Good to see I'm not the only one who gets frustrated hearing people turn what's actually a very noble thought into an excuse for mooching.
And yes, using the term "free" seems to usually be a bad idea due to it's close association with money. FreeBSD was misunderstood for years (and still is by many) as a lower quality "free" version of some assumed BSD that one would buy.
True, and most people understand this. I don't think some sysadmin stopped what he was doing to write that response. As an unaffected outside observer, I can even see the humor in it. To be brutally truthful, I hate this whole "cloud" concept and am somewhat happy when stuff like this happens (with due respect to those who are losing tonnes of money they probably need).
_However_ when _you_ (as in, the company), are causing your customers downtime.. you have to be pretty damn careful about what you say. It has to be the right mixture of apology and grovelling. Humor is not a good idea when your customers are staying up all night pacing so they can flip the switch at their end the second you get your shit together. Making anything that even borders on "light of the situation" is a pretty stupid move on amazons part.. even in direct response to a question.
I still view it as stealing from the moral perspective, as I am depriving someone, somewhere (who probably sleeps on a big pile of gold and is a complete asshole) of their royalty payment.
From the criminal standpoint, yes, it's not theft because I am not actually taking the copy... and it's not illegal because the industry has kinda been compensated here via levies on blank media (which I don't buy very often).
From the moral perspective I view it as stealing because I'm depriving someone, somewhere of a royalty payment.
Directly however, I agree. The crime (actually not actually a crime here.. kinda) isn't theft.. because as you said I have not actually taken the copy.
This little unintended diatribe actually highlights the problem in my view.
We can't apply old style thinking to the internet... because the theory ("it's like borrowing from a library") doesn't quite match the reality for a handful of fairly obvious reasons and a number of not so obvious ones.
And as normal, the extreme sides are way out to lunch.
You have the "information wants to be free" types who think that because there is no tangible thing being taken.. because someone is not being deprived of a physical widget, that it's all cool. It may have cost 20 million to produce that first copy... but the fact that one person pays $20 dollars for it and shares it with 10000+ people just doesn't jive. This crowd basically wants the content and doesn't want to pay for it.. and has shoehorned old style thinking to play their case.
And conversely, you have the media industry, who wants you to pay for content every time you watch it and on each unique device, and wants to dictate when, how, and what you view. This crowd wants the most money and complete control of all entertainment.. and has also shoehorned old style thinking to play their case.
We really (as a group of people) need to actually figure this shit out at a rational level. The old style thinking doesn't seem to apply, so we need to actually define a "new style thinking". I think the media industry has a right to profit off their work, and I don't think I have some entitlement to entertainment the exact way I want it... but I also think that I should have the right to do whatever I want with what I paid for. Basically, you should either sell a product with no strings attached... or not sell a product at all.
I'm Canadian, so the Hulu/Netflix/etc thing doesn't quite work out so well.
I did ditch the cable a while ago though.
News has gotten progressively more useless, to the point where it actually annoys me to watch it, and I'm not a big fan of sports... which is where cable seems to win. The occasional time I want to see a game, I'll go to a friends house (which is usually more fun anyway).
I just buy the DVD box sets of shows I like.. and download if they haven't been released yet (I know this is technically stealing.. but I can live with it). I prefer watching stuff this way anyhow.
I can't even remember the last time I heard about something being on TV and thought "damn, if only I had cable".
I'm a programmer, not a sysadmin/network guy. While I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of networking just as a result of being "in the neighbourhood", my first reaction to "public IP" was, "the device will be publically accessible". After thinking about it and doing a little reading, I understood that this wasn't the case (it all still goes through one point, and that one point gets to say "nope", at least in most setups). Point is, I know I'm not the only semi-networking savvy person to have this reaction.
As said in my original post, people are comfortable with NAT. Specifically they are comfortable with the concept that "you have one public IP, a dealie, and a bunch of internal devices with private IPs. Unless the dealie allows it, those internal devices are not accessible from the outside. So comfortable, that it will not surprise me to see IPv6 NAT implementations crop up, even though IPv6 tries to eliminate the need for it. The resistance people have to new ways of thinking is quite high. I suspect, as irrational as this is, that most people are going to want the old NAT mentality vs the new firewall mentality.
That's actually exactly what I did (hint for anyone with the same modem: reset it and don't go through the install wizard.. it defaults to bridged mode).. but the modem still would overheat and did need to be reset at least once a month or it would start acting "weird".
I finally just bought bought my own decent ADSL modem and hooked it to a box running m0n0wall... life has been good ever since.
That's actually what I meant by "technically", as like you said, the individual can still get one from the large orgs who the addressed have been allocated. The fact that the top level of the internet can't get new IPs won't hurt us peons down here for some time.
BTW, consumer-owned routers will not be the problem. The problem will be the ISP-owned cable and/or DSL modems, the vast majority of which are likely to be flaky with IPV6.
Yup, the modem/router my ISP just "upgraded" me to is a _complete_ piece of junk (speedstream is anyone is curious) that they've made even worse by overlaying custom firmware. They have pretty much disabled every feature (and it didn't have many to begin with) _including_ the feature to statically link an IP to a mac address. The thing seems to overheat weekly, and they actually recommend restarting every two weeks for "optimal performance". And this is IPv4 and probably a "mature" product.. I can't wait to see what they cook up for IPv6. At least with IPv4 I could go out and buy my own damn modem and router... I hope the same will be true when they roll out IPv6.
Another component of the problem is that IPv6 is quite different from IPv4. Arguably better... but people don't like different.
I understand why it happened, the internet _is_ the legacy problem. You can't just roll out a patch to the internet every few years... once it's running it has to work for a long time. I think a lot of people saw this as a good opportunity to fix some other problems... and the result is people are going to have to change the way they think about certain things, which is going to lead to resistance.
Even myself, who enjoys change. I am comfortable with how NAT works. It makes sense to me. I hear things like "every device gets a public IP" and freak out. Now that I understand how it works (read: gateways suddenly became a lot more important) it's not so bad... but I can see why a lot of people, especially who don't work with networks as a career... are just saying "screw that, I'll deal when something actually happens to cause _me_ grief".
And there is no benifit to the ISP either. They can't charge more money to upgrade people to IPv6 because as you said, there is no benifit to the consumer. It just costs them money.. _and_ is going to generate more user issues which is more money and maybe some lost business.
Ultimately, until shit actually starts failing in a big way.. nothing is going to happen.
This is actually a really good example of what they should be doing.
Make the tech available first.. let people develop a desire for it. ISPs should be handing out IPv6 addresses to anyone who wants them. Let people play with them optionally... eventually more and more people will... and demand for it will increase. It would be a slow, gradual adoption devoide of excessive headaches...
way too rational to actually happen given the current track record though.
Truth is, I don't expect IPv6 to be widespread for about 10 years. The reasoning being that:
- while we are technically out of IPs... this is not the world ending problem it's been hyped to be.. as evidenced by the world not ending - the stuff we should have been doing 10 years ago at the consumer level we are just starting to do now (how many _new_ home routers still don't do IPv6.. these will all need to be replaced. In a decade, there will probably be a noticable "IPv6 transition period" layer in all landfills. - carrier grade NAT "solves" everything
ISPs en-masse should have been giving people IPv6 addresses to play with _years_ ago. I have experimented with IPv6 locally and via tunnel, but it's just not worth it when I don't know how my ISP will allocate addresses. It also concerns me to think how they will roll this out to the masses... because they are going to have to make it user friendly and seemless to the large consumer base... which means it's probably going to be primitive, locked down, and very frustrating for anyone with technical savvy. I _hope_ they don't require everyone to use some half baked custom hardware with some propriatary switchover software that you _have_ to use.
My thought exactly. I didn't even detect a hint of hostility in this article... it had more of a matter-of-fact "isn't this cool" vibe to it.
And it's not entirely accurate... there are so many patents out there that they license all kinds of stuff off each other, but I think they this chart reflects the really noteworthy relationships in an effective manner.
so I guess the only way they will listen is if it hits their bottom line
Even then, probably not. The cost of even a major incident is going to be less than doing it properly in the first place.. and the government is gonna be bailing them out, not fining them!
It's a shitty system and it's all gonna fail one day... but no point deluding ourselves to the reality of the current situation.
Oh it always has been. From the kids who copy+pastes stuff from their windows system file into msn messanger so his/her friends think they are being "hacked", to people using hostnames to determine where someone lives on IRC and try to scare them with the information...
This book is probably interesting, but in my opinion if you are doing anything beyond a basic set of commands run in order (with _maybe_ some very primitive control statements).. you are far better off using a more powerful scripting language... or even a real programming language.
Personally I don't like shell scripts at all for anything more complex than a temporary convinience. From what I've seen they are usually poorly written (lacking proper error handling and logging), are usually riddled with dependancies, and fragile. Oh, they added a few spaces in the output of some command you call? And your script didn't notice and just kept right on doing? Well now you're screwed!
Obviously you can have the same kind of problems with a real programming language.. but shell scripts just seem to encourage bad things to happen.
You have no entitlement to receive a given piece of entertainment exactly how you want it when you want it.
Agreed, which is why as said in my post.. I pay for my media (except in a select few circumstances). The people who make the media do have the right to sell it in whatever messed up way they want... and people don't have some entitlement to it. That said, considering how blatenly simple it is to pirate media... and how painful it is to actually pay for it... it boggles my mind why anyone things this is a good idea. Big media should stop whining about Canadians pirating and go after the CBC/CRTC who won't let them sell to a large audience who is willing to spend the money!
I agree 6 is rare.. but 2 seems to be quite popular, especially with graphics people.
Even when using a single window though, I still prefer floating windows. Sometimes it's nice to full screen something, and use shortcuts... sometimes you want to have toolbox/layers and such beside the image. Various expand/maximize functions in single window apps always seem cumbersome to me... I'd rather use my window managers tools for managing windows than some application specific set of tools. I actually don't use gimp very often... but this extends to other things I do use quite frequently (like qt designer).
Re:What A Disgusting And Vile Statement
on
Who Killed Spotify?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
As a Canadian I can understand this argument.
I try very hard to pay for all my media.... but man is it hard. Thanks to some very broken laws and the CBC/CRTC, most content can't be offered in Canada for online download. So you find something you want... money sitting in your pocket (figuratively), theirs for the taking... but nope, they can't take it... but they can sell you something made in the 80's with a 1 star rating! Oh but please stop pirating because it's costing us revenue!
So your choice is basically: - go to the store.. buy the DVD (assuming they even have it in stock and not in blueray).. go home.. rip it onto your computer (which is where you wanted it to begin with) - download it and be watching in ~half hour
Relying on people to choose the morally correct option over the sane and easier one is a really bad business model!
I know this attitude well. Being Canadian, it's even worse here.
I try to buy media, and would love to be able to legitimately buy various movies and TV shows online, but thanks to the CBC/CRTC, they can't be made available here thanks to some very backwards and broken laws.
So you browse say, netflix or itunes (ugh.. but meh). Find something you want. Money (figuratively) sitting in my pocket, theirs for the taking.. NOPE! DON'T WANT IT! But please stop pirating because it's costing us money! Oh, here is a show made in the 80's with a 1 and a half star rating who's title contains one word from your query.. THAT we can give you! *froths at mouth*
Slashdot Mirror
Good to see I'm not the only one who gets frustrated hearing people turn what's actually a very noble thought into an excuse for mooching.
And yes, using the term "free" seems to usually be a bad idea due to it's close association with money. FreeBSD was misunderstood for years (and still is by many) as a lower quality "free" version of some assumed BSD that one would buy.
and this response didn't slow things down at all.
True, and most people understand this. I don't think some sysadmin stopped what he was doing to write that response. As an unaffected outside observer, I can even see the humor in it. To be brutally truthful, I hate this whole "cloud" concept and am somewhat happy when stuff like this happens (with due respect to those who are losing tonnes of money they probably need).
_However_ when _you_ (as in, the company), are causing your customers downtime.. you have to be pretty damn careful about what you say. It has to be the right mixture of apology and grovelling. Humor is not a good idea when your customers are staying up all night pacing so they can flip the switch at their end the second you get your shit together. Making anything that even borders on "light of the situation" is a pretty stupid move on amazons part.. even in direct response to a question.
As an unaffected outside observer, I can laugh.
But yeah, if I was amazon, I wouldn't be making jokes right now... I'd be pissing my pants.
They were lucky to keep their customers during their previous disaster .. and that was was resolved reasonably quickly. AWS is _still_ down for some ...
I still view it as stealing from the moral perspective, as I am depriving someone, somewhere (who probably sleeps on a big pile of gold and is a complete asshole) of their royalty payment.
From the criminal standpoint, yes, it's not theft because I am not actually taking the copy... and it's not illegal because the industry has kinda been compensated here via levies on blank media (which I don't buy very often).
From the moral perspective I view it as stealing because I'm depriving someone, somewhere of a royalty payment.
Directly however, I agree. The crime (actually not actually a crime here.. kinda) isn't theft.. because as you said I have not actually taken the copy.
This little unintended diatribe actually highlights the problem in my view.
We can't apply old style thinking to the internet... because the theory ("it's like borrowing from a library") doesn't quite match the reality for a handful of fairly obvious reasons and a number of not so obvious ones.
And as normal, the extreme sides are way out to lunch.
You have the "information wants to be free" types who think that because there is no tangible thing being taken.. because someone is not being deprived of a physical widget, that it's all cool. It may have cost 20 million to produce that first copy... but the fact that one person pays $20 dollars for it and shares it with 10000+ people just doesn't jive. This crowd basically wants the content and doesn't want to pay for it.. and has shoehorned old style thinking to play their case.
And conversely, you have the media industry, who wants you to pay for content every time you watch it and on each unique device, and wants to dictate when, how, and what you view. This crowd wants the most money and complete control of all entertainment.. and has also shoehorned old style thinking to play their case.
We really (as a group of people) need to actually figure this shit out at a rational level. The old style thinking doesn't seem to apply, so we need to actually define a "new style thinking". I think the media industry has a right to profit off their work, and I don't think I have some entitlement to entertainment the exact way I want it... but I also think that I should have the right to do whatever I want with what I paid for. Basically, you should either sell a product with no strings attached... or not sell a product at all.
I'm Canadian, so the Hulu/Netflix/etc thing doesn't quite work out so well.
I did ditch the cable a while ago though.
News has gotten progressively more useless, to the point where it actually annoys me to watch it, and I'm not a big fan of sports... which is where cable seems to win. The occasional time I want to see a game, I'll go to a friends house (which is usually more fun anyway).
I just buy the DVD box sets of shows I like .. and download if they haven't been released yet (I know this is technically stealing .. but I can live with it). I prefer watching stuff this way anyhow.
I can't even remember the last time I heard about something being on TV and thought "damn, if only I had cable".
I'm a programmer, not a sysadmin/network guy. While I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of networking just as a result of being "in the neighbourhood", my first reaction to "public IP" was, "the device will be publically accessible". After thinking about it and doing a little reading, I understood that this wasn't the case (it all still goes through one point, and that one point gets to say "nope", at least in most setups). Point is, I know I'm not the only semi-networking savvy person to have this reaction.
As said in my original post, people are comfortable with NAT. Specifically they are comfortable with the concept that "you have one public IP, a dealie, and a bunch of internal devices with private IPs. Unless the dealie allows it, those internal devices are not accessible from the outside. So comfortable, that it will not surprise me to see IPv6 NAT implementations crop up, even though IPv6 tries to eliminate the need for it. The resistance people have to new ways of thinking is quite high. I suspect, as irrational as this is, that most people are going to want the old NAT mentality vs the new firewall mentality.
That's actually exactly what I did (hint for anyone with the same modem: reset it and don't go through the install wizard.. it defaults to bridged mode) .. but the modem still would overheat and did need to be reset at least once a month or it would start acting "weird".
I finally just bought bought my own decent ADSL modem and hooked it to a box running m0n0wall... life has been good ever since.
How this conversation ends depends largely on whether the ISP in question has any competition...
So damn true. Where I live you have two choices, and it's pretty much a choice of the steak knife through the arm or a ballpeene hammer to the foot.
Actually, "we" are not out of IP addresses
That's actually what I meant by "technically", as like you said, the individual can still get one from the large orgs who the addressed have been allocated. The fact that the top level of the internet can't get new IPs won't hurt us peons down here for some time.
BTW, consumer-owned routers will not be the problem. The problem will be the ISP-owned cable and/or DSL modems, the vast majority of which are likely to be flaky with IPV6.
Yup, the modem/router my ISP just "upgraded" me to is a _complete_ piece of junk (speedstream is anyone is curious) that they've made even worse by overlaying custom firmware. They have pretty much disabled every feature (and it didn't have many to begin with) _including_ the feature to statically link an IP to a mac address. The thing seems to overheat weekly, and they actually recommend restarting every two weeks for "optimal performance". And this is IPv4 and probably a "mature" product.. I can't wait to see what they cook up for IPv6. At least with IPv4 I could go out and buy my own damn modem and router ... I hope the same will be true when they roll out IPv6.
They actually are doing this... and will probably be doing more and more of.
This is the great and mighty carrier grade NAT ... and it's effectiveness is what puts off any chance of a speedy transition.
Totally agreed.
Another component of the problem is that IPv6 is quite different from IPv4. Arguably better... but people don't like different.
I understand why it happened, the internet _is_ the legacy problem. You can't just roll out a patch to the internet every few years... once it's running it has to work for a long time. I think a lot of people saw this as a good opportunity to fix some other problems ... and the result is people are going to have to change the way they think about certain things, which is going to lead to resistance.
Even myself, who enjoys change. I am comfortable with how NAT works. It makes sense to me. I hear things like "every device gets a public IP" and freak out. Now that I understand how it works (read: gateways suddenly became a lot more important) it's not so bad... but I can see why a lot of people, especially who don't work with networks as a career... are just saying "screw that, I'll deal when something actually happens to cause _me_ grief".
And there is no benifit to the ISP either. They can't charge more money to upgrade people to IPv6 because as you said, there is no benifit to the consumer. It just costs them money.. _and_ is going to generate more user issues which is more money and maybe some lost business.
Ultimately, until shit actually starts failing in a big way.. nothing is going to happen.
This is actually a really good example of what they should be doing.
Make the tech available first.. let people develop a desire for it. ISPs should be handing out IPv6 addresses to anyone who wants them. Let people play with them optionally... eventually more and more people will... and demand for it will increase. It would be a slow, gradual adoption devoide of excessive headaches...
way too rational to actually happen given the current track record though.
NAT and other hacks I imagine.
Truth is, I don't expect IPv6 to be widespread for about 10 years. The reasoning being that:
- while we are technically out of IPs ... this is not the world ending problem it's been hyped to be.. as evidenced by the world not ending .. these will all need to be replaced. In a decade, there will probably be a noticable "IPv6 transition period" layer in all landfills.
- the stuff we should have been doing 10 years ago at the consumer level we are just starting to do now (how many _new_ home routers still don't do IPv6
- carrier grade NAT "solves" everything
ISPs en-masse should have been giving people IPv6 addresses to play with _years_ ago. I have experimented with IPv6 locally and via tunnel, but it's just not worth it when I don't know how my ISP will allocate addresses. It also concerns me to think how they will roll this out to the masses... because they are going to have to make it user friendly and seemless to the large consumer base... which means it's probably going to be primitive, locked down, and very frustrating for anyone with technical savvy. I _hope_ they don't require everyone to use some half baked custom hardware with some propriatary switchover software that you _have_ to use.
My thought exactly. I didn't even detect a hint of hostility in this article... it had more of a matter-of-fact "isn't this cool" vibe to it.
And it's not entirely accurate... there are so many patents out there that they license all kinds of stuff off each other, but I think they this chart reflects the really noteworthy relationships in an effective manner.
so I guess the only way they will listen is if it hits their bottom line
Even then, probably not. The cost of even a major incident is going to be less than doing it properly in the first place.. and the government is gonna be bailing them out, not fining them!
It's a shitty system and it's all gonna fail one day ... but no point deluding ourselves to the reality of the current situation.
Did you not see die hard 4!
Is *Faking* break-ins the new L33T?
Oh it always has been. From the kids who copy+pastes stuff from their windows system file into msn messanger so his/her friends think they are being "hacked", to people using hostnames to determine where someone lives on IRC and try to scare them with the information...
One day seems a bit quick to do an investigation.
That said, I do think this was probably a hoax.
Probably more likely they'll just go out of business.
Unless you live in a huge area, you and your "serious reader" friends probably don't represent enough business to keep them afloat.
Agreed!
This book is probably interesting, but in my opinion if you are doing anything beyond a basic set of commands run in order (with _maybe_ some very primitive control statements) .. you are far better off using a more powerful scripting language... or even a real programming language.
Personally I don't like shell scripts at all for anything more complex than a temporary convinience. From what I've seen they are usually poorly written (lacking proper error handling and logging), are usually riddled with dependancies, and fragile. Oh, they added a few spaces in the output of some command you call? And your script didn't notice and just kept right on doing? Well now you're screwed!
Obviously you can have the same kind of problems with a real programming language.. but shell scripts just seem to encourage bad things to happen.
You have no entitlement to receive a given piece of entertainment exactly how you want it when you want it.
Agreed, which is why as said in my post.. I pay for my media (except in a select few circumstances). The people who make the media do have the right to sell it in whatever messed up way they want... and people don't have some entitlement to it. That said, considering how blatenly simple it is to pirate media... and how painful it is to actually pay for it... it boggles my mind why anyone things this is a good idea. Big media should stop whining about Canadians pirating and go after the CBC/CRTC who won't let them sell to a large audience who is willing to spend the money!
I agree 6 is rare.. but 2 seems to be quite popular, especially with graphics people.
Even when using a single window though, I still prefer floating windows. Sometimes it's nice to full screen something, and use shortcuts ... sometimes you want to have toolbox/layers and such beside the image. Various expand/maximize functions in single window apps always seem cumbersome to me... I'd rather use my window managers tools for managing windows than some application specific set of tools. I actually don't use gimp very often... but this extends to other things I do use quite frequently (like qt designer).
As a Canadian I can understand this argument.
I try very hard to pay for all my media.... but man is it hard. Thanks to some very broken laws and the CBC/CRTC, most content can't be offered in Canada for online download. So you find something you want... money sitting in your pocket (figuratively), theirs for the taking... but nope, they can't take it... but they can sell you something made in the 80's with a 1 star rating! Oh but please stop pirating because it's costing us revenue!
So your choice is basically:
- go to the store.. buy the DVD (assuming they even have it in stock and not in blueray).. go home.. rip it onto your computer (which is where you wanted it to begin with)
- download it and be watching in ~half hour
Relying on people to choose the morally correct option over the sane and easier one is a really bad business model!
Guess I'll go back to pirating music again then
I know this attitude well. Being Canadian, it's even worse here.
I try to buy media, and would love to be able to legitimately buy various movies and TV shows online, but thanks to the CBC/CRTC, they can't be made available here thanks to some very backwards and broken laws.
So you browse say, netflix or itunes (ugh.. but meh). Find something you want. Money (figuratively) sitting in my pocket, theirs for the taking .. NOPE! DON'T WANT IT! But please stop pirating because it's costing us money! Oh, here is a show made in the 80's with a 1 and a half star rating who's title contains one word from your query.. THAT we can give you! *froths at mouth*