looking at having two Cable Modems on the line, one for their account and one for ours (two families of power users that run dangerously close to each of their caps). Run those into a 5 port ubiquity router with a few managed switches connected to that running virtual networks. Run that to a patch panel that runs physical wires to each bedroom and the home office, enough lines that each device could have a physical run back to the network closet. And then for wireless devices, run three different AP zones, two on my network one on the roommates' on non conflicting channels.
I know what the real phrase is. I just don't like sharing.
All your base are belong to me.
Were you here for the Bennett Haselton time frame a year or two ago? This is at least slightly better than that. At least they're trying to use a nicely scented lavender wax on the turd they're polishing this time.
One provider on the pole - The local government municipality. From there, you connect a box your chosen ISP gives you to your end of the line, municipality CO performs switching (likely automated based on MAC addressing of connected device...like cable companies do already) to connect you to the ISP of your choice. Municipality keeps up the line infrastructure, and your internet service is connected through an ISP that doesn't have direct operational jurisdiction over the lines; just the boxes at either end of municipality's infrastructure.
Suppose Congress decided that all ISPs should be taxed at a 95% rate...
Strawman. Of course spending on lobbying on this hypothetical and non-existant case makes sense and will protect an investment made in infrastructure. No one here has stated that money shouldn't be spent on lobbying to protect investments. We are arguing that money spent on lobbying shouldn't be an investment in itself, and in an actual competitive environment, it couldn't be.
Competition has nothing to do with this issue.
I disagree. Competition is everything to do with this issue. In addition to the Net Neutrality issue, ISP A has used lobbying to prevent a potential ISP B (municpal broadband) from building out their own infrastructure in A's jurisdiction. They have also used lobbying to ensure that other existing ISPs aren't able to encroach on eachother's territories to increase regional competition. Net Neutrality is in part ensuring that ISPs cannot give preference to traffic generated by their own content applications (i.e. Cox's contour service) over that of other content application/producers (i.e. Hulu, Youtube, Twitch, Netflix, etc). This is exactly an example of the ISPs lobbying against fair competition of content. so, yes, competition is the crux of this whole issue.
If the INDUSTRY, as a whole, had spent that money on routers instead, exactly how much money could the industry, as a whole, expect in return?
Given that the INDUSTRY as a whole has made a climate against competition in the ISP marketplace through their lobbying efforts, they can't expect any real return on investment in any of their infrastructure. Take away the regional monopoly structure and introduce REAL competition in the ISP marketplace, returns on router and technology upgrades would be exponential.
You haven't said anything that negates the parent's comment. The theory is that if the environment were more competitive, R&D would have a better ROI than lobbying. The current environment of ISPs in the US is a distinct lack of competition, so there's a greater ROI in lobbying than there is in R&D... because in the current state, building out better infrastructure isn't going to get them many more customers, and in many markets there aren't any other options for customers to move to, so they won't lose anything by letting their current infrastructure age and stagnate. In this case it makes more sense to lobby to build more walls against competition.
So, to reiterate: Parent didn't say that Lobbying/bribing is a poor investment in itself. He said it's a poor investment under the condition that the environment is competitive; and the fact that lobbying/bribing is currently creating a better ROI than R&D would correlates to the fact that there's not nearly enough competition in the ISP market.
Sorry Kid, we're not in power yet. The last of the boomers aren't relinquishing the reigns like they need to be doing. Instead we're busy trying to corral the ones we can get a hold of and throw them in nursing homes where they can stop being a menace to themselves and others. In another 20 to 30 years maybe enough of them will have died off or at least have been sequestered away that we can start cleaning up the mess they've left the world and actually make some damn headway to putting human life back on the track to social improvements.
That sentence... I don't think you pasted what you think you were pasting.