IIRC the GPL only stipulates that you provide the source code to whoever you give the binaries to. If they don't release it to the public, then they don't have to release the source to the public either.
Well it's not just the managers. At my work, we have a cisco UCS rack that we simply refer to as a cloud server.
But really for anybody who doesn't understand technology, it helps when you give them simpler terms.
If I talk to somebody who isn't versed in networking about VTP, STP, RSTP VLAN's, BPDU's, MAC addresses, CAM tables, or any other layer 2 switching term, they aren't going to know what the hell I'm talking about, much less care. Instead I'll just use the magic term "LAN".
More governments arguing for control over the internet is better than just having one government and fewer people deciding,
I disagree. The great thing about democracy is that we all get a say in how we run the government, and we can even do things like set rules that apply to one group, but not necessarily another, and people in general are fine with that. However that is also the biggest problem with democracy.
Communication is one area where democracy would ultimately fail.
- Imagine having a courtroom without a judge. Who would decide who gets to speak and when?
- Imagine if we had more than one FCC within the US. It would be extremely difficult for radio communications to function, because people would always be trying to speak over one another on any given band.
In these types of situations, you need either a dictator or an oligarchy.
The internet is just another medium of communications. The US's current approach is to let everybody speak about whatever they want, so long as they speak from whatever corner of the internet that they are assigned to.
The UN wants control for no other reason than that they want to change the status quo and add restrictions. Personally, I think the status quo of the internet is good. The UN on the other hand frequently talks about censoring hate speech. Hate speech is a pretty vague term. Who gets to decide what is hate speech? If you make a joke about mohammed, for good or for malign, the muslim countries will call that hate speech.
Instead of "cloud" all the time, can't we switch it up with "on the internet"?
Personally I think usage of the term cloud is relevant when you're talking about using a single service that isn't run or sourced from one single machine (or even a few) but several. Or even from one physical machine machine or rack running literally hundreds of hypervisors. Especially when you bring anycast into the mix, because at that point (in the case of the google docs real-time collaboration) your peers don't ever exchange packets directly, or even exchange packets with the same server.
When any of the above apply, the term "server" doesn't quite seem to fit, because you aren't exactly interacting with any particular server. This is where the word cloud fits just perfectly in my opinion.
Disclaimer: I am a network engineer. That may make me have a different viewpoint than the people who write software (which I think is the majority of slashdot.)
Actually Bush still owns that ranch. And I think that if he wanted to make his ranch a political topic, he probably would have advertised somewhere that it is designed with immense energy efficiency in mind, which is in stark contrast to Al Gore's house:
Bush actually had it designed that way prior to the 2000 election. I think if he wanted to make a political issue out of that house, either he, or somebody in his campaign, would have pointed that out when Al Gore's primary selling point against Bush was that he is an environmentalist.
It's pretty common to believe that no central source can control the internet - and it's true for the most part - with one major exception: IANA ultimately answers to the US Department of Commerce.
In order for the internet to function, there has to be a central authority who determines who gets what IP addresses and domain names. That authority is under the control of the US. Sure you could create your own internets (yes, plural) with your own name and number rules, however if you can't all agree upon who gets what IP address blocks and domain names, you aren't going to have a very cohesive and universal network like the one we have today.
Honestly, I am perfectly fine with the US having control over that, and in fact would much rather they hold the keys rather than the UN. If the UN had their way, that would mean countries who have heavy influence of the UN (e.g. China) would have their way.
So far, the US has done a great job. Sure, we've had talks about filtering the internet (e.g. SOPA) many times, but unlike 90% of the other countries out there (Australia, UK, Germany, China, Iran, just to name a few,) we haven't acted upon any of them. Granted, we have taken extraordinary and unnecessary if not unethical measures, such as taking down megaupload, we didn't do so by ordering IANA to break the infrastructure.
The best thing about the US having control, is that we've never done anything to dismantle the infrastructure in the name of politics. The UN wants control because they plan on doing exactly that.
I'm relatively healthy actually. I served in the Army for a while, and while there I learned a thing or two about staying fit. I also have health insurance.
And speak of being brainwashed - on the contrary, socialism requires being brainwashed. If you notice, every time a populace has been converted to communism, it requires violence and re-education camps; in other words, brainwashing (not to mention also being forced to do free labor.) When the communist government falls and no longer enforces communism, the populace naturally reverts to capitalism peacefully.
If the government is paying for your health care, that choice is no longer yours.
They aren't paying for my health care, so the choice is mine.
And that argument is as good as any for keeping private health care. Once the government pays for your well being, then they have that much more reason to tell you how you should live in order to keep their costs down.
Given that there already exists voter apathy for elections in general (namely, most people can't be bothered to vote on election day) how will you instate a balance between the vocal minority from the silent majority?
In the legislative process, multiple bills are being debated and voted upon at any given time, and most people aren't going to bother reading each and every one of them, because to do so would be really time consuming, and that isn't their job (but as a legislator, it is your job.) That said, how are you going to account for people who just vote based on the summary of the bill without actually understanding all of the implications? And further, how do you account for people (who may often be the majority) who want things to go one way, but simply don't participate due to either a lack of time, or other issues?
Problem with mac is when you want to run windows, you have that annoying single button trackpad. Granted, using an external mouse fixes that problem, sometimes you just want to carry the laptop and nothing else.
This is just a giant hand-out -- to some buddy, no doubt. Bush had Haliburton to hand sweet deals to and Obama has... whoever.
Actually Obama frequently gives no-bid contracts to Haliburton, and so did Clinton. In fact there were a few times that Haliburton lost in a bid proposal but Clinton still gave them the contract anyways. In fact, Haliburton is crediting the Obama administration for recently having record breaking revenue last quarter.
The only reason Haliburton got a bad name under Bush is because Dick Cheney happened to own stock in Haliburton (which he sold early on during the Bush years.)
Don't kid yourself, you aren't talking actual economics. Housing has never been a major economic force except during the housing bubble. If no houses were built in the next 20 years the effect to the economy would be trivial.
One thing to consider is that in the last 20 years, warfare has changed dramatically. The enemy doesn't even have an army so to speak, there's a rather blurry line between what counts as a civilian and an enemy combatant.
Take for example, what do you do with e.g. a mother of three who actively sends a warning to somebody waiting around the corner with an RPG ready to fire at an incoming HMMWV? Yeah technically she had no weapons, but she was obviously taking part in the battle.
But that's not the only problem. A huge number of these so called "enemy combatants" (because again, they don't even wear a uniform) use their children or wives as shields because they know they are less likely to be fired upon or have a grenade lobbed at them.
Worse is that even though they break every geneva convention rule in the book, we still have to treat them as if they were a legitimate enemy army (despite popular leftist opinion, guantanamo IS legal under geneva.)
Get a router compatible with tomato firmware, install tomato, and then install rpcapd on it (no need to compile from source, there are standalone binaries out there compiled for your router's CPU). Then use wireshark to monitor and capture the traffic. After that you can take your pick of software to parse the pcap files.
Well, guess what? It's funded by taxpayers, so unless there's a damn good reason not to (and no, the circular reason of it being "top-secret" is not a good reason), it should be public domain.
One of the most fundamental military strategies is having advantages over the enemy. How can you have an advantage if they know everything you know? Sorry but you're in serious need of a reality check.
Yes, life is unfair, as your sig indicates.
Nature is anarchy in nature. Civilization is not.
Actually, yes. Contracting IT to the lowest bidder is a big problem with government data security. It really doesn't help that those who discover security vulnerabilities are severely punished for it, though.
The government has had leaks where no private entities were involved in the process at all. No contractors, just pure government projects.
Oh and by the way, just to clarify one thing with regard to intellectual property: I do actually pirate movies and tv shows, but it's not a matter of getting them for free, rather it's the distribution system sucks. I actually pay for usenet access and pay for a faster broadband connection in order to download from usenet faster (whereas if proper streaming was available I'd probably subscribe to a lower speed tier.)
If the entertainment industry provided a universal (as in one website, rather than going to crackr for sony BMG shows, amazon for others, and then netflix for yet more) and it was DRM free so that I could watch them in my preferred player, XBMC, I'd probably pay for that instead.
I'm concerned about cybersecurity, but I'm not concerned about cyber threats translating to physical threats, but rather economic threats, and they are very much real.
Namely, getting my identity stolen or having US technology secrets getting stolen by somebody who hasn't invested the R&D into it. Namely, 50 years of NASA research being stolen, which has already happened.
I'm sure there are many slashdotters out there who believe that tech secrets should be free, but I don't think so. When you put effort into a project, only to have somebody else rip off your idea and implement it with none of that cost, and therefore they can implement it cheaper than you can, making your entire effort go to waste, is really underhanded and in my opinion unfair.
And before somebody says getting your identity stolen is only the result of your own stupidity, think again. It's often necessary for you to give out important personal information in order to do business. And even in spite of their best efforts to keep their systems secure, even if they made all of the right choices and didn't let their security practices laps, zero day vulnerabilities always manage to show up.
For these reasons, I think cybersecurity should definitely be a concern.
Most of them do not get around the 4:2:2 chroma subsampling though. That's basically where your TV only displays half of the proper color resolution. It will look fine for the most part (for example, black text on a white background will look fine,) but you'll notice some colors tend to smudge with other colors. It gets particularly bad when you try to calibrate it on a site like lagom.nl, whereas if it doesn't do 4:4:4 chroma subsampling, you won't even pass half of the tests on that page, and it's basically impossible to calibrate.
As I described in an earlier post, you can get most Samsung TV's to do this. It's a bit iffy on other brands as to whether or not you do this, most brands can't at all. Sony is particularly bad at this.
Samsung TV's can get around the 4:2:2 problem if you set them to PC mode and use HDMI input 1. I use a Samsung 46" TV as my computer monitor. I'm really picky about details too, but it gets it right.
If everyone would just man up and cause their chosen career fields to be in very high demand
I chose my career field based on demand. There are actually many things that interest me, this one just happens to have the best return on investment. I also considered going into law, either that or becoming a surgeon. I may even move on to those things later, either that or go get an MBA.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC the GPL only stipulates that you provide the source code to whoever you give the binaries to. If they don't release it to the public, then they don't have to release the source to the public either.
The fiber itself isn't very much, but it is costly to terminate it.
And it will cost a lot more without providing much of a realizable benefit.
Well it's not just the managers. At my work, we have a cisco UCS rack that we simply refer to as a cloud server.
But really for anybody who doesn't understand technology, it helps when you give them simpler terms.
If I talk to somebody who isn't versed in networking about VTP, STP, RSTP VLAN's, BPDU's, MAC addresses, CAM tables, or any other layer 2 switching term, they aren't going to know what the hell I'm talking about, much less care. Instead I'll just use the magic term "LAN".
More governments arguing for control over the internet is better than just having one government and fewer people deciding,
I disagree. The great thing about democracy is that we all get a say in how we run the government, and we can even do things like set rules that apply to one group, but not necessarily another, and people in general are fine with that. However that is also the biggest problem with democracy.
Communication is one area where democracy would ultimately fail.
- Imagine having a courtroom without a judge. Who would decide who gets to speak and when?
- Imagine if we had more than one FCC within the US. It would be extremely difficult for radio communications to function, because people would always be trying to speak over one another on any given band.
In these types of situations, you need either a dictator or an oligarchy.
The internet is just another medium of communications. The US's current approach is to let everybody speak about whatever they want, so long as they speak from whatever corner of the internet that they are assigned to.
The UN wants control for no other reason than that they want to change the status quo and add restrictions. Personally, I think the status quo of the internet is good. The UN on the other hand frequently talks about censoring hate speech. Hate speech is a pretty vague term. Who gets to decide what is hate speech? If you make a joke about mohammed, for good or for malign, the muslim countries will call that hate speech.
Instead of "cloud" all the time, can't we switch it up with "on the internet"?
Personally I think usage of the term cloud is relevant when you're talking about using a single service that isn't run or sourced from one single machine (or even a few) but several. Or even from one physical machine machine or rack running literally hundreds of hypervisors. Especially when you bring anycast into the mix, because at that point (in the case of the google docs real-time collaboration) your peers don't ever exchange packets directly, or even exchange packets with the same server.
When any of the above apply, the term "server" doesn't quite seem to fit, because you aren't exactly interacting with any particular server. This is where the word cloud fits just perfectly in my opinion.
Disclaimer: I am a network engineer. That may make me have a different viewpoint than the people who write software (which I think is the majority of slashdot.)
Actually Bush still owns that ranch. And I think that if he wanted to make his ranch a political topic, he probably would have advertised somewhere that it is designed with immense energy efficiency in mind, which is in stark contrast to Al Gore's house:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Bush actually had it designed that way prior to the 2000 election. I think if he wanted to make a political issue out of that house, either he, or somebody in his campaign, would have pointed that out when Al Gore's primary selling point against Bush was that he is an environmentalist.
It's pretty common to believe that no central source can control the internet - and it's true for the most part - with one major exception: IANA ultimately answers to the US Department of Commerce.
In order for the internet to function, there has to be a central authority who determines who gets what IP addresses and domain names. That authority is under the control of the US. Sure you could create your own internets (yes, plural) with your own name and number rules, however if you can't all agree upon who gets what IP address blocks and domain names, you aren't going to have a very cohesive and universal network like the one we have today.
Honestly, I am perfectly fine with the US having control over that, and in fact would much rather they hold the keys rather than the UN. If the UN had their way, that would mean countries who have heavy influence of the UN (e.g. China) would have their way.
So far, the US has done a great job. Sure, we've had talks about filtering the internet (e.g. SOPA) many times, but unlike 90% of the other countries out there (Australia, UK, Germany, China, Iran, just to name a few,) we haven't acted upon any of them. Granted, we have taken extraordinary and unnecessary if not unethical measures, such as taking down megaupload, we didn't do so by ordering IANA to break the infrastructure.
The best thing about the US having control, is that we've never done anything to dismantle the infrastructure in the name of politics. The UN wants control because they plan on doing exactly that.
I'm relatively healthy actually. I served in the Army for a while, and while there I learned a thing or two about staying fit. I also have health insurance.
And speak of being brainwashed - on the contrary, socialism requires being brainwashed. If you notice, every time a populace has been converted to communism, it requires violence and re-education camps; in other words, brainwashing (not to mention also being forced to do free labor.) When the communist government falls and no longer enforces communism, the populace naturally reverts to capitalism peacefully.
If the government is paying for your health care, that choice is no longer yours.
They aren't paying for my health care, so the choice is mine.
And that argument is as good as any for keeping private health care. Once the government pays for your well being, then they have that much more reason to tell you how you should live in order to keep their costs down.
Given that there already exists voter apathy for elections in general (namely, most people can't be bothered to vote on election day) how will you instate a balance between the vocal minority from the silent majority?
In the legislative process, multiple bills are being debated and voted upon at any given time, and most people aren't going to bother reading each and every one of them, because to do so would be really time consuming, and that isn't their job (but as a legislator, it is your job.) That said, how are you going to account for people who just vote based on the summary of the bill without actually understanding all of the implications? And further, how do you account for people (who may often be the majority) who want things to go one way, but simply don't participate due to either a lack of time, or other issues?
Problem with mac is when you want to run windows, you have that annoying single button trackpad. Granted, using an external mouse fixes that problem, sometimes you just want to carry the laptop and nothing else.
Echostar is a much larger company than sonicblue was, so I think they'd have a correspondingly stronger legal muscle.
This is just a giant hand-out -- to some buddy, no doubt. Bush had Haliburton to hand sweet deals to and Obama has... whoever.
Actually Obama frequently gives no-bid contracts to Haliburton, and so did Clinton. In fact there were a few times that Haliburton lost in a bid proposal but Clinton still gave them the contract anyways. In fact, Haliburton is crediting the Obama administration for recently having record breaking revenue last quarter.
The only reason Haliburton got a bad name under Bush is because Dick Cheney happened to own stock in Haliburton (which he sold early on during the Bush years.)
Don't kid yourself, you aren't talking actual economics. Housing has never been a major economic force except during the housing bubble. If no houses were built in the next 20 years the effect to the economy would be trivial.
[citation needed]
One thing to consider is that in the last 20 years, warfare has changed dramatically. The enemy doesn't even have an army so to speak, there's a rather blurry line between what counts as a civilian and an enemy combatant.
Take for example, what do you do with e.g. a mother of three who actively sends a warning to somebody waiting around the corner with an RPG ready to fire at an incoming HMMWV? Yeah technically she had no weapons, but she was obviously taking part in the battle.
But that's not the only problem. A huge number of these so called "enemy combatants" (because again, they don't even wear a uniform) use their children or wives as shields because they know they are less likely to be fired upon or have a grenade lobbed at them.
Worse is that even though they break every geneva convention rule in the book, we still have to treat them as if they were a legitimate enemy army (despite popular leftist opinion, guantanamo IS legal under geneva.)
Get a router compatible with tomato firmware, install tomato, and then install rpcapd on it (no need to compile from source, there are standalone binaries out there compiled for your router's CPU). Then use wireshark to monitor and capture the traffic. After that you can take your pick of software to parse the pcap files.
Probably Vietnam next actually. Vietnam is becoming to China what China is to the US.
Well, guess what? It's funded by taxpayers, so unless there's a damn good reason not to (and no, the circular reason of it being "top-secret" is not a good reason), it should be public domain.
One of the most fundamental military strategies is having advantages over the enemy. How can you have an advantage if they know everything you know? Sorry but you're in serious need of a reality check.
Yes, life is unfair, as your sig indicates.
Nature is anarchy in nature. Civilization is not.
Actually, yes. Contracting IT to the lowest bidder is a big problem with government data security. It really doesn't help that those who discover security vulnerabilities are severely punished for it, though.
The government has had leaks where no private entities were involved in the process at all. No contractors, just pure government projects.
Stolen? NASA is a public entity, and its advances should rightly be part of the public domain.
I'm sure the US military would disagree that it's technological secrets should belong to the public domain.
Lots of things in life are unfair.
That's why we have laws to keep things fair. Would you think its fair if a burglar robbed your house, and you had no legal recourse?
It is often the shoddy security practices of banks (yay deregulation!) that allow massive overseas transfers to happen in the first place.
I'm sure deregulation has a lot to do with the government's own security practices when they have data leaks as well, right?
Oh and by the way, just to clarify one thing with regard to intellectual property: I do actually pirate movies and tv shows, but it's not a matter of getting them for free, rather it's the distribution system sucks. I actually pay for usenet access and pay for a faster broadband connection in order to download from usenet faster (whereas if proper streaming was available I'd probably subscribe to a lower speed tier.)
If the entertainment industry provided a universal (as in one website, rather than going to crackr for sony BMG shows, amazon for others, and then netflix for yet more) and it was DRM free so that I could watch them in my preferred player, XBMC, I'd probably pay for that instead.
I'm concerned about cybersecurity, but I'm not concerned about cyber threats translating to physical threats, but rather economic threats, and they are very much real.
Namely, getting my identity stolen or having US technology secrets getting stolen by somebody who hasn't invested the R&D into it. Namely, 50 years of NASA research being stolen, which has already happened.
I'm sure there are many slashdotters out there who believe that tech secrets should be free, but I don't think so. When you put effort into a project, only to have somebody else rip off your idea and implement it with none of that cost, and therefore they can implement it cheaper than you can, making your entire effort go to waste, is really underhanded and in my opinion unfair.
And before somebody says getting your identity stolen is only the result of your own stupidity, think again. It's often necessary for you to give out important personal information in order to do business. And even in spite of their best efforts to keep their systems secure, even if they made all of the right choices and didn't let their security practices laps, zero day vulnerabilities always manage to show up.
For these reasons, I think cybersecurity should definitely be a concern.
Most of them do not get around the 4:2:2 chroma subsampling though. That's basically where your TV only displays half of the proper color resolution. It will look fine for the most part (for example, black text on a white background will look fine,) but you'll notice some colors tend to smudge with other colors. It gets particularly bad when you try to calibrate it on a site like lagom.nl, whereas if it doesn't do 4:4:4 chroma subsampling, you won't even pass half of the tests on that page, and it's basically impossible to calibrate.
As I described in an earlier post, you can get most Samsung TV's to do this. It's a bit iffy on other brands as to whether or not you do this, most brands can't at all. Sony is particularly bad at this.
Samsung TV's can get around the 4:2:2 problem if you set them to PC mode and use HDMI input 1. I use a Samsung 46" TV as my computer monitor. I'm really picky about details too, but it gets it right.
If everyone would just man up and cause their chosen career fields to be in very high demand
I chose my career field based on demand. There are actually many things that interest me, this one just happens to have the best return on investment. I also considered going into law, either that or becoming a surgeon. I may even move on to those things later, either that or go get an MBA.