OK, I've tried everything I can think of, but I can't get this to work.
I can sshfs mount the AOL space just fine, but I simply cannot get it to work properly if I then apply encfs. encfs mounts the space properly, but the space is then not writeable:-( I tried using the --public option to encfs, but then the sshfs-mounted filesystem can't be found. Whatever I do, I eventually end up with an error message.
If you have any interest in helping or simply providing instructions, please e-mail N7DR at arrisi dot com (unless you want to post public instructions here).
"New story posted" is the option you're looking for
If there were any such thing in my Message Preferences I wouldn't have started this discussion. There's nothing like that at all:-(
WAIT! It's there now. I took a screenshot earlier, and it wasn't there then. But it is now. So I have no idea what changed, but something sure did. Oh well, I suppose I have to go back to work now. Until the next/. story gets posted, anyway.
Necessary, but not sufficient:-( In other words, I do. And several of the drop down lists include an IM selection; it's just that I don't see anything that I can interpret as "selecting this will mean that I'll receive notifications of posts" (via any means at all, actually, not just IM).
Maybe one needs to be a subscriber? (Which I'm not.)
Recently we added the ability to receive AIM instant messages to notify you when stories are posted,
OK, so I thought "great, I can stop monitoring the RSS feed and get more timely notifications" when I read this. But I can't see any option to actually enable this in my Message Preferences page:-(
I tell you, I am highly ticked off that, at least where I live, there's no way to get a broadband ISP who promises to deliver one thing: a pipe. That's all I want: a pipe. I can't be alone. Just give me a pipe and leave me to use it the way I want to. Don't filter my e-mail. Don't redirect my DNS queries. Don't disallow traffic to/from ports. Don't block pings. Just give me a pipe. What's so hard about that? Good grief, if you want to, you can even charge me extra.
I am almost always against laws (which are often worse than the ill they are trying to right), but it seems to me that there ought to be some sort of regulation that requires ISPs (since they are mostly effectively monopolies) to offer a transparent pipe for those who want to avoid all their obnoxious practices.
I'm used to templates syntax (though I think its ugly and Stroustrup could have done a lot better)
I was on the C++ committee at the time that templates were accepted -- my memory is that the syntax that was accepted is identical to what Bjarne originally proposed, because there were no obvious flaws in the proposal.
It is true that if templates were being added today, I would expect the syntax to be rather different, but only because we had no idea that when we added templates we were adding a Turing-complete compile-time language. Had we known that, I am pretty sure that we would have also introduced a syntax that makes it about a million times more pleasant to actually use that feature.
The European Space Agency has announced that a mysterious radio wave...
And there's no point in reading TFA in order to try to remove any of the mystery. Frequency? Duration? Periodicity/repeatability? Any characteristics whatsoever? Not a single useful property is mentioned in the article. In fact, apparently it's not even certain that it's not an artifact.
Actually, the whole thing is a rather weird: not only do they not give any details whatsoever, but I find it difficult to countenance that a scientist would talk about a "radio wave" rather than a "signal" or "emission" in this context. Speaking from my background as a co-investigator on the Planetary Radio Astronomy experiment on Voyager, the word "wave" is usually reserved for theoretical treatments in published papers.
Anyway, I guess we just have to wait for the upcoming issue of "Planetary and Space Science" to see what the article is really talking about.
Your argument would be correct with the minor exception of that pesky DMCA. Currently in the US, backing up a DVD that you've purchased involves bypassing a digital encryption algorithm, which is explicitly prohibited by the DMCA.
I believe that's not quite right: making a bit-for-bit copy doesn't automatically violate the DMCA, because you're not decrypting anything. If you choose to remove the encryption, _then_ you've violated the DMCA. (And, of course, you have to remove the encryption in order to watch it, but that's another issue entirely.) So simply making a copy doesn't necessarily involve a violation of the DMCA.
It is true that most people regard "copy" as meaning "decrypt-transcode-encrypt"; but that's not strictly speaking a copy.
Caveat: I don't claim to be an expert. I'm just applying logic to what I've read about the scope of the DMCA.
Assume for a moment that a cable company will actually run four cable lines to your house in lieu of fiber
Several earlier posts, including one of mine, have pointed out that they will not be running new cable lines to your house.
With that attitude, do you think these guys will actually deploy this technology?
Having sat around the table with "these guys" for most of the past two years while developing the DOCSIS 3.0 specs, I can guarantee that most of the big operators will be deploying this technology as soon they can get their hands on it in sufficient quantities from the equipment vendors.
The article makes no mention of what kind of upstream speeds you'll get with this technology.
The DOCSIS 3.0 specs allow for upstream channels to be bonded essentially in the same manner as downstream channels (although the gory details of the mechanism used are necessarily very different in the two directions), thereby allowing for greatly increased upstream speeds. Whether a particular operator chooses to make use of this capability is another matter.
And maybe I'm not understanding, but I only have 1 cable line running into my house. So how does this help me? Does this require them to lay more lines? Because if it does, they may as well lay fibre-optics, which has much more potential for higher speeds.
That one physical cable going to your home has hundreds of channels, each with a different carrier frequency. DOCSIS 3.0 bonds several of those channels together so that they appear as a single channel to the user.
Comcast CEO dazzled cable industry audience by showcasing a super quick modem, using a technology called DOCSIS 3.0. It was developed by the cable industry's research arm, Cable Television Laboratories.
It is not clear whether the "it" referred to is the modem or the "technology called DOCSIS 3.0". In either case, the quoted information is not true.
DOCSIS 3.0 is a suite of specifications that represents the newest release of the DOCSIS specifications that have been around for nearly a decade now. CableLabs (the usual name for "Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.") managed the process of creating the specs, and performed the actual publication, but the specs themselves were developed in almost entirely by equipment manufacturers, with input from interested (mostly large) cable operators.
Similarly, the modem that was demonstrated was built not by CableLabs but by one of those equipment manufacturers (ARRIS, for whom I work, although I have no direct association with the group that builds the DOCSIS 3.0 modem; I was a contributor to the DOCSIS 3.0 specs).
The complete sleep-inducing suite of specs may be downloaded from www.cablelabs.com.
And the reason for that answer is best summed up by one of my all-time favourite quotations (from, I think, Alan Simpson): "If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".
Exactly. It's expected than any app will crash if you feed it malicious junk.
That's a joke, right? I write security software for PacketCable deployments -- software that is fully exposed to subscribers. If a subscriber can make the software crash, he's just mounted a successful denial-of-service attack against the cable-based telephony network. If anyone ever succeeds in doing this against my software, then that means I didn't do my job right. Software should be robust, and the notion that it should be permissible for a professional to write/deploy/sell/distribute any software that breaks when you feed it bad data is simply wrong.
Push technology? The article fails to mention that while Desktop channels were obtrusive and filled with advertiser content, this concept is very successful today. RSS feeds, AJAX technology and the like are very much staples of today's web
Just a correction to one of your points: RSS is not push; it's pull. I'm not certain about AJAX, either, but I am sure about RSS.
if you honestly believe Google will forever let you use gmail without looking at their ads or paying them something, you're delusional.
Not necessarily. Google doesn't need to make money from every user of their gmail service. They're smart people, so I'm sure they have already calculated some threshold for the percentage of people who use POP3 access to gmail, above which they will start to charge. As long as the number of people using POP3 is small (for some value of "small"), I don't think it necessarily follows that they will automatically one day start to charge for POP3 access.
I also have a very hard time with his accent, it sounds really forced.
Well, the people who run the show would not agree with you. They didn't realise he wasn't American when he auditioned. (Wikipedia: "Laurie's American accent was reportedly so flawless that [director] Bryan Singer singled him out as an example of a real American actor, being unaware of Laurie's background". They don't have a citation, though.)
Personally, the first time I saw the show, it kept bothering me they'd cast someone who looked so much like Hugh Laurie, but who couldn't possibly be him.
Unfortunately, there is no simple arithmetic formula for calculating the significance level of a correlation given a non-normal distribution -- you can't just plug in the skewness, kurtosis, etc. as well as sample size and correlation coefficient, and get out a valid statistical significance.
True, but isn't that what rank correlations are for? Sure, they aren't as efficient as the Pearson (or similar) correlations, but their strength is precisely that that don't rely on questionable assumptions of normalcy.
He's got a point though - Dapper is supposed to be the big "supported for years" release.
This "Long Term Support" thing is almost universally misunderstood by users. I agree that any normal person interprets "LTS" to mean that the distro (dapper) will be kept up to date. But that's not what it means:-( As has been explained several times (and not doubt will be explained many more) on various ubuntu reflectors and fora, Canonical says that "LTS" means that they will continue to provide security patches for a long time, not that they will update any apps.
They should make this much clearer than they do, because the natural interpretation is the one you suggest, not theirs. Someone on one reflector defines "LTS" to mean "Long Term Stagnation", which does unfortunately seem to be a defensible expansion of the term. It's not that simply applying security patches is bad or evil or wrong -- it's just not what the typical user expects "Long Term Support" to mean.
FWIW, I have some hopes that cnr.com will fix this, IMO one of the biggest failings of Linux distros: the inability to keep current with applications without being forced quite quickly to update the entire distro to the most recent version.
You're obviously not unintelligent. So think of what you would really like to do, and then teach yourself the langauge that would be most useful in that position. And then USE IT. Not for pay, but using it in the real world is the only way to really, really learn a language. For example, if my end goal was to be soemwhere it would pay to be known as an accomplished C progammer, I would teach myself C and then do something utterly crazy like start making simple contributions to the Linux kernel. Point to that sort of thing in an interview and you will already have established yourself as knowning (and having proved that you know) more than any other candidate.
Sure, this will be hard, and especially if you keep a full time day job it's going to be a pain and take a year or two. But you'll end up in a far better place than if you go the "normal" route.
No, this advice is not theoretical. You're welcome to ignore it, but don't do so because you don't think it would work. It does. There's a whole generation of well-paid people rather older than you who never had any formal computer training but got their feet wet in exactly this kind of way.
I've seen this reported several times in the past few days. But nowhere have I seen any kind of explanation as to how he arrived at this number. Frankly, I find it unswallowable without some fairly convincing evidence. Maybe he has such evidence (I sure hope so), but if so, where is it?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I've tried everything I can think of, but I can't get this to work. I can sshfs mount the AOL space just fine, but I simply cannot get it to work properly if I then apply encfs. encfs mounts the space properly, but the space is then not writeable :-( I tried using the --public option to encfs, but then the sshfs-mounted filesystem can't be found. Whatever I do, I eventually end up with an error message.
If you have any interest in helping or simply providing instructions, please e-mail N7DR at arrisi dot com (unless you want to post public instructions here).
If there were any such thing in my Message Preferences I wouldn't have started this discussion. There's nothing like that at all :-(
WAIT! It's there now. I took a screenshot earlier, and it wasn't there then. But it is now. So I have no idea what changed, but something sure did. Oh well, I suppose I have to go back to work now. Until the next /. story gets posted, anyway.
Necessary, but not sufficient :-( In other words, I do. And several of the drop down lists include an IM selection; it's just that I don't see anything that I can interpret as "selecting this will mean that I'll receive notifications of posts" (via any means at all, actually, not just IM).
Maybe one needs to be a subscriber? (Which I'm not.)
OK, so I thought "great, I can stop monitoring the RSS feed and get more timely notifications" when I read this. But I can't see any option to actually enable this in my Message Preferences page :-(
I am almost always against laws (which are often worse than the ill they are trying to right), but it seems to me that there ought to be some sort of regulation that requires ISPs (since they are mostly effectively monopolies) to offer a transparent pipe for those who want to avoid all their obnoxious practices.
I was on the C++ committee at the time that templates were accepted -- my memory is that the syntax that was accepted is identical to what Bjarne originally proposed, because there were no obvious flaws in the proposal.
It is true that if templates were being added today, I would expect the syntax to be rather different, but only because we had no idea that when we added templates we were adding a Turing-complete compile-time language. Had we known that, I am pretty sure that we would have also introduced a syntax that makes it about a million times more pleasant to actually use that feature.
And there's no point in reading TFA in order to try to remove any of the mystery. Frequency? Duration? Periodicity/repeatability? Any characteristics whatsoever? Not a single useful property is mentioned in the article. In fact, apparently it's not even certain that it's not an artifact.
Actually, the whole thing is a rather weird: not only do they not give any details whatsoever, but I find it difficult to countenance that a scientist would talk about a "radio wave" rather than a "signal" or "emission" in this context. Speaking from my background as a co-investigator on the Planetary Radio Astronomy experiment on Voyager, the word "wave" is usually reserved for theoretical treatments in published papers.
Anyway, I guess we just have to wait for the upcoming issue of "Planetary and Space Science" to see what the article is really talking about.
I believe that's not quite right: making a bit-for-bit copy doesn't automatically violate the DMCA, because you're not decrypting anything. If you choose to remove the encryption, _then_ you've violated the DMCA. (And, of course, you have to remove the encryption in order to watch it, but that's another issue entirely.) So simply making a copy doesn't necessarily involve a violation of the DMCA.
It is true that most people regard "copy" as meaning "decrypt-transcode-encrypt"; but that's not strictly speaking a copy.
Caveat: I don't claim to be an expert. I'm just applying logic to what I've read about the scope of the DMCA.
Several earlier posts, including one of mine, have pointed out that they will not be running new cable lines to your house.
With that attitude, do you think these guys will actually deploy this technology?
Having sat around the table with "these guys" for most of the past two years while developing the DOCSIS 3.0 specs, I can guarantee that most of the big operators will be deploying this technology as soon they can get their hands on it in sufficient quantities from the equipment vendors.
The former. FYI, certified DOCSIS 3.0 modems are required to support a minimum of four bonded channels.
The DOCSIS 3.0 specs allow for upstream channels to be bonded essentially in the same manner as downstream channels (although the gory details of the mechanism used are necessarily very different in the two directions), thereby allowing for greatly increased upstream speeds. Whether a particular operator chooses to make use of this capability is another matter.
That one physical cable going to your home has hundreds of channels, each with a different carrier frequency. DOCSIS 3.0 bonds several of those channels together so that they appear as a single channel to the user.
It is not clear whether the "it" referred to is the modem or the "technology called DOCSIS 3.0". In either case, the quoted information is not true.
DOCSIS 3.0 is a suite of specifications that represents the newest release of the DOCSIS specifications that have been around for nearly a decade now. CableLabs (the usual name for "Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.") managed the process of creating the specs, and performed the actual publication, but the specs themselves were developed in almost entirely by equipment manufacturers, with input from interested (mostly large) cable operators.
Similarly, the modem that was demonstrated was built not by CableLabs but by one of those equipment manufacturers (ARRIS, for whom I work, although I have no direct association with the group that builds the DOCSIS 3.0 modem; I was a contributor to the DOCSIS 3.0 specs).
The complete sleep-inducing suite of specs may be downloaded from www.cablelabs.com.
And the reason for that answer is best summed up by one of my all-time favourite quotations (from, I think, Alan Simpson): "If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".
He said "any app". So I think any example is relevant, on the grounds that it's "an app" :-)
That's a joke, right? I write security software for PacketCable deployments -- software that is fully exposed to subscribers. If a subscriber can make the software crash, he's just mounted a successful denial-of-service attack against the cable-based telephony network. If anyone ever succeeds in doing this against my software, then that means I didn't do my job right. Software should be robust, and the notion that it should be permissible for a professional to write/deploy/sell/distribute any software that breaks when you feed it bad data is simply wrong.
Just a correction to one of your points: RSS is not push; it's pull. I'm not certain about AJAX, either, but I am sure about RSS.
If it needs to be explained to intelligent people, it's too complicated.
Not necessarily. Google doesn't need to make money from every user of their gmail service. They're smart people, so I'm sure they have already calculated some threshold for the percentage of people who use POP3 access to gmail, above which they will start to charge. As long as the number of people using POP3 is small (for some value of "small"), I don't think it necessarily follows that they will automatically one day start to charge for POP3 access.
Well, the people who run the show would not agree with you. They didn't realise he wasn't American when he auditioned. (Wikipedia: "Laurie's American accent was reportedly so flawless that [director] Bryan Singer singled him out as an example of a real American actor, being unaware of Laurie's background". They don't have a citation, though.)
Personally, the first time I saw the show, it kept bothering me they'd cast someone who looked so much like Hugh Laurie, but who couldn't possibly be him.
True, but isn't that what rank correlations are for? Sure, they aren't as efficient as the Pearson (or similar) correlations, but their strength is precisely that that don't rely on questionable assumptions of normalcy.
This "Long Term Support" thing is almost universally misunderstood by users. I agree that any normal person interprets "LTS" to mean that the distro (dapper) will be kept up to date. But that's not what it means :-( As has been explained several times (and not doubt will be explained many more) on various ubuntu reflectors and fora, Canonical says that "LTS" means that they will continue to provide security patches for a long time, not that they will update any apps.
They should make this much clearer than they do, because the natural interpretation is the one you suggest, not theirs. Someone on one reflector defines "LTS" to mean "Long Term Stagnation", which does unfortunately seem to be a defensible expansion of the term. It's not that simply applying security patches is bad or evil or wrong -- it's just not what the typical user expects "Long Term Support" to mean.
FWIW, I have some hopes that cnr.com will fix this, IMO one of the biggest failings of Linux distros: the inability to keep current with applications without being forced quite quickly to update the entire distro to the most recent version.
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Major_Update_1.5.0.x_to_2. 0.0.x
You're obviously not unintelligent. So think of what you would really like to do, and then teach yourself the langauge that would be most useful in that position. And then USE IT. Not for pay, but using it in the real world is the only way to really, really learn a language. For example, if my end goal was to be soemwhere it would pay to be known as an accomplished C progammer, I would teach myself C and then do something utterly crazy like start making simple contributions to the Linux kernel. Point to that sort of thing in an interview and you will already have established yourself as knowning (and having proved that you know) more than any other candidate.
Sure, this will be hard, and especially if you keep a full time day job it's going to be a pain and take a year or two. But you'll end up in a far better place than if you go the "normal" route.
No, this advice is not theoretical. You're welcome to ignore it, but don't do so because you don't think it would work. It does. There's a whole generation of well-paid people rather older than you who never had any formal computer training but got their feet wet in exactly this kind of way.
I've seen this reported several times in the past few days. But nowhere have I seen any kind of explanation as to how he arrived at this number. Frankly, I find it unswallowable without some fairly convincing evidence. Maybe he has such evidence (I sure hope so), but if so, where is it?