Huh, you mean like using force to exclude people from the enjoyment of natural resources the rights to which they did not willingly forfeit? That's what property is, young feller.
Terminal.app is what I work in every day (well, okay, actually I have my own version that works better, but you get the point.)
For nostalgia, I hack on my Scheme compiler. I just don't feel much longing for old obsolete systems; Scheme is pleasant nostalgia because I still think of it as relevant—even though nobody's using it at the moment, a lot of ideas pioneered by scheme are in wide use, e.g. in Javascript. But Scheme is a much better language than Javascript.
It doesn't matter where they were invented. What matters is who is making them. TVs haven't been made in America this century. I don't personally begrudge Chinese or Japanese workers the opportunity to make a living, but let's not pretend that the fact that some American invented something more than half a century ago means anything about life in America now.
Actually, this builds on a bunch of work done by Apple, who have been shipping IPv6 support for quite a long time. All of your bonjour are belong to IPv6, for example, and if you have a Time Capsule or Airport Extreme, that supports IPv6 as well. Apple got a bit burned a while back because they enabled 6to4 by default, so at this point I'd say they have a fair amount of street cred in the IPv6 home gateway space.
Eh? The IPv6 model hasn't been presented anywhere as "not good enough for the home." The problem is that IPv4 home gateways evolved kind of in the same way that layers of barnacles evolve, and we'd like it if IPv6 home gateways had a standard they could check off on their feature list that actually meant something. You know, "Supports RFC8192," where RFC8192 specifies behavior that will work well in the home environment, and won't invalidate all the work that's been done to date to make IPv6 an actual improvement over IPv4.
Sure, except for all the things you can't do with it, because you don't have end-to-end connectivity. But you don't know about those things, because nobody is selling those products, because they don't work, because everybody's home gateway boxes break end-to-end connectivity. Anyway, based on your use of idiom, I suspect you live in the U.S., or possibly Canada, so you will be able to continue using IPv4 at least until your current set of networked devices wears out and stops working. The world on the whole is quite a bit different that it might seem from where you are sitting—there are places where an IPv6 address is going to be a *lot* more useful than an IPv4 address, in the very near future. Not your problem, but still work worth doing.
The idea is to come up with a standard for what home routers for IPv6 ought to look like. We'd like to preserve end-to-end transparency, which current home routers break, but at the same time we'd like to avoid creating serious security risks for people who are accustomed to the current home router security model. Support for things like DNSSEC and multihoming are also on the proposed charter.
When you can externalize all your risk, your apparent cost per kilowatt goes way down. Ask the Japanese what their cost per kilowatt, including the cost of the Fukushima meltdowns is. The problem is that when you externalize risk, the risk doesn't just magically go away. If nuclear were really economical, the public wouldn't have to offer loans to build the plants, and wouldn't have to assume liability for accidents.
Dude, you seem to have flown off the handle. I am saying that if someone sells a product that has to be jailbroken to have certain desirable functionality, and someone else sells a similar product that does not need to be jailbroken to provide that same functionality, people who want that functionality and don't want the hassle of jailbreaking (which, let's be honest, is most people), are going to buy the product that does not require jailbreaking, and thereby save themselves a lot of trouble.
You seem to be in the segment of the market that gets a kick out of jailbreaking, and more power to you. But I'm not in that market segment—I do not want a jailbroken device. I would up switching to Android instead of buying an iPhone 4 precisely so that I could get a device that will run a stock development kernel without jailbreaking. If I could have gotten the same functionality out of the iPhone 4, I would have gotten an iPhone 4. That's what market differentiation _is_.
Right, remember the original topic? WebOS's competitiveness? The question is whether HP is that other company. But in fact, lots of companies have done well with sub-brands. Consider the BMW M-series, for instance, or Toyota's "Lexus" brand.
You're right, after having this conversation I realized that I was just assuming that WebOS is locked down; turns out it's not. This makes the TouchPad a much more attractive option for me. Smart move on HP's part, as long as they keep with it.
Seriously? Flash? Who cares? No bluetooth headset. No keyboard navigation. Completely locked down, requires $99 subscription to develop. *These* are the things it's missing. If it had Flash, you'd be complaining about battery life.
Actually, you know what really fried my chicken? There's no support for a bluetooth headset! The lack of a mouse doesn't bother me, because Apple is trying to encourage a different use model. But the lack of a bluetooth headset is a deliberate crippling of the device, since iOS very definitely has support for bluetooth headsets.
That's not why Apple's security model is a win. Apple's security model is a win because the fact that an Application is running on your iPad does not mean that it can plunder all your personal information. And it's a win because there's a reasonably high bar to jump over before someone can sell you an app, and there's at least some chance (pretty minimal, though) that Apple could track down an app developer who behaved badly.
There's nothing wrong with Apple's business model here. But if HP wants to take some market share from Apple, there are opportunities.
What makes you think I don't understand Apple's produce positioning? I'm just saying that their product positioning creates an opportunity for competition.
If you jailbreak it, you are trusting a third party who has no fiduciary responsibility to you with full access to your device. This is not worth it to me, even though I am sure the jailbreakers are all really swell people.
No, that's not true. You may be able to access the keyboard through an undocumented low-level API (if I know, and I am not saying I do or don't, I would be prohibited by the developer agreement from saying). But you definitely can't fork subprocesses. You can install an interpreter. But I have to say that having paid the $99 two years in a row, I'm getting a little tired of it. It's pathetic that I have to pay for this access to a device that I paid for in full.
That's as may be (I don't entirely disagree, but I don't agree either). But what I can say with some confidence is that there are people who would buy a tablet like the iPad only with some more features that are easily provided. But so far nobody's delivering that: they're delivering things that are less useable than the iPad, not more.
I'm looking forward to seeing Honeycomb on a tablet, but it's going to have to have a *lot* of usability work done if it's going to approach the iPad's usability, based on my experience with Gingerbread thus far. Gingerbread works fine, but the UI flow is very jumpy. In theory you could get a pad that doesn't have to be jailbroken, but when I look around for pads like that, nobody's saying whether or not a jailbreak is required, which tells me that it is, or they'd be bragging about it.
Actually I'd be interested to see if the Touchpad does a better job of this. But the TouchPad doesn't offer me anything the iPad doesn't (e.g., it's still locked down, as far as I've been able to determine), so I have no real incentive to try it out.
Right. I.e., there's a market there. 10% of iPad sales is better than any of the Android tabs are doing right now, as far as I know. It's certainly better than the TouchPad is doing.
How do you think the ISPs "remove the entries in their DNSes?" DNS doesn't work that way. In order to "remove the entries" they have to program their name servers to censor every instance of a request on a name that's the specified name or a subdomain of it. Technology exists to do that, but it isn't cheap. You can do it trivially for one or two domains in your BIND configuration, but here we're talking about doing it on an industrial scale, not just for one or two domains.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, you mean like using force to exclude people from the enjoyment of natural resources the rights to which they did not willingly forfeit? That's what property is, young feller.
Terminal.app is what I work in every day (well, okay, actually I have my own version that works better, but you get the point.)
For nostalgia, I hack on my Scheme compiler. I just don't feel much longing for old obsolete systems; Scheme is pleasant nostalgia because I still think of it as relevant—even though nobody's using it at the moment, a lot of ideas pioneered by scheme are in wide use, e.g. in Javascript. But Scheme is a much better language than Javascript.
It doesn't matter where they were invented. What matters is who is making them. TVs haven't been made in America this century. I don't personally begrudge Chinese or Japanese workers the opportunity to make a living, but let's not pretend that the fact that some American invented something more than half a century ago means anything about life in America now.
That's because NATs exist to share (not save) addresses. You can get the exact same security characteristics with a firewall, if that's what you want.
There are a number of proposals to solve that problem on the table. Perhaps you should consider participating.
Actually, this builds on a bunch of work done by Apple, who have been shipping IPv6 support for quite a long time. All of your bonjour are belong to IPv6, for example, and if you have a Time Capsule or Airport Extreme, that supports IPv6 as well. Apple got a bit burned a while back because they enabled 6to4 by default, so at this point I'd say they have a fair amount of street cred in the IPv6 home gateway space.
Eh? The IPv6 model hasn't been presented anywhere as "not good enough for the home." The problem is that IPv4 home gateways evolved kind of in the same way that layers of barnacles evolve, and we'd like it if IPv6 home gateways had a standard they could check off on their feature list that actually meant something. You know, "Supports RFC8192," where RFC8192 specifies behavior that will work well in the home environment, and won't invalidate all the work that's been done to date to make IPv6 an actual improvement over IPv4.
Sure, except for all the things you can't do with it, because you don't have end-to-end connectivity. But you don't know about those things, because nobody is selling those products, because they don't work, because everybody's home gateway boxes break end-to-end connectivity. Anyway, based on your use of idiom, I suspect you live in the U.S., or possibly Canada, so you will be able to continue using IPv4 at least until your current set of networked devices wears out and stops working. The world on the whole is quite a bit different that it might seem from where you are sitting—there are places where an IPv6 address is going to be a *lot* more useful than an IPv4 address, in the very near future. Not your problem, but still work worth doing.
Yup, that's correct.
The idea is to come up with a standard for what home routers for IPv6 ought to look like. We'd like to preserve end-to-end transparency, which current home routers break, but at the same time we'd like to avoid creating serious security risks for people who are accustomed to the current home router security model. Support for things like DNSSEC and multihoming are also on the proposed charter.
Home Networking working group description is here.
Wind can actually be a base load power source—there are lots of places where the wind blows all the time. The problem is that the grid isn't tuned to make that work. Solar PV can't be a base load source, but solar thermal can, because of thermal mass. And you can build pump-storage power systems that pump water uphill when there's excess power, and then drain it back downhill through turbines when there's excess load. These systems are good for moderating load on the grid, but we don't have very many of them.
When you can externalize all your risk, your apparent cost per kilowatt goes way down. Ask the Japanese what their cost per kilowatt, including the cost of the Fukushima meltdowns is. The problem is that when you externalize risk, the risk doesn't just magically go away. If nuclear were really economical, the public wouldn't have to offer loans to build the plants, and wouldn't have to assume liability for accidents.
Dude, you seem to have flown off the handle. I am saying that if someone sells a product that has to be jailbroken to have certain desirable functionality, and someone else sells a similar product that does not need to be jailbroken to provide that same functionality, people who want that functionality and don't want the hassle of jailbreaking (which, let's be honest, is most people), are going to buy the product that does not require jailbreaking, and thereby save themselves a lot of trouble.
You seem to be in the segment of the market that gets a kick out of jailbreaking, and more power to you. But I'm not in that market segment—I do not want a jailbroken device. I would up switching to Android instead of buying an iPhone 4 precisely so that I could get a device that will run a stock development kernel without jailbreaking. If I could have gotten the same functionality out of the iPhone 4, I would have gotten an iPhone 4. That's what market differentiation _is_.
Right, remember the original topic? WebOS's competitiveness? The question is whether HP is that other company. But in fact, lots of companies have done well with sub-brands. Consider the BMW M-series, for instance, or Toyota's "Lexus" brand.
You're right, after having this conversation I realized that I was just assuming that WebOS is locked down; turns out it's not. This makes the TouchPad a much more attractive option for me. Smart move on HP's part, as long as they keep with it.
Seriously? Flash? Who cares? No bluetooth headset. No keyboard navigation. Completely locked down, requires $99 subscription to develop. *These* are the things it's missing. If it had Flash, you'd be complaining about battery life.
Actually, you know what really fried my chicken? There's no support for a bluetooth headset! The lack of a mouse doesn't bother me, because Apple is trying to encourage a different use model. But the lack of a bluetooth headset is a deliberate crippling of the device, since iOS very definitely has support for bluetooth headsets.
That's not why Apple's security model is a win. Apple's security model is a win because the fact that an Application is running on your iPad does not mean that it can plunder all your personal information. And it's a win because there's a reasonably high bar to jump over before someone can sell you an app, and there's at least some chance (pretty minimal, though) that Apple could track down an app developer who behaved badly.
There's nothing wrong with Apple's business model here. But if HP wants to take some market share from Apple, there are opportunities.
What makes you think I don't understand Apple's produce positioning? I'm just saying that their product positioning creates an opportunity for competition.
If you jailbreak it, you are trusting a third party who has no fiduciary responsibility to you with full access to your device. This is not worth it to me, even though I am sure the jailbreakers are all really swell people.
No, that's not true. You may be able to access the keyboard through an undocumented low-level API (if I know, and I am not saying I do or don't, I would be prohibited by the developer agreement from saying). But you definitely can't fork subprocesses. You can install an interpreter. But I have to say that having paid the $99 two years in a row, I'm getting a little tired of it. It's pathetic that I have to pay for this access to a device that I paid for in full.
That's as may be (I don't entirely disagree, but I don't agree either). But what I can say with some confidence is that there are people who would buy a tablet like the iPad only with some more features that are easily provided. But so far nobody's delivering that: they're delivering things that are less useable than the iPad, not more.
I'm looking forward to seeing Honeycomb on a tablet, but it's going to have to have a *lot* of usability work done if it's going to approach the iPad's usability, based on my experience with Gingerbread thus far. Gingerbread works fine, but the UI flow is very jumpy. In theory you could get a pad that doesn't have to be jailbroken, but when I look around for pads like that, nobody's saying whether or not a jailbreak is required, which tells me that it is, or they'd be bragging about it.
Actually I'd be interested to see if the Touchpad does a better job of this. But the TouchPad doesn't offer me anything the iPad doesn't (e.g., it's still locked down, as far as I've been able to determine), so I have no real incentive to try it out.
Right. I.e., there's a market there. 10% of iPad sales is better than any of the Android tabs are doing right now, as far as I know. It's certainly better than the TouchPad is doing.
I think that "hassle" does not mean what you think it means.
How do you think the ISPs "remove the entries in their DNSes?" DNS doesn't work that way. In order to "remove the entries" they have to program their name servers to censor every instance of a request on a name that's the specified name or a subdomain of it. Technology exists to do that, but it isn't cheap. You can do it trivially for one or two domains in your BIND configuration, but here we're talking about doing it on an industrial scale, not just for one or two domains.