You don't get to tell me where to go or whom I may associate with, Cook.
Yes he does. We don't have modern laws that restrict movement on the Internet. Also, the rules that a regulatory agency was charged with decided to not do the thing they were charged with. So since everyone in DC has expressed an unwillingness to impose any kind of "rule of law" on the Internet, it's basically whatever/whenever and you'll like it till then.
When you create an in-house library, you have to have your folks do documentation, train new employees to the library, have your people not only develop off that library but patch it as well. Now that's not everything there but those are some major tick marks in the world. Open Sourcing reduces those to different degrees. However, it's not a panacea. It's important to have a business model based on a service and then open source the tools you use to have new hires already up to speed on what you all do before they get in the door.
That doesn't make you money, but it saves you money. However, it all means nothing if you don't have a service to sell first.
Get back to us when you have spent several billion building and proving one without any major issues, and come up with a way to dismantle it at reasonable cost.
We have literally done plenty with less evidence than you suggest. In fact, I can't think of any human endeavor where risk mitigation had brought it to the level that apparently you're asking nuclear to be at before we ever build the next reactor. It's quite easy to armchair it and say that such and such has to prove beyond a doubt to be whatever level of safe you've got in your mind, but in reality we don't do that, we've never done that, and more than likely we will never do that. You will die one day in the future waiting for a world that will never happen. The sooner you realize that, the more you'll begin to understand why folks take risks.
I'm just going to leave this here and say, that a really likely outcome of this investigation is that Uber is a shit company. Just my two cents though.
Although we have a good faith belief in our analysis and believe it to be objective and unbiased, you are advised that we may have, either directly or indirectly, an economic interest in the performance of the securities of the companies whose products are the subject of our reports.
So while these exploits might be real, they just straight up fess to being shady as shit. This is some blackballing level of unethical behavior. They literally hit and run AMD for profit. Whoever these engineers are, this whole episode should be the end of any future career they might have had and it just stops short of what I would think would constitute an outright FTC investigation.
Twenty-four hour notice and then posting publicly the exploits isn't research, that's a willful attack.
Linux user here. I pretty much have learned to stay away from public spaces on the Internet about Linux at this point. The whole "f*** systemd" crap has me pretty much not really wanting to interact with anyone else online about Linux in general. I still like mailing lists for different projects and what-not, but yeah, the zealotry, the tribalism, the sheer "my way is better" mentality has me just swearing off all other Linux users on public forums. So it's a quick chit-chat on IRC about the new Debian release, maybe look at it on Slashdot or Reddit and then I move on. Every so often I'll make a stink on here about Linux and then I post it and hate myself for having even stirred a pot.
I have no idea if it's just me or if everyone is so tired of saying anything about Linux only to have the anti-systemd/anti-Wayland/anti-GNOME3 folks come out. But yeah, at this point you just can't enjoy a Linux distro in public. Everyone is like, "yeah they were good in 2012 till they moved from XYZ to ABC, it was all downhill after that." I just don't talk about it anymore because I'm just tired of everything in Linux being wrong and that everyone is straying from the "TRUE LINUX". But yeah, no matter what good news there is to Linux, it's only a matter of time before someone brings up some project that they don't agree with and it just turns into a flamewar. Again, that might just be me and I'm only that way on places where anyone and their dog can sign up, I'm still very active on private IRC channels and mailing lists that I regularly comment on.
My concern lately is that Microsoft could eventually try to make the concept of running a Linux distro natively a thing of the past.
No. That's not even a thing. The folks really using Linux, at least to a point that would worry Microsoft, know the difference. Anyone who wouldn't aren't even a market for Linux or pose no massive threat to their bottom line.
Cue the blaming $ANY_PERCEIVED_CHANGE as reason for $PERCEIVED_SLIGHT. Doesn't just happen in politics, but I totally agree that I'm so done with the knee jerking happening on $ANY_SOCIAL_PLATFORM_WHERE_COMMENTING_IS_EASY_AND_FREE.
I figured it was some sort of religious debate that delved into minutiae of the Linux subsystem
Well it sort of does touch on a religious point in *nix systems. The mentality, the best I can describe it, is a million little gears. So you build a gear that does a single thing and you make that gear the best it can be at doing that one thing. This notion is typically called loosely coupled. Having a systemd aware program makes it tightly coupled to systemd which some would say goes against the loosely coupled philosophy of *nix. Remember systemd is more advanced and has dbus acting as a highway to move messages between systemd aware programs. So systemd can route notices from one program to another program, like when you close your lid, that notice gets placed in dbus. systemd sees the message and routes it to whatever has subscribed to that kind of notice. The power manager has done so and so will power down the machine. The task scheduler is subscribed to power manager messages and so knows to suspend tasks since the power manager sent a message. You get the idea. However, there's a lot of points in that chain for failure and because of how tightly coupled everything is, a break in one can be a break in all. Whereas a loosely coupled one, if there was a break in one, then it's just that one that's broken, not the whole dang thing. That's where you get some folks into some very hot debate. How much does one fail and when something fails? Just that thing fail or should the whole thing fail? Again, it's one of those, "there is no more correct answer" which is why it starts devolving into some religious debate.
The idea of routing rich messages around subservices in Linux is neat and it's been one of those things long in the works. However, systemd does this and does it in a way that's... Well to understand you have to understand the difference between expressive and declarative.
Expressive is like a simple MS Access macro that looks like a flow chart. There's some if-then stuff, but basically you don't really code anything, you just say "power manager will give off 'power down' messages and task scheduler will listen for 'power down' messages, when task scheduler receives 'power down' message, send 'shutdown' message to task scheduler." So it's pretty cookie cutter. "$program will give off message $message" "$program will listen for $message" "$program will do $task on $message" (and so on. And remember this isn't exact but gives you a high level understanding. The actual way systemd goes about it is with config files placed in specific directories to build these expressions.) Declarative is more like VBA code that a dumb macro might call. systemd offers "some" declarative (there is a point where systemd will actually run a shell script which in turn can call programs and have complex logic in it), which is why signals are good enough for say MySQL, but systemd really focuses on the expressive part. Expressive is easier to make a GUI for, declarative gives you a ton of flexibility to do things that are "outside the box". And that's where the tightness comes from, because when you make a program systemd aware, it needs to understand this expressive language that systemd provides. The mother systemd program (the big one that routes all the messages) already has a "dictionary" of expressive cookie cutters that it knows about, but if you need something specific to you in that expressive language, then you need to make mother systemd also aware of that new expressive cookie cutter, which asking systemd maintainers to add your specific cookie cutter to the dictionary is somewhere between a "yeah, why the fuck not?" to a "Hell, no. You want that you'll need to fork systemd, good luck with that." And touching on this in some mailing lists can start a flame for weeks on end. Some say getting a new thing in systemd is easy if the use is **well thought out**, there are some that say there is literally no rhyme or reason to what does and does not get into s
Quick but trying to be detailed explain of systemd.
The technical So systemd is an init for some Linux systems. When Linux or for that matter any UNIX like OS is done loading the kernel into memory (RAM), as it's last step it calls a program called "init". Typically this program is in the/sbin folder. There's tons of different init systems that have been written for all kinds of different *nix OSes. Your most basic init would need to call a program called "agetty" which basically loads a terminal for you to actually login. However, to have an actually usable system, your init needs to mount any filesystems that haven't been mounted (typically the root filesystem, the one containing the/sbin folder among other things, is mounted by an earlier phase called the ramdisk), start any services (like MySQL or whatever), and get your IP address/set it statically. That should give you an idea of what init "does".
Of course it should be obvious from this that there is a "this must start first before this" nature to this. Like you might need an IP address before you start up a web server. Each init defines different ways of specifying that order. Additionally, an init doesn't actually start these things up, it calls a program that does it. So init itself doesn't get you an IP address, it just calls the dhcp-client program and that program gets your IP address. Of course, calling these things one after the other is kind of slow, after your IP address is set, your MySQL starts up, and then your web server, and then this, and then that, and then finally agetty is started for a login. For some that's not their thing, but whatever, you can get the idea there.
Of course when you have an order in which things happen, you also have an order of things for when something changes. Got a new IP address? Might need to update your servers, etc... Also when you stop a service you might need to notify others that it's going down. MySQL stopping? Might need to notify the web server as well. All of this and we haven't even gotten to what happens when you plug in a USB device.
systemd tries to address a lot of this by making what was a lot of different programs, still a lot of different programs, but a lot of different programs that know about systemd (aka having hooks into systemd). These hooks into systemd allow programs to notify the init program, which is a lot more advance than just calling scripts, to pass messages between programs. So if your program wants to play nice with systemd, it needs to be made systemd aware. This is the big things that has a lot of folks up in arms. So you modify your program to use systemd and then the systemd folks change something and now you have to change your program to match. This is called tightly coupled and in the past it was discouraged in *nix communities. The upside of being systemd aware is that you'll receive messages via dbus (it's a type of communications channel that allows one program to talk to another program, another way of doing this might have been internet sockets which is what you use when talking to a web server, or you might use UNIX sockets which looks a lot like internet sockets but happens within the kernel, there's also signals which are the most basic unit of interprocess communication (IPC), or a named pipe, etc... all of these have pros and cons I won't go into.) At any rate, you receive messages via dbus and those are timely and have a wealth of information. So if your program relies on there being an IP address of some sorts, you can actually ask systemd if you have one and to notify you when you do get one. Again, the downside of this is you're now at the mercy of systemd to not ever change how you go about doing that. Additionally, the systemd folk have been making a lot of commonly used programs "systemd aware", which means those core programs now rely on systemd. GNOME uses logind, to get you logged in, track your seat on the system, etc... logind is systemd aware, which means
I have to agree with this list (except I haven't bought Dragon Quest yet, it's on the list). Also, picked up FF XV and FF XII remake for PS4. Uncharted 4 is awesome and I'm looking forward to Last of Us 2. The Lego games are the favs for the kids. I still have not done the whole PS4 online thing, but the console has been pretty solid without it.
AC posts get auto -1 so don't waste them there. I honestly think Slashdot should change the score that all AC posts are hidden to everyone no matter filter except those with mod points. Those with mod points can mod an AC post up to 0 and only then is it visible in the way that AC posts are visible today. AC posts are mostly crap, rarely gems. We need a system that makes sure that AC posts never show unless they honestly deserve it. I still favor making AC crawl up to 3 by starting at -1, but I just think the current system just doesn't go far enough. If that's too difficult to engineer, the devs could hack it on by setting AC posts to -2 and leaving the filter in place but giving users with mod points the option to browse at -2 but everyone else no lower than -1.
All those things ended quickly without requiring NN
No they didn't. Hell, just one example there. Comcast's bittorrent blocking. That literally took three years of dragging and threats from the FCC to actually resolve. It eventually ended with Comcast settling out of court to avoid class action and then they turned around and sued the FCC for over reach. THAT court case took another two years which eventually ended with the judge actually saying, Comcast is right. The FCC did over step their bounds because Comcast was not classified as Title II.
It's almost like NN is a solution in search of a problem
No, the Federal appeals court for the ninth district literally said, that the FCC did not have legal authority to stop any service provider from abusing their network without Title II classification. It wasn't a solution anyone wanted to go to, except every court case always ended with "Sorry FCC, without Title II, you have nothing unless Congress changes that." Congress didn't do anything and courts left very little wiggle room in their rulings.
I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but dang if it seems like no one can recall these court cases and how basically we all saw Title II coming. I mean in 2011, it was all but a foregone conclusion that ISPs were going to force the FCC to reclassify them as Title II. People even made jokes about it on USENET calling it "ISP chicken." I mean It's not like it was on Slashdot back in 2009. I mean crap, I'm not saying Title II is THE solution but damn if pretty much everyone around the FCC gave them next to zero options. So if there are only two valid choices I'm being given, 1. Title II or 2. ISP BS. I'll take option one. If anyone in the government wants to get off their lazy asses and make a third option, I'm all for it.
I mean if everyone is suffering from a bad case of hard to recall events, here's a video that goes over some of the highlights. Again, I'm not saying "Oh yeah we need Title II", but damn, there's not any other option out there to ensure that ISPs don't start pulling fuckery with their network, unless someone in Congress wants to change that.
Everyone seems to forget the reason why Slack is what it is... There is no self-hosting for Slack. Everything you do in Slack is in the cloud and the reason companies do it is so they don't have to hire someone to maintain an IRC server in their company.
But yeah, Slack is just a bloated, slow, insecure, unoriginal, pile of horse dung IRC client. We all have to remember that the new hotness in IT is not having an IT department.
It's your fault when someone screws up your equipment and your customers suffer.
Clearly there's a massive difference between what you and I think the word fault means. Yes, companies have to inform customers of third party actions all of the time. Home Depot comes to mind. Home Depot took a hit in customer loyalty and in turn Home Depot took a piece of ass from the people who actually fucked up. That's what businesses do all of the time. You are literally acting like this doesn't happen.
And all caps is really hammering the point home. Anger issues much?
And? Your mama. People act like the term "anger issues" suddenly gives them a high ground. I find that you weak gotos interesting but still don't further your point and if anything makes it sound like I'm dealing with a 12-year old.
Yeah - random guy on slashdot tells me my idea is full of shit when the owners of the Equipment and the courts agree that people who own the equipment should be the owners of the equipment.
Yeah, because 3rd parties work on things all of the time. Like literally companies blame 3rd parties for all kinds of shit and sue the crap out of them. Comcast 3rd parties their runs. AT&T in some areas 3rd parties their shit too. That is what so bizzare about your whole argument. This happens all of the time. This goes on all of the time. You pretending like it doesn't is just BS. Either because you've got some axe to grind or you're an idiot, I cannot tell but both sounds equally possible. Comcast and AT&T want to toss around ownership arguments simply because they just want to make up whatever excuse to not have more ISPs in their area. That's what gets me the most is that it's not that they want to not have OTMR, they don't want Google period. Google 3rd parties out runs to pretty much the exact same crew that Comcast would 3rd party to for some of the northern areas of Nashville. They worked a deal with NES that AT&T and Comcast walked away from to agree to 3rd party with *their* preferred vendor and on top of that they would cover cost for damage at 150%.
It's a situation ripe for lawsuits as we've seen already, and a royal pain in the ass.
That's a load. The lawyers involved don't see it as a pain in the ass. The companies that get a scapegoat don't see it as a pain in the ass. Yeah, you're right it is a situation ripe of lawsuits. There's been thousands of lawsuits where 3rd parties F'ed up. That hasn't stopped anything with 3rd parties, if anything it's sped it up since now companies can just play pass the blame buck. You just literally have zero clues on this topic. You're coming from this angle that Comcast would be greatly displease if Google knocked out Comcast's Internet for eight hours. You are on some mighty powerful stuff if that's what you believe. Comcast would literally be beside themselves with glee if Google caused an outage. You literally could not find something that would make Comcast's decade any better than Google causing a Comcast outage. Comcast is not wanting Google touching their stuff because they know, they wouldn't fuck it up. If you think differently you've obviously never worked in this industry.
If your cable access goes away during Judge Judy, you're going to blame Google
I'm going to blame the cable company obviously, but then the cable company does that thing they are supposed to do because it's good business. INFORMED THEIR CUSTOMER AS TO WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
However that aside, that doesn't change how wrong your initial statement was.
If the competitor made errors and there were lawsuits, they would be held harmless and you would take the hit.
If there were lawsuits the agreement was that Google was the person responsible for showing up in court. Granted your average customer is dumb as a rock, but a group of lawyers who have contracts and agreements stating that Google is the one responsible is less likely to blame the wrong person. So yeah, if there are lawsuits then your statement is full of shit given that was the agreement Google had with NES. Now if you want to move the goalpost to make your statement more accurate, that is fine, but it doesn't change the initial one you made.
Because that's exactly what they did. Except Google is still the one who does the work. Outside of that one difference, yeah Google and NES worked on an alliance to get the fiber laid without OTMR, but even then AT&T and Comcast have already extended the local appeals process to seven years for make ready work. This is literally why AT&T can't extend into the Comcast only region I'm in. There's a fiber optic end point only 300 feet from where I live and AT&T can't extend it because we're only four out of the seven years into it. Even then, there's been talk to extend the appeals process even more. Pretty much all the local folks who were going to work on the Google fiber project have pretty much conceded that AT&T and Comcast are ready to scorch earth the process just to ensure that people like Google can't make any headway in the future. Shit, they already quake at EPB in Chattanooga. It's clear, neither want a fair market and all the politicians here in the state are more than happy to let them have it. Even if that means that AT&T can't draw that final 300 feet of fiber or the other hundreds of examples like that in the Comcast monopoly zones.
It basically allowed Google to legally declare open warfare on the incumbent operators
Except the rule was that whoever touched it had to reimburse the affected by 150%. So if Google did knock out AT&T service, they'd owe AT&T 150% cost lost.
Government should not be playing favorites
HA! You should talk to Marsha Blackburn and ask her about her relationship with AT&T.
Okay, I'm going to say it because everyone's going to make arguments that are overly complicated and the answer is actually quite simple. Other than 50+ year olds, pretty much you can take any modern register and turn it around to face customers instead and suddenly it is a self serve kiosk. Since 2006 to 2014 there's been massive leaps in the UI+hardware that you pretty much have registers that only require basic reading skills and the understanding of "touch based UI" to fully grasp. Cash registers pride themselves on things like minutes of training required for the average task, the end goal was to meet the needs of companies that literally need people fresh off the street being able to manage a till. This CEO talks about automation and it's clear he's suffering from IDTIMWYTIM. But whatever. The rise in minimum wage makes CEOs feel warm and fuzzy about doing something just like folks wearing black makes them feel warm and fuzzy that their countering gender inequality. We all know that they really aren't doing anything, but whatever. People like to point to useless gestures or baseless claims to justify a position that's always been happening with or without their input. At this point it happens so often that I'm pretty much convinced that the point of C-level staff in companies is pretty much gone. They exist at this point to sponge more money in their direction and that is all.
artificially raising the cost of labor beyond the market value
Dude, unless Crap-in-the-box can find some folks willing to work thirty cents an hour, it didn't matter what anyone did with wages, the writing is on the wall for pretty much all of us and no one with influence actually gives a flying fuck. But perhaps this will have the uptick that 80% of the world's population can finally die off and leave only the rich to suck each other's dicks. You know what happened when horse's were out matched tech wise? Better get used to saying neigh.
As Google, Facebook and Amazon have gobbled up more of the Internet
But you're missing the entire point here. That's not a technical failure. There isn't some line of code that went wrong or some flaw in OSI that caused that. That's how capitalism works. Build a new browser and it'll just become the next IE, Chrome, whatever, five - six years down the road.
Well, Google controls how most people find things on the web and a browser that controls how they see it.
You've got duckduckgo.com and firefox.com. You are welcome.
Amazon hosts a large percentage of web sites through AWS
Again, not a technical issue, that's a "I'm lazy as fuck to fire up or my boss is too cheap to buy a machine that I can touch and connect to the Internet directly." This kind of mentality is a tick-tock thing on long enough scales. Give it maybe another ten or so years and we'll be right back on the tock side of things.
Facebook is the dominant social network where people communicate with each other
THEN STOP FUCKING USING IT! Trust me, you'll feel a whole hell of a lot better. Shit you might even sleep better at night. I told everyone on Facebook they can call, email, snail mail, whatever but honestly I don't give a shit about your one like equals one prayer BS, and I have never looked back. It's that simple, just stop using it. I know people are all like, "but what about Aunt Rosey or..." No, no, no, no, you're thinking too much on this. Just... S-t-o-p using it. That's all.
Now that Net Neutrality is dead, ISPs now can control who goes over those pipes.
ISPs have been controlling what goes over those pipes which is why we needed NN in the first place. It's disappearance isn't the hearkening of some new dark era of the Internet, it's the return to the brain dead, the dollar is first, nickel and dime story that we use to have. It'll also more than likely be the thing that drives people to download once and store on hard media at home for local consumption (tick-tock).
The concern is real
Yeah, and I'm not saying you're wrong, the problem is that the problem isn't what you think the problem is. The problem is people being greedy as fuck and there isn't a technical means to stop human beings from being idiotic dumb fucks of human beings. Except, I will admit that I am keen to one purpose solution to the problem.
In other words, the internet economy simply isn’t ready for a scenario where IPv6 is used everywhere and NAT is abandoned. We are stuck with what we have.
That is exactly the crap I hear that stops IPv6 migration. This person literally is the reason why they are lamenting IPv6's slow adoption. But that said, so we have this technical argument for why the "web" is dying, even though it's an Internet argument. But let's backtrack to this little gem.
The advent of NAT routers also allowed for that intermediate computer to become a guardian and protect other computers from some dangers of the open internet.
If that's what you are doing, you are doing it mostly wrong. That's not a function of NAT, that's a flipping function of *routing*. You can literally have all kinds of globally addressable IP addresses on systems, connect them, and then have 100% of them respond to 0% of the incoming requests. You literally do not need NAT for that and if that's the sole reason you are using NAT (to be more secure), you more than likely shouldn't have your job. That's not saying NAT doesn't have a place or anything, but that is me saying that if your rationale is solely for security, you will find lots of folks that will tell you otherwise. Again, NAT has a place, time, and use, but this person writing the piece is missing every single point of that. Now I know everyone is going to foam or spout with their opinion on NAT, but you have to snap out of it because, remember these are "Internet" issues not "web" issues and as you keep reading, if you aren't keeping that point in your head, you'll just get sucked into this argument of "NAT is awesome v. F*** NAT!" So I digress, let's actually continue.
It also meant that some computers were first-class citizens on the internet, while other computers were subordinates. In addition, the scarcity of IP addresses caused them to be considered valuable assets, and so it became a business opportunity. IP addresses are being sold so that some computers can become first-class citizens on the internet.
I had no actual problem with this point until that last part I highlighted. That's when my brain snapped out of it and was like, "Wait, this has absolutely nothing to do with why Facebook, Google, et al are these massive black holes." This person is literally making this overly complicated, but weak attempt to dumb down an argument about the web, on technical merits that have nothing to do with what reasonable people would call "the web". And that point became even more clear here.
As a consequence, the internet has allowed intermediate computers to rule. These are like parasites that have grown too large to remove without killing the host. The technical flaw that favored intermediate computers prefigured a world where middlemen business models thrive. Google and Facebook connect consumers with advertisement publishers and charge fees for each ad.
Oh Mother of Stars that's eight hundred times pi radians of all kinds of wrong!! IPv4's short comings have **NOTHING** to do with why the big boys on the Internet are who they are. It is at this point your brain should be saying, "This person has about as much clue as to what they are saying as a canine on the ISS has of managing the station." I assure you it does not get better as it goes.
Novel peer-to-peer protocols such as IPFS and Dat help replace HTTP and make the web a content-centered cyberspace. This way the link to an image can be something like QaPdNnDWRLF1b — a so-called hash of the image, summarizing it — instead of mywebsite.com/pic.jpeg so that even if mywebsite.com servers are removed,
They aren't law enforcement. If they have a problem with someones possibly illegal online activities they should report it and let a court determine if the action was a copyright violation or not.
No you see lacking an FCC ruling we have to use FTC guidance on the matter (see 740 F.3d 623 [2014]). ISPs have the right under FTC rules to secure their network by any means. If they feel a copyright violation "might" happen, they have a right to secure their network and the FTC gives them any means to do that. Now you have recourse in court if you can show that they blocked your "service" and it's important that FTC meaning of "service" means that ISPs can do everything except cut you completely off, without serving you notice. So pretty much as long as you can ping 8.8.8.8 and you're doing something that gives the ISPs a reasonable cause to fear your traffic. They can do whatever the hell they like since the FCC was granted authority over "traffic" in PL104-104 sec 509 and the FCC has indicated that they're not going to stand behind you on this topic.
To anyone thinking they'd like to try their hand in court, by all means, have at it. Let me know how it went, but I can assure you it's not going to go the way you think it should.
This threat is no different from "It is a nice house you have here, would be unfortunate if something were to happen to it."
Yes it is different. A house is physical and network traffic isn't. That's like the big point of why Congress really needs to fucking act on that whole NN thing. Judges don't see IP packets are things that belong to you, and until someone with law making ability says that packets on someone else's network are yours, they aren't yours, the end.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get to tell me where to go or whom I may associate with, Cook.
Yes he does. We don't have modern laws that restrict movement on the Internet. Also, the rules that a regulatory agency was charged with decided to not do the thing they were charged with. So since everyone in DC has expressed an unwillingness to impose any kind of "rule of law" on the Internet, it's basically whatever/whenever and you'll like it till then.
When you create an in-house library, you have to have your folks do documentation, train new employees to the library, have your people not only develop off that library but patch it as well. Now that's not everything there but those are some major tick marks in the world. Open Sourcing reduces those to different degrees. However, it's not a panacea. It's important to have a business model based on a service and then open source the tools you use to have new hires already up to speed on what you all do before they get in the door.
That doesn't make you money, but it saves you money. However, it all means nothing if you don't have a service to sell first.
Get back to us when you have spent several billion building and proving one without any major issues, and come up with a way to dismantle it at reasonable cost.
We have literally done plenty with less evidence than you suggest. In fact, I can't think of any human endeavor where risk mitigation had brought it to the level that apparently you're asking nuclear to be at before we ever build the next reactor. It's quite easy to armchair it and say that such and such has to prove beyond a doubt to be whatever level of safe you've got in your mind, but in reality we don't do that, we've never done that, and more than likely we will never do that. You will die one day in the future waiting for a world that will never happen. The sooner you realize that, the more you'll begin to understand why folks take risks.
The hell? Link is here. Apparently Slashdot commenting is an art I'm incapable of. That aside, Uber, more than likely, is a shit company.
I'm just going to leave this here and say, that a really likely outcome of this investigation is that Uber is a shit company. Just my two cents though.
They literally spell it out on their disclaimer page.
Although we have a good faith belief in our analysis and believe it to be objective and unbiased, you are advised that we may have, either directly or indirectly, an economic interest in the performance of the securities of the companies whose products are the subject of our reports.
So while these exploits might be real, they just straight up fess to being shady as shit. This is some blackballing level of unethical behavior. They literally hit and run AMD for profit. Whoever these engineers are, this whole episode should be the end of any future career they might have had and it just stops short of what I would think would constitute an outright FTC investigation.
Twenty-four hour notice and then posting publicly the exploits isn't research, that's a willful attack.
Linux user here. I pretty much have learned to stay away from public spaces on the Internet about Linux at this point. The whole "f*** systemd" crap has me pretty much not really wanting to interact with anyone else online about Linux in general. I still like mailing lists for different projects and what-not, but yeah, the zealotry, the tribalism, the sheer "my way is better" mentality has me just swearing off all other Linux users on public forums. So it's a quick chit-chat on IRC about the new Debian release, maybe look at it on Slashdot or Reddit and then I move on. Every so often I'll make a stink on here about Linux and then I post it and hate myself for having even stirred a pot.
I have no idea if it's just me or if everyone is so tired of saying anything about Linux only to have the anti-systemd/anti-Wayland/anti-GNOME3 folks come out. But yeah, at this point you just can't enjoy a Linux distro in public. Everyone is like, "yeah they were good in 2012 till they moved from XYZ to ABC, it was all downhill after that." I just don't talk about it anymore because I'm just tired of everything in Linux being wrong and that everyone is straying from the "TRUE LINUX". But yeah, no matter what good news there is to Linux, it's only a matter of time before someone brings up some project that they don't agree with and it just turns into a flamewar. Again, that might just be me and I'm only that way on places where anyone and their dog can sign up, I'm still very active on private IRC channels and mailing lists that I regularly comment on.
My concern lately is that Microsoft could eventually try to make the concept of running a Linux distro natively a thing of the past.
No. That's not even a thing. The folks really using Linux, at least to a point that would worry Microsoft, know the difference. Anyone who wouldn't aren't even a market for Linux or pose no massive threat to their bottom line.
Cue the blaming $ANY_PERCEIVED_CHANGE as reason for $PERCEIVED_SLIGHT. Doesn't just happen in politics, but I totally agree that I'm so done with the knee jerking happening on $ANY_SOCIAL_PLATFORM_WHERE_COMMENTING_IS_EASY_AND_FREE.
I figured it was some sort of religious debate that delved into minutiae of the Linux subsystem
Well it sort of does touch on a religious point in *nix systems. The mentality, the best I can describe it, is a million little gears. So you build a gear that does a single thing and you make that gear the best it can be at doing that one thing. This notion is typically called loosely coupled. Having a systemd aware program makes it tightly coupled to systemd which some would say goes against the loosely coupled philosophy of *nix. Remember systemd is more advanced and has dbus acting as a highway to move messages between systemd aware programs. So systemd can route notices from one program to another program, like when you close your lid, that notice gets placed in dbus. systemd sees the message and routes it to whatever has subscribed to that kind of notice. The power manager has done so and so will power down the machine. The task scheduler is subscribed to power manager messages and so knows to suspend tasks since the power manager sent a message. You get the idea. However, there's a lot of points in that chain for failure and because of how tightly coupled everything is, a break in one can be a break in all. Whereas a loosely coupled one, if there was a break in one, then it's just that one that's broken, not the whole dang thing. That's where you get some folks into some very hot debate. How much does one fail and when something fails? Just that thing fail or should the whole thing fail? Again, it's one of those, "there is no more correct answer" which is why it starts devolving into some religious debate.
The idea of routing rich messages around subservices in Linux is neat and it's been one of those things long in the works. However, systemd does this and does it in a way that's... Well to understand you have to understand the difference between expressive and declarative.
Expressive is like a simple MS Access macro that looks like a flow chart. There's some if-then stuff, but basically you don't really code anything, you just say "power manager will give off 'power down' messages and task scheduler will listen for 'power down' messages, when task scheduler receives 'power down' message, send 'shutdown' message to task scheduler." So it's pretty cookie cutter. "$program will give off message $message" "$program will listen for $message" "$program will do $task on $message" (and so on. And remember this isn't exact but gives you a high level understanding. The actual way systemd goes about it is with config files placed in specific directories to build these expressions.) Declarative is more like VBA code that a dumb macro might call. systemd offers "some" declarative (there is a point where systemd will actually run a shell script which in turn can call programs and have complex logic in it), which is why signals are good enough for say MySQL, but systemd really focuses on the expressive part. Expressive is easier to make a GUI for, declarative gives you a ton of flexibility to do things that are "outside the box". And that's where the tightness comes from, because when you make a program systemd aware, it needs to understand this expressive language that systemd provides. The mother systemd program (the big one that routes all the messages) already has a "dictionary" of expressive cookie cutters that it knows about, but if you need something specific to you in that expressive language, then you need to make mother systemd also aware of that new expressive cookie cutter, which asking systemd maintainers to add your specific cookie cutter to the dictionary is somewhere between a "yeah, why the fuck not?" to a "Hell, no. You want that you'll need to fork systemd, good luck with that." And touching on this in some mailing lists can start a flame for weeks on end. Some say getting a new thing in systemd is easy if the use is **well thought out**, there are some that say there is literally no rhyme or reason to what does and does not get into s
Quick but trying to be detailed explain of systemd.
The technical So systemd is an init for some Linux systems. When Linux or for that matter any UNIX like OS is done loading the kernel into memory (RAM), as it's last step it calls a program called "init". Typically this program is in the /sbin folder. There's tons of different init systems that have been written for all kinds of different *nix OSes. Your most basic init would need to call a program called "agetty" which basically loads a terminal for you to actually login. However, to have an actually usable system, your init needs to mount any filesystems that haven't been mounted (typically the root filesystem, the one containing the /sbin folder among other things, is mounted by an earlier phase called the ramdisk), start any services (like MySQL or whatever), and get your IP address/set it statically. That should give you an idea of what init "does".
Of course it should be obvious from this that there is a "this must start first before this" nature to this. Like you might need an IP address before you start up a web server. Each init defines different ways of specifying that order. Additionally, an init doesn't actually start these things up, it calls a program that does it. So init itself doesn't get you an IP address, it just calls the dhcp-client program and that program gets your IP address. Of course, calling these things one after the other is kind of slow, after your IP address is set, your MySQL starts up, and then your web server, and then this, and then that, and then finally agetty is started for a login. For some that's not their thing, but whatever, you can get the idea there.
Of course when you have an order in which things happen, you also have an order of things for when something changes. Got a new IP address? Might need to update your servers, etc... Also when you stop a service you might need to notify others that it's going down. MySQL stopping? Might need to notify the web server as well. All of this and we haven't even gotten to what happens when you plug in a USB device.
systemd tries to address a lot of this by making what was a lot of different programs, still a lot of different programs, but a lot of different programs that know about systemd (aka having hooks into systemd). These hooks into systemd allow programs to notify the init program, which is a lot more advance than just calling scripts, to pass messages between programs. So if your program wants to play nice with systemd, it needs to be made systemd aware. This is the big things that has a lot of folks up in arms. So you modify your program to use systemd and then the systemd folks change something and now you have to change your program to match. This is called tightly coupled and in the past it was discouraged in *nix communities. The upside of being systemd aware is that you'll receive messages via dbus (it's a type of communications channel that allows one program to talk to another program, another way of doing this might have been internet sockets which is what you use when talking to a web server, or you might use UNIX sockets which looks a lot like internet sockets but happens within the kernel, there's also signals which are the most basic unit of interprocess communication (IPC), or a named pipe, etc... all of these have pros and cons I won't go into.) At any rate, you receive messages via dbus and those are timely and have a wealth of information. So if your program relies on there being an IP address of some sorts, you can actually ask systemd if you have one and to notify you when you do get one. Again, the downside of this is you're now at the mercy of systemd to not ever change how you go about doing that. Additionally, the systemd folk have been making a lot of commonly used programs "systemd aware", which means those core programs now rely on systemd. GNOME uses logind, to get you logged in, track your seat on the system, etc... logind is systemd aware, which means
I have to agree with this list (except I haven't bought Dragon Quest yet, it's on the list). Also, picked up FF XV and FF XII remake for PS4. Uncharted 4 is awesome and I'm looking forward to Last of Us 2. The Lego games are the favs for the kids. I still have not done the whole PS4 online thing, but the console has been pretty solid without it.
Yes, when I see garbage I mod it down
AC posts get auto -1 so don't waste them there. I honestly think Slashdot should change the score that all AC posts are hidden to everyone no matter filter except those with mod points. Those with mod points can mod an AC post up to 0 and only then is it visible in the way that AC posts are visible today. AC posts are mostly crap, rarely gems. We need a system that makes sure that AC posts never show unless they honestly deserve it. I still favor making AC crawl up to 3 by starting at -1, but I just think the current system just doesn't go far enough. If that's too difficult to engineer, the devs could hack it on by setting AC posts to -2 and leaving the filter in place but giving users with mod points the option to browse at -2 but everyone else no lower than -1.
All those things ended quickly without requiring NN
No they didn't. Hell, just one example there. Comcast's bittorrent blocking. That literally took three years of dragging and threats from the FCC to actually resolve. It eventually ended with Comcast settling out of court to avoid class action and then they turned around and sued the FCC for over reach. THAT court case took another two years which eventually ended with the judge actually saying, Comcast is right. The FCC did over step their bounds because Comcast was not classified as Title II.
It's almost like NN is a solution in search of a problem
No, the Federal appeals court for the ninth district literally said, that the FCC did not have legal authority to stop any service provider from abusing their network without Title II classification. It wasn't a solution anyone wanted to go to, except every court case always ended with "Sorry FCC, without Title II, you have nothing unless Congress changes that." Congress didn't do anything and courts left very little wiggle room in their rulings.
I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but dang if it seems like no one can recall these court cases and how basically we all saw Title II coming. I mean in 2011, it was all but a foregone conclusion that ISPs were going to force the FCC to reclassify them as Title II. People even made jokes about it on USENET calling it "ISP chicken." I mean It's not like it was on Slashdot back in 2009. I mean crap, I'm not saying Title II is THE solution but damn if pretty much everyone around the FCC gave them next to zero options. So if there are only two valid choices I'm being given, 1. Title II or 2. ISP BS. I'll take option one. If anyone in the government wants to get off their lazy asses and make a third option, I'm all for it.
I mean if everyone is suffering from a bad case of hard to recall events, here's a video that goes over some of the highlights. Again, I'm not saying "Oh yeah we need Title II", but damn, there's not any other option out there to ensure that ISPs don't start pulling fuckery with their network, unless someone in Congress wants to change that.
Yeap, totally didn't happen. ISPs never blocked or throttled anything.
Everyone seems to forget the reason why Slack is what it is... There is no self-hosting for Slack. Everything you do in Slack is in the cloud and the reason companies do it is so they don't have to hire someone to maintain an IRC server in their company.
But yeah, Slack is just a bloated, slow, insecure, unoriginal, pile of horse dung IRC client. We all have to remember that the new hotness in IT is not having an IT department.
It's your fault when someone screws up your equipment and your customers suffer.
Clearly there's a massive difference between what you and I think the word fault means. Yes, companies have to inform customers of third party actions all of the time. Home Depot comes to mind. Home Depot took a hit in customer loyalty and in turn Home Depot took a piece of ass from the people who actually fucked up. That's what businesses do all of the time. You are literally acting like this doesn't happen.
And all caps is really hammering the point home. Anger issues much?
And? Your mama. People act like the term "anger issues" suddenly gives them a high ground. I find that you weak gotos interesting but still don't further your point and if anything makes it sound like I'm dealing with a 12-year old.
Yeah - random guy on slashdot tells me my idea is full of shit when the owners of the Equipment and the courts agree that people who own the equipment should be the owners of the equipment.
Yeah, because 3rd parties work on things all of the time. Like literally companies blame 3rd parties for all kinds of shit and sue the crap out of them. Comcast 3rd parties their runs. AT&T in some areas 3rd parties their shit too. That is what so bizzare about your whole argument. This happens all of the time. This goes on all of the time. You pretending like it doesn't is just BS. Either because you've got some axe to grind or you're an idiot, I cannot tell but both sounds equally possible. Comcast and AT&T want to toss around ownership arguments simply because they just want to make up whatever excuse to not have more ISPs in their area. That's what gets me the most is that it's not that they want to not have OTMR, they don't want Google period. Google 3rd parties out runs to pretty much the exact same crew that Comcast would 3rd party to for some of the northern areas of Nashville. They worked a deal with NES that AT&T and Comcast walked away from to agree to 3rd party with *their* preferred vendor and on top of that they would cover cost for damage at 150%.
It's a situation ripe for lawsuits as we've seen already, and a royal pain in the ass.
That's a load. The lawyers involved don't see it as a pain in the ass. The companies that get a scapegoat don't see it as a pain in the ass. Yeah, you're right it is a situation ripe of lawsuits. There's been thousands of lawsuits where 3rd parties F'ed up. That hasn't stopped anything with 3rd parties, if anything it's sped it up since now companies can just play pass the blame buck. You just literally have zero clues on this topic. You're coming from this angle that Comcast would be greatly displease if Google knocked out Comcast's Internet for eight hours. You are on some mighty powerful stuff if that's what you believe. Comcast would literally be beside themselves with glee if Google caused an outage. You literally could not find something that would make Comcast's decade any better than Google causing a Comcast outage. Comcast is not wanting Google touching their stuff because they know, they wouldn't fuck it up. If you think differently you've obviously never worked in this industry.
If your cable access goes away during Judge Judy, you're going to blame Google
I'm going to blame the cable company obviously, but then the cable company does that thing they are supposed to do because it's good business. INFORMED THEIR CUSTOMER AS TO WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
However that aside, that doesn't change how wrong your initial statement was.
If the competitor made errors and there were lawsuits, they would be held harmless and you would take the hit.
If there were lawsuits the agreement was that Google was the person responsible for showing up in court. Granted your average customer is dumb as a rock, but a group of lawyers who have contracts and agreements stating that Google is the one responsible is less likely to blame the wrong person. So yeah, if there are lawsuits then your statement is full of shit given that was the agreement Google had with NES. Now if you want to move the goalpost to make your statement more accurate, that is fine, but it doesn't change the initial one you made.
If the competitor made errors and there were lawsuits, they would be held harmless and you would take the hit.
No.
Why didn't Google propose this?
Because that's exactly what they did. Except Google is still the one who does the work. Outside of that one difference, yeah Google and NES worked on an alliance to get the fiber laid without OTMR, but even then AT&T and Comcast have already extended the local appeals process to seven years for make ready work. This is literally why AT&T can't extend into the Comcast only region I'm in. There's a fiber optic end point only 300 feet from where I live and AT&T can't extend it because we're only four out of the seven years into it. Even then, there's been talk to extend the appeals process even more. Pretty much all the local folks who were going to work on the Google fiber project have pretty much conceded that AT&T and Comcast are ready to scorch earth the process just to ensure that people like Google can't make any headway in the future. Shit, they already quake at EPB in Chattanooga. It's clear, neither want a fair market and all the politicians here in the state are more than happy to let them have it. Even if that means that AT&T can't draw that final 300 feet of fiber or the other hundreds of examples like that in the Comcast monopoly zones.
It basically allowed Google to legally declare open warfare on the incumbent operators
Except the rule was that whoever touched it had to reimburse the affected by 150%. So if Google did knock out AT&T service, they'd owe AT&T 150% cost lost.
Government should not be playing favorites
HA! You should talk to Marsha Blackburn and ask her about her relationship with AT&T.
Okay, I'm going to say it because everyone's going to make arguments that are overly complicated and the answer is actually quite simple. Other than 50+ year olds, pretty much you can take any modern register and turn it around to face customers instead and suddenly it is a self serve kiosk. Since 2006 to 2014 there's been massive leaps in the UI+hardware that you pretty much have registers that only require basic reading skills and the understanding of "touch based UI" to fully grasp. Cash registers pride themselves on things like minutes of training required for the average task, the end goal was to meet the needs of companies that literally need people fresh off the street being able to manage a till. This CEO talks about automation and it's clear he's suffering from IDTIMWYTIM. But whatever. The rise in minimum wage makes CEOs feel warm and fuzzy about doing something just like folks wearing black makes them feel warm and fuzzy that their countering gender inequality. We all know that they really aren't doing anything, but whatever. People like to point to useless gestures or baseless claims to justify a position that's always been happening with or without their input. At this point it happens so often that I'm pretty much convinced that the point of C-level staff in companies is pretty much gone. They exist at this point to sponge more money in their direction and that is all.
artificially raising the cost of labor beyond the market value
Dude, unless Crap-in-the-box can find some folks willing to work thirty cents an hour, it didn't matter what anyone did with wages, the writing is on the wall for pretty much all of us and no one with influence actually gives a flying fuck. But perhaps this will have the uptick that 80% of the world's population can finally die off and leave only the rich to suck each other's dicks. You know what happened when horse's were out matched tech wise? Better get used to saying neigh.
As Google, Facebook and Amazon have gobbled up more of the Internet
But you're missing the entire point here. That's not a technical failure. There isn't some line of code that went wrong or some flaw in OSI that caused that. That's how capitalism works. Build a new browser and it'll just become the next IE, Chrome, whatever, five - six years down the road.
Well, Google controls how most people find things on the web and a browser that controls how they see it.
You've got duckduckgo.com and firefox.com. You are welcome.
Amazon hosts a large percentage of web sites through AWS
Again, not a technical issue, that's a "I'm lazy as fuck to fire up or my boss is too cheap to buy a machine that I can touch and connect to the Internet directly." This kind of mentality is a tick-tock thing on long enough scales. Give it maybe another ten or so years and we'll be right back on the tock side of things.
Facebook is the dominant social network where people communicate with each other
THEN STOP FUCKING USING IT! Trust me, you'll feel a whole hell of a lot better. Shit you might even sleep better at night. I told everyone on Facebook they can call, email, snail mail, whatever but honestly I don't give a shit about your one like equals one prayer BS, and I have never looked back. It's that simple, just stop using it. I know people are all like, "but what about Aunt Rosey or..." No, no, no, no, you're thinking too much on this. Just... S-t-o-p using it. That's all.
Now that Net Neutrality is dead, ISPs now can control who goes over those pipes.
ISPs have been controlling what goes over those pipes which is why we needed NN in the first place. It's disappearance isn't the hearkening of some new dark era of the Internet, it's the return to the brain dead, the dollar is first, nickel and dime story that we use to have. It'll also more than likely be the thing that drives people to download once and store on hard media at home for local consumption (tick-tock).
The concern is real
Yeah, and I'm not saying you're wrong, the problem is that the problem isn't what you think the problem is. The problem is people being greedy as fuck and there isn't a technical means to stop human beings from being idiotic dumb fucks of human beings. Except, I will admit that I am keen to one purpose solution to the problem.
From the piece of drivel written
In other words, the internet economy simply isn’t ready for a scenario where IPv6 is used everywhere and NAT is abandoned. We are stuck with what we have.
That is exactly the crap I hear that stops IPv6 migration. This person literally is the reason why they are lamenting IPv6's slow adoption. But that said, so we have this technical argument for why the "web" is dying, even though it's an Internet argument. But let's backtrack to this little gem.
The advent of NAT routers also allowed for that intermediate computer to become a guardian and protect other computers from some dangers of the open internet.
If that's what you are doing, you are doing it mostly wrong. That's not a function of NAT, that's a flipping function of *routing*. You can literally have all kinds of globally addressable IP addresses on systems, connect them, and then have 100% of them respond to 0% of the incoming requests. You literally do not need NAT for that and if that's the sole reason you are using NAT (to be more secure), you more than likely shouldn't have your job. That's not saying NAT doesn't have a place or anything, but that is me saying that if your rationale is solely for security, you will find lots of folks that will tell you otherwise. Again, NAT has a place, time, and use, but this person writing the piece is missing every single point of that. Now I know everyone is going to foam or spout with their opinion on NAT, but you have to snap out of it because, remember these are "Internet" issues not "web" issues and as you keep reading, if you aren't keeping that point in your head, you'll just get sucked into this argument of "NAT is awesome v. F*** NAT!" So I digress, let's actually continue.
It also meant that some computers were first-class citizens on the internet, while other computers were subordinates. In addition, the scarcity of IP addresses caused them to be considered valuable assets, and so it became a business opportunity. IP addresses are being sold so that some computers can become first-class citizens on the internet.
I had no actual problem with this point until that last part I highlighted. That's when my brain snapped out of it and was like, "Wait, this has absolutely nothing to do with why Facebook, Google, et al are these massive black holes." This person is literally making this overly complicated, but weak attempt to dumb down an argument about the web, on technical merits that have nothing to do with what reasonable people would call "the web". And that point became even more clear here.
As a consequence, the internet has allowed intermediate computers to rule. These are like parasites that have grown too large to remove without killing the host. The technical flaw that favored intermediate computers prefigured a world where middlemen business models thrive. Google and Facebook connect consumers with advertisement publishers and charge fees for each ad.
Oh Mother of Stars that's eight hundred times pi radians of all kinds of wrong!! IPv4's short comings have **NOTHING** to do with why the big boys on the Internet are who they are. It is at this point your brain should be saying, "This person has about as much clue as to what they are saying as a canine on the ISS has of managing the station." I assure you it does not get better as it goes.
Novel peer-to-peer protocols such as IPFS and Dat help replace HTTP and make the web a content-centered cyberspace. This way the link to an image can be something like QaPdNnDWRLF1b — a so-called hash of the image, summarizing it — instead of mywebsite.com/pic.jpeg so that even if mywebsite.com servers are removed,
They aren't law enforcement. If they have a problem with someones possibly illegal online activities they should report it and let a court determine if the action was a copyright violation or not.
No you see lacking an FCC ruling we have to use FTC guidance on the matter (see 740 F.3d 623 [2014]). ISPs have the right under FTC rules to secure their network by any means. If they feel a copyright violation "might" happen, they have a right to secure their network and the FTC gives them any means to do that. Now you have recourse in court if you can show that they blocked your "service" and it's important that FTC meaning of "service" means that ISPs can do everything except cut you completely off, without serving you notice. So pretty much as long as you can ping 8.8.8.8 and you're doing something that gives the ISPs a reasonable cause to fear your traffic. They can do whatever the hell they like since the FCC was granted authority over "traffic" in PL104-104 sec 509 and the FCC has indicated that they're not going to stand behind you on this topic.
To anyone thinking they'd like to try their hand in court, by all means, have at it. Let me know how it went, but I can assure you it's not going to go the way you think it should.
This threat is no different from "It is a nice house you have here, would be unfortunate if something were to happen to it."
Yes it is different. A house is physical and network traffic isn't. That's like the big point of why Congress really needs to fucking act on that whole NN thing. Judges don't see IP packets are things that belong to you, and until someone with law making ability says that packets on someone else's network are yours, they aren't yours, the end.