I admitted that I am not a networking guy in my previous post, and I realize that things are not always what they seem. I have no idea if it's safer to keep the boxes behind a NAT'd firewall or a setup where they are addressable but all traffic is still routed through the firewall. Maybe it's exactly the same. However, the other big advantage to this setup is that it's easy, and I already have it working.
In general, although Slashdot allows you to post whatever you like, and obviously people do, it's more beneficial if you try to add to the conversation instead of making vague statements in order to look superior. I wonder why you even bothered to take the time, given that you neither confirmed nor refuted my statement. It's logical to me that if a script kiddie was scanning my address block and saw only one box instead of four that he would have less incentive to spend his time there, when there may be a greater score elsewhere.
GPL based companies (like RedHat) do precisely that.
I especially liked the move that Red Hat pulled by "allowing" the community to take over its operating system. Now they can lower costs by letting the community do most of the work and still selling the support like always. Like those U-Scans that are popping up in grocery stores. "No, you still pay the same amount for your groceries. Well yes, you'll be doing the job of a cashier, but that's the advantage! Yes, our advantage, not yours."
Ipv6 is fine if the only goal is to have a larger address space. But it won't solve the NAT "problem" because not everyone wants everything to be directly addressable. I certainly don't want the computers on my home network to be directly addressable from the internet. I want a dedicated firewall to protect them. There are probably ways to route all traffic through the firewall and keep the computers addressable, but it seems safer to make it look like they don't exist in the first place.
Could it be because you use Python and so you're mostly surrounded by Python users? Or is it that you're a language zealot instead of a language user, and so you're mostly surrounded by language zealots because language users are too annoyed by the zealotry?
With GPL'd software, I'm always guaranteed unlimited access to the software and upgrades.
No, you aren't. I guess people are having a hard time understanding what licensing means. You're probably right in this specific example, because I doubt Debian makes all contributors hand over the copyrights. But in general, software being licensed under the GPL gives you no extra rights than if it was under BSD. That's because licenses only apply to people taking the software, not the people writing it. Licenses exist to restrict rights, not grant them.
For example, say I write version 1 of a neat nicknack and license it as GPL. The GPL doesn't apply to me, it applies to everyone else that wants to use it. I can do anything I want, because I'm the original author. Sure, version 1 is already out there and anyone can use it. But if I upgrade it to version 2, I don't have to license that as GPL. I can license it any way that I want. So you don't have "guaranteed unlimited access to the software and upgrades" simply because the software is GPL'd.
GPL is what I want when my company is *buying* software - ensures we'll always have access to any upgrades & updates without having to pay recuring fees.
You're fooling yourself if you really believe this. Using GPL software doesn't ensure anything but this: if you distribute changes, you have to distribute the source as well.
In particular, here are some cases that you mistakenly think you're covered for:
Author makes updates and makes you pay to get those updates, before giving you the source.
Author changes the licensing away from GPL in the next version. Now you have to pay if you want the updates, and you don't get the source.
You're not understanding him. In fact, you're offering up as solutions the very problems he's pointing out. You may think that XMLHTTPRequest is some magical tech that can communicate with the server telepathically, but it's not.
Javascript makes the request and handles the response so there is no need to do a full page refresh just to get one word back to stick in the middle of the page (or whatever).
That's the problem. The Javascript is making full HTTP requests to fetch one word. Why do you think it's called XMLHTTPRequest.
it's a way of giving without risk of feeling ripped off by parasites and leeches.
This is the point that everyone seems to believe about the GPL. "If I use the GPL, I can't get ripped off! If I use BSD, someone can steal my code and my effort will be wasted!" (Almost a direct quote from another poster above.) This is the point I don't understand. How is the effort wasted? Presumably you wrote the code for a purpose. It is still available for that purpose. It has not suddenly disappeared from the earth. How are you being "ripped off by parasites and leeches" since you are not receiving compensation either way?
because your intent may be to share with other people who are willing to share, but not with those who just want to take without giving anything in return.
Now we're getting somewhere. The desire to share only with others who are willing to share is a true reason to use the GPL instead of BSD. I have no problem with that. All of the other reasons and arguments that have been given are misleading and betray a lack of thought on behalf of the presenter on how the situation actually works.
I personally use BSD because I mainly code for myself. Once the code is written, I've gotten the usefulness out of it. If others find it useful then that is a bonus for them, but it has no real impact on me. In that siutation, I don't see the point in forcing other restrictions on them. I can respect the opinion of wanting to share with other sharers, however. Thanks for pointing that out.
I didn't search through them specifically. I was just reading through the comments and noticed that particular misspelling a few times, and looked to see if it was all the same person. But yes, I am a bit anal about spelling and grammar. I doubt I'll ever change.
Please explain why it is critical. I honestly would like a good explanation of how the GPL is more beneficial to the programmer than a license such as BSD. If your intent is to share, why purposely step on the toes of someone who may want to take you up on the offer?
Ok, this is the third post under this topic in which you have misspelled the word doubt. I realize that a p looks like an upside-down b, but in that case you should be spelling the entire word as qonpf. And I qonpf that is what you meant.
He probably means that the objects will be serialized for piping, which means breaking the object down and rebuilding it on the other side. How else do you expect processes to pass object information to each other? I highly doubt they just pass memory addresses and call the methods directly.
Yes, but for those that don't know or care about parts of speech, it's easier to just try and say it is in your head and see if it sounds correct. Plus, it also works for they're versus their.
I'm all for knowing language, but most people don't really care (as is obvious from the lack of proper speech), so it's best to keep the rules simple and easy to remember.
I'm also unsure of my usage of "it's" in this post.
If that is true, and you weren't just adding to the humor of the "grammar nazi in jest" content, there is an easy way to remember when to use it's versus its. Because it's is a contraction, you can always use the full it is whenever it's is appropriate. So try saying it is in your head, and see if it sounds correct. If it does, use it's. If not, use its.
In your post, you should have used its, because it isn't correct to say, "I realized it is name..."
Frankly, the post you originally responded to was much less pretentious and arrogant than your response. The AC was right, you're making yourself look like an ass when you start your post like that, not making the parent look like one.
Unlike you, the post you responded to did not make disparaging remarks about someone else's opinion. Perhaps in the future you should remember that different people have different views of the various tools available, and that isn't a bad thing. You like Dreamweaver and Eclipse, he likes vim. Why does it have to turn into a flamewar? Are you that insecure?
I would contend that people that are lazy and dumb enough not to check the numbers, probably would not have known to take the deduction themselves anyway. So basically it's a wash in terms of money, but it saves the taxpayer some time. Of course, if they're already that lazy, maybe we shouldn't be promoting further laziness by letting the government fill out the forms.
Did you miss the part where you get to look over the completed return once it's finished? If you don't agree with it, you probably just tell them you'll submit it yourself. And it's not like the program is mandatory. Just tell them you always want to fill out your own return. For most simple returns, you can probably eyeball the figure and know if it's reasonable. Why not save yourself the trouble of actually having to fill out the forms and send them in?
too many wagers on a single event warp the odds badly
Ah, but there wouldn't be more than one wager on that event, even if you went back and bet on it more than once. What you do is work out a meeting place before placing the bet. On your first loop through, you go to the meeting place but no one is there, so you just go place the bet. After you win, you take your winnings back in time and go to the meeting place. There, you meet up with past yourself, take his money and lump it with the winnings to make the bet. Therefore there will only be one bet each time, but it gets progressively larger. Eventually you'll win enough to be done with the whole thing, so instead of going to the meeting spot, you go to a bank and deposit everything in a low risk/low growth account so you can make a bit of extra money on the trip back to the present (which only takes a few minutes, after all).
Probably all that would do is cause them to pick a different name for the search engine. Unless you registered every possible domain, they could just choose from any that you hadn't registered yet.
Besides, it seems like a lot of work when you already have a time machine. An easier solution would be:
1. Find an event you can bet on with a huge payout. 2. Go back in time and bet as much as you can. 3. Go to step 2 until you're sick of money.
What might work better is if, on top of the two main mouse buttons, they'd put smaller mice that are moved by the fingertips. And those mice could have even smaller scrolling touchpads. So you have the main mouse that your arm/wrist moves to control the main cursor, and its scrolling touchpad controls the main scrolling. You have two smaller mice that your fingers move for controlling two secondary cursors, whose scrolling touchpads control other kinds of scrolling, like region scrolling within a scrolling main document, or inscribing scrolls with mystical runes, which could be called scrolling. And the buttons on the mini mice could be used to call up ultra-context sensitive menus, or even sensitivity menus to help during online conversations with your girlfriend. Of course you'd need to get a third eye installed and get all your eyes able to operate independently so that you can track all three cursors in different directions. Heck, might as well get a fourth installed while you're at it in case any new cursor innovations come along. (Plus, it gives new meaning to the phrase "four-eyes.")
Yessir, that would be the perfect mousing interface. Don't even get me started on the keyboard.
A bit condescending but still there are the kernels of some good debate in there.
Like begets like, but I regret giving in to that temptation, for the tone obscured my intent. My purpose was not to start a debate of any sort. I have no interest in whether you use Windows or Linux. My point was that you seemed to have no interest in it, so why worry about it?
Your post intrigued me though. Your right, I should have a reason for switching to Linux (professionally, that is). But your post seems to imply that there is no good, compelling reason to do so.
So my question to you is this: What compelling, technical, pragmatic, real-world reason do I have for switching from Windows to Linux?
I am not trying to persuade you. There are many reasons to use Linux, and there are many reasons to use Windows; there's more than enough information available to determine them for yourself. I'm trying to help you realize that you need to determine them before you do an evaluation. Otherwise, you won't have any criteria to judge it against, and the evaluation will be a waste of your time. If you can't come up with any good reasons, that's an indication that you probably won't find Linux useful.
On a side note, the condescending quotation marks were a poor attempt to point out that those remarks did not help your statement. When your first sentences are used to establish "street cred," (eg. "I'm a serious computer user."), it signals to the audience that you are uncertain about your position and posteuring to make it seem more forceful. In reality what it does is make you look foolish. Those who are knowledgeable will be able to determine your level of expertise from context; trying to point it out to them will mark you as a fraud. Those who are not knowledgeable might believe you, but their opinion doesn't matter anyway because they don't know what you're talking about. It was a critique of the method of communication, not the content of the message.
I've flirted with the idea of installing Linux on a spare box. Is this nonesense the kind of stuff I should expect?
Do you have a reason to try Linux? Just from your tone you sound rather apprehensive of it in the first place. See if this describes you: "I'll just give it a shot so I can see why everyone is making such a stink about it. Then my condescending attitude will be justified because I actually did try it and didn't like it."
Frankly, even though you are obviously a "serious computer user" since you "create media" and "edit audio," if you don't have an idea of why you might want to switch to Linux, you aren't going to find a reason by just trying it out. What you'll probably find is that you can't figure out how to easily do the things you want to do in one afternoon. Or maybe you will, but they won't be any easier or wow-bang than just doing it in Windows. So you'll shrug your shoulders, wonder why everyone is making such a stink about it, and wipe the drive.
You should have a reason when you decide to do something, even if that reason is just to explore. If you were the exploring type, you would have already tried it, rather than just "flirted with the idea" of trying it, so that one is out. If you don't have another reason, you'll just be wasting your time. Honestly, it's the same with any decision in your life. Try thinking through things, rather than just randomly trying them because you know they exist.
Slashdot Mirror
I admitted that I am not a networking guy in my previous post, and I realize that things are not always what they seem. I have no idea if it's safer to keep the boxes behind a NAT'd firewall or a setup where they are addressable but all traffic is still routed through the firewall. Maybe it's exactly the same. However, the other big advantage to this setup is that it's easy, and I already have it working.
In general, although Slashdot allows you to post whatever you like, and obviously people do, it's more beneficial if you try to add to the conversation instead of making vague statements in order to look superior. I wonder why you even bothered to take the time, given that you neither confirmed nor refuted my statement. It's logical to me that if a script kiddie was scanning my address block and saw only one box instead of four that he would have less incentive to spend his time there, when there may be a greater score elsewhere.
GPL based companies (like RedHat) do precisely that.
I especially liked the move that Red Hat pulled by "allowing" the community to take over its operating system. Now they can lower costs by letting the community do most of the work and still selling the support like always. Like those U-Scans that are popping up in grocery stores. "No, you still pay the same amount for your groceries. Well yes, you'll be doing the job of a cashier, but that's the advantage! Yes, our advantage, not yours."
Ip4 vs Ip6
Ipv6 is fine if the only goal is to have a larger address space. But it won't solve the NAT "problem" because not everyone wants everything to be directly addressable. I certainly don't want the computers on my home network to be directly addressable from the internet. I want a dedicated firewall to protect them. There are probably ways to route all traffic through the firewall and keep the computers addressable, but it seems safer to make it look like they don't exist in the first place.
Could it be because you use Python and so you're mostly surrounded by Python users? Or is it that you're a language zealot instead of a language user, and so you're mostly surrounded by language zealots because language users are too annoyed by the zealotry?
With GPL'd software, I'm always guaranteed unlimited access to the software and upgrades.
No, you aren't. I guess people are having a hard time understanding what licensing means. You're probably right in this specific example, because I doubt Debian makes all contributors hand over the copyrights. But in general, software being licensed under the GPL gives you no extra rights than if it was under BSD. That's because licenses only apply to people taking the software, not the people writing it. Licenses exist to restrict rights, not grant them.
For example, say I write version 1 of a neat nicknack and license it as GPL. The GPL doesn't apply to me, it applies to everyone else that wants to use it. I can do anything I want, because I'm the original author. Sure, version 1 is already out there and anyone can use it. But if I upgrade it to version 2, I don't have to license that as GPL. I can license it any way that I want. So you don't have "guaranteed unlimited access to the software and upgrades" simply because the software is GPL'd.
You're fooling yourself if you really believe this. Using GPL software doesn't ensure anything but this: if you distribute changes, you have to distribute the source as well.
In particular, here are some cases that you mistakenly think you're covered for:
Wow. "Feel the semantic gravity." You should be in marketing.
You're not understanding him. In fact, you're offering up as solutions the very problems he's pointing out. You may think that XMLHTTPRequest is some magical tech that can communicate with the server telepathically, but it's not.
Javascript makes the request and handles the response so there is no need to do a full page refresh just to get one word back to stick in the middle of the page (or whatever).
That's the problem. The Javascript is making full HTTP requests to fetch one word. Why do you think it's called XMLHTTPRequest.
it's a way of giving without risk of feeling ripped off by parasites and leeches.
This is the point that everyone seems to believe about the GPL. "If I use the GPL, I can't get ripped off! If I use BSD, someone can steal my code and my effort will be wasted!" (Almost a direct quote from another poster above.) This is the point I don't understand. How is the effort wasted? Presumably you wrote the code for a purpose. It is still available for that purpose. It has not suddenly disappeared from the earth. How are you being "ripped off by parasites and leeches" since you are not receiving compensation either way?
because your intent may be to share with other people who are willing to share, but not with those who just want to take without giving anything in return.
Now we're getting somewhere. The desire to share only with others who are willing to share is a true reason to use the GPL instead of BSD. I have no problem with that. All of the other reasons and arguments that have been given are misleading and betray a lack of thought on behalf of the presenter on how the situation actually works.
I personally use BSD because I mainly code for myself. Once the code is written, I've gotten the usefulness out of it. If others find it useful then that is a bonus for them, but it has no real impact on me. In that siutation, I don't see the point in forcing other restrictions on them. I can respect the opinion of wanting to share with other sharers, however. Thanks for pointing that out.
I didn't search through them specifically. I was just reading through the comments and noticed that particular misspelling a few times, and looked to see if it was all the same person. But yes, I am a bit anal about spelling and grammar. I doubt I'll ever change.
Please explain why it is critical. I honestly would like a good explanation of how the GPL is more beneficial to the programmer than a license such as BSD. If your intent is to share, why purposely step on the toes of someone who may want to take you up on the offer?
Ok, this is the third post under this topic in which you have misspelled the word doubt. I realize that a p looks like an upside-down b, but in that case you should be spelling the entire word as qonpf. And I qonpf that is what you meant.
What on Earth do you mean by this?
He probably means that the objects will be serialized for piping, which means breaking the object down and rebuilding it on the other side. How else do you expect processes to pass object information to each other? I highly doubt they just pass memory addresses and call the methods directly.
Yes, but for those that don't know or care about parts of speech, it's easier to just try and say it is in your head and see if it sounds correct. Plus, it also works for they're versus their.
I'm all for knowing language, but most people don't really care (as is obvious from the lack of proper speech), so it's best to keep the rules simple and easy to remember.
I also like ThinkGeek's rendition.
I'm also unsure of my usage of "it's" in this post.
If that is true, and you weren't just adding to the humor of the "grammar nazi in jest" content, there is an easy way to remember when to use it's versus its. Because it's is a contraction, you can always use the full it is whenever it's is appropriate. So try saying it is in your head, and see if it sounds correct. If it does, use it's. If not, use its.
In your post, you should have used its, because it isn't correct to say, "I realized it is name..."
Frankly, the post you originally responded to was much less pretentious and arrogant than your response. The AC was right, you're making yourself look like an ass when you start your post like that, not making the parent look like one.
Unlike you, the post you responded to did not make disparaging remarks about someone else's opinion. Perhaps in the future you should remember that different people have different views of the various tools available, and that isn't a bad thing. You like Dreamweaver and Eclipse, he likes vim. Why does it have to turn into a flamewar? Are you that insecure?
I would contend that people that are lazy and dumb enough not to check the numbers, probably would not have known to take the deduction themselves anyway. So basically it's a wash in terms of money, but it saves the taxpayer some time. Of course, if they're already that lazy, maybe we shouldn't be promoting further laziness by letting the government fill out the forms.
Did you miss the part where you get to look over the completed return once it's finished? If you don't agree with it, you probably just tell them you'll submit it yourself. And it's not like the program is mandatory. Just tell them you always want to fill out your own return. For most simple returns, you can probably eyeball the figure and know if it's reasonable. Why not save yourself the trouble of actually having to fill out the forms and send them in?
too many wagers on a single event warp the odds badly
Ah, but there wouldn't be more than one wager on that event, even if you went back and bet on it more than once. What you do is work out a meeting place before placing the bet. On your first loop through, you go to the meeting place but no one is there, so you just go place the bet. After you win, you take your winnings back in time and go to the meeting place. There, you meet up with past yourself, take his money and lump it with the winnings to make the bet. Therefore there will only be one bet each time, but it gets progressively larger. Eventually you'll win enough to be done with the whole thing, so instead of going to the meeting spot, you go to a bank and deposit everything in a low risk/low growth account so you can make a bit of extra money on the trip back to the present (which only takes a few minutes, after all).
Probably all that would do is cause them to pick a different name for the search engine. Unless you registered every possible domain, they could just choose from any that you hadn't registered yet.
Besides, it seems like a lot of work when you already have a time machine. An easier solution would be:
1. Find an event you can bet on with a huge payout.
2. Go back in time and bet as much as you can.
3. Go to step 2 until you're sick of money.
If you're going to get a $350 computer, you might want to pick up one of these mice, instead.
What might work better is if, on top of the two main mouse buttons, they'd put smaller mice that are moved by the fingertips. And those mice could have even smaller scrolling touchpads. So you have the main mouse that your arm/wrist moves to control the main cursor, and its scrolling touchpad controls the main scrolling. You have two smaller mice that your fingers move for controlling two secondary cursors, whose scrolling touchpads control other kinds of scrolling, like region scrolling within a scrolling main document, or inscribing scrolls with mystical runes, which could be called scrolling. And the buttons on the mini mice could be used to call up ultra-context sensitive menus, or even sensitivity menus to help during online conversations with your girlfriend. Of course you'd need to get a third eye installed and get all your eyes able to operate independently so that you can track all three cursors in different directions. Heck, might as well get a fourth installed while you're at it in case any new cursor innovations come along. (Plus, it gives new meaning to the phrase "four-eyes.")
Yessir, that would be the perfect mousing interface. Don't even get me started on the keyboard.
A bit condescending but still there are the kernels of some good debate in there.
Like begets like, but I regret giving in to that temptation, for the tone obscured my intent. My purpose was not to start a debate of any sort. I have no interest in whether you use Windows or Linux. My point was that you seemed to have no interest in it, so why worry about it?
Your post intrigued me though. Your right, I should have a reason for switching to Linux (professionally, that is). But your post seems to imply that there is no good, compelling reason to do so.
So my question to you is this: What compelling, technical, pragmatic, real-world reason do I have for switching from Windows to Linux?
I am not trying to persuade you. There are many reasons to use Linux, and there are many reasons to use Windows; there's more than enough information available to determine them for yourself. I'm trying to help you realize that you need to determine them before you do an evaluation. Otherwise, you won't have any criteria to judge it against, and the evaluation will be a waste of your time. If you can't come up with any good reasons, that's an indication that you probably won't find Linux useful.
On a side note, the condescending quotation marks were a poor attempt to point out that those remarks did not help your statement. When your first sentences are used to establish "street cred," (eg. "I'm a serious computer user."), it signals to the audience that you are uncertain about your position and posteuring to make it seem more forceful. In reality what it does is make you look foolish. Those who are knowledgeable will be able to determine your level of expertise from context; trying to point it out to them will mark you as a fraud. Those who are not knowledgeable might believe you, but their opinion doesn't matter anyway because they don't know what you're talking about. It was a critique of the method of communication, not the content of the message.
I've flirted with the idea of installing Linux on a spare box. Is this nonesense the kind of stuff I should expect?
Do you have a reason to try Linux? Just from your tone you sound rather apprehensive of it in the first place. See if this describes you: "I'll just give it a shot so I can see why everyone is making such a stink about it. Then my condescending attitude will be justified because I actually did try it and didn't like it."
Frankly, even though you are obviously a "serious computer user" since you "create media" and "edit audio," if you don't have an idea of why you might want to switch to Linux, you aren't going to find a reason by just trying it out. What you'll probably find is that you can't figure out how to easily do the things you want to do in one afternoon. Or maybe you will, but they won't be any easier or wow-bang than just doing it in Windows. So you'll shrug your shoulders, wonder why everyone is making such a stink about it, and wipe the drive.
You should have a reason when you decide to do something, even if that reason is just to explore. If you were the exploring type, you would have already tried it, rather than just "flirted with the idea" of trying it, so that one is out. If you don't have another reason, you'll just be wasting your time. Honestly, it's the same with any decision in your life. Try thinking through things, rather than just randomly trying them because you know they exist.