What I assume you're assserting is the incredibly offensive but oft-repeated notion that if the Chinese people don't rebel that they don't deserve what they get, in which case I'll just ask you whether you felt the Jews in WW2 or the Cambodians under Pol Pot deserved what they got.
No, I was asserting exactly what I said: If a princess is so high-maintenance that she needs to be rescued from a field mouse, people are better off without her. There's no metaphor behind it.
Yeah, I think it might have been more of a case where the people who witnessed the entire speech were awestruck with how unsophisticated Ted Stevens' understanding of the Internet was (and yet he had suck a strong opinion about it!), and the "tubes" analogy was just an illustration of that. Perhaps once it became a meme, people who *also* have an unsophisticated view of the Internet started mocking the analogy itself.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous that the people who are making these important decisions should need to resort to analogies. I mean, aren't Americans paying them a salary so that they have time to actually get an understanding of the issues that they're making policy decisions about?
Of course, you should make it easy for the police to raid your house without disrupting too much, because you'll be using so much power and generating so much heat that it'll look a lot like you're running a major hydroponic drug-production operation.
1 if you buy a Redhat box (maybe enterprise desktop whatever) you have a number to call if you buy several pallets of boxes then most likely you have your own personal "ShadowMan" to call.
I don't understand; What is your point? Red Hat Linux is mostly, if not entirely, free software.
2 littering for any reason is bad (and damages your Witness) SPAM for any reason is bad even if its the Kosher kind.
Managers usually dont like free software out of liability concerns...weird, the obviously never read the EULA!
Or maybe they've noticed that EULAs aren't necessarily worth the paper they're written on. Has any EULA's "no liability" clause actually been tested in court?
I suspect that it would be a lot easier to convince a judge that you're entitled to damages when you paid $2M for software from some vendor than if you had paid nothing.
Of course, this all is assuming that when you said "free software", you meant free as in "free of charge". If you meant free as in freedom (e.g. a manager won't buy RHEL because there's "nobody to blame"), then I agree that it makes no sense.
Because you can pay somebody to care about security. Come to think of it, it's probably even more true of free (as in freedom) software that you've paid for, because it's easier to catch a cheater when you have source code.
Um, I hate to defend Microsot, but unlike Internet Explorer, which had no need to be integrated into the OS as much as Microsoft claimed it was, but basic network security features are exactly the kind of thing that should be built into the OS. I hope that antivirus programs eventually become obsolete (likewise with firewalls *anywhere* except perhaps in extremely sensitive environments, but that's probably a long way off).
Now, I'm not particularly confident that Microsoft will actually manage to render third-party security software obsolete, simply because the company just isn't all that good at software development, but I'm certainly not going to rebuke them for trying.
Yes, IPv6 provides increased security against attackers who simply try random addresses, since the IPv6 address space is sparser. Of course, the security is pretty much limited to that specific attack.
What the is it that you expect the average NAT user to be doing that matters with the "end to end paradigm of the internet"?
Voice-over-IP, Mobile IP, IPSEC, VNC, gaming...
And then there's the fact that polling and/or bouncing all your traffic off proxy servers (which is what you have to do in order to do anything except HTTP in a NAT encironment) is a terrible waste of network resources: ISPs (especially ones with defaultless routing tables) don't want NAT.
And then there's the fact that writing any sort of new software takes 3 times longer and requires a monthly subscription (or adware) to what is essentially a big centralized error-prone proxy server in order to support NAT: Developers don't want NAT.
People who are about reliability and security also don't want NAT, for much the same reasons.
In the end, end users end up paying more for NAT, even if they're too ignorant to see why.
(An interesting case study is the relatively expensive Copilot service, which offers nothing except VNC-over-NAT via a centralized proxy. Every one of their customers could have easily used VNC for free if it weren't for NAT making things complicated.)
NAT. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Security. Period.
Not quite. NAT leads to more complex systems being built to work around NAT. More complex systems are more likely to have security holes. Ergo, NAT has a net-negative security impact.
NAT breaks the end-to-end operation of the Internet. It needs to go away.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I was asserting exactly what I said: If a princess is so high-maintenance that she needs to be rescued from a field mouse, people are better off without her. There's no metaphor behind it.
Your analogy is flawed. If the princess needs rescuing from a field mouse, it's probably better for the citizens if she is left to perish.
Of course, politics exists in isolation and therefore doesn't affect those more important things. Right?
+1, Insightful
Yeah, I think it might have been more of a case where the people who witnessed the entire speech were awestruck with how unsophisticated Ted Stevens' understanding of the Internet was (and yet he had suck a strong opinion about it!), and the "tubes" analogy was just an illustration of that. Perhaps once it became a meme, people who *also* have an unsophisticated view of the Internet started mocking the analogy itself.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous that the people who are making these important decisions should need to resort to analogies. I mean, aren't Americans paying them a salary so that they have time to actually get an understanding of the issues that they're making policy decisions about?
Good! Then maybe their successors will have their heads screwed on properly.
So does reading and commenting on Slashdot. Anyone here can afford the time.
Of course, you should make it easy for the police to raid your house without disrupting too much, because you'll be using so much power and generating so much heat that it'll look a lot like you're running a major hydroponic drug-production operation.
... makes such massive changes to the VM of a stable kernel that allows this sort of thing to happen in the first place?
Oh wait...
This is completely unacceptaLAMER!LAMER!LAMER!LAMER!...
That's a spelling-nazi tip, dummy!
Your friend, the Accuracy-Nazi
Credit history: None of your damn business!
I was wondering how long it would take for something like this to happen.
Excellent! We'll finally be able to tie up Batman and put him on a conveyor belt that leads to a Wayne Enterprises plasma vapourization chamber.
Why?
I don't understand; What is your point? Red Hat Linux is mostly, if not entirely, free software.
Yes; That's my point.
I was thinking the same thing about id and Quake.
sigh. s/Microsot/Microsoft/; s/but basic network/basic network/;
Or maybe they've noticed that EULAs aren't necessarily worth the paper they're written on. Has any EULA's "no liability" clause actually been tested in court?
I suspect that it would be a lot easier to convince a judge that you're entitled to damages when you paid $2M for software from some vendor than if you had paid nothing.
Of course, this all is assuming that when you said "free software", you meant free as in "free of charge". If you meant free as in freedom (e.g. a manager won't buy RHEL because there's "nobody to blame"), then I agree that it makes no sense.
Because you can pay somebody to care about security. Come to think of it, it's probably even more true of free (as in freedom) software that you've paid for, because it's easier to catch a cheater when you have source code.
Um, I hate to defend Microsot, but unlike Internet Explorer, which had no need to be integrated into the OS as much as Microsoft claimed it was, but basic network security features are exactly the kind of thing that should be built into the OS. I hope that antivirus programs eventually become obsolete (likewise with firewalls *anywhere* except perhaps in extremely sensitive environments, but that's probably a long way off).
Now, I'm not particularly confident that Microsoft will actually manage to render third-party security software obsolete, simply because the company just isn't all that good at software development, but I'm certainly not going to rebuke them for trying.
It is, but the key is written on the outside of the tapes. Apparently it's some sort of poor-man's DRM.
Yes, IPv6 provides increased security against attackers who simply try random addresses, since the IPv6 address space is sparser. Of course, the security is pretty much limited to that specific attack.
Voice-over-IP, Mobile IP, IPSEC, VNC, gaming...
And then there's the fact that polling and/or bouncing all your traffic off proxy servers (which is what you have to do in order to do anything except HTTP in a NAT encironment) is a terrible waste of network resources: ISPs (especially ones with defaultless routing tables) don't want NAT.
And then there's the fact that writing any sort of new software takes 3 times longer and requires a monthly subscription (or adware) to what is essentially a big centralized error-prone proxy server in order to support NAT: Developers don't want NAT.
People who are about reliability and security also don't want NAT, for much the same reasons.
In the end, end users end up paying more for NAT, even if they're too ignorant to see why.
(An interesting case study is the relatively expensive Copilot service, which offers nothing except VNC-over-NAT via a centralized proxy. Every one of their customers could have easily used VNC for free if it weren't for NAT making things complicated.)
Not quite. NAT leads to more complex systems being built to work around NAT. More complex systems are more likely to have security holes. Ergo, NAT has a net-negative security impact.
NAT breaks the end-to-end operation of the Internet. It needs to go away.