The first is a huge problem. Having a transparent caching proxy easily saves a medium sized company 20-40% bandwidth and increases the perceived speed for users.
Having a non-transparent caching proxy gives you the same benefits with slightly more up-front configuration.
But guess what? Slower machines haven't been banned from accessing the web, and I don't think they should be.
Banned? No. But I'm perfectly OK giving slower machines a degraded (but still usable) experience in exchange for all users getting a safer, more secure connection.
I am not against SSL, but against the use of it for the sake of using it. It's the lazy way out.
You have that backwards. Cleartext-as-default is the lazy way out and we've been dealing with its side effects for years. We're starting with a blank slate; why not take this opportunity to fix it?
Universities are rather more academic than colleges
You might already know this, but a lot of people don't: in America, "college" and "university" and largely synonymous. It's perfectly normal here for a kid to "go off to college" to study math or physics, even though they're attending a large university.
Look, you're wrong. Stop posting this nonsense. The first amendment protects speech of all sorts, not just anti-government speech. No civics professor has ever taught your odd interpretation of basic Constitutional law.
But this guy, who lives in the UK and is not subject to the US Constitution (which is what is the subject at hand), is going to prison for what he said (which isn't relevant to the discussion).
Fixed that for you.
We were discussing the difference between the Constitution's explicitly protected freedoms, and the lack of them in this guy's legal jurisdiction. Please try to keep up.
In the US Bill Of Rights the 1st amendment specifically says the government shall not abridge the rights of people to print, say, sing, paint, or dance anything they say about the government.
Have you ever actually read the thing? Obviously not. Here it is, in its entirety:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What screwed up logic are you using to insert "about the government" in there where it clearly does not exist?
FFS, every time someone is punished for expressing a (racist, sexist, etc) opinion [...]
...the Constitution is shredded (assuming that the "someone" is subject to American law). I am perfectly free to say that I hate black people. You can say that women are stupid. The Westboro gang can say that God wants gays to burn in hell. Every single one of those are perfectly legal, protected, expressions of opinion that the government will not prosecute you for. That is what "freedom of speech" means.
It gets much more complicated when those opinions are accompanied by calls for violence. If I were to carry a sign saying "kill a black person today", I should expect to find myself explaining my thought process to a judge. I am perfectly within my rights to express happiness at another person's misfortunes, though.
To be clear, I'm speaking of legal rights, not societal tolerance. People saying things so utterly incompatible with a civil society should be corrected or shunned by the people around them. Sometimes, that may involve consequences as severe a company firing an employee who says things that reflect poorly on the company. That is entirely different from the government stepping in and prosecuting such speech, though.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Yes, it does. That's precisely what it means: that the government won't punish you for expressing an opinion. If it meant anything less than that, it'd be "freedom of speech as long as it's approved, otherwise you're going to prison" which even the most ruthless tyrants would be perfectly OK with. I mean, Vlad the Impaler would let you say anything you wanted that didn't bother him (and then impale you if you crossed the line).
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that society won't judge you for your words. It damn well means that the government shouldn't.
Add the above to ~/.ssh/config, and from then on I can SSH to machines inside my company's firewall by first connecting to a secured bastion host, just by running ssh internalmachine.example.com. If you do a lot of work from home, or have specially secured machines at the office that require intermediate connections, you can set up proxying and make it automatic and easy to connect to them.
I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.
If your editor is modular and you include a plug-in for this function, then only the plug-in needs to be GPL'd. Your program doesn't, because it doesn't depend on it to function, it only adds additional functionality.
I'm not sure. I mean, I get your point and you're likely right. On the other hand, I think you could make a pretty strong case that syntax highlighting in a programming editor isn't additional functionality, but a core part of the editor's basic feature set. I can imagine Apple's lawyers deciding that's a potential vulnerability without a high enough risk-reward payoff to justify using GCC over Clang.
Again, you're probably right. And in the worst case scenario, what real harm could actually come of it? If Apple had to decide whether to stop distributing Xcode (a nearly-free-as-in-beer app) or to release under under the GPL as an example of how to write large, complex apps under their ecosystem, it seems like the latter might be a pretty reasonable and attractive option. Still, it's not like Apple to voluntarily potentially give up control over their own systems, and for that alone I could see the license making a big difference to them.
GCC's license is completely irrelevant unless you're modifying or extending GCC itself.
In fairness, Clang and LLVM are designed to be used as libraries and integrated with other projects. Imagine that your favorite text editor uses Clang's own parser to generate its syntax highlighting and check for errors as you type. With the GPL, your editor would likely have to be released under the GPL. Now, I like Emacs so that's not a deal-breaker for me. I can see why Apple and other non-GPL editor authors might not like it, though.
It doesn't surprise me at all that this happened in Republic (I grew up in Springfield). What does kind of shock and disappoint me was that said jackass is a professor at SMS. Calling for academic censorship seems like a good reason for tenure (and PhD) to be revoked.
Go for it. Seriously, why not? Toss in a Bible and a math textbook while you're at it to make sure everyone has a reason to be offended. It's not your job to life a quiet, inoffensive life unless you choose to.
It takes some getting used to...but they'll get it eventually.
You presume much. I love my wife dearly, but after nearly a decade of frequent telecommuting, she'd still think nothing of asking me to run some long-and-involved errand in the middle of the workday:
Her: If you're going to be at home, would you run up to Home Depot and look at paints for the hallway? They might have some nice colors at Sherwin-Williams, too. See which one you like best.
Me: You remember that I have to do that project today, right? The one that I was telling you about last night when you asked why I looked stressed?
Her: But you're at home today.
Me: [bangs head on desk]
A lot of it probably came from her father, who I sincerely believe thought that I was literally unemployed. He went to work every weekday of his life, by God, and that's how business works and that's all there is to it.
Microsoft is sharing an internal document that probably cost them a huge number of man-hours to produce, and they're selling it for a very reasonable price. In no way am I a Microsoft fan, but I think it's cool of them to make some pretty hard-won wisdom available outside their organization.
It's not like this is a big place or anything, we could do it in a weekend
So give up because we can't do it in a weekend? That's dumb. Do it through attrition, over time, for free instead.
To handle distance, pass a regulation that after a certain date, all new Federal highway mileage signs will be printed in both English and metric. After a set period of time - say, 10 years - all new Federal highway mileage signs will be printed in metric only. You have to replace signs anyway as they corrode, get hit by cars, or updated with new information. Take that opportunity to add metric information to them at roughly zero marginal cost.
To handle temperature, direct the National Weather Service to issue reports in metric only. Have the FCC issue a regulation to start giving temperatures in Celsius. This would cost approximately $0 and would inconvenience people for about a week as they re-learn that "0 is cold, but not that cold and 15 is jacket weather".
Really, you're making this a lot harder than it has to be.
That's important regarding accumulation, but as a previous resident of the American Upper Midwest, I can assure you that driving in sleet is a bitch regardless of the road temperature. If the road is cold, you drive on ice. If the road is warm, you drive on partially melted, wet ice. Knowing whether a given storm system is going to drop rain or sleep can be a life-or-death bit of information.
Your logic doesn't hold up. Many (but certainly not all) Christian sects believe that one of two things happen to each of us upon death: we go to Heaven if we're in good standing with God, or we go to Hell if we're not. It's a permanent condition of either eternal bliss or neverending torture. I would suspect that nearly all Christian groups who teach creationism also teach the doctrine of eternal, unchanging destination, and I therefore think it's completely reasonable to assume that Coppedge (the guy from the article) believed this.
In that scenario, what kind of a dick would Coppedge have to be to not try to warn his co-workers - some of them he presumably considered close friends after working next to them for years - that their current beliefs were putting them in danger of everlasting agony? If my house were on fire, I wouldn't choose whether to run in to save my children based on how smart they are. I'd do it because I love them and don't want them to be harmed, and I think you would, too. In Coppedge's case, that's almost exactly what he thinks that he's doing.
Note that I'm not defending his behavior. It's just that if you write him off as stupid for trying to share a likely deeply-held belief with the people closest to him, you're missing the whole point of his actions.
Slashdot Mirror
The first is a huge problem. Having a transparent caching proxy easily saves a medium sized company 20-40% bandwidth and increases the perceived speed for users.
Having a non-transparent caching proxy gives you the same benefits with slightly more up-front configuration.
But guess what? Slower machines haven't been banned from accessing the web, and I don't think they should be.
Banned? No. But I'm perfectly OK giving slower machines a degraded (but still usable) experience in exchange for all users getting a safer, more secure connection.
I am not against SSL, but against the use of it for the sake of using it. It's the lazy way out.
You have that backwards. Cleartext-as-default is the lazy way out and we've been dealing with its side effects for years. We're starting with a blank slate; why not take this opportunity to fix it?
We're pretty soundly damaged by this point. Might as well stay among friends.
(PS: Thanks for the "Insightful" mod. Bastards.)
Universities are rather more academic than colleges
You might already know this, but a lot of people don't: in America, "college" and "university" and largely synonymous. It's perfectly normal here for a kid to "go off to college" to study math or physics, even though they're attending a large university.
It's posts like this I wish I could be alerted to each post submitted with: UID < 10000 :)
You don't want that. I'm a dumbass most of the time.
Look, you're wrong. Stop posting this nonsense. The first amendment protects speech of all sorts, not just anti-government speech. No civics professor has ever taught your odd interpretation of basic Constitutional law.
But this guy, who lives in the UK and is not subject to the US Constitution (which is what is the subject at hand), is going to prison for what he said (which isn't relevant to the discussion).
Fixed that for you.
We were discussing the difference between the Constitution's explicitly protected freedoms, and the lack of them in this guy's legal jurisdiction. Please try to keep up.
In the US Bill Of Rights the 1st amendment specifically says the government shall not abridge the rights of people to print, say, sing, paint, or dance anything they say about the government.
Have you ever actually read the thing? Obviously not. Here it is, in its entirety:
What screwed up logic are you using to insert "about the government" in there where it clearly does not exist?
FFS, every time someone is punished for expressing a (racist, sexist, etc) opinion [...]
...the Constitution is shredded (assuming that the "someone" is subject to American law). I am perfectly free to say that I hate black people. You can say that women are stupid. The Westboro gang can say that God wants gays to burn in hell. Every single one of those are perfectly legal, protected, expressions of opinion that the government will not prosecute you for. That is what "freedom of speech" means.
It gets much more complicated when those opinions are accompanied by calls for violence. If I were to carry a sign saying "kill a black person today", I should expect to find myself explaining my thought process to a judge. I am perfectly within my rights to express happiness at another person's misfortunes, though.
To be clear, I'm speaking of legal rights, not societal tolerance. People saying things so utterly incompatible with a civil society should be corrected or shunned by the people around them. Sometimes, that may involve consequences as severe a company firing an employee who says things that reflect poorly on the company. That is entirely different from the government stepping in and prosecuting such speech, though.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Yes, it does. That's precisely what it means: that the government won't punish you for expressing an opinion. If it meant anything less than that, it'd be "freedom of speech as long as it's approved, otherwise you're going to prison" which even the most ruthless tyrants would be perfectly OK with. I mean, Vlad the Impaler would let you say anything you wanted that didn't bother him (and then impale you if you crossed the line).
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that society won't judge you for your words. It damn well means that the government shouldn't.
My personal favorite "trick":
Add the above to ~/.ssh/config, and from then on I can SSH to machines inside my company's firewall by first connecting to a secured bastion host, just by running ssh internalmachine.example.com. If you do a lot of work from home, or have specially secured machines at the office that require intermediate connections, you can set up proxying and make it automatic and easy to connect to them.
I like England's "loser pays" law.
I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.
I particularly like the part about using the bushy tail to tell a squirrel from a bird.
And I started laughing loudly when a slide mentioned "avoiding false positives on neighbor kids".
If your editor is modular and you include a plug-in for this function, then only the plug-in needs to be GPL'd. Your program doesn't, because it doesn't depend on it to function, it only adds additional functionality.
I'm not sure. I mean, I get your point and you're likely right. On the other hand, I think you could make a pretty strong case that syntax highlighting in a programming editor isn't additional functionality, but a core part of the editor's basic feature set. I can imagine Apple's lawyers deciding that's a potential vulnerability without a high enough risk-reward payoff to justify using GCC over Clang.
Again, you're probably right. And in the worst case scenario, what real harm could actually come of it? If Apple had to decide whether to stop distributing Xcode (a nearly-free-as-in-beer app) or to release under under the GPL as an example of how to write large, complex apps under their ecosystem, it seems like the latter might be a pretty reasonable and attractive option. Still, it's not like Apple to voluntarily potentially give up control over their own systems, and for that alone I could see the license making a big difference to them.
GCC's license is completely irrelevant unless you're modifying or extending GCC itself.
In fairness, Clang and LLVM are designed to be used as libraries and integrated with other projects. Imagine that your favorite text editor uses Clang's own parser to generate its syntax highlighting and check for errors as you type. With the GPL, your editor would likely have to be released under the GPL. Now, I like Emacs so that's not a deal-breaker for me. I can see why Apple and other non-GPL editor authors might not like it, though.
It doesn't surprise me at all that this happened in Republic (I grew up in Springfield). What does kind of shock and disappoint me was that said jackass is a professor at SMS. Calling for academic censorship seems like a good reason for tenure (and PhD) to be revoked.
Go for it. Seriously, why not? Toss in a Bible and a math textbook while you're at it to make sure everyone has a reason to be offended. It's not your job to life a quiet, inoffensive life unless you choose to.
It takes some getting used to...but they'll get it eventually.
You presume much. I love my wife dearly, but after nearly a decade of frequent telecommuting, she'd still think nothing of asking me to run some long-and-involved errand in the middle of the workday:
Her: If you're going to be at home, would you run up to Home Depot and look at paints for the hallway? They might have some nice colors at Sherwin-Williams, too. See which one you like best.
Me: You remember that I have to do that project today, right? The one that I was telling you about last night when you asked why I looked stressed?
Her: But you're at home today.
Me: [bangs head on desk]
A lot of it probably came from her father, who I sincerely believe thought that I was literally unemployed. He went to work every weekday of his life, by God, and that's how business works and that's all there is to it.
Microsoft is sharing an internal document that probably cost them a huge number of man-hours to produce, and they're selling it for a very reasonable price. In no way am I a Microsoft fan, but I think it's cool of them to make some pretty hard-won wisdom available outside their organization.
Well, they didn't do anything special for Groundhog's Day.
I lived in Nebraska until January, and the temperature went from -25C to 40C over the year, give or take 3 degrees. Is that so terribly much harder?
It's not like this is a big place or anything, we could do it in a weekend
So give up because we can't do it in a weekend? That's dumb. Do it through attrition, over time, for free instead.
To handle distance, pass a regulation that after a certain date, all new Federal highway mileage signs will be printed in both English and metric. After a set period of time - say, 10 years - all new Federal highway mileage signs will be printed in metric only. You have to replace signs anyway as they corrode, get hit by cars, or updated with new information. Take that opportunity to add metric information to them at roughly zero marginal cost.
To handle temperature, direct the National Weather Service to issue reports in metric only. Have the FCC issue a regulation to start giving temperatures in Celsius. This would cost approximately $0 and would inconvenience people for about a week as they re-learn that "0 is cold, but not that cold and 15 is jacket weather".
Really, you're making this a lot harder than it has to be.
That's important regarding accumulation, but as a previous resident of the American Upper Midwest, I can assure you that driving in sleet is a bitch regardless of the road temperature. If the road is cold, you drive on ice. If the road is warm, you drive on partially melted, wet ice. Knowing whether a given storm system is going to drop rain or sleep can be a life-or-death bit of information.
That would be a black hole.
Your logic doesn't hold up. Many (but certainly not all) Christian sects believe that one of two things happen to each of us upon death: we go to Heaven if we're in good standing with God, or we go to Hell if we're not. It's a permanent condition of either eternal bliss or neverending torture. I would suspect that nearly all Christian groups who teach creationism also teach the doctrine of eternal, unchanging destination, and I therefore think it's completely reasonable to assume that Coppedge (the guy from the article) believed this.
In that scenario, what kind of a dick would Coppedge have to be to not try to warn his co-workers - some of them he presumably considered close friends after working next to them for years - that their current beliefs were putting them in danger of everlasting agony? If my house were on fire, I wouldn't choose whether to run in to save my children based on how smart they are. I'd do it because I love them and don't want them to be harmed, and I think you would, too. In Coppedge's case, that's almost exactly what he thinks that he's doing.
Note that I'm not defending his behavior. It's just that if you write him off as stupid for trying to share a likely deeply-held belief with the people closest to him, you're missing the whole point of his actions.