Seriously, this whole debate was decided by the pressure from big American IT firms and also the furore in the American press about this whole issue.
First, I don't remember seeing or hearing one mention of this in the mainstream media. I'm absolutely certain that I didn't hear any dire comments about the UN taking over the Internet.
Second, I don't believe there ever was a real debate. That would imply that there was actually something to discuss.
Third, had there been a debate, the UN would have needed to present compelling reasons why this was important. Having utterly and completely failed to do so, the status quo would have prevailed. American IT firms had nothing to do with the decision - they didn't have to.
You make it sound like a sizable number of people actually cared about the issue and the US "won" after a long, heated struggle. Outside of Slashdot, I'd be hard pressed to find a single person that knew about it, let alone cared.
Walmart.com provides a release form that you print out and sign. That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise: if you're willing to sign a release stating that you're the artist, then they're willing to print it.
Of course, this sidesteps the whole stupid issue of whether a photo that I wholly commissioned and paid for is my property or owned by the photographer. Never in a million years will I concede that the results of work I paid for are not mine to do with as I please.
Re:I've been polled twice about the flu
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
Polio is a particularly good example because it's been flaring up again in isolated areas on a regular basis due to lack of political will
I'm afraid that measles / mumps / rubella will see the same comeback due to overabundance of political will, particular among soccer moms who read somewhere that their vaccines might give Katelyn or Bryce autism and therefore refuse to administer the shots.
We had a great pediatrician in the city where we used to live. He was very much in demand, and was able to require that would-be new patients attend a short free seminar. At the beginning, he asked parents who absolutely refused to give their kids vaccinations to raise their hands. Then, he told them that their health goals were incompatible and that they needed to find another doctor. He didn't accept noncompliance as an option, and we respected him greatly for it.
I'm sure that the Nigerians thought they were doing the right thing by turning down the shots. I won't laugh at them as long as we have supposedly more educated people here doing the same stupid things for the same stupid reasons.
given that your local subnet and the internet are basically two different networks, with a gateway, don't try to force the same names
That falls down when:
Trying to access my own websites from the LAN. I don't want to address them by different names based on location, or mess with the Apache config to hack it all together.
Using a laptop at home, then taking it elsewhere without changing settings like the NTP server, mailserver, etc.
In short, as annoying as split zone DNS is, it's far better for me than the alternatives. At least I'm consolidating the aggravation into a single point of nuisance (DNS) instead of spreading it across every service.
I have yet to get a straight answer as to whether IPv6 supports static IP addresses
It does. Autoconfig is strictly optional.
Shoving will protect you
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 5, Funny
So, The Terrible Secret of Space is... athlete's foot? That was sort of anticlimactic.
There's not much that's easier than simply turning a machine on. IPv6: it's autoconfigured. IPv4: you do have the DHCP server setup correctly, right?
It's simple to maintain.
No, it's not. I have to run split zone DNS so that hosts on my LAN know that "foo.example.com" is at 10.1.0.5, but that the rest of the Internet knows to connect to 123.45.67.8. I have to keep those zones perfectly synchronized, yet completely separate, or things break.
I don't need additional IP addresses on my NATted system
...as long as you don't want to use any P2P apps, VOIP, VPNs, or anything else that depends on a transparent end-to-end connection. Want to host two webservers on the same IP? One of them gets an http://myhost:8080/ URL and there's not much you can do about it.
NAT is a horrible hack that provides no security above a default-deny firewall. IPv6 gives you globally-routable LANs and much less administrative overhead. That is why you want it.
More like there's no easy upgrade path. The x86 survived and grew exactly because one could move from one generation to another. IPv6 doesn't have that advantage.
Other than simply running both at the same time and gradually transitioning, you mean. You do realize that you don't have to pick one or the other, don't you?
But, the simple truth is, it's not the fault of lawyers. They're working within the system, getting paid by clients to do what they do.
So your stance is that legal implies acceptable? Interesting. Do you feel the same way about spammers who send from countries or states where it's legal? Loud cars in places without noise ordinances? Spitting on the street where not explicitly disallowed?
You know, we used to have something called "shame". It was the force that kept people from doing things that made the world a worse place, even if it those things weren't strictly illegal. I wish we had more of it now.
Sun's CDDL isn't GPL-compatible. I'm not a diehard GPL fan (I think BSD is also pretty spiffy), but a lot of the most talented developers are. In short, I doubt that they'll ever get much of a mindshare among would-be helpers - certainly not enough to unseat Linux.
Competition is great and I welcome them to the game, but I'd be quite surprised to see this get much momentum.
I'll just write a script to do so using all my FLACs as a source.
I actually got into a Usenet argument with a guy who wouldn't believe me when I said that a decompressed FLAC would be identical to the WAV file it was made from. Forget the bits - he was worried about noise modulation, gain riding, etc.
Sometimes I wish I could be totally amoral long enough to make a few million dollars bilking audiophiles.
The company that not only bundles all the things MS bundles (media player, IE, etc.), but are a "monopoly" on hardware for their closed source operating systems (osx).
In exactly the same way, GM has a monopoly on GM cars. Was there a point in there?
I drank the Ogg Vorbis Kool-Aid and ripped hundreds of CDs in that format, fully believing that it was the Format Of The Future (tm). I'm having a lapse of faith, though: you have to jump through hoops to play them in iTunes (like installing barely-supported Quicktime plugins), and forget about listening to them on an iPod or any random piece of consumer hardware.
Does Vorbis still have a place in the world, or would I be better off re-ripping my music to MP3 - even if I still think Vorbis is technically superior?
I know this isn't completely on-topic, but since we're discussing vendor lock-in, it feels like I've managed to lock myself into a Unix-only format.
My team's been writing 100% portable C code since 1991 or so.
Do you have a link to the Amiga port?
Consider this a friendly reminder that all the world is not Unix and Windows. The remainder might be tiny, but "100% portable" is a pretty ambitious statement.
Use portable libraries and languages; re-factor your working code to be portable; make high-level choices that support portability (e.g. don't lock yourself in to proprietary solutions), but don't write portable code.
I agree completely, as long as you're targetting a platform that's completely static and not, say, in the process of switching from 32 to 64 bits. If you're not coding for PowerPC or x86, then go ahead and write all the non-portable code you want. It probably won't bite you in the butt when your IT department shows you the new production server you're expected to start running on next week that's not opcode-compatible with your development system.
Mainly because Microsoft is the only major company that's explicitly stated a desire to control all aspects of computer. A judge even found them guilty of working toward those ends.
Linus flat-out said that he doesn't want to own the world. I'm sure Apple would love to sell more machines, but they've positioned themselves as the low-volume, high-end solution (sort of like Mercedes or Cadillac). Microsoft, though, wants it all and has said this on many occasions.
That is why you can justifiably say these things about "a certain large software company". Well, Oracle, too, but that's a different topic.
How 'bout 'em? Since they have basically nothing whatsoever in common with other "small" systems, I doubt there's much you can do for them besides shooting for POSIX compliance and crossing your fingers.
Write Once Compile Anywhere will never be completely realized since various systems have incompatible design goals. No matter how portable you've made your command line application, it probably won't make a lot of sense on a Palm. That's not a limitation of your code or PalmOS, but an acknowledgment that they're different animals.
As an aside, this is where the the comment about "Macs have no viruses because they have low marketshare" holds some sway with me.
Apache hosts vastly outnumber everything else combined. Postfix/Sendmail/Qmail/Exim probably have 90% of the email server market. There are many more installations of MySQL than MSSQL. And yet, how many worms have you seen roaring through the Internet unstopped that affect those applications? By any count, relatively very few.
And yet the bad guys, who even have the full source code to each of those, haven't had as much luck attacking Unix-based systems as Windows, even though Unix basically owns the Internet server market. So much for the "market share == vulnerability idea", even though the prize for owning a Unix server on a fat pipe is much greater than owning a Win95 box on a dialup.
This hypothesis gets trotted out every time the subject comes up, but it really needs to die. The overwhelming amount of evidence supports the theory that solid design is the path to good security - obscurity doesn't seem to have much to do with it.
isn't it reasonable to assume that a fair number of those are people who are buying Macs not as their exclusive computer, but possibly in addition or in complement to their PCs?
No. Outside of geek circles and people who have a dedicated work machine at home, I don't know one single household with multiple operating systems. Average people simply don't care enough about computers to have more than one.
How many hundreds of thousands of sites do you follow that searching an XML file is observably faster than SQLite?
Basically, for the relatively very small amount of data that an aggregator would be processing, any human-visible differences are due to algorithm choice or GUI design, and not the backend.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I don't remember seeing or hearing one mention of this in the mainstream media. I'm absolutely certain that I didn't hear any dire comments about the UN taking over the Internet.
Second, I don't believe there ever was a real debate. That would imply that there was actually something to discuss.
Third, had there been a debate, the UN would have needed to present compelling reasons why this was important. Having utterly and completely failed to do so, the status quo would have prevailed. American IT firms had nothing to do with the decision - they didn't have to.
You make it sound like a sizable number of people actually cared about the issue and the US "won" after a long, heated struggle. Outside of Slashdot, I'd be hard pressed to find a single person that knew about it, let alone cared.
Of course, this sidesteps the whole stupid issue of whether a photo that I wholly commissioned and paid for is my property or owned by the photographer. Never in a million years will I concede that the results of work I paid for are not mine to do with as I please.
I'm afraid that measles / mumps / rubella will see the same comeback due to overabundance of political will, particular among soccer moms who read somewhere that their vaccines might give Katelyn or Bryce autism and therefore refuse to administer the shots.
We had a great pediatrician in the city where we used to live. He was very much in demand, and was able to require that would-be new patients attend a short free seminar. At the beginning, he asked parents who absolutely refused to give their kids vaccinations to raise their hands. Then, he told them that their health goals were incompatible and that they needed to find another doctor. He didn't accept noncompliance as an option, and we respected him greatly for it.
I'm sure that the Nigerians thought they were doing the right thing by turning down the shots. I won't laugh at them as long as we have supposedly more educated people here doing the same stupid things for the same stupid reasons.
Did you ever think that the reason there aren't any is that Windows can't handle it well? Seems like pretty circular reasoning.
That falls down when:
In short, as annoying as split zone DNS is, it's far better for me than the alternatives. At least I'm consolidating the aggravation into a single point of nuisance (DNS) instead of spreading it across every service.
I have yet to get a straight answer as to whether IPv6 supports static IP addresses
It does. Autoconfig is strictly optional.
So, The Terrible Secret of Space is... athlete's foot? That was sort of anticlimactic.
Here's why you want it:
It's simple to set up.
There's not much that's easier than simply turning a machine on. IPv6: it's autoconfigured. IPv4: you do have the DHCP server setup correctly, right?
It's simple to maintain.
No, it's not. I have to run split zone DNS so that hosts on my LAN know that "foo.example.com" is at 10.1.0.5, but that the rest of the Internet knows to connect to 123.45.67.8. I have to keep those zones perfectly synchronized, yet completely separate, or things break.
I don't need additional IP addresses on my NATted system
...as long as you don't want to use any P2P apps, VOIP, VPNs, or anything else that depends on a transparent end-to-end connection. Want to host two webservers on the same IP? One of them gets an http://myhost:8080/ URL and there's not much you can do about it.
NAT is a horrible hack that provides no security above a default-deny firewall. IPv6 gives you globally-routable LANs and much less administrative overhead. That is why you want it.
Other than simply running both at the same time and gradually transitioning, you mean. You do realize that you don't have to pick one or the other, don't you?
Out of curiosity, how do people pay for their allofmp3 purchases? I mean, isn't it playing with fire to hand them your credit card?
So your stance is that legal implies acceptable? Interesting. Do you feel the same way about spammers who send from countries or states where it's legal? Loud cars in places without noise ordinances? Spitting on the street where not explicitly disallowed?
You know, we used to have something called "shame". It was the force that kept people from doing things that made the world a worse place, even if it those things weren't strictly illegal. I wish we had more of it now.
Competition is great and I welcome them to the game, but I'd be quite surprised to see this get much momentum.
Actually, I use Amarok. My wife's a big fan of iTunes on her Mac and doesn't particularly want to change.
I actually got into a Usenet argument with a guy who wouldn't believe me when I said that a decompressed FLAC would be identical to the WAV file it was made from. Forget the bits - he was worried about noise modulation, gain riding, etc.
Sometimes I wish I could be totally amoral long enough to make a few million dollars bilking audiophiles.
In exactly the same way, GM has a monopoly on GM cars. Was there a point in there?
Does Vorbis still have a place in the world, or would I be better off re-ripping my music to MP3 - even if I still think Vorbis is technically superior?
I know this isn't completely on-topic, but since we're discussing vendor lock-in, it feels like I've managed to lock myself into a Unix-only format.
May we assume that it's not a grammar checker?
Do you have a link to the Amiga port?
Consider this a friendly reminder that all the world is not Unix and Windows. The remainder might be tiny, but "100% portable" is a pretty ambitious statement.
Funny - I see Python the same way. No offense, but I'm glad you don't get the last word on the subject.
I agree completely, as long as you're targetting a platform that's completely static and not, say, in the process of switching from 32 to 64 bits. If you're not coding for PowerPC or x86, then go ahead and write all the non-portable code you want. It probably won't bite you in the butt when your IT department shows you the new production server you're expected to start running on next week that's not opcode-compatible with your development system.
Linus flat-out said that he doesn't want to own the world. I'm sure Apple would love to sell more machines, but they've positioned themselves as the low-volume, high-end solution (sort of like Mercedes or Cadillac). Microsoft, though, wants it all and has said this on many occasions.
That is why you can justifiably say these things about "a certain large software company". Well, Oracle, too, but that's a different topic.
Write Once Compile Anywhere will never be completely realized since various systems have incompatible design goals. No matter how portable you've made your command line application, it probably won't make a lot of sense on a Palm. That's not a limitation of your code or PalmOS, but an acknowledgment that they're different animals.
And you know this because...?
Apache hosts vastly outnumber everything else combined. Postfix/Sendmail/Qmail/Exim probably have 90% of the email server market. There are many more installations of MySQL than MSSQL. And yet, how many worms have you seen roaring through the Internet unstopped that affect those applications? By any count, relatively very few.
And yet the bad guys, who even have the full source code to each of those, haven't had as much luck attacking Unix-based systems as Windows, even though Unix basically owns the Internet server market. So much for the "market share == vulnerability idea", even though the prize for owning a Unix server on a fat pipe is much greater than owning a Win95 box on a dialup.
This hypothesis gets trotted out every time the subject comes up, but it really needs to die. The overwhelming amount of evidence supports the theory that solid design is the path to good security - obscurity doesn't seem to have much to do with it.
No. Outside of geek circles and people who have a dedicated work machine at home, I don't know one single household with multiple operating systems. Average people simply don't care enough about computers to have more than one.
Basically, for the relatively very small amount of data that an aggregator would be processing, any human-visible differences are due to algorithm choice or GUI design, and not the backend.