I'd love to know what hardware your running that doesnt have ipv6 support.... just about every supportable, mainstream vendor does, the short list:
- juniper (screenos and junos) - cisco - avaya - netgear - hp - ibm
Actually, I take it back, theres too many. If your running gear right now that cant do a firmware upgrade to support ipv6, you really should be considering replacing it cause it must be decades old. Even still-supported decades old kit from cisco has ipv6 support via firmware upgrades.
To be honest, I cant really think of many vendors that dont support it off the top of my head.
Yes, running out of ipv4 address space is alot of hot air, probably for another 3-5 years. In reality they could even extend that quite a bit. assuming you dont take into account china and india all getting internet-connected phones... thats a somewhat scary scenario.
But, what I dont get is why geeks arent excited about the move to ipv6... I *LOVE* ipv6, i wish my isp would get it faster.
From a purely geektechnonerd perspective, i find ipv6 interesting and hence want to use it (do use it in fact).. i think it has its flaws though, and what scares me is the lack of a "real" private address range (with nat) like we do now with ipv4. While I can understand people in the linux kernel going "nat was crap, we're not doing it in ipv6", i find that view very short sighted. Yes, ipv4 nat is a "hack" (or was originally created to facilitate a hack), but its come to be a useful one and can get you around some nasty things an isp can do to you simply by limited the number of addresses you can have (not to mention many other things it can give you)...
But, the techo in me who loves setting up networks cant wait till the next job im doing that uses ipv6, and thats coming more frequently now.
Quite honestly, if the press wants to make a big deal out of it and blow it out of proportion, im not going to stop them or even criticize them. I love doing ipv6 and if a client is thinking "maybe i should do ipv6 with my next network overhaul" I dont really care what the reasons for it are, be it a sensationalist media hype reflex or an interest in the protocol itself...
But then i get excited over most new bits of tech - be it physical or not. As in, i get about the same levels of excitement when google announce a new android phone (i.e. the nexus) as I do when a client starts asking me about how they adopt their network for ipv6.
Ok, ipv6 aint exactly new by any means, but people implementing it is another matter. The best part is until you see real (i.e. complex) networking scenarios using ipv6 you dont even some of the challanges that lay in store for you when implementing the protocol... but thats an article, not a slashdot post.
And besides, with stuff like DynDNS, why do you even need a static IP for your home?
ahhh, well, depends what you do from home doesn't it? take this as an example of why dyndns doesnt really solve some of the problems static-ip-for-home does..
1) my dns entry "me.dyndns.org", points to my current dynamic home ip 2) i run a webserver, chat server (xmpp), mail server perhaps... many different things you could list here 3) my home internet switches off for some reason and i loose my dynamic ip address. 4) someone else logs on and gets my ip adress while im offline 5) someone else starts getting a bunch of connection attempts....
Note: "me" and "my" in this scenario are hypothetical, not actual references to me specifically.
The effect of which can be somewhere between unnoticeable and catastrophic, if you really think it thru... Personally i do run a web server on my home machine for unimportant things and only for me, but there are lots of scenario's where some service your expecting to send data to on your old ip address may expose something you didnt want someone else to see... Then again, it may lead to something more annoying like the user who's getting random connection attempts assumes he's being hacked and acts accordingly...
While its more then plausible that they're going after google cause someone else said so, and one could perhaps consider its a rather large conspiracy between many companies to erase google from the IT landscape by burying them in legal costs up to their ears, its also plausible they go after google simply cause they have the most number of mobiles and the largest market share, hence the largest chunk of plausible revenue should they win.
to be honest though, i do believe alot of people are going after google cause its google and they're "open platform" scares the pants off people (from a "how do we make money from ours when google give it away for free" perspective - if nothing else).
With any luck, these lawsuits (including MS, apple, etc) will all end with one result - alot of patents being voided... one can only hope its worth the cost and that google can afford it.
Personal opinion, but i believe the difference is moot. I find that (as a hacker type) apps I want on my phone (android) are available on the android market. For example an SSH daemon (which i dont think there is one on the apple market) that can access the root of my phone's filesystem. Some may think me crazy for running such a thing, but I am a little crazy. But it is apps like that you'll find quite a few of (apps designed to support rooted phones) that you'll never see on the apple market and they do appeal very much to me in alot of cases.
The problem with that particular example is that im the 1-2% of the android market who are looking for those type of things.
The general populace want games, some lifestyle apps, some social apps and maybe some business apps. In general, i believe there are more then enough of these available on both platforms and markets. On the whole, i'd say its a line-ball call. You'll find what you need for all those in both markets and in some cases they'll even be the same app ported from one platform to the other (angry birds is a good example). You'll also get alot of pure entertainment from both that'll fill just about any taste. These days i've yet to find something I wanted to do I cant find on the android market (which wasn't always the case).
One thing I do believe is true, if you sat down and decided "i want to do this, this and this with my phone that it doesnt do right now", the cost of adding that functionality tends to be lower on the android platform them the iphone side however, you'll probably have to live with advertising on the android device to do so. What I also mean with this is that you'll find what you want is probably available on both platforms these days.
While slightly off topic - if you like ion, try amd fusion (e350m series)... very much like atom, but actually worth having (faster, and generally better hardware).
I liked the idea of atom, until i got one and compared to a (at the time) 8 year old epia (N10k)... the atom was about 1.5 times the speed and sucked down more juice... I was really disappointed with the atom processor... ION made it worth while, but in reality the atom is a POS bang per W is very low on the platform and the atom has had several functions torn out of it (compared to a i3/i5/i7 or core/core2) which i personally found kind of annoying..
But, back on topic. This should run on the embedded cpu AMD fusion boards (such as the e350 mentioned above) and if i get the chance i do plan on giving it a shot.
What I find interesting is how this is going to impact Compliance and Discovery type activities (things like PCI, SOX, etc etc). Theres lots of compliance type directives that basically say "communications inside and outside of your company must be kept for xxx days/years/months"... Alot of people read this as "we need to archive our email so if we get into a lawsuit we can cover our discovery requirements".
The best part of this is that people dont (yet) seem to realise that compliance and discovery don't specify email - they specify electronic communications. So if you dump email and move to something else and you have compliance requirements your going to have to comply with them no matter what your system of communication is!..
Keeping in mind of course that compliance and discovery type measures are defensive ones. The ability to prove/disprove something was done or said is simply a way of "covering your arse" in court and often where people read compliance to mean "i need to archive all communications" what it really means is "if i dont archive all communications, i cant prove joe from company X sent me an email telling me to do something".
Ultimately though, my point is that who ever wins the "internal social networking email replacement tool" war will also have a trail of developers behind them wanting to develop a set of archiving and compliance tools that go along with them... read that as $$$.
Actually the kind of thing your refering to is the various compliance requirements that exist for discovery purposes.
They dont acutally specifically say "email"... they specify communications both internal and external with the company... so hold onto your hat cause when people inevitably do dump email and move to chat/social type interfaces the same compliances rules apply to those too
It's not often i'd say i'd be annoyed at the slashdot community, but this time around the advice here is truly below par.
ANYONE who's suggesting this guy gets an SLR is an IDIOT. Read the question again, and lets go thru it line by line shall we?
- I've managed to go my entire adult life without owning an actual camera.
READ: I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH CAMERAS!
- I've owned photosensors that were shoehorned into various other gadgets, but I've gotten to the point where the images produced by my smartphone aren't cutting it. My question: what camera would you recommend for getting into basic photography?
READ: I take photos with a smartphone! I want to step up from that. Zoom, flash and resolution, thats all i need.
- I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images — of friends, family, and projects — that actually look good.
READ: i want to point a little box at something and get a decent picture. I dont want to understand aperture, focus, iso, etc..
- I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine. But I don't have the expertise to know at what point spending more money isn't going to do me, as a camera newbie, any good. Any thoughts?
READ: I HAVE NO USE FOR AN SLR, NOR DO I WANT TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY. Seriously people I have lens filters that wouldn't fit into "a few hundred bucks", the results you get out of a dirt-cheap SLR are garbage compared to the point-and-shoot you'll get for the same. Good example: canon 550d + kit lens's > "a few hundred bucks", and yet its pretty crappy bang-for-buck compared to a point-and-shoot you'll get for the same $. Sure, you can strangle a 550d with its kit lenses into giving you some good shots, but its not a place to start and it certainly not simple.
Hell, even a point-and-shoot for a "few hundred bucks" has some of the control you can get in SLR's these days, so if the OP finds those functions interesting enough to learn about them, they can start there - not at the SLR.
For the love of god I wish people here would get off the techno-power-nerd superiority complexes and stop looking down at things like point-and-shoot cameras because they believe them to be some lower form of life. For once actually read the question and get the idea of what someone is trying to ask.
Anyone who suggested an SLR, THIS MEANS YOU! get a firm grip on reality, actually look at what the original question was asking for and then go slap yourselves.
Honestly, as a guy who's been doing photography for over 20 years now and owns just about ever format camera there is in existence - slashdot is the poor place to ask. As is obvious everyone here is a techno-super-nerd who owns an SLR, thinks they know how to use it, and thinks its easy.
Given what you are looking for, an SLR would be a poor choice. Your not going to get anything in that vein for "a few hundred bucks". Dont get me wrong, if you really wanted to learn some photography (as in how a camera functions), an SLR is great. If you want to "just take good photos" (as was suggested) most point-and-shoots do this abundantly well and an SLR will set you back a tonne of money and provide you with 1000 features of which you need 10.
However, i personally think the best place to find such a beast (and im not going suggest one cause im not well versed in point-and-shoots) is dpreview.com (and sites like it). Get something with a decent zoom range, decent resolution, decent speed and a flash, and you'll probably be happy. The MOST important factor in this equation is $$$, the bang-for-buck ration of a point-and-shoot based on what your needs are are far in excess of what the SLR will provide.
On top of this though, go to a camera store and try a few point-and-shoots - they'll be happy to let you in most cases, find some that you think are nice then go check out how they review online.
The bulldozer is faster then the Xeon chip on all cpu benchmarks which can generate enough threads to fill all cores.
Each bulldozer core is as fast as a core on a Opteron 6100.
It looks exactly like the cpu I want in my web/db server, and my supercomputer.
Do the majority of real world uses 'fill all cores'? Are you arguing that the vast majority of these benchmarks are useless? I can't distinguish between which tests use all of the cores and which don't, but it's not my field.
These days "real world uses" in the data center often include virtualisation, so "fulling all cores" is quite often possible. AMD used to have quite an advantage in the virtualisation field simply because pacifica (amds first gen hardware virt) was more efficient and less buggy then vanderpool (intels). These days, i dont believe thats quite as true anymore.
Aside from the fact that the flow-on consequence is that oracle then needs to develop the ia64 oracle side - I still cant see why oracle think this is something worth even mentioning.
HP paid intel to keep making a chip HP uses - OH FOR SHAME! Or is the big thing about it the "secret" bit cause well, contracts like that do tend to be rather "sensitive".
But "oracle whinges cause HP tries to keep its IA64 customer base from moving to oracle servers" just sounds kinda ridiculous. Even reading the article is really not helping me get the problem oracle are trying to get at here. It reads like:
Oracle to HP: We would like to steal your customers please HP to Oracle: Um, no thanks? Oracle to HP: HAH, NO ITANIUM FOR YOU! HP to Oracle: im sorry, but see this piece of paper says you cant do that
Meanwhile at the HP cave: HP to Intel: heres some cash to continue IA64 development work Intel to HP: Sure, no problem, we'll make silicon for you, we do that.
Meanwhile back at the Oracle Cave: Oracle to Universe: WAAAAH HP WONT LET US STEAL THEIR CUSTOMERS. *much thumb sucking ensues*
Now if HP had pain intel to stop making the IA64 to gimp dell (or someone else) for instance, then sure thats worth mentioning.
I am something of a self-confessed google fan-boy - though the lustre of theirs has been very much tarnished by things they have done lately, such as keeping 3.x out of AOSP - amongst many other things. Generally my love of google is pretty low at the moment.
But, I personally dont really hold google responsible for any of this. They make an OS. Did microsoft get blamed when sony had that drm root-kit flooding cd's?
Or would you blame ubuntu if a fork of ubuntu carried a similar piece of software? Even if it were an ubuntu sanctioned derivative work?
Ultimately though, what control would google have over people doing this? probably not alot. The devices makers make the roms and (probably) customise them for the carriers, the fact that an app is capable of doing such a thing is unsurprising given it operates at the root level and i doubt there would be much from the android side you could really do to stop it from occurring.
However, given its in the open now, I wonder what the legal (i.e. government) response might be, It could have serious implications to numerous compliance-type privacy issues. I suspect we'll probably see a government probe coming along sometime soon personally.
From what I have read, and baring in mind the amount of information is limited, but IOS is indeed capable of carrying the carrieriq software and there are versions of the iphone out there with it already installed OR at least that is the suggestion from this particular site:
1) i dont believe you can unless someone is giong to start carrying a list of phones known to carry the CarrierIQ "Virus"..
2) been watching this for a while and im not 100% certain that you can... there isnt huge wadges of information yet available. All my android phones are rooted and one runs an original (carrier) rom... I cant see carrieriq anywhere, but i dont know if it is there or not... If i adb shell in, theres nothing in the process list that gives it away and I cant find much on the phone that suggests its there either.
Uninstall - its believed flashing a custom rom will get rid of it as its part of the rom not the phone..
As a fan of both lego and MMO's I am utterly shocked i never even knew it existed till now... wow... I wonder if that has something to do with it closing down...
Sadly, i agree with you 100%, but even sadder the world is generally split into 3 types
1) types who understand that. 2) types who believe we're changing the climate cause they've seen pictures of the sky around Beijing (or are happy to just believe that we're screwing the planet). 3) corporate types who like to shove their head in the sand cause they get paid to (sort of).
Sadly, 2+3 make up 99.99% of the planet - they dont really get it and/or dont want to yet the media has driven the world to believe its what we're doing.
the type 1's just have no voice for reason in the debate unfortunately cause type 2) and 3) (and the people behind them) will push forward ANY evidence (no matter how ridiculously flawed it is) that argues their point.
Generally the amount of scientific data is truely sparse cause no one is really interested in facts except for a small handful of individuals who no ones to back cause they cant guarentee a result one way or the other. its a shame the planet is ruled by sensationalist media (reporters and their like) and money - but sadly it is how it is. The type 1)'s get to sit back and laugh (for a short time at least until we start forking over even more tax dollars) while the rest of them go at each other like pit-bull's, it really does disturb in alot of ways.
while i love minecraft, i personally think the whole "lets use the worlds slowest and most combersome circuit simulator to simulate a really complex circuit" to be an utterly pointless endeavor. Or at least, not news worthy. To me these things always read as "nerd uses circuit simulator to simulate a circuit", and wow thats a slow news day.
I doubt very much people are actually mining to get the minerals to build something like this (what i mean is using inventory editors and the like, and if they are mining it, they're crazy) and the second it became possible to do generic circuits in minecraft, anything really became possible. So its really not about "wow, look what this does" as much as "look how much time i can waste" to me. Realistically there is nothing to stop you simulating just about any circuit at all in minecraft (physical machine limitations not withstanding).
So when did it all become newsworthy? Yes its interesting seeing people translate real circuits to redstone, but thats all it is. Its like when google go came out, its a new programming language so do we get excited everytime someone does something with it? if i coded a database server in google go, would it be worthy of a slashdot post? I think not, not unless my database did something no other database does. To me, thats what this is, its a new language for doing circuit design, but not a particularly good one even if it is quite capable.
I can understand people wanting to do it, but is it really news worthy? at least, thats how it is for me. I've wasted alot of time in the game but its still just a game with a set of capabilities that arent really all that ground-breaking.
Dont get me wrong, i dont have a problem with people wasting their time doing all this, but it still all boils down to "nerd uses circuit simulator to simulate a circuit" and hence isnt exactly mind-blowingly impressive stuff to me.... or am i just becoming jaded? it reminds me of a big-bang episode where they installed a internet-connected home automation system and got all excited about people around the world switching on and off a light. Yeah, i'd get excited too (10 years ago maybe), but its not news.
Now if amd came out tomorrow and said "we're doing all our circuit design in minecraft because of x" then that to me would be interesting cause it would mean minecraft had some functionality of a circuit design tool that was actually noteworthy.
As an example, What does shit me is that intel are making a cpu for whatever it costs, they can afford to sell it for $150 and be turning a profit. But why do that, lets gimp it sell it for $150 then sell them the 50$ upgrade later on. Now if it were a case that they made only 3ghz cpu's and those that couldnt meet 3ghz specs were sold as 2.8ghz for a cheaper price (or whatever specs they end up meeting), then that makes sense, after all the number of 3ghz cpu's rolling out the factor is limited by the number that actually meet the specs, so fair is fair. But this is garbage, all the cpu's meet the specs they need and they can afford to sell them at the gimped price. Personally, its probably the last straw for me when it comes to intel equipment, i've had enough of their garbage.
Like it or not, to me its another reason to stay from intel and move to amd. Its also a good reason why (if it is giong to happen) the pc market will die off and arm will grow stronger and stronger. People can argue in favour of this all they want, but the reality is, they can sell a really heavily performing cpu for a really cheap cost cause they can afford to, but instead they go for a golden screwdriver approach.
That really is pathetic. It happens in enterprise all the time with enterprise grade equipment. Also happens alot in software, but in both cases there can be other justifications. The truth is they could just sell the cpus for the "cheap" cost of the gimped cpu (WITHOUT GIMPING IT) and still be happily in profits without having to resort to this rubbish, theres just not justification for this kind of crap behavior.
However, what is a MUCH FAIRER comparison is the iphone and the apple app store. Want to use a different app store, sorry, your out of luck (relatively speaking). Andoird's open-ness is actually driving markets (amazon app store being an example of that) where Apple and iphone (or anyone else for that matter) are very actively trying to shut them down.
Its also not fair to say android is free. Open source, yes, but if you want to produce a phone thats useful, you need those (licensed) google apps.
Actually, calling andoird an open-source project itself is even erroneous, google have done a truely terrible job of keeping up with their "WE'RE ANDROID AND WE'RE OPEN SOURCE rah rah rah" moniker - still no AOSP for 3.x and we're up to 3.2 already - if there is one thing that'll make me depart the android shores for something else its that one huge chunk of, lets call it for what it is, lies that really do piss me off.
The reality is, google really have disappointed in the android open source project to the point where it should be called the "android, we'll maybe open-source it if we feel like it, yeah we know we call it open source, but its not really" project. And before anyone comments saying "android isnt licensed under the gpl" or some such a big reminder to you here. Google sold android to the community (as a concept) as an open-source platform - not a "here's some kernel drivers you might need for some irrelevant arm platforms" open source project. They have truly let the community down in this instance and for that they should be thoroughly ashamed. We're also not talking about the google market, maps, etc that google license, those are definitely closed-source and thats googles fair and just choice.
Alot of people out there dont get why people here see this as a bad thing, and fine, if you dont then more power to you. You can sit there and say "well, this is required by the studios" or whatever you like.
However, the reason people like me are getting up-in-arms about such a move is because of what google USED to represent. In short, it was one of the few companies around that was large enough to stand up and fight a fight we want to see fought. Its not about what the MPAA and studios want, its about whats sensible. This is not. Typically google have fought that fight, to the point where they DO put significant dollars on the line in order to win what is plausibly (though subjective it may be) a just and/or fair outcome.
This has stopped happening. The reality is, google could have probably gotten that content simply based on android market share, and maybe in the future they'll revisit that fight. Who knows. But lately (big IMHO here) google seemed to have changed tactics quite a bit in regards to being a company that "does no evil". They're sitting on that border line, at least in the minds of people like me they are - my opinion (alone) matters very little and so im easily dismissed. Again, the whole "do no evil" is a subjective argument and what it means to me, you and everyone else may be completely different. But at least TRY and understand why people will be disappointed about this.
The best part of all this is, I wouldn't rent a movie anyway (there are better options). google have a GREAT ability to never provide services in my country, which in itself doesnt bother me in reality. But for me the "do no evil" argument of google's is wearing quite thin rather quickly.
My ultimate point being that calling people idiots for believing in a fight that you may not is rather silly and ultimately the fight was to your benefit.
On a more personal note - someone using the name of Edmund Blackadder to post such a comment is disturbing, blackadder was one of my more favored tv shows.
When i first read the post in my rss reader I was (like most people here) going "well, duh"...
But to be fair, if you read the article its a little more in depth than that. However, lets go back a number of years to the days of windows NT 3 - it came on PPC, MIPs, etc (it was also the last platform to do so in the window suite). It wasn't just an x86 platform. However, not many people ran Windows NT either, so the uptake was (in a word) minimal. I think alot of the thinking back then was "why would i want to run windows on a MIP's machine when i have OS "... ultimately the platforms were doomed simply because there just wasnt either the user base or the support for those architectures... Itanium is another example of this particular nightmare/failure (when compared with amd comparatively cheaper 64bit verison of the x86 chipset).
However, DEC Alpha was a bit different, it had an embedded way of running the x86 chip's instruction set, and so maybe no one will come along and write a set of hardware capable of translating x86 instructions back to ARM's core. BUT, thats exactly how the AMD chips used to work, risc core translated up to an x86 instruction set. That in itself doesnt really solve the problem because you'd still want to run x86 windows on top of your x86-to-arm core.
But dont kid yourself that there will be no apps day one for ARM platform for windows cause you can guarentee windows wont go in alone, they'll bring a host of developers along with them and probably apply some incentives for using it.
Also, while the windows core may have failed on PPC, MIP's, etc, the reasons for its success didnt exist - this is not true of the arm platform. Not only is it the "cheap" platform (which is what x86 used to be back in the win nt 3 days), its also small and power friendly. Its also capable of doing alot more then just running Windows. Windows 8 may not be a huge success on ARM, and hopefully thats not going to make MS go "we'll drop arm" cause ARM really has some huge potential both at the desktop and the server, and I hope microsoft see that potential as something they can work with in the long term. Hopefully, their dev tools make it relatively easy to target both arm and/or x86.
As for the virus/malware comment, as many people have pointed out, the bugs will probably translate across in the porting process - however, we'll probably just get a whole host of new ones to add to it... then again, flash and java wont care whether its arm or x86 (and who knows what to expect of.net really?)...
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to know what hardware your running that doesnt have ipv6 support.... just about every supportable, mainstream vendor does, the short list:
- juniper (screenos and junos)
- cisco
- avaya
- netgear
- hp
- ibm
Actually, I take it back, theres too many. If your running gear right now that cant do a firmware upgrade to support ipv6, you really should be considering replacing it cause it must be decades old. Even still-supported decades old kit from cisco has ipv6 support via firmware upgrades.
To be honest, I cant really think of many vendors that dont support it off the top of my head.
Yes, running out of ipv4 address space is alot of hot air, probably for another 3-5 years. In reality they could even extend that quite a bit. assuming you dont take into account china and india all getting internet-connected phones... thats a somewhat scary scenario.
But, what I dont get is why geeks arent excited about the move to ipv6... I *LOVE* ipv6, i wish my isp would get it faster.
From a purely geektechnonerd perspective, i find ipv6 interesting and hence want to use it (do use it in fact).. i think it has its flaws though, and what scares me is the lack of a "real" private address range (with nat) like we do now with ipv4. While I can understand people in the linux kernel going "nat was crap, we're not doing it in ipv6", i find that view very short sighted. Yes, ipv4 nat is a "hack" (or was originally created to facilitate a hack), but its come to be a useful one and can get you around some nasty things an isp can do to you simply by limited the number of addresses you can have (not to mention many other things it can give you)...
But, the techo in me who loves setting up networks cant wait till the next job im doing that uses ipv6, and thats coming more frequently now.
Quite honestly, if the press wants to make a big deal out of it and blow it out of proportion, im not going to stop them or even criticize them. I love doing ipv6 and if a client is thinking "maybe i should do ipv6 with my next network overhaul" I dont really care what the reasons for it are, be it a sensationalist media hype reflex or an interest in the protocol itself...
But then i get excited over most new bits of tech - be it physical or not. As in, i get about the same levels of excitement when google announce a new android phone (i.e. the nexus) as I do when a client starts asking me about how they adopt their network for ipv6.
Ok, ipv6 aint exactly new by any means, but people implementing it is another matter. The best part is until you see real (i.e. complex) networking scenarios using ipv6 you dont even some of the challanges that lay in store for you when implementing the protocol... but thats an article, not a slashdot post.
And besides, with stuff like DynDNS, why do you even need a static IP for your home?
ahhh, well, depends what you do from home doesn't it? take this as an example of why dyndns doesnt really solve some of the problems static-ip-for-home does..
1) my dns entry "me.dyndns.org", points to my current dynamic home ip
2) i run a webserver, chat server (xmpp), mail server perhaps... many different things you could list here
3) my home internet switches off for some reason and i loose my dynamic ip address.
4) someone else logs on and gets my ip adress while im offline
5) someone else starts getting a bunch of connection attempts....
Note: "me" and "my" in this scenario are hypothetical, not actual references to me specifically.
The effect of which can be somewhere between unnoticeable and catastrophic, if you really think it thru... Personally i do run a web server on my home machine for unimportant things and only for me, but there are lots of scenario's where some service your expecting to send data to on your old ip address may expose something you didnt want someone else to see... Then again, it may lead to something more annoying like the user who's getting random connection attempts assumes he's being hacked and acts accordingly...
Only the regional NICs have run out of blocks to distribute. No one has actually run out of IPv4 addresses.
Thats actually incorrect. RIR's still have "plenty" of ip addresses to go around, its only IANA thats run out of address space to give to those RIR's.
While its more then plausible that they're going after google cause someone else said so, and one could perhaps consider its a rather large conspiracy between many companies to erase google from the IT landscape by burying them in legal costs up to their ears, its also plausible they go after google simply cause they have the most number of mobiles and the largest market share, hence the largest chunk of plausible revenue should they win.
to be honest though, i do believe alot of people are going after google cause its google and they're "open platform" scares the pants off people (from a "how do we make money from ours when google give it away for free" perspective - if nothing else).
With any luck, these lawsuits (including MS, apple, etc) will all end with one result - alot of patents being voided... one can only hope its worth the cost and that google can afford it.
Personal opinion, but i believe the difference is moot. I find that (as a hacker type) apps I want on my phone (android) are available on the android market. For example an SSH daemon (which i dont think there is one on the apple market) that can access the root of my phone's filesystem. Some may think me crazy for running such a thing, but I am a little crazy. But it is apps like that you'll find quite a few of (apps designed to support rooted phones) that you'll never see on the apple market and they do appeal very much to me in alot of cases.
The problem with that particular example is that im the 1-2% of the android market who are looking for those type of things.
The general populace want games, some lifestyle apps, some social apps and maybe some business apps. In general, i believe there are more then enough of these available on both platforms and markets. On the whole, i'd say its a line-ball call. You'll find what you need for all those in both markets and in some cases they'll even be the same app ported from one platform to the other (angry birds is a good example). You'll also get alot of pure entertainment from both that'll fill just about any taste. These days i've yet to find something I wanted to do I cant find on the android market (which wasn't always the case).
One thing I do believe is true, if you sat down and decided "i want to do this, this and this with my phone that it doesnt do right now", the cost of adding that functionality tends to be lower on the android platform them the iphone side however, you'll probably have to live with advertising on the android device to do so. What I also mean with this is that you'll find what you want is probably available on both platforms these days.
This move is more along the lines of Google supporting as many chips as possible to open up the opportunities for manufacturers and developers.
I dont think this project has any real (or official) input from google. Intel's port might, but thats not this.
While slightly off topic - if you like ion, try amd fusion (e350m series)... very much like atom, but actually worth having (faster, and generally better hardware).
I liked the idea of atom, until i got one and compared to a (at the time) 8 year old epia (N10k)... the atom was about 1.5 times the speed and sucked down more juice... I was really disappointed with the atom processor... ION made it worth while, but in reality the atom is a POS bang per W is very low on the platform and the atom has had several functions torn out of it (compared to a i3/i5/i7 or core/core2) which i personally found kind of annoying..
But, back on topic. This should run on the embedded cpu AMD fusion boards (such as the e350 mentioned above) and if i get the chance i do plan on giving it a shot.
What I find interesting is how this is going to impact Compliance and Discovery type activities (things like PCI, SOX, etc etc). Theres lots of compliance type directives that basically say "communications inside and outside of your company must be kept for xxx days/years/months"... Alot of people read this as "we need to archive our email so if we get into a lawsuit we can cover our discovery requirements".
The best part of this is that people dont (yet) seem to realise that compliance and discovery don't specify email - they specify electronic communications. So if you dump email and move to something else and you have compliance requirements your going to have to comply with them no matter what your system of communication is!..
Keeping in mind of course that compliance and discovery type measures are defensive ones. The ability to prove/disprove something was done or said is simply a way of "covering your arse" in court and often where people read compliance to mean "i need to archive all communications" what it really means is "if i dont archive all communications, i cant prove joe from company X sent me an email telling me to do something".
Ultimately though, my point is that who ever wins the "internal social networking email replacement tool" war will also have a trail of developers behind them wanting to develop a set of archiving and compliance tools that go along with them... read that as $$$.
Actually the kind of thing your refering to is the various compliance requirements that exist for discovery purposes.
They dont acutally specifically say "email"... they specify communications both internal and external with the company... so hold onto your hat cause when people inevitably do dump email and move to chat/social type interfaces the same compliances rules apply to those too
It's not often i'd say i'd be annoyed at the slashdot community, but this time around the advice here is truly below par.
ANYONE who's suggesting this guy gets an SLR is an IDIOT. Read the question again, and lets go thru it line by line shall we?
- I've managed to go my entire adult life without owning an actual camera.
READ: I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH CAMERAS!
- I've owned photosensors that were shoehorned into various other gadgets, but I've gotten to the point where the images produced by my smartphone aren't cutting it. My question: what camera would you recommend for getting into basic photography?
READ: I take photos with a smartphone! I want to step up from that. Zoom, flash and resolution, thats all i need.
- I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images — of friends, family, and projects — that actually look good.
READ: i want to point a little box at something and get a decent picture. I dont want to understand aperture, focus, iso, etc..
- I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine. But I don't have the expertise to know at what point spending more money isn't going to do me, as a camera newbie, any good. Any thoughts?
READ: I HAVE NO USE FOR AN SLR, NOR DO I WANT TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY. Seriously people I have lens filters that wouldn't fit into "a few hundred bucks", the results you get out of a dirt-cheap SLR are garbage compared to the point-and-shoot you'll get for the same. Good example: canon 550d + kit lens's > "a few hundred bucks", and yet its pretty crappy bang-for-buck compared to a point-and-shoot you'll get for the same $. Sure, you can strangle a 550d with its kit lenses into giving you some good shots, but its not a place to start and it certainly not simple.
Hell, even a point-and-shoot for a "few hundred bucks" has some of the control you can get in SLR's these days, so if the OP finds those functions interesting enough to learn about them, they can start there - not at the SLR.
For the love of god I wish people here would get off the techno-power-nerd superiority complexes and stop looking down at things like point-and-shoot cameras because they believe them to be some lower form of life. For once actually read the question and get the idea of what someone is trying to ask.
Anyone who suggested an SLR, THIS MEANS YOU! get a firm grip on reality, actually look at what the original question was asking for and then go slap yourselves.
Honestly, as a guy who's been doing photography for over 20 years now and owns just about ever format camera there is in existence - slashdot is the poor place to ask. As is obvious everyone here is a techno-super-nerd who owns an SLR, thinks they know how to use it, and thinks its easy.
Given what you are looking for, an SLR would be a poor choice. Your not going to get anything in that vein for "a few hundred bucks". Dont get me wrong, if you really wanted to learn some photography (as in how a camera functions), an SLR is great. If you want to "just take good photos" (as was suggested) most point-and-shoots do this abundantly well and an SLR will set you back a tonne of money and provide you with 1000 features of which you need 10.
However, i personally think the best place to find such a beast (and im not going suggest one cause im not well versed in point-and-shoots) is dpreview.com (and sites like it). Get something with a decent zoom range, decent resolution, decent speed and a flash, and you'll probably be happy. The MOST important factor in this equation is $$$, the bang-for-buck ration of a point-and-shoot based on what your needs are are far in excess of what the SLR will provide.
On top of this though, go to a camera store and try a few point-and-shoots - they'll be happy to let you in most cases, find some that you think are nice then go check out how they review online.
I really don't get the conclusion.
The bulldozer is faster then the Xeon chip on all cpu benchmarks which can generate enough threads to fill all cores.
Each bulldozer core is as fast as a core on a Opteron 6100.
It looks exactly like the cpu I want in my web/db server, and my supercomputer.
Do the majority of real world uses 'fill all cores'? Are you arguing that the vast majority of these benchmarks are useless? I can't distinguish between which tests use all of the cores and which don't, but it's not my field.
These days "real world uses" in the data center often include virtualisation, so "fulling all cores" is quite often possible. AMD used to have quite an advantage in the virtualisation field simply because pacifica (amds first gen hardware virt) was more efficient and less buggy then vanderpool (intels). These days, i dont believe thats quite as true anymore.
Aside from the fact that the flow-on consequence is that oracle then needs to develop the ia64 oracle side - I still cant see why oracle think this is something worth even mentioning.
HP paid intel to keep making a chip HP uses - OH FOR SHAME! Or is the big thing about it the "secret" bit cause well, contracts like that do tend to be rather "sensitive".
But "oracle whinges cause HP tries to keep its IA64 customer base from moving to oracle servers" just sounds kinda ridiculous. Even reading the article is really not helping me get the problem oracle are trying to get at here. It reads like:
Oracle to HP: We would like to steal your customers please
HP to Oracle: Um, no thanks?
Oracle to HP: HAH, NO ITANIUM FOR YOU!
HP to Oracle: im sorry, but see this piece of paper says you cant do that
Meanwhile at the HP cave:
HP to Intel: heres some cash to continue IA64 development work
Intel to HP: Sure, no problem, we'll make silicon for you, we do that.
Meanwhile back at the Oracle Cave:
Oracle to Universe: WAAAAH HP WONT LET US STEAL THEIR CUSTOMERS.
*much thumb sucking ensues*
Now if HP had pain intel to stop making the IA64 to gimp dell (or someone else) for instance, then sure thats worth mentioning.
I am something of a self-confessed google fan-boy - though the lustre of theirs has been very much tarnished by things they have done lately, such as keeping 3.x out of AOSP - amongst many other things. Generally my love of google is pretty low at the moment.
But, I personally dont really hold google responsible for any of this. They make an OS. Did microsoft get blamed when sony had that drm root-kit flooding cd's?
Or would you blame ubuntu if a fork of ubuntu carried a similar piece of software? Even if it were an ubuntu sanctioned derivative work?
Ultimately though, what control would google have over people doing this? probably not alot. The devices makers make the roms and (probably) customise them for the carriers, the fact that an app is capable of doing such a thing is unsurprising given it operates at the root level and i doubt there would be much from the android side you could really do to stop it from occurring.
However, given its in the open now, I wonder what the legal (i.e. government) response might be, It could have serious implications to numerous compliance-type privacy issues. I suspect we'll probably see a government probe coming along sometime soon personally.
From what I have read, and baring in mind the amount of information is limited, but IOS is indeed capable of carrying the carrieriq software and there are versions of the iphone out there with it already installed OR at least that is the suggestion from this particular site:
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/how-much-of-your-phone-is-yours-20111115/
I dont have an iphone, so i dont care either way personally.
1) i dont believe you can unless someone is giong to start carrying a list of phones known to carry the CarrierIQ "Virus"..
2) been watching this for a while and im not 100% certain that you can... there isnt huge wadges of information yet available. All my android phones are rooted and one runs an original (carrier) rom... I cant see carrieriq anywhere, but i dont know if it is there or not... If i adb shell in, theres nothing in the process list that gives it away and I cant find much on the phone that suggests its there either.
Uninstall - its believed flashing a custom rom will get rid of it as its part of the rom not the phone..
As a fan of both lego and MMO's I am utterly shocked i never even knew it existed till now... wow... I wonder if that has something to do with it closing down...
Sadly, i agree with you 100%, but even sadder the world is generally split into 3 types
1) types who understand that.
2) types who believe we're changing the climate cause they've seen pictures of the sky around Beijing (or are happy to just believe that we're screwing the planet).
3) corporate types who like to shove their head in the sand cause they get paid to (sort of).
Sadly, 2+3 make up 99.99% of the planet - they dont really get it and/or dont want to yet the media has driven the world to believe its what we're doing.
the type 1's just have no voice for reason in the debate unfortunately cause type 2) and 3) (and the people behind them) will push forward ANY evidence (no matter how ridiculously flawed it is) that argues their point.
Generally the amount of scientific data is truely sparse cause no one is really interested in facts except for a small handful of individuals who no ones to back cause they cant guarentee a result one way or the other. its a shame the planet is ruled by sensationalist media (reporters and their like) and money - but sadly it is how it is. The type 1)'s get to sit back and laugh (for a short time at least until we start forking over even more tax dollars) while the rest of them go at each other like pit-bull's, it really does disturb in alot of ways.
while i love minecraft, i personally think the whole "lets use the worlds slowest and most combersome circuit simulator to simulate a really complex circuit" to be an utterly pointless endeavor. Or at least, not news worthy. To me these things always read as "nerd uses circuit simulator to simulate a circuit", and wow thats a slow news day.
I doubt very much people are actually mining to get the minerals to build something like this (what i mean is using inventory editors and the like, and if they are mining it, they're crazy) and the second it became possible to do generic circuits in minecraft, anything really became possible. So its really not about "wow, look what this does" as much as "look how much time i can waste" to me. Realistically there is nothing to stop you simulating just about any circuit at all in minecraft (physical machine limitations not withstanding).
So when did it all become newsworthy? Yes its interesting seeing people translate real circuits to redstone, but thats all it is. Its like when google go came out, its a new programming language so do we get excited everytime someone does something with it? if i coded a database server in google go, would it be worthy of a slashdot post? I think not, not unless my database did something no other database does. To me, thats what this is, its a new language for doing circuit design, but not a particularly good one even if it is quite capable.
I can understand people wanting to do it, but is it really news worthy? at least, thats how it is for me. I've wasted alot of time in the game but its still just a game with a set of capabilities that arent really all that ground-breaking.
Dont get me wrong, i dont have a problem with people wasting their time doing all this, but it still all boils down to "nerd uses circuit simulator to simulate a circuit" and hence isnt exactly mind-blowingly impressive stuff to me.... or am i just becoming jaded? it reminds me of a big-bang episode where they installed a internet-connected home automation system and got all excited about people around the world switching on and off a light. Yeah, i'd get excited too (10 years ago maybe), but its not news.
Now if amd came out tomorrow and said "we're doing all our circuit design in minecraft because of x" then that to me would be interesting cause it would mean minecraft had some functionality of a circuit design tool that was actually noteworthy.
As an example, What does shit me is that intel are making a cpu for whatever it costs, they can afford to sell it for $150 and be turning a profit. But why do that, lets gimp it sell it for $150 then sell them the 50$ upgrade later on. Now if it were a case that they made only 3ghz cpu's and those that couldnt meet 3ghz specs were sold as 2.8ghz for a cheaper price (or whatever specs they end up meeting), then that makes sense, after all the number of 3ghz cpu's rolling out the factor is limited by the number that actually meet the specs, so fair is fair. But this is garbage, all the cpu's meet the specs they need and they can afford to sell them at the gimped price. Personally, its probably the last straw for me when it comes to intel equipment, i've had enough of their garbage.
Like it or not, to me its another reason to stay from intel and move to amd. Its also a good reason why (if it is giong to happen) the pc market will die off and arm will grow stronger and stronger. People can argue in favour of this all they want, but the reality is, they can sell a really heavily performing cpu for a really cheap cost cause they can afford to, but instead they go for a golden screwdriver approach.
That really is pathetic. It happens in enterprise all the time with enterprise grade equipment. Also happens alot in software, but in both cases there can be other justifications. The truth is they could just sell the cpus for the "cheap" cost of the gimped cpu (WITHOUT GIMPING IT) and still be happily in profits without having to resort to this rubbish, theres just not justification for this kind of crap behavior.
However, what is a MUCH FAIRER comparison is the iphone and the apple app store. Want to use a different app store, sorry, your out of luck (relatively speaking). Andoird's open-ness is actually driving markets (amazon app store being an example of that) where Apple and iphone (or anyone else for that matter) are very actively trying to shut them down.
Its also not fair to say android is free. Open source, yes, but if you want to produce a phone thats useful, you need those (licensed) google apps.
Actually, calling andoird an open-source project itself is even erroneous, google have done a truely terrible job of keeping up with their "WE'RE ANDROID AND WE'RE OPEN SOURCE rah rah rah" moniker - still no AOSP for 3.x and we're up to 3.2 already - if there is one thing that'll make me depart the android shores for something else its that one huge chunk of, lets call it for what it is, lies that really do piss me off.
The reality is, google really have disappointed in the android open source project to the point where it should be called the "android, we'll maybe open-source it if we feel like it, yeah we know we call it open source, but its not really" project. And before anyone comments saying "android isnt licensed under the gpl" or some such a big reminder to you here. Google sold android to the community (as a concept) as an open-source platform - not a "here's some kernel drivers you might need for some irrelevant arm platforms" open source project. They have truly let the community down in this instance and for that they should be thoroughly ashamed. We're also not talking about the google market, maps, etc that google license, those are definitely closed-source and thats googles fair and just choice.
Alot of people out there dont get why people here see this as a bad thing, and fine, if you dont then more power to you. You can sit there and say "well, this is required by the studios" or whatever you like.
However, the reason people like me are getting up-in-arms about such a move is because of what google USED to represent. In short, it was one of the few companies around that was large enough to stand up and fight a fight we want to see fought. Its not about what the MPAA and studios want, its about whats sensible. This is not. Typically google have fought that fight, to the point where they DO put significant dollars on the line in order to win what is plausibly (though subjective it may be) a just and/or fair outcome.
This has stopped happening. The reality is, google could have probably gotten that content simply based on android market share, and maybe in the future they'll revisit that fight. Who knows. But lately (big IMHO here) google seemed to have changed tactics quite a bit in regards to being a company that "does no evil". They're sitting on that border line, at least in the minds of people like me they are - my opinion (alone) matters very little and so im easily dismissed. Again, the whole "do no evil" is a subjective argument and what it means to me, you and everyone else may be completely different. But at least TRY and understand why people will be disappointed about this.
The best part of all this is, I wouldn't rent a movie anyway (there are better options). google have a GREAT ability to never provide services in my country, which in itself doesnt bother me in reality. But for me the "do no evil" argument of google's is wearing quite thin rather quickly.
My ultimate point being that calling people idiots for believing in a fight that you may not is rather silly and ultimately the fight was to your benefit.
On a more personal note - someone using the name of Edmund Blackadder to post such a comment is disturbing, blackadder was one of my more favored tv shows.
Wow, i could not have expressed it better myself.
TBH, it wont bother me one iota that i cant rent movies on an android phone, that google bowed to its is exceedingly disappointing.
When i first read the post in my rss reader I was (like most people here) going "well, duh"...
But to be fair, if you read the article its a little more in depth than that. However, lets go back a number of years to the days of windows NT 3 - it came on PPC, MIPs, etc (it was also the last platform to do so in the window suite). It wasn't just an x86 platform. However, not many people ran Windows NT either, so the uptake was (in a word) minimal. I think alot of the thinking back then was "why would i want to run windows on a MIP's machine when i have OS "... ultimately the platforms were doomed simply because there just wasnt either the user base or the support for those architectures... Itanium is another example of this particular nightmare/failure (when compared with amd comparatively cheaper 64bit verison of the x86 chipset).
However, DEC Alpha was a bit different, it had an embedded way of running the x86 chip's instruction set, and so maybe no one will come along and write a set of hardware capable of translating x86 instructions back to ARM's core. BUT, thats exactly how the AMD chips used to work, risc core translated up to an x86 instruction set. That in itself doesnt really solve the problem because you'd still want to run x86 windows on top of your x86-to-arm core.
But dont kid yourself that there will be no apps day one for ARM platform for windows cause you can guarentee windows wont go in alone, they'll bring a host of developers along with them and probably apply some incentives for using it.
Also, while the windows core may have failed on PPC, MIP's, etc, the reasons for its success didnt exist - this is not true of the arm platform. Not only is it the "cheap" platform (which is what x86 used to be back in the win nt 3 days), its also small and power friendly. Its also capable of doing alot more then just running Windows. Windows 8 may not be a huge success on ARM, and hopefully thats not going to make MS go "we'll drop arm" cause ARM really has some huge potential both at the desktop and the server, and I hope microsoft see that potential as something they can work with in the long term. Hopefully, their dev tools make it relatively easy to target both arm and/or x86.
As for the virus/malware comment, as many people have pointed out, the bugs will probably translate across in the porting process - however, we'll probably just get a whole host of new ones to add to it... then again, flash and java wont care whether its arm or x86 (and who knows what to expect of .net really?)...