Youtube has two uses: Legitimate and Illegitimate.
If Youtube is violating DMCA, shame on them and file a suit. If they're not violating the DMCA, you want congress to give you a law forcing YouTube to pay more for your legally provided content because you weren't able to do do using contract negotiations? YouTube is very popular, but is NOT a monopoly. This article and the artists are ridiculous.
Ansible is a deployment mechanism that runs automated installations, like when you release new versions internally using continuous deployment and you're not deploying using 'heavy weight' deployment schemes like RPM/APT/MSI/ISO/etc...
Docker containers are light-weight simple isolated execution environments running in Linux, so that you can ideally choose to run Service X on machine Y without knowing or caring about the individual setup (there's usually some form of configuration management hub for detecting the new service and giving it work).
What this press release is saying is essentially you can manage mass deployment of Ansible-> docker deployments using Redhat based central applications management tools natively without relying on hand rolling all that crap yourself, which could be a nice enhancement if you've got a largely Redhat shop and an interest in continuous deployments.
Why do browsers and email programs have -any- access to anything? Sandbox the fuckers and call it a day. The fact that they aren't is a sign that companies aren't concerned enough about the problem.
All your points are irrelevant to issues in the story, but thanks for playing.
Thinkgs that are important: 1. A critical'ish health system is being run on a system unsupported by a vendor 2. Said software is LICENSED 3. Said vendor can't find people willing to support maintaining the product so they discontinued it and leave no legal venue to continue operating said software 4. The cost and timeline of an upgrade now (they should seriously consider it regardless) would cripple their health infrastructure. We're talking 3-5 years minimum of conversion time
The question really comes down to: If said vendor abandoned service for a cirtical health tool, does public safety (health care) take precidence over copyright law, and if so, should there be renumeration for the copyright 'losers' in cases where it occurs.
Now I can troll on Slashdot without opening multiple browsers! This will increase my net comment trolling and 'cute animal liking' productivity at least 100%..
Hey, there's a very large gulf between actively supporting nutjobs (not censoring content) and not taking preventative measures about people curating all content generated. If someone's reported for hate speech or advocating violence, I'm all for having their accounts banned and IP's barred (potentially) based on a company's discression. Free speech be damned, hate is hate. Don't like it? Use another service. If they're savy hackers, they can get around the limitation. Nobody's saying these limitations could work for savy techophiles. Nothing is 100% and it doesn't have to be. But, it sould certainly curtail the rank and file basically technically illiterate radical who's only exposure to ther internet is surfing on metered internet from cafes.
I do think companies have the obligation to investigate active messages of discrimination / hate / threats when they see them, and if it costs them resources, so be it. Shame them, make it a law, whatever. Few companies will implement a system unless its hurting their bottom line in some fundamental way.
Maintainers would be a lot more motivated to fix their dependency issues if its trivial to fix (across all architectures/OS's). It also means that my Xyz app doesn't need an Ubuntu maintainer, Fedora, Mint, etc... or even if they did, the surface area becomes significantly smaller. For what its intended for, it seems pretty great. This all assumes near universal Linux distro adoption, but I like it in concept.
Or maybe that the background checks fail to flag anti-social behaviour that isn't deterimental to their own interests? If you failed every army recruit for thinking homosexuality was an abomination upon god, you'd have a signifiantly smaller army.... in fact do that!
Microsoft has a paid reason to continue support long past popular support for a product wanes. Hardware vendors on the other hand have an anti-incentive to provide long term support for their products. If you had paid support for Google to continue supporting blah blah, into the future, they probably would.
The hardware these systems run on have long run their course and have been recycled. There weren't many 14 year old XP machines that came out of the factory running XP still around during EOL. Buy new hardware, and you'll still have Chromeos, just not the same Chromeos supported on old hardware. In Accounting, most computer hardware has a 2-3 year depreciation for a reason.
Yeah, I mean they'd never have a DMZ and a replication server anyways. I'm sure that every single update gets downloaded from Microsoft's servers today... And if windows breaks, lets go down to the local bazaar and pick up a new copy from the back to a cart!
When you're lying to people, make sure to give a wink and a nod. Cable expenditures are going nowhere but up! *wink* The profit generation from such actions only hurts our bottom line *nod*. The only way we can remain competitive is to raise bandwidth caps to protect the precious little capacity our networks have! *wink* *nod* *wink* *nod* *wink* *nod*
Rapid acceleration due to controller failure AND the lack record for brakes being applied at the same time? That sounds unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.
Which is why "loser-pays" usually applies to law suits 'in bad faith', usually not where the case can rely on a few keys unknown facts (discovery), and never in cases where legal president is set.
Scenario: MS sees 100,000 Windows activation requests from ubercorp1 and ubercorp1 says they don't run windows. Law suit follows... In discovery its found that the activation requests were from a public Wifi operated by ubercorp1, public by accident. Lets say ubercorp1 wins because they technically didn't violate windows TOS. (ignoring for the sake of simplicity the open Wifi problem) No fees required to be exchanged because MS had 'good cause' to suspect ubercorp1 of misgivings.
I see legal fees added onto damages usually when the loser was operating in good faith (ie. there was a reasonable expectation that their case had good standing). Sure, it's somewhat vague and relies on the judge making the 'right call', but its worked on other jurisdictions (Canada from my experience), so I'm not seeing the boogy-man you envision (though I imagine there will always be exceptions on both sides).
What I do see is a lot fewer people with "sue-first ask questions later" attitudes, though this is largely anecdotal.
Why? If you're wronged, you can take a loan against the winnings. If you lose (as a defendant), you declare bankruptcy and have ruined credit for 7? years.
If loser doesn't pay, it means large pockets muscle down on anyone incapable of winning based on costs alone. If winners are paid fees upon winning the case, they can take a loan out on your speculated win to at least cover the costs of a 'fair' defence. This of course depends on your ability to win the suit. If you are on shaky terms, few would loan money to you, or charge excessive premiums. If your case is very strong, the margins should be a lot lower, etc..
The net benefit is that a company / person needs to be confident in their ability to WIN before filing a law suit. It will exacerbate the cost of each individual law suit, but it should be offset by significantly fewer frivolous or 'low-quality' law suits which IMHO 'plagues' the US.
The last point i'd have is no-contest proceedings where one side basically says "I'm guilty". I don't see the value in charging for costs if the suit isn't contested (even though there were up-front expenses by the damaged party).
Your joke would've been better if accurate. Only 2GB of 32 bit space is application addressible. So you'd need 2 GB of system allocated address space for it to make sense.
Well... as much as I poo poo 32-bit ancestors, there are certainly some areas where you don't -need- to go 64. For an end-user application, your only necessity to upgrade is for > 2/3 GB ram limits. You are sacraficing some nominal level of performance doing so. For something like an IDE, I certainly see uses over that limit. Other programs, less so.
Who the hell cares if its mobile or not if the core is still significantly underperforming in use? I'll wait for benchmarks (yeah, they can be played, but better than nothing) to see if there's any material difference in performance.
I don't know about the rest of you, but gaming in my home office raises the temperature of the room. I can't imagine what that would do in a laptop with significantly smaller operating space. My guess is that the 'desktop class' chip would have to be heavily crippled to perform without melting the bottom of the laptop off.
Everyone knows that black people kill each-other a lot. Most of them are gang/drug related. They don't report on it because YOU don't care. That's your for-pay media. News that is 'interesting'. Your 'liberal bias' is actually quite backwards. 'You' (the public) are interested in this story. A ""collage professor"" was gunned down? Why were they targetted? A ""White guy"" killed himself after the crime? Why did he do that? The intrigue is a lot more interesting than a 16 year old black boy killing another boy because their drug gang wanted 16th and pine as their drug territory. And yes, you could quite easily invert the races of the story and get the exact same result.
Slashdot Mirror
Youtube has two uses: Legitimate and Illegitimate.
If Youtube is violating DMCA, shame on them and file a suit.
If they're not violating the DMCA, you want congress to give you a law forcing YouTube to pay more for your legally provided content because you weren't able to do do using contract negotiations? YouTube is very popular, but is NOT a monopoly. This article and the artists are ridiculous.
Ansible is a deployment mechanism that runs automated installations, like when you release new versions internally using continuous deployment and you're not deploying using 'heavy weight' deployment schemes like RPM/APT/MSI/ISO/etc...
Docker containers are light-weight simple isolated execution environments running in Linux, so that you can ideally choose to run Service X on machine Y without knowing or caring about the individual setup (there's usually some form of configuration management hub for detecting the new service and giving it work).
What this press release is saying is essentially you can manage mass deployment of Ansible-> docker deployments using Redhat based central applications management tools natively without relying on hand rolling all that crap yourself, which could be a nice enhancement if you've got a largely Redhat shop and an interest in continuous deployments.
"wireless signals needs to be 10 to 100 times faster and be far more responsive to allow advanced technologies like virtual surgery"
Can I pre-emptively opt-out of remote wireless surgery on my medical records please!
That said, I've looked at gaming over 3G+ networks and generally the latency was abhorrently bad, so any innovation in that arena would be grand.
Like all great libertarian losers, blame someone else (And make sure history doesn't recall that they were Libertarian to begin with).
Why do browsers and email programs have -any- access to anything? Sandbox the fuckers and call it a day. The fact that they aren't is a sign that companies aren't concerned enough about the problem.
All your points are irrelevant to issues in the story, but thanks for playing.
Thinkgs that are important:
1. A critical'ish health system is being run on a system unsupported by a vendor
2. Said software is LICENSED
3. Said vendor can't find people willing to support maintaining the product so they discontinued it and leave no legal venue to continue operating said software
4. The cost and timeline of an upgrade now (they should seriously consider it regardless) would cripple their health infrastructure. We're talking 3-5 years minimum of conversion time
The question really comes down to: If said vendor abandoned service for a cirtical health tool, does public safety (health care) take precidence over copyright law, and if so, should there be renumeration for the copyright 'losers' in cases where it occurs.
Now I can troll on Slashdot without opening multiple browsers! This will increase my net comment trolling and 'cute animal liking' productivity at least 100%..
Hey, there's a very large gulf between actively supporting nutjobs (not censoring content) and not taking preventative measures about people curating all content generated. If someone's reported for hate speech or advocating violence, I'm all for having their accounts banned and IP's barred (potentially) based on a company's discression. Free speech be damned, hate is hate. Don't like it? Use another service. If they're savy hackers, they can get around the limitation. Nobody's saying these limitations could work for savy techophiles. Nothing is 100% and it doesn't have to be. But, it sould certainly curtail the rank and file basically technically illiterate radical who's only exposure to ther internet is surfing on metered internet from cafes.
I do think companies have the obligation to investigate active messages of discrimination / hate / threats when they see them, and if it costs them resources, so be it. Shame them, make it a law, whatever. Few companies will implement a system unless its hurting their bottom line in some fundamental way.
Maintainers would be a lot more motivated to fix their dependency issues if its trivial to fix (across all architectures/OS's). It also means that my Xyz app doesn't need an Ubuntu maintainer, Fedora, Mint, etc... or even if they did, the surface area becomes significantly smaller. For what its intended for, it seems pretty great. This all assumes near universal Linux distro adoption, but I like it in concept.
Yeah, so your final solution is castratrion or mass graves?
100% true. Yahoo and AOL for sure. In the end, one will use whatever technology stack necessary to make themselves rich.
Or maybe that the background checks fail to flag anti-social behaviour that isn't deterimental to their own interests? If you failed every army recruit for thinking homosexuality was an abomination upon god, you'd have a signifiantly smaller army.... in fact do that!
Microsoft has a paid reason to continue support long past popular support for a product wanes. Hardware vendors on the other hand have an anti-incentive to provide long term support for their products. If you had paid support for Google to continue supporting blah blah, into the future, they probably would.
The hardware these systems run on have long run their course and have been recycled. There weren't many 14 year old XP machines that came out of the factory running XP still around during EOL. Buy new hardware, and you'll still have Chromeos, just not the same Chromeos supported on old hardware. In Accounting, most computer hardware has a 2-3 year depreciation for a reason.
Yeah, I mean they'd never have a DMZ and a replication server anyways. I'm sure that every single update gets downloaded from Microsoft's servers today... And if windows breaks, lets go down to the local bazaar and pick up a new copy from the back to a cart!
How backward do you see this country?
When you're lying to people, make sure to give a wink and a nod.
Cable expenditures are going nowhere but up! *wink* The profit generation from such actions only hurts our bottom line *nod*. The only way we can remain competitive is to raise bandwidth caps to protect the precious little capacity our networks have! *wink* *nod* *wink* *nod* *wink* *nod*
Rapid acceleration due to controller failure AND the lack record for brakes being applied at the same time? That sounds unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.
Subpoena?
Which is why "loser-pays" usually applies to law suits 'in bad faith', usually not where the case can rely on a few keys unknown facts (discovery), and never in cases where legal president is set.
Scenario:
MS sees 100,000 Windows activation requests from ubercorp1 and ubercorp1 says they don't run windows. Law suit follows...
In discovery its found that the activation requests were from a public Wifi operated by ubercorp1, public by accident.
Lets say ubercorp1 wins because they technically didn't violate windows TOS. (ignoring for the sake of simplicity the open Wifi problem)
No fees required to be exchanged because MS had 'good cause' to suspect ubercorp1 of misgivings.
I see legal fees added onto damages usually when the loser was operating in good faith (ie. there was a reasonable expectation that their case had good standing). Sure, it's somewhat vague and relies on the judge making the 'right call', but its worked on other jurisdictions (Canada from my experience), so I'm not seeing the boogy-man you envision (though I imagine there will always be exceptions on both sides).
What I do see is a lot fewer people with "sue-first ask questions later" attitudes, though this is largely anecdotal.
Why? If you're wronged, you can take a loan against the winnings. If you lose (as a defendant), you declare bankruptcy and have ruined credit for 7? years.
If loser doesn't pay, it means large pockets muscle down on anyone incapable of winning based on costs alone. If winners are paid fees upon winning the case, they can take a loan out on your speculated win to at least cover the costs of a 'fair' defence. This of course depends on your ability to win the suit. If you are on shaky terms, few would loan money to you, or charge excessive premiums. If your case is very strong, the margins should be a lot lower, etc..
The net benefit is that a company / person needs to be confident in their ability to WIN before filing a law suit. It will exacerbate the cost of each individual law suit, but it should be offset by significantly fewer frivolous or 'low-quality' law suits which IMHO 'plagues' the US.
The last point i'd have is no-contest proceedings where one side basically says "I'm guilty". I don't see the value in charging for costs if the suit isn't contested (even though there were up-front expenses by the damaged party).
Yes
Your joke would've been better if accurate. Only 2GB of 32 bit space is application addressible. So you'd need 2 GB of system allocated address space for it to make sense.
Well... as much as I poo poo 32-bit ancestors, there are certainly some areas where you don't -need- to go 64. For an end-user application, your only necessity to upgrade is for > 2/3 GB ram limits. You are sacraficing some nominal level of performance doing so. For something like an IDE, I certainly see uses over that limit. Other programs, less so.
Who the hell cares if its mobile or not if the core is still significantly underperforming in use? I'll wait for benchmarks (yeah, they can be played, but better than nothing) to see if there's any material difference in performance.
I don't know about the rest of you, but gaming in my home office raises the temperature of the room. I can't imagine what that would do in a laptop with significantly smaller operating space. My guess is that the 'desktop class' chip would have to be heavily crippled to perform without melting the bottom of the laptop off.
Everyone knows that black people kill each-other a lot. Most of them are gang/drug related. They don't report on it because YOU don't care. That's your for-pay media. News that is 'interesting'. Your 'liberal bias' is actually quite backwards. 'You' (the public) are interested in this story. A ""collage professor"" was gunned down? Why were they targetted? A ""White guy"" killed himself after the crime? Why did he do that? The intrigue is a lot more interesting than a 16 year old black boy killing another boy because their drug gang wanted 16th and pine as their drug territory. And yes, you could quite easily invert the races of the story and get the exact same result.