1) Can't later be withdrawn by the owner. 2) Guarantees the contents can't later be revised after publication. 3) It's possible to give to or share with others in future. 4) Reading can't be monitored or controlled by others.
These things are not often important, but sometimes they can be _very_ important.
From what you have said, it seem you are pretty much "doing agile" or at least following a number of the principles:
> customer can redirect our efforts - perhaps a priority changed, or it turns out the customer doesn't want something anymore
It seems like you value customer collaboration over contract negotiation and value responding to change over following a plan. That's covers half of the agile manifesto already.
The things you listed such as sprints/tasks are not agile concepts, but might be found in a scrum based process. My personal view is that scrum is not particularly agile when done how most folks seem to do it.
I have to say that builds that take a day sounds painful though. Isn't that painful enough that you want to do something about it?
I work for a FTSE250 UK company and we're running lots of Go in production and the company now depends upon it for important business processes. We continue to see an aggressive growth the use of Go in most areas of IT in our company.
We also have one specific bit of code in Rust also running in production because Go is not appropriate for it, but we're unlikely to increase the use of rust much more.
My previous company (a major UK based international publisher) is in a similar position since I introduced Go there a few years back.
So, that's two companies of reasonable size running their business processes on Go.
Making their own planes and guns would be like making their own processors and hard drives. They would never do that.
The question was more about why they store their data on somebody elses computers. This would be like keeping their guns in someone elses warehouse, where that somebody makes the keys and locks to that warehouse.
> This is quite normal for any train/subway system. What information do you think they are going to glean from Wifi that they can't glean in this manner about travel patterns?
If there is no additional information to be gleaned, why would they bother installing all this wifi tracking stuff in the first place?
(Also, they are not recording things like DNS lookups)
Now that even supermarkets and other places are tracking customers via wifi as they walk around stores, it makes sense to have wireless turned off everywhere except where you need it on.
Wifimatic or similar can do this for you. It can save your battery too.
I've been reading about this kind of stuff recently, and I'm considering attempting to implement it.
Right now though, I'm writing a test harness to compare various routing algorithms and see how many nodes they can scale to before they fail (also, how much churn they can support, how they handle partitions, etc)
> I know Stallman is a smelly old fool to you "open source" retards, but he perfected copyleft decades ago. You would know that, if you weren't insanely obsessed with exploiting intellectual property to make yourselves wealthy.
Are you going for the world record attempt at the number of false assumptions in a single sentence?
I highly respect Stallman, I know exactly when he perfected copyleft, I prefer Free Software to other types of Open Source license, and I have a preference for GNU licenses. I don't particularly care for making myself more wealthy either. And I'm not quite sure whose intellectual property you think I'm exploiting when it's me writing the code in the first place.
Yes it does. You are confusing copyright holder with rights given by that holder to anyone else. As long as the rights granted are sufficient, it doesn't matter who holds the copyright. I have talked this through with a lawyer in the past.
I solved this problem at my last two employers by releasing everything with open source licenses. That way it doesn't matter as much who the copyright holder is.
Cheaper or better? In the tech sector, especially niche stuff or startups you want the best people, not just the best people from the same country as you. If you don't get the best your competition will.
> RFC6520-- WHY THE FUCK DOES THIS EXIST? Because it's too computationally expensive for clients to re-establish SSL sessions...?! Really? My dual core 2.15ghz smart phone begs to differ.
No. It's not about CPU time, but about the time taken to establish a connection due to the TLS and TCP handshakes. I think it's only a single round trip for the TLS part (someone will surely correct me if not) but that's on top of the TCP 3 way handshake, which all adds up. You can't mitigate network latency with a faster CPU.
These are partly the same reasons for http2 by the way. Re-using a single connection means avoiding the TCP and TLS setup happening more than once.
Finally, keeping a connection open for a long time and re-using it goes some small way to avoid revealing as much metadata to snoopers, as does multiplexing a single TLS connection rather than creating many.
Please don't tell us (the whole of the UK) to f**k ourselves.
I am one of almost half the voters who wanted to remain. Almost all of my friends wanted the same. I work with people from across Europe and elsewhere on a daily basis. Some of us are very pro-Europe (although Europe is not perfect) and want to be in the EU as much as you probably do.
Some of us DO want Schengen and more open borders. Some of us DO want a common currency. (or at least don't hate the idea)
I think I stand with much of Europe and half of the UK in saying "GO F**K YOURSELVES" to the Leave voters.
Please don't forget about us Remain voters and don't hate us! If you do, the Exit voters really HAVE won.
I use full disk encryption all of the time. The threat I'm protecting against is losing my laptop, having it stolen, or selling it and risking someone getting their hands on all my passwords etc that are saved on there.
I'd quite happily decrypt it given a warrant.
Most reasons for using encryption and other privacy tools are not about avoiding capture by law enforcement - far from it.
Having said that I am troubled by cases (and I don't know the details for this particular one) where forgotten keys or passwords somehow imply guilt.
If the UK leaves the EU, that doesn't automatically mean the UK won't have to comply. Various non EU countries already have to abide by all kinds of EU rules as part of trade agreements with them.
The major difference in leaving would be that the UK no longer has any power in influencing these kinds of rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you list some of these things we should know about Bill Gates please?
I know he was a deservedly convicted monopolist who openly wanted to crush open source.
Do you remember the Halloween documents?
Retaining access to books in a form that :
1) Can't later be withdrawn by the owner.
2) Guarantees the contents can't later be revised after publication.
3) It's possible to give to or share with others in future.
4) Reading can't be monitored or controlled by others.
These things are not often important, but sometimes they can be _very_ important.
From what you have said, it seem you are pretty much "doing agile" or at least following a number of the principles:
> customer can redirect our efforts - perhaps a priority changed, or it turns out the customer doesn't want something anymore
It seems like you value customer collaboration over contract negotiation and value responding to change over following a plan. That's covers half of the agile manifesto already.
The things you listed such as sprints/tasks are not agile concepts, but might be found in a scrum based process. My personal view is that scrum is not particularly agile when done how most folks seem to do it.
I have to say that builds that take a day sounds painful though. Isn't that painful enough that you want to do something about it?
How would you achieve anonymity with that?
I work for a FTSE250 UK company and we're running lots of Go in production and the company now depends upon it for important business processes. We continue to see an aggressive growth the use of Go in most areas of IT in our company.
We also have one specific bit of code in Rust also running in production because Go is not appropriate for it, but we're unlikely to increase the use of rust much more.
My previous company (a major UK based international publisher) is in a similar position since I introduced Go there a few years back.
So, that's two companies of reasonable size running their business processes on Go.
That's not a great comparison.
Making their own planes and guns would be like making their own processors and hard drives. They would never do that.
The question was more about why they store their data on somebody elses computers. This would be like keeping their guns in someone elses warehouse, where that somebody makes the keys and locks to that warehouse.
I haven't had problems with systemd for years now. There were problems long ago, but it's solid now for me on server and desktop alike.
Can you provide some information about the problems you are having or link to issue reports?
> This is quite normal for any train/subway system. What information do you think they are going to glean from Wifi that they can't glean in this manner about travel patterns?
If there is no additional information to be gleaned, why would they bother installing all this wifi tracking stuff in the first place?
(Also, they are not recording things like DNS lookups)
Now that even supermarkets and other places are tracking customers via wifi as they walk around stores, it makes sense to have wireless turned off everywhere except where you need it on.
Wifimatic or similar can do this for you. It can save your battery too.
https://play.google.com/store/...
(I have no connection to this app - I just use it and find it helpful)
VIrtual ring routing appears to solve some of these problems.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
I've been reading about this kind of stuff recently, and I'm considering attempting to implement it.
Right now though, I'm writing a test harness to compare various routing algorithms and see how many nodes they can scale to before they fail (also, how much churn they can support, how they handle partitions, etc)
> The copyright holder can revoke the license.
Not every type of license.
> I know Stallman is a smelly old fool to you "open source" retards, but he perfected copyleft decades ago. You would know that, if you weren't insanely obsessed with exploiting intellectual property to make yourselves wealthy.
Are you going for the world record attempt at the number of false assumptions in a single sentence?
I highly respect Stallman, I know exactly when he perfected copyleft, I prefer Free Software to other types of Open Source license, and I have a preference for GNU licenses. I don't particularly care for making myself more wealthy either. And I'm not quite sure whose intellectual property you think I'm exploiting when it's me writing the code in the first place.
Yes it does. You are confusing copyright holder with rights given by that holder to anyone else. As long as the rights granted are sufficient, it doesn't matter who holds the copyright. I have talked this through with a lawyer in the past.
I solved this problem at my last two employers by releasing everything with open source licenses. That way it doesn't matter as much who the copyright holder is.
Cheaper or better? In the tech sector, especially niche stuff or startups you want the best people, not just the best people from the same country as you. If you don't get the best your competition will.
In a loose sense, ipfs _is_ a cdn.
rpm and apt are tools to fetch things from repositories, not for hosting them.
What I am suggesting is that they could be modified to fetch packages from ipfs instead of via http.
Hosting static binaries such as jar files is a great use case for ipfs.
In fact, it would be good to see package managers in general support IPFS downloading, and possibly good for privacy as well as availability.
> RFC6520-- WHY THE FUCK DOES THIS EXIST? Because it's too computationally expensive for clients to re-establish SSL sessions...?! Really? My dual core 2.15ghz smart phone begs to differ.
No. It's not about CPU time, but about the time taken to establish a connection due to the TLS and TCP handshakes. I think it's only a single round trip for the TLS part (someone will surely correct me if not) but that's on top of the TCP 3 way handshake, which all adds up. You can't mitigate network latency with a faster CPU.
These are partly the same reasons for http2 by the way. Re-using a single connection means avoiding the TCP and TLS setup happening more than once.
Finally, keeping a connection open for a long time and re-using it goes some small way to avoid revealing as much metadata to snoopers, as does multiplexing a single TLS connection rather than creating many.
> You know the cheapest and most secure way to delete your data is to hit the disk a few times with a slegehammer.
I find that don't make as much on ebay once I've done that.
Please don't tell us (the whole of the UK) to f**k ourselves.
I am one of almost half the voters who wanted to remain. Almost all of my friends wanted the same. I work with people from across Europe and elsewhere on a daily basis. Some of us are very pro-Europe (although Europe is not perfect) and want to be in the EU as much as you probably do.
Some of us DO want Schengen and more open borders.
Some of us DO want a common currency. (or at least don't hate the idea)
I think I stand with much of Europe and half of the UK in saying "GO F**K YOURSELVES" to the Leave voters.
Please don't forget about us Remain voters and don't hate us! If you do, the Exit voters really HAVE won.
"this is an issue that affects the DAO specifically; Ethereum itself is perfectly safe."
Source: https://blog.ethereum.org/2016...
Of course it's not useless.
I use full disk encryption all of the time. The threat I'm protecting against is losing my laptop, having it stolen, or selling it and risking someone getting their hands on all my passwords etc that are saved on there.
I'd quite happily decrypt it given a warrant.
Most reasons for using encryption and other privacy tools are not about avoiding capture by law enforcement - far from it.
Having said that I am troubled by cases (and I don't know the details for this particular one) where forgotten keys or passwords somehow imply guilt.
If the UK leaves the EU, that doesn't automatically mean the UK won't have to comply. Various non EU countries already have to abide by all kinds of EU rules as part of trade agreements with them.
The major difference in leaving would be that the UK no longer has any power in influencing these kinds of rules.
What in your view qualifies someone as a security researcher?
The EU, despite it's problems has been the main thing limiting the insanity of recent UK governments.