To some extent, the concern may be to protect that investment in reproduction equipment that could go underutilized if the maps go online.
But if they can be digitally redistributed for free (as they are here - someone else is even picking up the bandwidth tab), then that equipment can be reassigned where it's really needed or sold. They don't get to justify maintaining expensive equipment forever simply because it's expensive.
Usage Note: The pronunciation of banal is not settled among educated speakers of American English. Sixty years ago, H.W. Fowler recommended the pronunciation (bn'l, rhyming with panel), but this pronunciation is now regarded as recondite by most Americans: no member of the Usage Panel prefers this pronunciation. In our 2001 survey, (bnl') is preferred by 58 percent of the Usage Panel, (b'nl) by 28 percent, and (b-näl') by 13 percent (this pronunciation is more common in British English). Some Panelists admit to being so vexed by the problem that they tend to avoid the word in conversation. Speakers can perhaps take comfort in knowing that these three pronunciations each have the support of at least some of the Usage Panel and that none of them is incorrect. When several pronunciations of a word are widely used, there is really no right or wrong one.
There are few things more satisfying than demonstrating that a pedant is wrong.
Re:XML is a fad, STEP is the future
on
The Future of XML
·
· Score: 1
I've tried to make a couple admittedly feeble attempts at humor with good intent (there is a funny mod option, is there not?), only to be modded down (soul crushing as it was).
Think of it as training for standup comedy. Do you think everyone laughed at every joke Richard Pryor ever told throughout his career? Of course not. Take the feedback from the audience and use it to hone you skills. If you have potential, you'll eventually receive some love. Use that to figure out what actually resonates with your listeners, not just what you think they should like.
Comedy's tough. It doesn't get easier just because you're talking to a million pedantic geeks, many of whom have explicitly stated that they hate humor.
Only an idiotic company would try to replace XP desktops with Linux. I could picture the day when the employees come in and have to get familiar with using Linux. You make me laugh.
Interestingly enough, that quote still works perfectly if you replace "Linux" with "Vista". Honestly, if you're going to throw the user out into the cold anyway, you might as well move them to the Free system.
QED: You can't distribute an XO containing GPLv3 software without giving the authorization key.
Two points:
1) It's not clear that a hypothetical department of education would actually be distributing these. For example, I do not own my company laptop - my boss does.
2) Locking down an XO so that it can't be modified defeats the entire freakin' point of the project. It's not like these are super high-end machines that contain every piece of software the user could ever want. The whole goal is to put hackable machines into the hands of kids who can learn from them.
Only I read about what the IPv6 would really be and I knew I didn't want it. Why? Because it's more complicated, as in much longer, and it uses hexadecimal numbers, and well, it's too unlike IPv4.
That must be a major PITA for both of you who don't use DNS.
But because it uses binary blobs for the driver and firmware, RMS fees it is hopelessly compromised?!
If this surprises you at all, it must be the first time you've heard of the man. Yeah, RMS is like that. Once he got pissed off at a printer driver and wrote an OS.
Also, the XO can never use GPLv3 code. For the US market, they will give the unlock key, but for the third world, this key is the responsibility of the educational ministry, which often needs to keep the software base consistent (among other things, this helps manage theft).
Wake up laptop, do not try to log in on the console.
That would work great. If TrueCrypt didn't really dismount the encrypted volume like the grandparent said it did. Because in that case, your idea wouldn't do a darn thing.
I think that was probably the right idea, actually. By default, it's compatible with Word and users don't get the impression that they've bought some weird incompatible thing. Remember, ads for the Eee show people playing on beaches, not us more geekly folk. Now, I'm not sure how you get from "hey, OpenOffice is OK!" to "we should start using ODT by default", but right now I think the first part is the hardest. If OOo gets a decent user share, then the second kind of follows along.
Well, there's nothing wrong with our Windows-using brethren taking note of the idea that they're getting a new kernel. I was mainly replying to the article's reaction. Oh n0es! New kernel! Flaming death from above!
No. They picked the length they did for routing purposes. So many bits indicate the top-tier ISP. Another set indicate the second tier. The rest are basically "bonus" that are given to the customers. In other words, 64 bits would be sufficient to manage the routing tables to give an address to everyone, and the extra 64 are what gives everyone the ability to ping their hairdryer.
The point of those 64 end-user bits is autoconfiguration. You are entitled to hand-number your machines like we do now, but there's no need to. Think of it as a 64 bit hash rather than a 64 bit integer.
BTW, CIDR is basically impossible in IPv6 (thankfully).
Your main point seems to be that of controlling your network, and with that I wholeheartedly agree. I just think it's ironic that you're both advocating NAT and claiming that I'm for obscurity through obscurity. It's not inherently more secure than a proper stateful firewall.
I admit that I was unaware there was any software that broken by design. Honestly, that's the kind of thing that needs to cause heartache to its users and authors to discourage more of it from being written.
With no ability to NAT or firewall in IPV6 , anyone on the external Internet can find out exactly what you have, theb stage targeted attacks on every single host on a private network.
End-user netblocks are 2^64 addresses in size. If an attacker could ping a billion hosts per second, it would still take them 585 years to scan a single block.
So, again, NAT-as-security is even dumber on IPv6 than it is on IPv4.
As for the stated IPsec, it was a nice draft... but never made in the standard.
From Wikipedia:
IPsec is a mandatory part of IPv6 (mandatory to implement, not mandatory to use), and is optional for use with IPv4.
So when IPv6 finally does become the norm, will there be any need for NATs on home routers, or will ISPs simply give you many addresses?
Given a standard end-user allocation of a/64 network, you will have 1.8*10^19 addresses to play with. It is unlikely that you would need to fake more with NAT.
IPv6 barely supports firewalls or NATs, allowing any Joe Sixpack to see what your secured corporate network topology is like from anywhere.
It is not up to the protocol to support the hardware. And anyway, all good firewalls support IPv6 already. NAT? It's there if you're dumb enough to want it.
It also does not support reserved IP blocks... change ISPs, and you are forced to re-ip your whole network.
Step one: update your router to the new netblock.
Step two: sed -i'' 's/^old:net:block/new:addr:ess/' db.mydomain.com; rndc reload
Step three: laugh at people who go around changing ISPs all the time.
Of course, IPv6 has -zero- hooks for IP level encryption, so this has to be handled at the trensport or app level.
If only it support IPSec, "the goal of [which] is to provide various security services for traffic at the IP layer, in both the IPv4 and IPv6 environments." Oh, wait...
Look out --> person posts a truth about Linux vs. Windows and gets modded down.
What kind of frustrates me there is that I wasn't saying anything bad about Linux. I only wanted to point out that the Ubuntu desktop I'm using right now gets kernel updates from time to time, and I can't see why that's good for me but bad for Windows users. Maybe I wasn't overly critical enough of Microsoft to satisfy the mod?
Honestly, this really is stupid. There are plenty of legitimate things to hold against Microsoft. Periodically releasing kernel updates isn't one of them. I mean, imagine the headline for the reverse: "Vista SP1 To Feature Same Old Kernel". In general, fixing things is good.
In other news, Linux v2.6.19.3 was released on February 5, 2007 (6 days after Vista). There have been 75 new kernel releases since then. Source: going to ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ and counting ChangeLogs since then.
Having said that, there's a lot of truth to what people are saying about IO tuning and proper indexing. I have some rather huge, many-multi-table queries that run in just a few milliseconds. You can squeeze a whole awful lot of performance out of it if you know how.
And if you think a receptionist, or even many engineers, are going to have a farking clue what abhorrent decisions the board of the company was involved in, you don't understand people (especially non-nerds), big companies, or reality very well.
First, SCO is a little bitty company. They are not Microsoft or IBM or Apple. Their R&D budget has fallen precipitously, so they just can't have that many full-time engineers. So, how many of those engineers can be completely oblivious to this thing called "the Internet"? Do you really think it's the case that none of them have read about these events from a perspective outside their own company? If what you say is true, then the only ones who know what's going on are ones that have no friends at work, who never talk to their coworkers, who never chat up the secretary. If the atmosphere is so poisoned that what you suggest is really true, then yeah, I'd be willing to write them off as unfit for functioning in a real company.
And to suggest that former or present SCO underlings are scum whose children deserve to go hungry for the sins of their fathers, in some epic divine retribution, is hateful, callous and unthinking.
I feel bad for the kids who have no control over the horrible career decisions their parents have made. Beyond that, I just can't be bothered to care.
I guess the only time you could benefit from a query being serviced by multiple processors is if your database is handling fewer concurrent requests
than you have processors,
That's often true for us. Our db sits idle a good percentage of the time, but when it runs, it needs to run quickly. In practice PostgreSQL in its current arrangement is good enough, but that doesn't mean it can't get better.
and yet you need to shave milliseconds off the small number of queries that are running.
You're joining 4 tables. Each is being filtered by an indexed field. Wouldn't it be nice if you could run each of those filters on its own CPU, then join the results at the end? That seems like a generally good thing even on smaller systems.
Slashdot Mirror
But if they can be digitally redistributed for free (as they are here - someone else is even picking up the bandwidth tab), then that equipment can be reassigned where it's really needed or sold. They don't get to justify maintaining expensive equipment forever simply because it's expensive.
According to one source:
There are few things more satisfying than demonstrating that a pedant is wrong.
For some reason that seems familiar.
Think of it as training for standup comedy. Do you think everyone laughed at every joke Richard Pryor ever told throughout his career? Of course not. Take the feedback from the audience and use it to hone you skills. If you have potential, you'll eventually receive some love. Use that to figure out what actually resonates with your listeners, not just what you think they should like.
Comedy's tough. It doesn't get easier just because you're talking to a million pedantic geeks, many of whom have explicitly stated that they hate humor.
Interestingly enough, that quote still works perfectly if you replace "Linux" with "Vista". Honestly, if you're going to throw the user out into the cold anyway, you might as well move them to the Free system.
Two points:
1) It's not clear that a hypothetical department of education would actually be distributing these. For example, I do not own my company laptop - my boss does.
2) Locking down an XO so that it can't be modified defeats the entire freakin' point of the project. It's not like these are super high-end machines that contain every piece of software the user could ever want. The whole goal is to put hackable machines into the hands of kids who can learn from them.
That must be a major PITA for both of you who don't use DNS.
If this surprises you at all, it must be the first time you've heard of the man. Yeah, RMS is like that. Once he got pissed off at a printer driver and wrote an OS.
Also, the XO can never use GPLv3 code. For the US market, they will give the unlock key, but for the third world, this key is the responsibility of the educational ministry, which often needs to keep the software base consistent (among other things, this helps manage theft).Did this make sense to you when you wrote it?
That would work great. If TrueCrypt didn't really dismount the encrypted volume like the grandparent said it did. Because in that case, your idea wouldn't do a darn thing.
I think that was probably the right idea, actually. By default, it's compatible with Word and users don't get the impression that they've bought some weird incompatible thing. Remember, ads for the Eee show people playing on beaches, not us more geekly folk. Now, I'm not sure how you get from "hey, OpenOffice is OK!" to "we should start using ODT by default", but right now I think the first part is the hardest. If OOo gets a decent user share, then the second kind of follows along.
Well, there's nothing wrong with our Windows-using brethren taking note of the idea that they're getting a new kernel. I was mainly replying to the article's reaction. Oh n0es! New kernel! Flaming death from above!
No. They picked the length they did for routing purposes. So many bits indicate the top-tier ISP. Another set indicate the second tier. The rest are basically "bonus" that are given to the customers. In other words, 64 bits would be sufficient to manage the routing tables to give an address to everyone, and the extra 64 are what gives everyone the ability to ping their hairdryer.
The point of those 64 end-user bits is autoconfiguration. You are entitled to hand-number your machines like we do now, but there's no need to. Think of it as a 64 bit hash rather than a 64 bit integer.
BTW, CIDR is basically impossible in IPv6 (thankfully).
Your main point seems to be that of controlling your network, and with that I wholeheartedly agree. I just think it's ironic that you're both advocating NAT and claiming that I'm for obscurity through obscurity. It's not inherently more secure than a proper stateful firewall.
I admit that I was unaware there was any software that broken by design. Honestly, that's the kind of thing that needs to cause heartache to its users and authors to discourage more of it from being written.
Um, why? "myhost.example.com" won't change hostnames just because its address changes.
hopefully one isn't using any software that is licensed to a specific address.Name one. Seriously. Name a package that is bound to a particular IP.
End-user netblocks are 2^64 addresses in size. If an attacker could ping a billion hosts per second, it would still take them 585 years to scan a single block.
So, again, NAT-as-security is even dumber on IPv6 than it is on IPv4.
As for the stated IPsec, it was a nice draft... but never made in the standard.From Wikipedia:
Wow. Guess you're wrong there, too.
I was actually trying to turn it away from that.
Given a standard end-user allocation of a /64 network, you will have 1.8*10^19 addresses to play with. It is unlikely that you would need to fake more with NAT.
You can't expect proprietary software to be well integrated into an OS its authors don't control.
Lest anyone think this jackass is correct:
IPv6 barely supports firewalls or NATs, allowing any Joe Sixpack to see what your secured corporate network topology is like from anywhere.It is not up to the protocol to support the hardware. And anyway, all good firewalls support IPv6 already. NAT? It's there if you're dumb enough to want it.
It also does not support reserved IP blocks... change ISPs, and you are forced to re-ip your whole network.Step one: update your router to the new netblock.
Step two: sed -i'' 's/^old:net:block/new:addr:ess/' db.mydomain.com; rndc reload
Step three: laugh at people who go around changing ISPs all the time.
Of course, IPv6 has -zero- hooks for IP level encryption, so this has to be handled at the trensport or app level.If only it support IPSec, "the goal of [which] is to provide various security services for traffic at the IP layer, in both the IPv4 and IPv6 environments." Oh, wait...
What kind of frustrates me there is that I wasn't saying anything bad about Linux. I only wanted to point out that the Ubuntu desktop I'm using right now gets kernel updates from time to time, and I can't see why that's good for me but bad for Windows users. Maybe I wasn't overly critical enough of Microsoft to satisfy the mod?
Honestly, this really is stupid. There are plenty of legitimate things to hold against Microsoft. Periodically releasing kernel updates isn't one of them. I mean, imagine the headline for the reverse: "Vista SP1 To Feature Same Old Kernel". In general, fixing things is good.
In other news, Linux v2.6.19.3 was released on February 5, 2007 (6 days after Vista). There have been 75 new kernel releases since then. Source: going to ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ and counting ChangeLogs since then.
I'm not sure why this is news.
Having said that, there's a lot of truth to what people are saying about IO tuning and proper indexing. I have some rather huge, many-multi-table queries that run in just a few milliseconds. You can squeeze a whole awful lot of performance out of it if you know how.
First, SCO is a little bitty company. They are not Microsoft or IBM or Apple. Their R&D budget has fallen precipitously, so they just can't have that many full-time engineers. So, how many of those engineers can be completely oblivious to this thing called "the Internet"? Do you really think it's the case that none of them have read about these events from a perspective outside their own company? If what you say is true, then the only ones who know what's going on are ones that have no friends at work, who never talk to their coworkers, who never chat up the secretary. If the atmosphere is so poisoned that what you suggest is really true, then yeah, I'd be willing to write them off as unfit for functioning in a real company.
And to suggest that former or present SCO underlings are scum whose children deserve to go hungry for the sins of their fathers, in some epic divine retribution, is hateful, callous and unthinking.I feel bad for the kids who have no control over the horrible career decisions their parents have made. Beyond that, I just can't be bothered to care.
That's often true for us. Our db sits idle a good percentage of the time, but when it runs, it needs to run quickly. In practice PostgreSQL in its current arrangement is good enough, but that doesn't mean it can't get better.
and yet you need to shave milliseconds off the small number of queries that are running.You're joining 4 tables. Each is being filtered by an indexed field. Wouldn't it be nice if you could run each of those filters on its own CPU, then join the results at the end? That seems like a generally good thing even on smaller systems.