Oh, holy shit! I'm as much concerned about privacy as any other next guy and then probably more, but this is crystal clear: 1) Do you think there's a need for authorization (you can go in, you can't go in)? 2) If yes, then you need authentication. As in you *need* authentication or else no one will be sure the authorized guy is the one meant to be authorized. 3) If you need authentication, then biometrics is quite a good candidate (while not absolutly great: once it gets tampered there's no easy replacement)
Privacy is not about nobody tracking your steps; it's about nobody tracking your steps except for really valid reasons and only for as long as those valid reasons stand valid.
"It's our politicians, not the majority of our people"
It is precisely the majority of your people the ones that empowers your politicians.
"How many average American citizens say, "Oh, I just love all this security theater that ultimately does nothing to protect us?""
How many average American citizens use their ballot power to have the thing go away? Or is it that, after all, they are not so averse to all that theater?
"death is a critical for evolving... without it, you will consume all consummable resources, and when that happens no more copies will be possible."
That happens all the time and it's called ecological microsucesion. On a complex environment, when a colonizator consumes all its share, it disappears and its very detritus is the basis for the next colonizing wave (cow shits and death trees are the two paradigmatic examples). On the starting point you either are lucky enough that some deviation from the original model happens to take profit on the changed environment or life just stops. We don't know how many times it happened (or even if it happened) prior to the first "lucky" event.
"In the long run, guess what you have more... repeat ad infinitum."
There're two unstated, let's say, imprecisions on your statement.
1) Where you say "molecules that replicate themselves" you should say "molecules that *imperfectly* replicate themselves" 2) Forget about "more complex". They don't need to be more complex, they just need to rise higher affinity to their environment (i.e.: "steal" other molecules more effectively).
"IMO, I'm not a huge fan of strict network neutrality, there are cases where you want advanced traffic management techniques that would be non-neutral"
You simply don't understand what "Net Neutrality" is.
Hint: is not promoting some protocols over some others. It's about promoting some *providers* over the alternatives.
" It's not how many people you have warming seats, it's how many customers are paying for your service."
Absolutly true. Now, let's see your price tag.
" Price tag? About $100k/mo. [plus] on the order of $15 per Mb/s."
Yeah. I thought so. And then, it's not about how much your customers are paying for your service but about how much you lose by *not* offering your services to your customers. I bet there's a lot of thirty people companies that risk in excess of 115k/mo US$ on loses due to data-center incidents so paying 115k/mo US$ to protect them makes bussiness sense. Yessir.
"Depends on how you want to define the term 'omnipotent.' For some, it means 'has the means to do anything he can imagine.'"
It's stronger than that. It means 'has the means to do anything -full stop'. Or is there anything he can not imagine, uh?
"To others, it might mean 'all actions, regardless of complexity, take the same amount of work.'"
From the omnipotent one, yes, they take the same amount of work: neglegible. If you are simply "very rich" then, yes, it is not the same thing buying an icecream than a Jumbo jet, but if your money really can't be depleted, what's the difference between buying an icecream or a Jumbo jet?
"Just because you are omnipotent doesn't mean you can't also be lazy and take the easy way out."
Well, in fact being almighty *does* mean you can't be lazy.
If you were just *very* powerful then, yes, there could be noticeable differences in effort about doing "this" versus doing "that". But when you are really almighty then there's no difference in effort from "this" to "that", just as 1234312123413241354444444897234523 is nowhere nearer to infinite than 4, so lazyness becomes an unmeaningful word.
No, they are not. They are overengineered sometimes and underengineered some others (why our minds stay fairly clear till we are at least sixties while our body noticibly wears out past thirty five?). We are good enough for surviving about thirty years while quite capable to surpass one hundred under proper circumnstances: that's not good engineering. Apart from this, it seems our body was designed by a bunch of mad, drunk engineers (abeit quite good ones) and not by a single ominiscient one. Which in fact fits quite better with a theory that it's the result of fitness selection over random mutations than with one based on an omniscient well-meant Creator.
"If Scrum is not understood and fully endorsed by the entire organisation, including higher management, it is doomed to fail."
It's doomed to fail, then.
"I agree this is a common problem, but the problem is not really with the methodology as such."
Yes. And communism failing because it doesn't take into account that people is greedy is not a problem with the ideology itself.
*Any* policy that requieres endorsing from a whole organisation, each part of which has their own petty, sometimes colliding, objectives is doomed to fail by its own (un)merits not being able to recognize the environment where it has to be deployed.
"It really mystifies me how a corporation can understand the concept of open source, but can't understand that in such a market distributors have 0 value."
True. But integrators can rise a high value (Red Hat should know this: they basically make a living out of being integrators).
"Open source software can't be sold as a product unto itself."
False. Open source software *licenses* can't be sold. But software? Of course software can be sold as a product by itself. In fact, it is in the closed source camp where you are unable to sell software since once you sell it it's yours no more so you are force to sell licenses instead. The company that hires me is such an example: we develop open source for a living and we certainly sell it to the customers that ask for it: "-What do you need?" "-Whatever"; then we develop, install, support the "whatever" our client needs and present a bill for the work done. Pretty simple.
"I get the impression that they still think they are selling software."
I get the impression that they still think they are selling software *licenses*.
"I am running Fedora 11 and did a normal update. Now I can't get into X."
Your problem. Fedora is and always has been Red Hat's test bed. When you use a testing system for anything you depend on, whatever happens is your own fault.
"I had to rip out all the ATI drives I'm getting from rpmfusion"
So you were not only using a test OS but you even merged it with third party providers and you still are surprised because things breaks.
"Tell me what good is open source if it doesn't work?"
Tell me what good is using a screwdriver for a hammer. I use Fedora for what it's meant: technology preview, and it has always worked for me within expectations. Fedora works when used as intended. Your problem if you try to use it "out of specs".
"I don't want to fuck with fixing shit anymore I have shit to do."
Me too. And you know what? My production systems don't need me wasting time "fixing shit" -of course, I don't use technology preview systems on production environments. Maybe it's because I know my shit better than you. That's again... your problem, not Fedora's.
"Care to explain that? A longer half-life means the material is radioactive LONGER."
Remember Blade Runner: "A candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned very brightly..."
It is not the problem how long a radiactive compound emits (granite or charcoal are radioactive as they have been for very long time) but how "hot" it does emit: the "hotter" it emits, the faster it decays.
"First you say that background radiation is 3 times higher at coal plants than nuclear and then you say that nuclear has a harder time containing the radioactivity."
There's no way you can have a nuclear incident on a charcoal plant; nuclear on the other hand...
"Personally i would rather see nuclear where there is a slim chance of leakage than coal where it is guaranteed to be pumped into the atmosphere."
Personally I think it surely depends on the numbers. And even then, people usually prefer asuming risks by fixed costs (that's why there are insurance companies: you know -at least you know it if you are not absolutly dumb, that a given damage considered its probability is less on average than you insurance bill, but even then you buy into the insurance: because you can afford the bill but you wouldn't afford the damage. Same goes with charcoal vs nuclear radioactivity: you can afford charcoal radioactivity into the atmosphere but you can't afford a Chernobyl.
Slashdot Mirror
"This type of Orwellian"
Oh, holy shit! I'm as much concerned about privacy as any other next guy and then probably more, but this is crystal clear:
1) Do you think there's a need for authorization (you can go in, you can't go in)?
2) If yes, then you need authentication. As in you *need* authentication or else no one will be sure the authorized guy is the one meant to be authorized.
3) If you need authentication, then biometrics is quite a good candidate (while not absolutly great: once it gets tampered there's no easy replacement)
Privacy is not about nobody tracking your steps; it's about nobody tracking your steps except for really valid reasons and only for as long as those valid reasons stand valid.
"It's our politicians, not the majority of our people"
It is precisely the majority of your people the ones that empowers your politicians.
"How many average American citizens say, "Oh, I just love all this security theater that ultimately does nothing to protect us?""
How many average American citizens use their ballot power to have the thing go away? Or is it that, after all, they are not so averse to all that theater?
"death is a critical for evolving... without it, you will consume all consummable resources, and when that happens no more copies will be possible."
That happens all the time and it's called ecological microsucesion. On a complex environment, when a colonizator consumes all its share, it disappears and its very detritus is the basis for the next colonizing wave (cow shits and death trees are the two paradigmatic examples). On the starting point you either are lucky enough that some deviation from the original model happens to take profit on the changed environment or life just stops. We don't know how many times it happened (or even if it happened) prior to the first "lucky" event.
"In the long run, guess what you have more... repeat ad infinitum."
There're two unstated, let's say, imprecisions on your statement.
1) Where you say "molecules that replicate themselves" you should say "molecules that *imperfectly* replicate themselves"
2) Forget about "more complex". They don't need to be more complex, they just need to rise higher affinity to their environment (i.e.: "steal" other molecules more effectively).
"It's not Apple who is being restrictive, but AT&T"
Oh, sure, come on! AT&T went after Mr Jobs with a really big gun telling him "you are not going to trade this gadget with anyone else, are you?"
"This comment is using Latin characters. Thanks for asking."
So "phoenix321" is Pope's nickname on Slashdot? Really funny, isn't it?
"IMO, I'm not a huge fan of strict network neutrality, there are cases where you want advanced traffic management techniques that would be non-neutral"
You simply don't understand what "Net Neutrality" is.
Hint: is not promoting some protocols over some others. It's about promoting some *providers* over the alternatives.
"That's exactly my point. Even the most popular standard "metric" parts in design use today are really Imperial."
And that surely has nothing to do with the fact that USA goes Imperial.
Change USA to metric and you'll see what happens with all those 25.4mm components.
" It's not how many people you have warming seats, it's how many customers are paying for your service."
Absolutly true. Now, let's see your price tag.
" Price tag? About $100k/mo. [plus] on the order of $15 per Mb/s."
Yeah. I thought so.
And then, it's not about how much your customers are paying for your service but about how much you lose by *not* offering your services to your customers. I bet there's a lot of thirty people companies that risk in excess of 115k/mo US$ on loses due to data-center incidents so paying 115k/mo US$ to protect them makes bussiness sense. Yessir.
"With say 3 datacenters, I always made sure we had capacity at each datacenter"
Yeah, sure, that's the way to go for a thirty people company. A price tag, please?
"Don't blame the design, blame the user."
When the user *is* the design, then you are perfectly qualified to blame the design because the dumbness of the user.
"Depends on how you want to define the term 'omnipotent.' For some, it means 'has the means to do anything he can imagine.'"
It's stronger than that. It means 'has the means to do anything -full stop'. Or is there anything he can not imagine, uh?
"To others, it might mean 'all actions, regardless of complexity, take the same amount of work.'"
From the omnipotent one, yes, they take the same amount of work: neglegible. If you are simply "very rich" then, yes, it is not the same thing buying an icecream than a Jumbo jet, but if your money really can't be depleted, what's the difference between buying an icecream or a Jumbo jet?
"Just because you are omnipotent doesn't mean you can't also be lazy and take the easy way out."
Well, in fact being almighty *does* mean you can't be lazy.
If you were just *very* powerful then, yes, there could be noticeable differences in effort about doing "this" versus doing "that". But when you are really almighty then there's no difference in effort from "this" to "that", just as 1234312123413241354444444897234523 is nowhere nearer to infinite than 4, so lazyness becomes an unmeaningful word.
"They don't suck, they're extremely good."
No, they are not. They are overengineered sometimes and underengineered some others (why our minds stay fairly clear till we are at least sixties while our body noticibly wears out past thirty five?). We are good enough for surviving about thirty years while quite capable to surpass one hundred under proper circumnstances: that's not good engineering. Apart from this, it seems our body was designed by a bunch of mad, drunk engineers (abeit quite good ones) and not by a single ominiscient one. Which in fact fits quite better with a theory that it's the result of fitness selection over random mutations than with one based on an omniscient well-meant Creator.
"If Scrum is not understood and fully endorsed by the entire organisation, including higher management, it is doomed to fail."
It's doomed to fail, then.
"I agree this is a common problem, but the problem is not really with the methodology as such."
Yes. And communism failing because it doesn't take into account that people is greedy is not a problem with the ideology itself.
*Any* policy that requieres endorsing from a whole organisation, each part of which has their own petty, sometimes colliding, objectives is doomed to fail by its own (un)merits not being able to recognize the environment where it has to be deployed.
"You're either very young or you have a short memory."
Maybe you are right. Tell me when, in its whole history, Fedora was not Red Hat's technology preview, then.
"It really mystifies me how a corporation can understand the concept of open source, but can't understand that in such a market distributors have 0 value."
True. But integrators can rise a high value (Red Hat should know this: they basically make a living out of being integrators).
"Open source software can't be sold as a product unto itself."
False. Open source software *licenses* can't be sold. But software? Of course software can be sold as a product by itself. In fact, it is in the closed source camp where you are unable to sell software since once you sell it it's yours no more so you are force to sell licenses instead. The company that hires me is such an example: we develop open source for a living and we certainly sell it to the customers that ask for it: "-What do you need?" "-Whatever"; then we develop, install, support the "whatever" our client needs and present a bill for the work done. Pretty simple.
"I get the impression that they still think they are selling software."
I get the impression that they still think they are selling software *licenses*.
"I am running Fedora 11 and did a normal update. Now I can't get into X."
Your problem. Fedora is and always has been Red Hat's test bed. When you use a testing system for anything you depend on, whatever happens is your own fault.
"I had to rip out all the ATI drives I'm getting from rpmfusion"
So you were not only using a test OS but you even merged it with third party providers and you still are surprised because things breaks.
"Tell me what good is open source if it doesn't work?"
Tell me what good is using a screwdriver for a hammer. I use Fedora for what it's meant: technology preview, and it has always worked for me within expectations. Fedora works when used as intended. Your problem if you try to use it "out of specs".
"I don't want to fuck with fixing shit anymore I have shit to do."
Me too. And you know what? My production systems don't need me wasting time "fixing shit" -of course, I don't use technology preview systems on production environments. Maybe it's because I know my shit better than you. That's again... your problem, not Fedora's.
"To have bravery, you first must have fear."
Humm, no, you had it wrong, young padawan. Fear leads to anger, not bravery. Everybody in the council knows that.
"The movie bad guy usually has 10 or 20 notches on his gun"
But that explains all! No wonder the bad guy misses the mark with such a notched unballanced gun!
"If Linux had a license compatible with ZFS"
You do know that ZFS became *after* Linux, don't you?
It is ZFS the one with a license non compatible with that of Linux, not the other way around.
And ZFS is non-compatible with Linux, license-wise, because that's exactly what Sun wanted so, again, don't blame Linux for that.
"i can hear both sides"
I can hear *the* side (the bosses one):
look now: I can have cheap and fast development (PHP) than runs really fast too (C++).
"Care to explain that? A longer half-life means the material is radioactive LONGER."
Remember Blade Runner: "A candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned very brightly..."
It is not the problem how long a radiactive compound emits (granite or charcoal are radioactive as they have been for very long time) but how "hot" it does emit: the "hotter" it emits, the faster it decays.
"First you say that background radiation is 3 times higher at coal plants than nuclear and then you say that nuclear has a harder time containing the radioactivity."
There's no way you can have a nuclear incident on a charcoal plant; nuclear on the other hand...
"Personally i would rather see nuclear where there is a slim chance of leakage than coal where it is guaranteed to be pumped into the atmosphere."
Personally I think it surely depends on the numbers. And even then, people usually prefer asuming risks by fixed costs (that's why there are insurance companies: you know -at least you know it if you are not absolutly dumb, that a given damage considered its probability is less on average than you insurance bill, but even then you buy into the insurance: because you can afford the bill but you wouldn't afford the damage. Same goes with charcoal vs nuclear radioactivity: you can afford charcoal radioactivity into the atmosphere but you can't afford a Chernobyl.
"Yes there is."
No, there isn't. Read carefully the very document you link to.
There's a problem, instead, using server daemons that won't properly handle malformed content.