That's the entire point: adding another layer of complexity makes troubleshooting and management harder and more likely to fail in new and surprising ways. Making that new layer different (multicast DNS rather than unicast) does not solve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else. This is not better.
I have no problem with servers *using* multcast DNS, dynamic DNS, etc. I have a problem with *relying* on DNS as the only way to connect to a server. DNS fails. So does multicast DNS, and dynamic DNS. In each of those cases I should still be able to connect to my servers.
One good reason why *servers* shouldn't be using DynamicDNS? I'll give you two.
First scenario: your server isn't responding. How do you tell the difference between a failure of the server itself and a Dynamic DNS registration failure? If you don't know it's IPv6 address, how can you tell if its fine, just not registering in DNS properly? Heck, if it's not registering properly, how do you find it at all?
Or, more fun: the server reboots & ends up with a different dynamic IPv6 address....even if it registers the new address to its name properly, clients don't always honor DNS cache times, and will keep trying the old address for a while. You've now created an outage for no good reason.
If you said that desktops don't need static DNS, I'd agree with you completely. But making server infrastructure totally reliant on a middle layer is asking for trouble...things'll work fine until you have a problem & need to troubleshoot. Then your reliance on an external system will bite you in the ass.
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Using a monopoly in one area to unfairly distort the market in other areas is illegal. Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop (in the past, don't start with me about right now) was legal. Using that monopoly to give away a product and drive Netscape out of business was not. Google's monopoly on search is legal. Google does not have a monopoly on phone software.
With all that said, if Google gives away wireless, the way they make money back would be interesting. It might be legal if it's something that Verizon or Sprint could also do (data mining user behavior and selling SMS ads based on user behavior, for example). On the other hand, if google pays for it by simply taking money from their search ads & intentionally losing money on free wireless, that would probably be illegal.
Seriously? Think of this from sweden's point of view: The US has not requested him, but Sweden has no idea what the US will do in the future, and does have treaty obligations with the US. Does anybody really expect Sweden to say "yeah, fuck all our treaties with America, we'll protect a guy we think raped a couple of our citizens." Really?
Agreed. I encourage folks to tag this story as "troll" or "badsummary", in the hopes of at least giving people a warning that this summary of full of shit.
My personal rants against Unity:
1) I hate the concept of tearing an application's menus out of the application's windows and putting them on the top bar. I find that very counter-intuitive and confusing. The really frustrating part about that feature is that you can turn it off, but only for the entire box. If I'm sharing a system with a girlfriend/spouse, etc, we now have to agree on how this system does that, rather than being able to do it individually according to our tastes.
2) Unity seems to assume that all applications will run full-screen, even when I don't want them to. It has a very frustrating feature where any app that launches at greater than (I think) 80% screen size will auto-maximize. I don't want that. I want the windows of an application to stay the size I made them last time, even if that is 85% of the screen real estate. Unity doesn't allow that...it forces full-screen above a certain size, and I couldn't find a way to turn that off.
3) its performance on multi-screen setups is just weird. The dock auto-minimizing in the middle of the two screens is simply broken...but that's really just a bug that highlights a bigger problem: you can't change the dock's location. It's on the left side of the "primary" screen. Period.
These three together point me to an attitude from Unity that runs counter to what I feel linux is about (choice & control). The cognitive dissonance of that feeling from Unity makes me want to uninstall it as fast as I can. Having the dock (or any other setting) have a *default* of what the Ubuntu team feels works best is fine. Making those settings *mandatory* does nothing but piss me off & makes me want to abandon Unity.
It's tied to *a* google account. It doesn't have to be tied to your pre-existing Gmail account, though. When they ask for your gmail account, lie, and make another.
Well, that's an interesting question: how much business *does* a company actually lose by being embarrassed in an event like this? Companies keep getting hacked (Citigroup, Sony, TJmaxx, RSA), but they don't seem to be going out of business because of it, or even taking that much of a financial hit...so I'm beginning to suspect that there isn't that much impact after all.
So, if there's no real financial impact aside from PR and cleanup, why should they bother being secure?
Probably because they haven't (yet) regained control of the account. Given that it's the 4th of July, I suspect a lot of organisations (Twitter included) are on skeleton crews today. If Fox News calls in a huff demanding an account password is changed immediately, how's the crew to know if this is real or another layer of social engineering? All the higher-ups who would make any decision like that are just now waking up & planning their day of grilling.
Except this isn't really repeatability...they're both analysing the same data from the same experiment, just in different ways with different weighting. Repeatability will come with LHC data.
If everyone's hoarding them, then there will be very few transactions, which will only increase the volatility. If you want to stabilize the economy, use them.
I guess it's predictable that the FSF wouldn't be in favor of BSD-style licenses, but if they're going to mention things like the Apache license, they should include the BSD license. BSD is not mentioned anywhere in their guide...which is a shame. Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid license, and should be included in the decision tree for choosing a license.
It's not really psychological, it's a side-effect of how humans assess risk. We assess a risk lower if it is: common (driving every day), self-controlled (driving yourself), failures aren't personified (hitting a tree is a different risk than a person driving into you), and if we've seen the event a lot. We assess risks higher if they are: rare (many people only fly once or less per year), something you can't control (someone else piloting), and if failures are spectacular (fireball from the sky). Add in being able to personify a risk (terrorist hijacking), and you begin to see why hijackers flying planes into buildings pushed so many people's buttons on 9/11.
To disable the global Menu bar, you do two things: 1) in/etc/X11/Xsessions.d/ move 80appmenu to another location (I created a "disabled" subdirectory and put it there) 2) disable the "global menu bar integration" plugins in Firefox and Thunderbird.
I haven't done business with Sony Online Entertainment at all for over a decade, and I'm apparently effected. I subscribed to Everquest way back in the day, but dropped somewhere around 2001. I just yesterday got an email from them that my personal information had been lost. So, don't feel so superior...even if you started boycotting them over the rootkits, they kept your information from before then, and then lost it to hackers.
So, I'm curious: Is there any organization that does direct label->broadcaster agreements (or acting as a clearinghouse for those sorts of agreements)? I believe (though IANAL) that a direct contract between a label & a broadcaster for a given netcasting rate would bypass the need to pay SoundExchange (since you wouldn't be relying on the compulsory license). Is there any organization doing that sort of contract work out in the wild net?
Slashdot Mirror
Multicast DNS for the win.
...Added complexity for the lose.
That's the entire point: adding another layer of complexity makes troubleshooting and management harder and more likely to fail in new and surprising ways. Making that new layer different (multicast DNS rather than unicast) does not solve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else. This is not better.
I have no problem with servers *using* multcast DNS, dynamic DNS, etc. I have a problem with *relying* on DNS as the only way to connect to a server. DNS fails. So does multicast DNS, and dynamic DNS. In each of those cases I should still be able to connect to my servers.
One good reason why *servers* shouldn't be using DynamicDNS? I'll give you two.
First scenario: your server isn't responding. How do you tell the difference between a failure of the server itself and a Dynamic DNS registration failure? If you don't know it's IPv6 address, how can you tell if its fine, just not registering in DNS properly? Heck, if it's not registering properly, how do you find it at all?
Or, more fun: the server reboots & ends up with a different dynamic IPv6 address....even if it registers the new address to its name properly, clients don't always honor DNS cache times, and will keep trying the old address for a while. You've now created an outage for no good reason.
If you said that desktops don't need static DNS, I'd agree with you completely. But making server infrastructure totally reliant on a middle layer is asking for trouble...things'll work fine until you have a problem & need to troubleshoot. Then your reliance on an external system will bite you in the ass.
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Using a monopoly in one area to unfairly distort the market in other areas is illegal. Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop (in the past, don't start with me about right now) was legal. Using that monopoly to give away a product and drive Netscape out of business was not. Google's monopoly on search is legal. Google does not have a monopoly on phone software.
With all that said, if Google gives away wireless, the way they make money back would be interesting. It might be legal if it's something that Verizon or Sprint could also do (data mining user behavior and selling SMS ads based on user behavior, for example). On the other hand, if google pays for it by simply taking money from their search ads & intentionally losing money on free wireless, that would probably be illegal.
Seriously? Think of this from sweden's point of view: The US has not requested him, but Sweden has no idea what the US will do in the future, and does have treaty obligations with the US. Does anybody really expect Sweden to say "yeah, fuck all our treaties with America, we'll protect a guy we think raped a couple of our citizens." Really?
Agreed. I encourage folks to tag this story as "troll" or "badsummary", in the hopes of at least giving people a warning that this summary of full of shit.
I pity your editor.
My personal rants against Unity:
1) I hate the concept of tearing an application's menus out of the application's windows and putting them on the top bar. I find that very counter-intuitive and confusing. The really frustrating part about that feature is that you can turn it off, but only for the entire box. If I'm sharing a system with a girlfriend/spouse, etc, we now have to agree on how this system does that, rather than being able to do it individually according to our tastes.
2) Unity seems to assume that all applications will run full-screen, even when I don't want them to. It has a very frustrating feature where any app that launches at greater than (I think) 80% screen size will auto-maximize. I don't want that. I want the windows of an application to stay the size I made them last time, even if that is 85% of the screen real estate. Unity doesn't allow that...it forces full-screen above a certain size, and I couldn't find a way to turn that off.
3) its performance on multi-screen setups is just weird. The dock auto-minimizing in the middle of the two screens is simply broken...but that's really just a bug that highlights a bigger problem: you can't change the dock's location. It's on the left side of the "primary" screen. Period.
These three together point me to an attitude from Unity that runs counter to what I feel linux is about (choice & control). The cognitive dissonance of that feeling from Unity makes me want to uninstall it as fast as I can. Having the dock (or any other setting) have a *default* of what the Ubuntu team feels works best is fine. Making those settings *mandatory* does nothing but piss me off & makes me want to abandon Unity.
...and they're vulnerable to being hacked (and don't think for a minute that cell phone malware doesn't exist). That's my point.
When's the last time you changed the OS on your microwave?
When my microwave reads email, IMs, and browses the web, I'll update it's OS pretty damn regularly.
(Honey, the popcorn's been hacked again!)
Large group of people stubbornly refuses to act in uniform manner. Film at 11.
It's tied to *a* google account. It doesn't have to be tied to your pre-existing Gmail account, though. When they ask for your gmail account, lie, and make another.
Well, that's an interesting question: how much business *does* a company actually lose by being embarrassed in an event like this? Companies keep getting hacked (Citigroup, Sony, TJmaxx, RSA), but they don't seem to be going out of business because of it, or even taking that much of a financial hit...so I'm beginning to suspect that there isn't that much impact after all.
So, if there's no real financial impact aside from PR and cleanup, why should they bother being secure?
In its defence, this is exactly what the movie jedi did also, so calling it a "jedi bot" is an accurate description.
Just because your customers are morons, that doesn't make fraud okay.
Probably because they haven't (yet) regained control of the account. Given that it's the 4th of July, I suspect a lot of organisations (Twitter included) are on skeleton crews today. If Fox News calls in a huff demanding an account password is changed immediately, how's the crew to know if this is real or another layer of social engineering? All the higher-ups who would make any decision like that are just now waking up & planning their day of grilling.
I'm not sure I'm ready to trust Donald Trump with missiles.
I dunno..."You're fired" could take on a whole new meaning. That might actually make his tv show interesting.
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
-- Winston Churchill
Justice? I don't think they were ever about justice. Their name says it all: they're in it for the lulz.
Except this isn't really repeatability...they're both analysing the same data from the same experiment, just in different ways with different weighting. Repeatability will come with LHC data.
If everyone's hoarding them, then there will be very few transactions, which will only increase the volatility. If you want to stabilize the economy, use them.
I guess it's predictable that the FSF wouldn't be in favor of BSD-style licenses, but if they're going to mention things like the Apache license, they should include the BSD license. BSD is not mentioned anywhere in their guide...which is a shame. Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid license, and should be included in the decision tree for choosing a license.
It's not really psychological, it's a side-effect of how humans assess risk. We assess a risk lower if it is: common (driving every day), self-controlled (driving yourself), failures aren't personified (hitting a tree is a different risk than a person driving into you), and if we've seen the event a lot. We assess risks higher if they are: rare (many people only fly once or less per year), something you can't control (someone else piloting), and if failures are spectacular (fireball from the sky). Add in being able to personify a risk (terrorist hijacking), and you begin to see why hijackers flying planes into buildings pushed so many people's buttons on 9/11.
To disable the global Menu bar, you do two things: /etc/X11/Xsessions.d/ move 80appmenu to another location (I created a "disabled" subdirectory and put it there)
1) in
2) disable the "global menu bar integration" plugins in Firefox and Thunderbird.
Yes, this is a shitty way to manage that setting.
I haven't done business with Sony Online Entertainment at all for over a decade, and I'm apparently effected. I subscribed to Everquest way back in the day, but dropped somewhere around 2001. I just yesterday got an email from them that my personal information had been lost. So, don't feel so superior...even if you started boycotting them over the rootkits, they kept your information from before then, and then lost it to hackers.
So, I'm curious: Is there any organization that does direct label->broadcaster agreements (or acting as a clearinghouse for those sorts of agreements)? I believe (though IANAL) that a direct contract between a label & a broadcaster for a given netcasting rate would bypass the need to pay SoundExchange (since you wouldn't be relying on the compulsory license). Is there any organization doing that sort of contract work out in the wild net?