Customer: How about that OpenMoko phone? Employee: Uh, sorry, pre-announced.
Customer: How about a nice Linux-based MP3 player? Employee: We don't keep track of which ones use Linux.
Customer: How about OOO and some training so that I can shake the Office habit? Employee: Training? You can't use vi or emacs so you want a GUI WYSIWYG app? Bummer, dude.
Customer: Dang. How about one of those kewl displays? Employee: We'll have to setup your X geometries to see if it works; got the specs of that thing? I have to do some math.
Customer: But what about OGG? Employee: Ok. We do that.
1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend 2. Linux will get cool stores, too 3. OOO is just as good as MS Office 4. KDE 5 will look just like Aqua 5. Gimp and Adobe work alike.
In reality, although it appears as though there's a right to proxy recordings, there is not. Most states have requirements that stipulate that both sides must know a conversation is being recorded. Yes, parents are responsible, but their liability ends when the child steps on the bus. If their child's behavior is in question, most school corporations have established methods of dealing with problems that are often quite fair and have safety-appellate mechanisms for redress (another constitutional guarantee, oft forgotten).
A child's behavior (breaking a window, vandalism, etc) may become the crux of a parent or guardian (I am both) civil liability, but almost never a criminal one.
The recording is very likely illegal, and therefore the crux of the angst of the appeals court's decision to eventually admit it as evidence.
Disclosure is balanced against the unwary. Privacy, while not a specific right in the US Constitution, has many theories of protection, starting with the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 14th Amendments. These include right of association (do not give my conversation to someone I don't want to associate with), freedom of speech protections, right of denial of self-incrimination, and others.
The evidence in the suspect's discussion might criminally confess either party. The evidence in the school bus case also, with the additional onus that a private individual (e.g. not a government employee, a contractor in this case) has further protections.
Single-brand retailers, even with sophisticated product lines that inter-link, are transient and inevitably die.
Apple stores are needed, because they did a great job in killing off their VAR and retailer friends (with a few notable exceptions) in the 1990's and early 2000s. They NEED their own retail; they have a limited product line, insufficient SKUs, and are trying desperately to hold margins high.
I can't blame them for that, but it's a fragile system.
I'm not faulting them for their user experience. And you'd be surprised at the randomness of the 'user experience' in retail. If it was a plan, they're often lost on the best of us.
But it's not an open, egalitarian marketing plan. You become part of their maze when you enter, purchase, and exit.
It's not a big box retailer; it's very highly confined in its atmosphere. If it's a test about whether the mouse gets the cheese. The cheese is somewhat tasty. I own Macs. But I'm not in any way enslaved to Apple over my choice of machines. There's happened to satisfy me.
It's their lucky day. They provided value; I paid for it. Great. Others seem to feel the 'vibe' at an Apple store to make a cogent selection. Also great. But the Apple store's success is transient. I sold Apple II's in the early 1980s and programmed them, too. Apple struck oil, then pumped it all out, then found additional oil. It's nice to be excited about something, but monolithic retailers usually die of diseases of their own making.
it's a company store. You can buy anything you want, so long as it works with something made by Apple.
HP, Dell, and others might be able to do the same thing, provided they had panache in their product lines.
Still, you can't buy Linux, you can't buy a game machine, you can't buy anything else. It's a controlled environment and a carefully calculated 'user experience'. Would we expect anything else from Apple? After all, Apple gets what Apple wants...
So far, no data exists to correlate oceanic earthquakes and other events (seismic or not) for methane (and other gaseous) releases. It's probable, but unknown, that these vents have occurred for millions, possibly billions of years. It's possible to speculate that we might be poised towards more releases, but again, it takes a lot of oceanic temperature rise, more than can be explained by El Nino and other phenomena, to get a damaging rise.
We've had unexplained killoffs of varying kinds thru history; and the African CO2 release was certainly both onerous and hideous. Still, your correlation is at best speculative and sadly, science research funds aren't poised to getting any better answers. Unfortunately, the incident is anecdotal at best within this context. My wish: run a pipe to some of these pockets and manage the burn efficiently. Better yet, solar conversions to capacitors or safer nuclear energy.
And has been doing this for millions of years. The only thing that changes the ocean methane equation is reduced atmospheric pressure, or a very wicked ocean warming--- more than what's forecast.
Your suppositions imply that IPV4 was good. It was adequate. IPV6 is a siege howitzer where a flyswatter was necessary. Rounding up to 2^40 from 2^32 is like Everett Dirksen's observations on US Governmental spending: Take these little $1 billion and $2 billion bills, and eventually they add up to real money!!
The problem with both is the historical nature of Ethernet and IP itself. IPV4 was nifty, if confusing for people that can't think in anything but decimal. Having worked in the telco space, watching the madness of ATM, watching the birth,rise, and death of odd things like IPX, AppleTalk, weird variants of ARCNet, and other attempts at the matter, I find that IPV6 is just IPV4 done with fatter, ludicrously large numbers.
I'm not trying to be passive-aggressive, rather, point out the obvious: IPV6 is too big--> this far beyond the fact that everyone had to do a forklift upgrade to something at some point to get around the malaise of having just above four billion useful primary addresses available for our populace.-- and forget NATing and VLANs for right now.
Thanks for your considered reply.
There is no cleanliness. There is no beauty here. There is only cost-effectivity and usefulness. IPV4 and especially 6 are neither clean, nor beautiful. A protocol redesign is needed at some point, along with a long list of others that were pretty clever in their day, and now are like patching Swiss cheese.
We've proven that an Internet as a communications system is a wonderful thing. The 'gentlemen's' agreements that evolved it rapidly and fluidly suited it well. We've now gone protocol mad, with big guns rather than big scientists/researchers doing the committee work at the IEEE, right down to the FTTH Council and all points in between/tangential.
Re:the fool - or the fool that follows him?
on
Your Worst IT Workshop?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I love the feedback scores. I try to achieve the best marks and usually hit the nail on the head.
Then I went on a seminar series that had vendor sponsors. I got all top evaluation marks-- hundreds-- and only a rare 'good' instead of excellent.
I was replaced on the next seminar tour by a vendor sycophant-- because the vendors had complained. His marks? Not so good. Did they replace him? Of course not. Sponsors fill the gas tanks.
These are the guys that thought that ATM would rule the world-- a very deterministic bunch at best. Not being able to understand Internet infrastructure- even though they 'run' big portions of it- is normal.
Let's say you needed your own acquired infrastructure to run your own cable system or your own cell/mobiles system. Let's say you didn't want your competitors services and content to be clogging your wires at your 'expense'. Let's say that it galls the living hell out of you that you can't control or throttle the full breadth of packets going over your own network!
And worse, some damn US Senator from Conn. decided to derail your immunity from prosecution over handing over data to the Bush Administration. Can't win that one? Then inject the fear of an 'exa' or peta or oogle event to scare the living shit out of people.
Aw shucks. Busted. And if you did a ten-dot net NAT on each of those addresses, how much more room would you have? Enough?
Would it be like IPV6, where we can take 2^128 address... that's about 3.4028 with 38 zeros past the decimal point? Or as one wag put it, about 1500 IP addresses for every square foot on this planet?
Which is loonier? Extending IPV4 in NAT/ten-dot space, or just making address for every nonsensically huge thing you can possibly imagine? --> like past a third of the way to an oogle in any discrete measurement?
Sure, it's just a double-byte fetch for a 64-bit CPU.... Double fie!
But people aren't using IPV6; even the technologies used to partition IPV6:IPV4 aren't well implemented-- and at the desktop, it's almost unheard of. You don't need every subatomic particle to be addressed as reason to implement a badly designed protocol set. People don't subnet anymore, they don't really understand what/how to use NAT, and they certainly don't understand VLANing. Add this protocol changeover into the mix, and it's overkill-- mind boggling overkill.
Every year, I hear the same thing: IPV4's going to run out of addresses. It's not like global warming-- it's a finite number of routes. The number of them still exceeds an address for every single human on the face of the earth * a nice multiplier. Fie.
Litigation seems abhorent. The big blocks are US-corps and universities that need to cough them up. I'd say: send us your serviced headcount. Otherwise, we monitor DNS and see if they're being used. You sacrifice them should they be unused for say, two years. Imagine the chest-thumping. These addresses were doled out in the old days when we still connected through 56/64K leased lines and frac-T1, and even x.25. No one thought that they'd be valuable. They still aren't; and the magnitude of IPV6, coupled to its onerous privacy possibilities, isn't the answer.
People in NYC wanted to keep their 212 telephone numbers. Then they came to realize that it made no difference.
It's possible to (and in some areas is becoming mandated) to give up CIDR blocks that are unused.
IPV6 is overkill. Those that say that routers aren't going to have a problem with it don't understand the complexity of the routing tables that result; add this to DNS/ENUM/ENUM2 etc needs and the mind boggles. Like other things, it looks like a great idea on the surface, but isn't well thought through.
and many would argue that it's not. The IPV6 address space is beyond reasonable, and the onerous idea of tracking every conceivable device right down to bullets fired (look it up) is staggeringly senseless overkill. We still have huge Class B spaces taken up by various hoarders that need to give it up and use some common sense. There are loads of CIDR blocks that need to be used or pushed back into the pools of available IPV4 space.
Those that do only the minimum to achieve IPV6 addressing are in my personal and technical opinion, doing nothing incorrectly beyond violating the spirit of mind-numbing nonsensical regulation. Even if IPV6 addressing were rational, then managing that space still needs work-- even after more than a decade of implementation.
The Bush/Cheney paranoia is exactly what this amendment was designed to thwart. I do not believe that the Congress has the authority to make this bill pass, as it prima facie violates the US Constitution. Bush can grant a limited amount of immunity, but the amount of immunity that can be granted to civil liability is unknown and has little precedent to go by.
It's my fervent hope that we can live freely again, and not be subject to the whimsies of madmen.
Mod parent up. Giving carte blanche to edit materials that reflects one's self or self interests will lead to entries like this. Anonymity (or pseudo-anonymity) permits people to do naughty, self-promoting things. People aren't going to be unbiased about themselves, or their perceived missions in life. Such is the need for referential integrity.
The parent message points out, and correctly, that wikipedia and other self-edit mechanisms are going to be rife for objective reporting in sheep's clothing. If you want veracity, wikipedia isn't it, and cannot be made so given its current editing bias criteria.
Was it abused? Sure. And what else is new???? Surely you don't believe that such a medium can be impartial..... and manipulated by everyone for that person's own purposes? Why does it surprise people when someone fingerfarts an entry into open wikis?
What would a Linux robot look like? European in sexy German leather? Would a Microsoft robot have Birkenstocks and small breasts? How about a BSD robot-- whips and chains??? And I can only imagine the Apple robot--- the batteries would die quickly, but fondly.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you saw my tongue in my cheek.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics (Mark Twain).
That Linux is cannibalized by Leopard is just a marketing problem.
Customer: How about that OpenMoko phone?
Employee: Uh, sorry, pre-announced.
Customer: How about a nice Linux-based MP3 player?
Employee: We don't keep track of which ones use Linux.
Customer: How about OOO and some training so that I can shake the Office habit?
Employee: Training? You can't use vi or emacs so you want a GUI WYSIWYG app? Bummer, dude.
Customer: Dang. How about one of those kewl displays?
Employee: We'll have to setup your X geometries to see if it works; got the specs of that thing? I have to do some math.
Customer: But what about OGG?
Employee: Ok. We do that.
1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend
2. Linux will get cool stores, too
3. OOO is just as good as MS Office
4. KDE 5 will look just like Aqua
5. Gimp and Adobe work alike.
No, it's not flamebait, just reality.
In reality, although it appears as though there's a right to proxy recordings, there is not. Most states have requirements that stipulate that both sides must know a conversation is being recorded. Yes, parents are responsible, but their liability ends when the child steps on the bus. If their child's behavior is in question, most school corporations have established methods of dealing with problems that are often quite fair and have safety-appellate mechanisms for redress (another constitutional guarantee, oft forgotten).
A child's behavior (breaking a window, vandalism, etc) may become the crux of a parent or guardian (I am both) civil liability, but almost never a criminal one.
The recording is very likely illegal, and therefore the crux of the angst of the appeals court's decision to eventually admit it as evidence.
Disclosure is balanced against the unwary. Privacy, while not a specific right in the US Constitution, has many theories of protection, starting with the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 14th Amendments. These include right of association (do not give my conversation to someone I don't want to associate with), freedom of speech protections, right of denial of self-incrimination, and others.
The evidence in the suspect's discussion might criminally confess either party. The evidence in the school bus case also, with the additional onus that a private individual (e.g. not a government employee, a contractor in this case) has further protections.
Single-brand retailers, even with sophisticated product lines that inter-link, are transient and inevitably die.
Apple stores are needed, because they did a great job in killing off their VAR and retailer friends (with a few notable exceptions) in the 1990's and early 2000s. They NEED their own retail; they have a limited product line, insufficient SKUs, and are trying desperately to hold margins high.
I can't blame them for that, but it's a fragile system.
This is a good thing. Now, where can I buy Leopard for one of my HP notebooks?
I'm not faulting them for their user experience. And you'd be surprised at the randomness of the 'user experience' in retail. If it was a plan, they're often lost on the best of us.
But it's not an open, egalitarian marketing plan. You become part of their maze when you enter, purchase, and exit.
It's not a big box retailer; it's very highly confined in its atmosphere. If it's a test about whether the mouse gets the cheese. The cheese is somewhat tasty. I own Macs. But I'm not in any way enslaved to Apple over my choice of machines. There's happened to satisfy me.
It's their lucky day. They provided value; I paid for it. Great. Others seem to feel the 'vibe' at an Apple store to make a cogent selection. Also great. But the Apple store's success is transient. I sold Apple II's in the early 1980s and programmed them, too. Apple struck oil, then pumped it all out, then found additional oil. It's nice to be excited about something, but monolithic retailers usually die of diseases of their own making.
it's a company store. You can buy anything you want, so long as it works with something made by Apple.
HP, Dell, and others might be able to do the same thing, provided they had panache in their product lines.
Still, you can't buy Linux, you can't buy a game machine, you can't buy anything else. It's a controlled environment and a carefully calculated 'user experience'. Would we expect anything else from Apple? After all, Apple gets what Apple wants...
So far, no data exists to correlate oceanic earthquakes and other events (seismic or not) for methane (and other gaseous) releases. It's probable, but unknown, that these vents have occurred for millions, possibly billions of years. It's possible to speculate that we might be poised towards more releases, but again, it takes a lot of oceanic temperature rise, more than can be explained by El Nino and other phenomena, to get a damaging rise.
We've had unexplained killoffs of varying kinds thru history; and the African CO2 release was certainly both onerous and hideous. Still, your correlation is at best speculative and sadly, science research funds aren't poised to getting any better answers. Unfortunately, the incident is anecdotal at best within this context. My wish: run a pipe to some of these pockets and manage the burn efficiently. Better yet, solar conversions to capacitors or safer nuclear energy.
And has been doing this for millions of years. The only thing that changes the ocean methane equation is reduced atmospheric pressure, or a very wicked ocean warming--- more than what's forecast.
Additionally, I meant to put the phrase 'Thanks for your considered reply' at the bottom, as I really genuinely value your reply.
Your suppositions imply that IPV4 was good. It was adequate. IPV6 is a siege howitzer where a flyswatter was necessary. Rounding up to 2^40 from 2^32 is like Everett Dirksen's observations on US Governmental spending: Take these little $1 billion and $2 billion bills, and eventually they add up to real money!!
The problem with both is the historical nature of Ethernet and IP itself. IPV4 was nifty, if confusing for people that can't think in anything but decimal. Having worked in the telco space, watching the madness of ATM, watching the birth,rise, and death of odd things like IPX, AppleTalk, weird variants of ARCNet, and other attempts at the matter, I find that IPV6 is just IPV4 done with fatter, ludicrously large numbers.
I'm not trying to be passive-aggressive, rather, point out the obvious: IPV6 is too big--> this far beyond the fact that everyone had to do a forklift upgrade to something at some point to get around the malaise of having just above four billion useful primary addresses available for our populace.-- and forget NATing and VLANs for right now.
Thanks for your considered reply. There is no cleanliness. There is no beauty here. There is only cost-effectivity and usefulness. IPV4 and especially 6 are neither clean, nor beautiful. A protocol redesign is needed at some point, along with a long list of others that were pretty clever in their day, and now are like patching Swiss cheese.
We've proven that an Internet as a communications system is a wonderful thing. The 'gentlemen's' agreements that evolved it rapidly and fluidly suited it well. We've now gone protocol mad, with big guns rather than big scientists/researchers doing the committee work at the IEEE, right down to the FTTH Council and all points in between/tangential.
I love the feedback scores. I try to achieve the best marks and usually hit the nail on the head.
Then I went on a seminar series that had vendor sponsors. I got all top evaluation marks-- hundreds-- and only a rare 'good' instead of excellent.
I was replaced on the next seminar tour by a vendor sycophant-- because the vendors had complained. His marks? Not so good. Did they replace him? Of course not. Sponsors fill the gas tanks.
These are the guys that thought that ATM would rule the world-- a very deterministic bunch at best. Not being able to understand Internet infrastructure- even though they 'run' big portions of it- is normal.
Let's say you needed your own acquired infrastructure to run your own cable system or your own cell/mobiles system. Let's say you didn't want your competitors services and content to be clogging your wires at your 'expense'. Let's say that it galls the living hell out of you that you can't control or throttle the full breadth of packets going over your own network!
And worse, some damn US Senator from Conn. decided to derail your immunity from prosecution over handing over data to the Bush Administration. Can't win that one? Then inject the fear of an 'exa' or peta or oogle event to scare the living shit out of people.
Propaganda. Every last fear-mongering fib.
Amen, brother (not to be sexist), amen.....
Just wait until they try and fix SMTP. You've seen nothing yet.
Aw shucks. Busted. And if you did a ten-dot net NAT on each of those addresses, how much more room would you have? Enough?
Would it be like IPV6, where we can take 2^128 address... that's about 3.4028 with 38 zeros past the decimal point? Or as one wag put it, about 1500 IP addresses for every square foot on this planet?
Which is loonier? Extending IPV4 in NAT/ten-dot space, or just making address for every nonsensically huge thing you can possibly imagine? --> like past a third of the way to an oogle in any discrete measurement?
Sure, it's just a double-byte fetch for a 64-bit CPU.... Double fie!
But people aren't using IPV6; even the technologies used to partition IPV6:IPV4 aren't well implemented-- and at the desktop, it's almost unheard of. You don't need every subatomic particle to be addressed as reason to implement a badly designed protocol set. People don't subnet anymore, they don't really understand what/how to use NAT, and they certainly don't understand VLANing. Add this protocol changeover into the mix, and it's overkill-- mind boggling overkill.
Every year, I hear the same thing: IPV4's going to run out of addresses. It's not like global warming-- it's a finite number of routes. The number of them still exceeds an address for every single human on the face of the earth * a nice multiplier. Fie.
Litigation seems abhorent. The big blocks are US-corps and universities that need to cough them up. I'd say: send us your serviced headcount. Otherwise, we monitor DNS and see if they're being used. You sacrifice them should they be unused for say, two years. Imagine the chest-thumping. These addresses were doled out in the old days when we still connected through 56/64K leased lines and frac-T1, and even x.25. No one thought that they'd be valuable. They still aren't; and the magnitude of IPV6, coupled to its onerous privacy possibilities, isn't the answer.
The 10^34 addresses are overkill.
People in NYC wanted to keep their 212 telephone numbers. Then they came to realize that it made no difference.
It's possible to (and in some areas is becoming mandated) to give up CIDR blocks that are unused.
IPV6 is overkill. Those that say that routers aren't going to have a problem with it don't understand the complexity of the routing tables that result; add this to DNS/ENUM/ENUM2 etc needs and the mind boggles. Like other things, it looks like a great idea on the surface, but isn't well thought through.
For further info, look at the bottom of this page in PCWelt: http://www.pcwelt.de/index.cfm?pid=839&pk=51740&p=5; it describes it nicely.
and many would argue that it's not. The IPV6 address space is beyond reasonable, and the onerous idea of tracking every conceivable device right down to bullets fired (look it up) is staggeringly senseless overkill. We still have huge Class B spaces taken up by various hoarders that need to give it up and use some common sense. There are loads of CIDR blocks that need to be used or pushed back into the pools of available IPV4 space.
Those that do only the minimum to achieve IPV6 addressing are in my personal and technical opinion, doing nothing incorrectly beyond violating the spirit of mind-numbing nonsensical regulation. Even if IPV6 addressing were rational, then managing that space still needs work-- even after more than a decade of implementation.
The Bush/Cheney paranoia is exactly what this amendment was designed to thwart. I do not believe that the Congress has the authority to make this bill pass, as it prima facie violates the US Constitution. Bush can grant a limited amount of immunity, but the amount of immunity that can be granted to civil liability is unknown and has little precedent to go by.
It's my fervent hope that we can live freely again, and not be subject to the whimsies of madmen.
Mod parent up. Giving carte blanche to edit materials that reflects one's self or self interests will lead to entries like this. Anonymity (or pseudo-anonymity) permits people to do naughty, self-promoting things. People aren't going to be unbiased about themselves, or their perceived missions in life. Such is the need for referential integrity.
The parent message points out, and correctly, that wikipedia and other self-edit mechanisms are going to be rife for objective reporting in sheep's clothing. If you want veracity, wikipedia isn't it, and cannot be made so given its current editing bias criteria.
Was it abused? Sure. And what else is new???? Surely you don't believe that such a medium can be impartial..... and manipulated by everyone for that person's own purposes? Why does it surprise people when someone fingerfarts an entry into open wikis?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Some might have bugs. Imagine this instruction:
while(using tongue)
exec jawhingerachet for(;;)
What would a Linux robot look like? European in sexy German leather? Would a Microsoft robot have Birkenstocks and small breasts? How about a BSD robot-- whips and chains??? And I can only imagine the Apple robot--- the batteries would die quickly, but fondly.