I strongly recommend "How to Win Friends and Influence People," especially the audiobook (use it for your commute time). It contains some very valuable suggestions as to how to deal with situations such as this so that a) everybody's happy, and b) you get what you want, too.
Of course there are. For years, the only decent next-gen smartphone was an iPhone, so everyone who wanted that type of device got an iPhone. Those who wanted something different are changing to Android, really the only other viable option. Few people wanted an iPhone but bought an Android device instead, so the movement isn't symmetrical.
Especially when Sony was one of the companies that Apple modeled itself on, right from the beginning; as is often the case, Apple's now doing it better than their role-model
I don't know about you, but I spend most of my day "pushing keys" and reading outputs while I develop software. Does that mean I could be automated? Some days, some time in the future, probably so. But not now.
The difference is that the original was funny, but yours was pedantic. Keep working on it, though, and it'll soon have that off-the-cuff refreshing 'improv' feel.
ALL the data he used came from telescopes, just because he's not the one who pressed the button to operate the 'scope doesn't mean one wasn't used. There really isn't any difference between looking at the output screen at the observatory and looking at a spreadsheet of that same data, you're still using the telescope.
The big difference is that, since telescopes can record that mass of data, now we can all use the telescope at once, all looking for something different. That's pretty cool.
And the headline was colloquially correct... he used public data that was recorded by the telescope, he neither owned nor directed the 'scope (nor did those who did have to even know that he existed). When you walk somewhere without using a car, do you mention to people that, well, in all honesty, trucks were used to pour the concrete that made the path on which you walked? Or do you design your sentence for a normal human being to understand the main point?
In fact, assuming that differences existed, being able to examine a single, signed file and determine that they were placed in there is probably more convenient than having to examine multiple files. Of course, you could distribute those multiple files in a signed archive, but that's basically what the PDF has become at this point.
Especially when the end-user is in Australia, using an DNS server that gives them an IP address for the initial communication that's in California. Then you have DNS:AU->US-CA->AU, HTTP:AU->US->AU(302), HTTP:AU->AU instead of DNS:AU->AU, HTTP:AU->AU. Now scale that up into the billions of requests, and there's some serious differences.
That's true. However they do require you to install quicktime in order to get the codecs, unless I'm missing something. And for whatever reason Apple insists on not using any native widgets. Which means that not only are you installing crapware, but it also looks ugly on top of that.
The widget thing is just stupid. Hell, last time I checked (a long time ago) Safari was doing its own text rendering on Windows. Bleah.
Of course, Firefox annoys me for the same reasons. Oddly enough, most/. users don't seem to include its GUI in their rants.
It's blacklisted in my router at the root domain level.
This advice from the guy who also claimed that his DNS is provided by Road Runner, but it goes down several times a day until resetting his personal router (or modem) fixes it.
And how exactly would that fix their DNS problems?
If your router stops passing DNS requests through to the RR servers, that's a defective router and you should get a new one. If they have central server issues, resetting your router won't fix them.
Your experience is not normal. If it was a central issue then all RR customers would have to be resetting their routers many times a day. I guarantee to you that this is not happening. Take in your modem/router and swap it for another one. You'll be much happier.
The point here is that routing a request to a server near the DNS server is fundamentally the wrong thing to do. You route to the server closest to the end user.
And how do you do that? After all, they've already made their request and you have to have something answer it. Sure, you could tell them to talk to someone else, but that's a potentially very slow bounce (at internet speeds). Aha! When they connect and ask for the file, that's actually the 2nd time they communicate with you. The first time they provide a string, an "address" so to speak, and ask machines that you control what IP address they should talk to. Perfect! That even has to be a separate request so we're not adding latency. You can figure out where they are through that lookup request, get their IP (or the IP of their immediate upstream, same thing for this purpose), and give them the best IP address for their 'net location.
Oh, that's what they're doing already? Yeah... maybe, just maybe, they're smarter than random/. armchair quarterbacks are at this. If you start routing your internet requests through geo-random proxies, services that try to help you based on your geolocation are going to be confused. There's no way around that. The fact that you're just proxying some of your traffic only means that just some services are going to be confused. Still your (collective) fault.
Google video chat, perhaps? Or maybe acknowledge that its fairly impossible to provide both 100% uptime and free video chat at the same time, without the resources of a major player behind you to promote goodwill?
Seriously, they were down for some percentage of the people for 1% of one year, during which time many competitive products were available. This is not an earth-shattering catastrophe.
Germany was ready for democracy, but it took western powers to deal with that tyrant.
It's not an error where you will have to musket opposing groups shooting it out. It's an era where when the people arise, the get squashed with helicopter, bombs, fire, machine guns and tanks.
People also need the tool. Contrary to what you seem to think, it's a complex issue.
Think about World War One for a moment. Then go back and re-read your first sentence. See what happened next?
And as soon as someone with the firepower does this "moral" duty, they get lambasted the world over for interfering, among other things. See the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which has removed a tyrant, but has gotten the U.S. more bad press than anything else. Hell, even if the U.S. just arms some locals, it gets ripped up in the press and then the locals will probably screw us over in the long run.
There's no nice way to go about this. Anyone who does dispose of despots ends up being vilified by the international community. Even still, you can't force an idea that's ahead of its time. See the quagmire that is democracy in Iraq. It's nice, but it needs a lot of help in order to remain upright.
Well, to be fair, part of the blame was that we put the tyrant in Iraq in the first place. Even if you agree that he was bad for Iraq, let's use a car analogy (since this is Slashdot): Your car has a flat tire. You're driving at 15mph, fucking up your rim, but moving slowly towards the repair shop. Someone in a nice shiny SUV swoops in, says, "Hey, your tire (that I sold you) is flat, let me fix that for you," bashes the wheel with a sledgehammer until it comes off (with part of your axle attached), gets back in the car, and drives away. If you want to include the occupation in the analogy, have them push your car with their SUV for a mile or so, fucking up your undercarriage and back bumper, before driving off.
How would you like it if China swapped out our leaders because of our lack of interest in the compelling world-overpopulation issue, something that concerns them as much as oil concerns us? Kinda suck, wouldn't it? Or is this another policy that's only correct as long as its us doing it?
Unsurprisingly, the principle of supporting a democracy doesn't seem to appear in their analysis. And maybe some part of the State Department - not the part that pays public lip service for PR purposes - did support democracy. Unless Assange is successful in helping to usher in a new era of government transparency, I will never know what my government did on my behalf with my money.
That happens a lot. Supporting foreign democracies has to include supporting leaders we don't like, or its nothing but a big sham. The case your referenced above (very interesting, by the way) reminded me of Palestine's election of Hamas leaders in 2006. Nobody there was claiming that they hadn't followed the democratic process, just that we didn't like the results. Bleah.
What happened was Anti-American. Not Anti-Democracy. People need to stop using Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, and other similar terms as synonyms for America.
Well said, sir. And I believe correct on both counts.
Regrettably, other countries have the right to exist and to do things their way - meaning, in a way not pleasing to the United States. Saying that someone has a right to do whatever they want but only if its something you want them to do isn't much of a right.
Either Mugabe is a rightful head of state and should be respected as such, or we should 'honestly' and openly invade. Or declare Zimbabwe to be a vassal state of the US over the (presumed) will of its people. Sure, this is an easy case to point to, but when it comes to other people's rights to be different, its worth observing these things in extremis as well as when its easy (similar to the ACLU defending the KKK's right to proclaim their opposition to others' civil liberties).
And in fact, to turn it around, let's say that the Speaker of the House was found to be taking direction from, say, Saudi Arabia. Even if it was designed to result in free oil for everyone for life, wouldn't you, as a citizen, want to know about it? Assuming you're from the US, of course. That's no different than always assuming that what's right for one strong country must therefore be right for other, weaker countries.
Regrettably, other countries have the right to exist and to do things their way - meaning, in a way not pleasing to the United States. Saying that someone has a right to do whatever they want but only if its something you want them to do isn't much of a right.
Either Mugabe is a rightful head of state and should be respected as such, or we should 'honestly' and openly invade. Or declare Zimbabwe to be a vassal state of the US over the (presumed) will of its people. Sure, this is an easy case to point to, but when it comes to other people's rights to be different, its worth observing these things in extremis as well as when its easy (similar to the ACLU defending the KKK's right to proclaim their opposition to others' civil liberties).
It's been a while since I even thought about this, but I thought (at least in Canada), you could simply write to the publisher and get an educational exemption for reproducing lyrics. My elementary school choir had to do this.
What makes you think that a similar option isn't available in this case? Its quite possible that asking nicely would get them the right to reproduce the sheet music; that fact, even the if the permission was always granted, doesn't absolve them of the requirement to ask.
Besides, isn't kindergarten all about saying please and thank you?
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly because it wasn't being pointed out in language they could understand (for example, financials)?
I strongly recommend "How to Win Friends and Influence People," especially the audiobook (use it for your commute time). It contains some very valuable suggestions as to how to deal with situations such as this so that a) everybody's happy, and b) you get what you want, too.
Of course there are. For years, the only decent next-gen smartphone was an iPhone, so everyone who wanted that type of device got an iPhone. Those who wanted something different are changing to Android, really the only other viable option. Few people wanted an iPhone but bought an Android device instead, so the movement isn't symmetrical.
Especially when Sony was one of the companies that Apple modeled itself on, right from the beginning; as is often the case, Apple's now doing it better than their role-model
I don't know about you, but I spend most of my day "pushing keys" and reading outputs while I develop software. Does that mean I could be automated? Some days, some time in the future, probably so. But not now.
How 'bout yourself?
The difference is that the original was funny, but yours was pedantic. Keep working on it, though, and it'll soon have that off-the-cuff refreshing 'improv' feel.
ALL the data he used came from telescopes, just because he's not the one who pressed the button to operate the 'scope doesn't mean one wasn't used. There really isn't any difference between looking at the output screen at the observatory and looking at a spreadsheet of that same data, you're still using the telescope.
The big difference is that, since telescopes can record that mass of data, now we can all use the telescope at once, all looking for something different. That's pretty cool.
And the headline was colloquially correct... he used public data that was recorded by the telescope, he neither owned nor directed the 'scope (nor did those who did have to even know that he existed). When you walk somewhere without using a car, do you mention to people that, well, in all honesty, trucks were used to pour the concrete that made the path on which you walked? Or do you design your sentence for a normal human being to understand the main point?
In fact, assuming that differences existed, being able to examine a single, signed file and determine that they were placed in there is probably more convenient than having to examine multiple files. Of course, you could distribute those multiple files in a signed archive, but that's basically what the PDF has become at this point.
Then how does resetting your router "fix" the problem, if the problem's on their servers?
Especially when the end-user is in Australia, using an DNS server that gives them an IP address for the initial communication that's in California. Then you have DNS:AU->US-CA->AU, HTTP:AU->US->AU(302), HTTP:AU->AU instead of DNS:AU->AU, HTTP:AU->AU. Now scale that up into the billions of requests, and there's some serious differences.
That's true. However they do require you to install quicktime in order to get the codecs, unless I'm missing something. And for whatever reason Apple insists on not using any native widgets. Which means that not only are you installing crapware, but it also looks ugly on top of that.
The widget thing is just stupid. Hell, last time I checked (a long time ago) Safari was doing its own text rendering on Windows. Bleah.
Of course, Firefox annoys me for the same reasons. Oddly enough, most /. users don't seem to include its GUI in their rants.
It's blacklisted in my router at the root domain level.
This advice from the guy who also claimed that his DNS is provided by Road Runner, but it goes down several times a day until resetting his personal router (or modem) fixes it.
Sure.
I'm with Anonymous Coward on this one.
And how exactly would that fix their DNS problems?
If your router stops passing DNS requests through to the RR servers, that's a defective router and you should get a new one. If they have central server issues, resetting your router won't fix them.
Your experience is not normal. If it was a central issue then all RR customers would have to be resetting their routers many times a day. I guarantee to you that this is not happening. Take in your modem/router and swap it for another one. You'll be much happier.
I dunno. You can unscrew a malfunction indicator lamp without affecting your family too much.
So was FooBarWidget, these days.
The point here is that routing a request to a server near the DNS server is fundamentally the wrong thing to do. You route to the server closest to the end user.
And how do you do that? After all, they've already made their request and you have to have something answer it. Sure, you could tell them to talk to someone else, but that's a potentially very slow bounce (at internet speeds). Aha! When they connect and ask for the file, that's actually the 2nd time they communicate with you. The first time they provide a string, an "address" so to speak, and ask machines that you control what IP address they should talk to. Perfect! That even has to be a separate request so we're not adding latency. You can figure out where they are through that lookup request, get their IP (or the IP of their immediate upstream, same thing for this purpose), and give them the best IP address for their 'net location.
Oh, that's what they're doing already? Yeah... maybe, just maybe, they're smarter than random /. armchair quarterbacks are at this. If you start routing your internet requests through geo-random proxies, services that try to help you based on your geolocation are going to be confused. There's no way around that. The fact that you're just proxying some of your traffic only means that just some services are going to be confused. Still your (collective) fault.
And FWIW according to their blog, their commercial service didn't experience any outages whatsoever.
Google video chat, perhaps? Or maybe acknowledge that its fairly impossible to provide both 100% uptime and free video chat at the same time, without the resources of a major player behind you to promote goodwill?
Seriously, they were down for some percentage of the people for 1% of one year, during which time many competitive products were available. This is not an earth-shattering catastrophe.
Germany was ready for democracy, but it took western powers to deal with that tyrant.
It's not an error where you will have to musket opposing groups shooting it out. It's an era where when the people arise, the get squashed with helicopter, bombs, fire, machine guns and tanks.
People also need the tool. Contrary to what you seem to think, it's a complex issue.
Think about World War One for a moment. Then go back and re-read your first sentence. See what happened next?
And as soon as someone with the firepower does this "moral" duty, they get lambasted the world over for interfering, among other things. See the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which has removed a tyrant, but has gotten the U.S. more bad press than anything else. Hell, even if the U.S. just arms some locals, it gets ripped up in the press and then the locals will probably screw us over in the long run.
There's no nice way to go about this. Anyone who does dispose of despots ends up being vilified by the international community. Even still, you can't force an idea that's ahead of its time. See the quagmire that is democracy in Iraq. It's nice, but it needs a lot of help in order to remain upright.
Well, to be fair, part of the blame was that we put the tyrant in Iraq in the first place. Even if you agree that he was bad for Iraq, let's use a car analogy (since this is Slashdot): Your car has a flat tire. You're driving at 15mph, fucking up your rim, but moving slowly towards the repair shop. Someone in a nice shiny SUV swoops in, says, "Hey, your tire (that I sold you) is flat, let me fix that for you," bashes the wheel with a sledgehammer until it comes off (with part of your axle attached), gets back in the car, and drives away. If you want to include the occupation in the analogy, have them push your car with their SUV for a mile or so, fucking up your undercarriage and back bumper, before driving off.
How would you like it if China swapped out our leaders because of our lack of interest in the compelling world-overpopulation issue, something that concerns them as much as oil concerns us? Kinda suck, wouldn't it? Or is this another policy that's only correct as long as its us doing it?
Unsurprisingly, the principle of supporting a democracy doesn't seem to appear in their analysis. And maybe some part of the State Department - not the part that pays public lip service for PR purposes - did support democracy. Unless Assange is successful in helping to usher in a new era of government transparency, I will never know what my government did on my behalf with my money.
That happens a lot. Supporting foreign democracies has to include supporting leaders we don't like, or its nothing but a big sham. The case your referenced above (very interesting, by the way) reminded me of Palestine's election of Hamas leaders in 2006. Nobody there was claiming that they hadn't followed the democratic process, just that we didn't like the results. Bleah.
What happened was Anti-American. Not Anti-Democracy. People need to stop using Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, and other similar terms as synonyms for America.
Well said, sir. And I believe correct on both counts.
Regrettably, other countries have the right to exist and to do things their way - meaning, in a way not pleasing to the United States. Saying that someone has a right to do whatever they want but only if its something you want them to do isn't much of a right.
Either Mugabe is a rightful head of state and should be respected as such, or we should 'honestly' and openly invade. Or declare Zimbabwe to be a vassal state of the US over the (presumed) will of its people. Sure, this is an easy case to point to, but when it comes to other people's rights to be different, its worth observing these things in extremis as well as when its easy (similar to the ACLU defending the KKK's right to proclaim their opposition to others' civil liberties).
And in fact, to turn it around, let's say that the Speaker of the House was found to be taking direction from, say, Saudi Arabia. Even if it was designed to result in free oil for everyone for life, wouldn't you, as a citizen, want to know about it? Assuming you're from the US, of course. That's no different than always assuming that what's right for one strong country must therefore be right for other, weaker countries.
Regrettably, other countries have the right to exist and to do things their way - meaning, in a way not pleasing to the United States. Saying that someone has a right to do whatever they want but only if its something you want them to do isn't much of a right.
Either Mugabe is a rightful head of state and should be respected as such, or we should 'honestly' and openly invade. Or declare Zimbabwe to be a vassal state of the US over the (presumed) will of its people. Sure, this is an easy case to point to, but when it comes to other people's rights to be different, its worth observing these things in extremis as well as when its easy (similar to the ACLU defending the KKK's right to proclaim their opposition to others' civil liberties).
It's been a while since I even thought about this, but I thought (at least in Canada), you could simply write to the publisher and get an educational exemption for reproducing lyrics. My elementary school choir had to do this.
What makes you think that a similar option isn't available in this case? Its quite possible that asking nicely would get them the right to reproduce the sheet music; that fact, even the if the permission was always granted, doesn't absolve them of the requirement to ask.
Besides, isn't kindergarten all about saying please and thank you?