It puts them back a lot. I was seeing tens of attempts from each IP trying to log in to my system. My system is a NAS, but they don't know that...
fail2ban trips at six attempts. I'm not important enough to get properly hammered by whoever these folks are, but I'm happy that there is now less chance of a break in and compromised IPs are permabanned.
The supply will indeed increase for decades, at a slower and slower and slower rate.
Meh.
I'm not invested in it either way, the crypto is interesting and the idea is fun, but I don't see it getting very far. History has shown me to be wrong before. Or more often right but inactive. I could be a frickin' millionaire by now if I took my own advice more often.
And therefore Lennart Poettering, who has said this sort of stuff A LOT.
I have no major objection to change, or to things like PulseAudio (not that I use it on many systems). However the "leave it all behind, let's do cool stuff with the advanced features of the linux kernel" argument is an odd one.
For an init process like systemd, sure, I can see that. For a desktop manager/wm/application suite? Not so much.
I would assume so. They already have it for Win Phone 7 and Xbox, so it should be in pretty good shape for porting by now. They'd be fools not to do it, too.
Oh sure, but on a slower pace than that it may not be a bubble. And a bubble in currency value is a tricky thing to break. The guy with a lot of bitcoins probably knows that releasing them slowly is the only good way to cash out, to avoid disturbing the market too much.
And it's not just people hoarding millions - it's everyone. In a deflationary cycle you spend as little as possible. The idea that bitcoin usage is going to take off massively, yet the quantities available will not grow to the same extent (bitcoins become harder to mine/mint as time goes on) more or less ensures the start of such a cycle. IMHO. May well be wrong here...
Oh, I'm no economist so I have no idea, I just vaguely get the mechanism behind deflation. Yes I suppose you could say that a the scarcity of the currency, which I think was at least partially decided upon to try to combat or entirely remove inflationary pressure and the kinds of shenanigans governments pull that dilute the currency, the scarcity may result in them becoming more of a commodity than a currency. I'm not really sure at this point!
Yes, which is deflation from the perspective of someone holding bitcoins. The value of bitcoins rises, massively, people hold on to bitcoins instead of spending them because they'll be worth more later, the value then rises further due to scarcity, causing a feedback loop.
Sure, these sorts of things have a limit, somewhere. I'm not quite sure how the people at bitcoin think this is going to work though.
I hadn't had a virus since before 2000 (when they were mostly some sort of novelty it seems). Until last month when somehow something managed to slip past Win 7's protections and the antivirus system. Not impressed.
Not that I have used windows all that much in that time of course. I made the full-time switch to linux some years ago now, windows I just keep around for the odd game I can't get going under wine.
Whilst tivoisation is a problem and is already happening I see another motive here - only approved partners get to release a properly functional tablet, for an entire year.
By not releasing this to the general public, Google has tight control over releases and android tablet, and that way can exercise a form of quality control they otherwise couldn't. This could be a (misguided, IMHO) attempt to compete with the iPad on consistency of user experience.
"Well good for you. Now will you please bugger off. Some of us are trying to earn a living, not infringing anyone's privacy, and have better things to do than comply with stupid laws designed by cretins."
If you're not infringing on anyone's privacy then you have nothing to worry about. There are exceptions for cookies essential to the service (session cookies for baskets etc), but not for those that are cosmetic (site look and feel, autologin) or advertising related.
If you don't fit within that then, like other forms of targeted advertising and behaviour tracking, you need to get permission. In many ways this just brings the electronic realm in line with the physical world in some ways.
"If you really really care about the issue, make laws for the browser manufacturers, rather than every fucking website operator in Europe."
Spoken like a true marketing man, it's the user's responsibility to make sure you're not tracking them and to stop you doing it eh? Otherwise they must want it?
Can you tell me - does anyone in the advertising business care about DNT headers? They'd be pretty damn easy to ignore if there's no legislative backing.
Hell I can stick "yes I'd like fries with that" in a header, but I don't expect anyone will pay any attention.
An IP address is a fundamental part of the communication going on. Browser headers not so much. I have mixed feelings about browser headers anyway, especially given how often they are abused for "this site is only compatible with" reasons.
Yeah, don't know. It's less in the way of actively participating in your own tracking without you knowledge. And both browser versions and IP addresses change from time to time. Perhaps the "Do Not Track" legislation proposed in California is a better option.
I do control what's on my computer. Most other computer users don't know what a cookie is, let alone what they're used for or how many they have on their machine from advertisers and trackers. They might liek to know. They might like to be asked before they're set.
And if "replying honestly to people who reply to me" is now trolling then... wow. Why so angry?
Which is there prerogative, recording what happens at their end.
Personally I see a line between people unwittingly participating in feeding their information to advertisers and server-admins recording who accesses what to analyse later.
It's simple, find another magic way of remembering, ask permission to store the data on the user's computer, or don't have the setting.
I'm sure it would be more convenient for me if every site on the internet knew my waist, collar and shoe sizes too, the minor inconvenience of having to tell them is the tradeoff for privacy in that case. Here, CNN asking once if they can stick a cookie on your machine is the price.
"It's not 1995 anymore, these days people don't just use the web to read documents shared by others and not being logged in is often a major hurdle when communicating with others online."
Yup, so those sites that need it (there are about 20 that I care enough about to allow it) get permission and everything is fine.
But there's session handling and there's session handling. Slashdot needs a cookie. Dilbert does not. Wikipedia does not. Doubleclick can f*ck right off. It's actually still 1995 in a lot of places I go to read information.
Slashdot Mirror
It puts them back a lot. I was seeing tens of attempts from each IP trying to log in to my system. My system is a NAS, but they don't know that...
fail2ban trips at six attempts. I'm not important enough to get properly hammered by whoever these folks are, but I'm happy that there is now less chance of a break in and compromised IPs are permabanned.
The supply will indeed increase for decades, at a slower and slower and slower rate.
Meh.
I'm not invested in it either way, the crypto is interesting and the idea is fun, but I don't see it getting very far. History has shown me to be wrong before. Or more often right but inactive. I could be a frickin' millionaire by now if I took my own advice more often.
And therefore Lennart Poettering, who has said this sort of stuff A LOT.
I have no major objection to change, or to things like PulseAudio (not that I use it on many systems). However the "leave it all behind, let's do cool stuff with the advanced features of the linux kernel" argument is an odd one.
For an init process like systemd, sure, I can see that. For a desktop manager/wm/application suite? Not so much.
Who runs the bitcoin website where I read about bitcoin then?
They would be the people at bitcoin in my book. Whether it's a company or not is irrelevant.
If you think bitcoin is in a bubble right now, watch what happens if it takes off without the supply increasing all that much.
I would assume so. They already have it for Win Phone 7 and Xbox, so it should be in pretty good shape for porting by now. They'd be fools not to do it, too.
Software from the 90s will be fine as soon as someone builds DosBox for it!
It's software from the 2000's that's not .Net that's going to be the problem.
Oh sure, but on a slower pace than that it may not be a bubble. And a bubble in currency value is a tricky thing to break. The guy with a lot of bitcoins probably knows that releasing them slowly is the only good way to cash out, to avoid disturbing the market too much.
And it's not just people hoarding millions - it's everyone. In a deflationary cycle you spend as little as possible. The idea that bitcoin usage is going to take off massively, yet the quantities available will not grow to the same extent (bitcoins become harder to mine/mint as time goes on) more or less ensures the start of such a cycle. IMHO. May well be wrong here...
Oh, I'm no economist so I have no idea, I just vaguely get the mechanism behind deflation. Yes I suppose you could say that a the scarcity of the currency, which I think was at least partially decided upon to try to combat or entirely remove inflationary pressure and the kinds of shenanigans governments pull that dilute the currency, the scarcity may result in them becoming more of a commodity than a currency. I'm not really sure at this point!
Yes, which is deflation from the perspective of someone holding bitcoins. The value of bitcoins rises, massively, people hold on to bitcoins instead of spending them because they'll be worth more later, the value then rises further due to scarcity, causing a feedback loop.
Sure, these sorts of things have a limit, somewhere. I'm not quite sure how the people at bitcoin think this is going to work though.
I hadn't had a virus since before 2000 (when they were mostly some sort of novelty it seems). Until last month when somehow something managed to slip past Win 7's protections and the antivirus system. Not impressed.
Not that I have used windows all that much in that time of course. I made the full-time switch to linux some years ago now, windows I just keep around for the odd game I can't get going under wine.
I can confirm that firefox on my N900 also reports 20.21 bogomips.
It sure as hell took its time catting /proc/cpuinfo though!
I thought Anonymous' spokesman was David Mudkips anyway. H sure got his name in the papers a few times when the scientology protests were kicking off.
Maybe you aren't worth whatever you've been paid, you clearly have some sort of brain problem. You're an A-grade moron.
Just because something isn't stealing doesn't mean that it's right, good for society or anything else.
There is more than one crime on the books, more than one civil offence. Two things do not have to be equivalent to both be bad.
Whilst tivoisation is a problem and is already happening I see another motive here - only approved partners get to release a properly functional tablet, for an entire year.
By not releasing this to the general public, Google has tight control over releases and android tablet, and that way can exercise a form of quality control they otherwise couldn't. This could be a (misguided, IMHO) attempt to compete with the iPad on consistency of user experience.
"Well good for you. Now will you please bugger off. Some of us are trying to earn a living, not infringing anyone's privacy, and have better things to do than comply with stupid laws designed by cretins."
If you're not infringing on anyone's privacy then you have nothing to worry about. There are exceptions for cookies essential to the service (session cookies for baskets etc), but not for those that are cosmetic (site look and feel, autologin) or advertising related.
If you don't fit within that then, like other forms of targeted advertising and behaviour tracking, you need to get permission. In many ways this just brings the electronic realm in line with the physical world in some ways.
"If you really really care about the issue, make laws for the browser manufacturers, rather than every fucking website operator in Europe."
Spoken like a true marketing man, it's the user's responsibility to make sure you're not tracking them and to stop you doing it eh? Otherwise they must want it?
Bah, no sympathy for you here.
Can you tell me - does anyone in the advertising business care about DNT headers? They'd be pretty damn easy to ignore if there's no legislative backing.
Hell I can stick "yes I'd like fries with that" in a header, but I don't expect anyone will pay any attention.
That sounds eminently reasonable to me, and neatly counters a lot of the "sky is falling" stuff people have said further upthread.
An IP address is a fundamental part of the communication going on. Browser headers not so much. I have mixed feelings about browser headers anyway, especially given how often they are abused for "this site is only compatible with" reasons.
Yeah, don't know. It's less in the way of actively participating in your own tracking without you knowledge. And both browser versions and IP addresses change from time to time. Perhaps the "Do Not Track" legislation proposed in California is a better option.
I do control what's on my computer. Most other computer users don't know what a cookie is, let alone what they're used for or how many they have on their machine from advertisers and trackers. They might liek to know. They might like to be asked before they're set.
And if "replying honestly to people who reply to me" is now trolling then... wow. Why so angry?
Which is there prerogative, recording what happens at their end.
Personally I see a line between people unwittingly participating in feeding their information to advertisers and server-admins recording who accesses what to analyse later.
It's simple, find another magic way of remembering, ask permission to store the data on the user's computer, or don't have the setting.
I'm sure it would be more convenient for me if every site on the internet knew my waist, collar and shoe sizes too, the minor inconvenience of having to tell them is the tradeoff for privacy in that case. Here, CNN asking once if they can stick a cookie on your machine is the price.
As far as I'm concerned they're a non issue - i.e. they ought to be scrapped, effective immediately.
I can't find it in me to even start to care about a solution for these poor, poor advertisers that will allow them to keep tracking people.
Then ask if it's ok to store site preferences in a cookie, once, the first time someone changes a setting like that.
"It's not 1995 anymore, these days people don't just use the web to read documents shared by others and not being logged in is often a major hurdle when communicating with others online."
Yup, so those sites that need it (there are about 20 that I care enough about to allow it) get permission and everything is fine.
But there's session handling and there's session handling. Slashdot needs a cookie. Dilbert does not. Wikipedia does not. Doubleclick can f*ck right off. It's actually still 1995 in a lot of places I go to read information.