I can't tell if this is a great troll or just someone misinformed. The CE "routers" don't need to do NAT in order to deny everything incoming except for established traffic and specific punched holes in the firewall.
The worst-case performance probably isn't appreciably worse than it is now, and the best-case performance is much better, so the average is probably at least a little bit better. Furthermore, getting code like this into more people's browsers can increase the accessibility of the technology for other sites. So even if it's a dead-end for Wikimedia, it's a potential boon to video sites.
Really, if it doesn't bother Wikimedia, the only ones bothered by it should be ISPs and content creators who want to be takedown-happy.
No, deduplication has quite a bit of policy attached to it. Sometimes you want multiple independent copies of a file (well, maybe not in a data center, but why should the filesystem know that?). The filesystem should store the data it's told to; leave the deduplication to higher layers of a system.
No, I think it's only for those who are distributing media in the format. Opera and Mozilla are still SOL if they don't want to pay to license the decoder. If that is the case, shame on the submitter for either not reading more closely or for being a tool.
The class isn't testing your ability to play Portal. This would be a valid concern if grades depended on the time, step, or portal trials, but they clearly aren't. It would cheapen the experience, but there are already other ways of doing that for other sources.
You can deny all incoming TCP SYN segments and all incoming UDP and ICMP traffic if you so desire, then punch holes at the router's firewall when needed. This will give you essentially the same effect as NAT under IPv4. Also, use the privacy extensions of IPv6, whose random addresses on my machines last for about a day until being replaced, and are valid for incoming traffic for 6 days thereafter.
NAT is still a cancer upon networking. It partially intertwines mechanism and policy, which is a backwards step.
Wikileaks represents an externaliy of sorts. Sure, some nation-states provide essential freedoms with which it operates, but none of them are both willing and able to support it financially to correct for this externality, for the same reason that other nation-states are not able to use legal frameworks to control its spreading of information without severe repercussions for others unrelated to this matter. Therefore, Wikileaks have two strategies from which to choose to fund themselves:
1. Monetize the leaks, and 2. Solicit donations.
The first is probably too distasteful to them. I'm not sure I would support that either, though it would depend on how they implemented it. However, donations at their pre-Collateral Murder levels apparently could not support the site, as evidenced by the January shutdown of its archive of documents. They had no choice but to up the bet and make Really Big Deals out of something that no one could possibly ignore, and I think that they've found that right now, the big media players act according to rules not unlike the various versions of the Rules of the Internet: "All of your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Anything you say can be turned into something else [...]." Furthermore, any mistake made will be amplified far out of proportion to its real significance.
As the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. But that's exactly what they're doing. The arguments being made against them for which there can be a factual disproof (not being able to individually check each document may have just endangered informants and their families) requires resources Wikileaks does not have. The US government may not have to resort to black ops (as so many blood-lusting authoritarians seem to seek) to impair Wikileaks significantly, if not permanently: they could simply wait for it to starve.
Help for them will not come from any nation-state. It will not come from moneyed corporations or their wealthy officers and investors. Help will not come from existing large media outlets, unless they are somehow compelled to do so (see option #1 above). Help may not come from those who supported the organization before the press offensive but were offended by it. Help will only come from those of us who continue to support Wikileaks.
I should disclose that I myself have not (yet) donated to them. They've jumped to the head of the list, as I have either already donated to the other organizations, or the other organizations are not of the same significance as this. As with "public" radio in the US, every time I listen, I note to myself that I ought to donate to my local station, and yet I do not. I apparently choose to freeload. It's reinforced by the fact that others manage to give enough to cover the bills. Hopefully, I won't do the same thing with Wikileaks.
As for Amnesty International, an organization whose mission is also well worth supporting, I guess I can only say that the suffering of people living in Afghanistan is pretty much assured at this point, and it had nothing to do with Wikileaks up until this point, and it may yet have nothing to do with it, now or in the future, since AFAIK, no one's come forward with the evidence. If armed forces stay, more innocent bystanders will probably die, and this will cause more insurgency, and so on in that deadly cycle; if the armed forces leave, the Taliban may return with a vengeance, and they might just harbor terrorists again, but who knows?
(So, did I sound astroturf-y enough? I sure think I do. I also lost steam at the end.)
OK, so they'll make shit up to support bullshit positions. Who needs to bother with factual data, especially when they aren't made publicly available?
Re:So you are taking Economist seriously.
on
Behind Cyberwar FUD
·
· Score: 1
4chan is just the online manifestation of sociopathic forces which have been in effect for the entire existence of civilization. You're essentially stating your desire to stick your head in the sand, as the metaphor goes.
So, the government can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (prevent a same-sex couple from attaining the same marriage a differing-sex couple is entitled to), but a private-sector company cannot?
Personally, I blame the race to the bottom with RAM and flash, leading to the copious (mis)use of VxWorks. Especially when it comes to consumer routers, VxWorks doesn't.
Why would that go over diplomatic channels, which are probably already tapped by several countries? Wouldn't that go over some separate line of communication, or at least with some other kind of encryption?
Maybe I'm thinking too much about the image of actual physical cables, but certainly espionage doesn't use the same communication channel as diplomacy. That's just asking for disaster.
There need to be replacement development tools. There are many complex Flash animations which are worth watching, but the people who author them are not programmers, and they shouldn't need to be. I know there are SVG authoring tools, but do they work with animation?
I want Flash dead as much as the next Slashdotter, but I'm not sure the development tools needed to replace Adobe's are there.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Disregard foreign patents
2. Acquire patents for use against foreign firms
3. PROFIT!
Semantically, an unordered list would make more sense, but an ordered list fits my pattern of speech, so I chose to use it.
And funny, now it's rendering the numbers. Previously, it had displayed characters as if they were child posts folded up.
I don't see why using HTML5 now is a problem, with two major provisos:
Also, lol Slashdot for screwing up <ol> rendering?
I can't tell if this is a great troll or just someone misinformed. The CE "routers" don't need to do NAT in order to deny everything incoming except for established traffic and specific punched holes in the firewall.
The worst-case performance probably isn't appreciably worse than it is now, and the best-case performance is much better, so the average is probably at least a little bit better. Furthermore, getting code like this into more people's browsers can increase the accessibility of the technology for other sites. So even if it's a dead-end for Wikimedia, it's a potential boon to video sites.
Really, if it doesn't bother Wikimedia, the only ones bothered by it should be ISPs and content creators who want to be takedown-happy.
Didn't you read that this is a hybrid system? If there are no seeders, everything will come over HTTP.
Jeez, people really aren't even bothering to read even the summaries now.
What about the e+ memory? I heard that it's completely incompatible with the e-.
No, deduplication has quite a bit of policy attached to it. Sometimes you want multiple independent copies of a file (well, maybe not in a data center, but why should the filesystem know that?). The filesystem should store the data it's told to; leave the deduplication to higher layers of a system.
No, I think it's only for those who are distributing media in the format. Opera and Mozilla are still SOL if they don't want to pay to license the decoder. If that is the case, shame on the submitter for either not reading more closely or for being a tool.
I mean, it'll make for a good smear and a good show, but it just reeks of trolling for any kind of dirt, including something that just may not exist.
The class isn't testing your ability to play Portal. This would be a valid concern if grades depended on the time, step, or portal trials, but they clearly aren't. It would cheapen the experience, but there are already other ways of doing that for other sources.
You can deny all incoming TCP SYN segments and all incoming UDP and ICMP traffic if you so desire, then punch holes at the router's firewall when needed. This will give you essentially the same effect as NAT under IPv4. Also, use the privacy extensions of IPv6, whose random addresses on my machines last for about a day until being replaced, and are valid for incoming traffic for 6 days thereafter.
NAT is still a cancer upon networking. It partially intertwines mechanism and policy, which is a backwards step.
Wikileaks represents an externaliy of sorts. Sure, some nation-states provide essential freedoms with which it operates, but none of them are both willing and able to support it financially to correct for this externality, for the same reason that other nation-states are not able to use legal frameworks to control its spreading of information without severe repercussions for others unrelated to this matter. Therefore, Wikileaks have two strategies from which to choose to fund themselves:
1. Monetize the leaks, and
2. Solicit donations.
The first is probably too distasteful to them. I'm not sure I would support that either, though it would depend on how they implemented it. However, donations at their pre-Collateral Murder levels apparently could not support the site, as evidenced by the January shutdown of its archive of documents. They had no choice but to up the bet and make Really Big Deals out of something that no one could possibly ignore, and I think that they've found that right now, the big media players act according to rules not unlike the various versions of the Rules of the Internet: "All of your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Anything you say can be turned into something else [...]." Furthermore, any mistake made will be amplified far out of proportion to its real significance.
As the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. But that's exactly what they're doing. The arguments being made against them for which there can be a factual disproof (not being able to individually check each document may have just endangered informants and their families) requires resources Wikileaks does not have. The US government may not have to resort to black ops (as so many blood-lusting authoritarians seem to seek) to impair Wikileaks significantly, if not permanently: they could simply wait for it to starve.
Help for them will not come from any nation-state. It will not come from moneyed corporations or their wealthy officers and investors. Help will not come from existing large media outlets, unless they are somehow compelled to do so (see option #1 above). Help may not come from those who supported the organization before the press offensive but were offended by it. Help will only come from those of us who continue to support Wikileaks.
I should disclose that I myself have not (yet) donated to them. They've jumped to the head of the list, as I have either already donated to the other organizations, or the other organizations are not of the same significance as this. As with "public" radio in the US, every time I listen, I note to myself that I ought to donate to my local station, and yet I do not. I apparently choose to freeload. It's reinforced by the fact that others manage to give enough to cover the bills. Hopefully, I won't do the same thing with Wikileaks.
As for Amnesty International, an organization whose mission is also well worth supporting, I guess I can only say that the suffering of people living in Afghanistan is pretty much assured at this point, and it had nothing to do with Wikileaks up until this point, and it may yet have nothing to do with it, now or in the future, since AFAIK, no one's come forward with the evidence. If armed forces stay, more innocent bystanders will probably die, and this will cause more insurgency, and so on in that deadly cycle; if the armed forces leave, the Taliban may return with a vengeance, and they might just harbor terrorists again, but who knows?
(So, did I sound astroturf-y enough? I sure think I do. I also lost steam at the end.)
Well, at least you always have the option of querying the root servers directly. Surely they won't have this enabled.
quare? malo Latine loqui, tu gleba stolide!
Probably better (and more general) to go with caveat usor, "let the user beware".
OK, so they'll make shit up to support bullshit positions. Who needs to bother with factual data, especially when they aren't made publicly available?
4chan is just the online manifestation of sociopathic forces which have been in effect for the entire existence of civilization. You're essentially stating your desire to stick your head in the sand, as the metaphor goes.
So, the government can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (prevent a same-sex couple from attaining the same marriage a differing-sex couple is entitled to), but a private-sector company cannot?
Personally, I blame the race to the bottom with RAM and flash, leading to the copious (mis)use of VxWorks. Especially when it comes to consumer routers, VxWorks doesn't.
You mean, sort of how voting for President was supposed to work?
Please. The political machines rejected that a while ago.
I mean, among those who do care for Twitter.
Why would that go over diplomatic channels, which are probably already tapped by several countries? Wouldn't that go over some separate line of communication, or at least with some other kind of encryption?
Maybe I'm thinking too much about the image of actual physical cables, but certainly espionage doesn't use the same communication channel as diplomacy. That's just asking for disaster.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
He who speaks Latin is doomed to repeat it?
lol, but no. First of all, it should be "videtur". But it means "Whatever may be said in Latin seems profound."
There need to be replacement development tools. There are many complex Flash animations which are worth watching, but the people who author them are not programmers, and they shouldn't need to be. I know there are SVG authoring tools, but do they work with animation?
I want Flash dead as much as the next Slashdotter, but I'm not sure the development tools needed to replace Adobe's are there.