This is exactly why we need liberty-minded proponents setting up anonymous mechanisms of communications. Nobody should have the right to censor content online.
Wait, what? You don't believe that the people that go through the effort of creating and maintaining their own forum should have the ability to exercise some control over the content being posted on that forum? The comments they host become a reflection of that site and mold its reputation.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate censorship and I think Reddit is doing a great job of tearing itself apart from the inside out. But if you really believe in liberty, then you also have to recognize the liberty of the owners and moderators to shape their content and the liberty of the users to migrate to other forums.
While only available on mobile via Apple products at launch, the company says it will announce plans to expand to other platforms and providers soon. That also mirrors the path that HBO took with its streaming service
That path that HBO took was a three-month exclusive deal with Apple, so I'm deducing that Showtime has a similar deal based on the phrase "mirrors the path" in the article. I guess, if true, that isn't that bad, especially compared to the rumors of Apple trying to get content providers to avoid using other distribution channels entirely once the Apple music streaming service goes live.
Finally someone else who understands that limiting yourselves to already existing customers is an extremely dumb idea.
Did they, though? Now instead of being locked into a cable provider you're locked into a cable provider or the Apple ecosystem. It looks like Apple is pushing everyone who wants to do digital distribution with them into exclusivity deals. Slightly less evil than their previous tactics of price fixing but still pretty evil.
Love him or hate him, this guy's designs helped Apple to create an entirely new market that is the envy of all other hardware companies: premium disposable electronic devices.
How did this straw man argument get modded up? I never suggested anything of the sort. I was implying that maybe these clever names for vulnerabilities aren't coming from within the open source community and that closed source software seems to be getting off easy when it comes to the level of effort in having their vulnerabilities named for them.
I should have made my statement more clear. I didn't mean to imply that all open source projects have bad names (although I still believe that many do) but I was more focused on the fact that it seems to be only open source projects that have vulnerabilities with marketing-friendly names despite the fact that closed source software has had many vulnerabilities just as severe and I can't recall one closed source vulnerability with a memorable name. The point is: who is responsible for naming these vulnerabilities and why aren't they just as clever in naming closed source vulnerabilities as they are for open source?
Not to get too far offtopic, but as a long-time user of open source software, it bothers me that open source software seems to have inferior names for its applications (GIMP, Yakuake, etc) but very marketing-friendly names for its vulnerabilities (Heartbleed, Shellshock, Venom). If you look at closed-source software it is the complete opposite - applications have marketing-friendly names while vulnerabilities are called something like "KBstringofnumbersnobodywillrememberorcareabout". So are open source developers just much better at naming vulnerabilities or are the marketing departments of closed software companies quietly assisting with the naming of open-source vulnerabilities?
So Chrome offers great speed, stability, and separate processes per tab and Firefox has a huge selection of add-ons. But Microsoft has done very little to divulge what Edge has to offer to differentiate itself from the other browsers and become more than just the best browser to download Chrome or Firefox.
I was going to upgrade my servers to Ubuntu 15.04 until I learned that they integrated SystemD into that release, so now is a great time to evaluate OpenBSD in a virtual machine. Maybe OpenBSD could create a section on their web site that provides documentation on the advantages of BSD over Linux as well as some advice on how to avoid common pitfalls that Linux users typically make in BSD. Just for fun, they could call that section "Because of SystemD". In any event, I'm curious to see what I'll miss coming from the Linux world after spending some time in OpenBSD.
On a semi-related note: what's with replacing nginx with their own http daemon? Is the NIH syndrome spreading to OpenBSD as well?
And were those projects for safety-critical systems? Were they replacing 20 years of development where the new system was required to perform every task almost exactly as the original using an entirely different architecture or did you get to make your own requirements from scratch and adapt them however you pleased? Was that system so heavily integrated that a basic task was way too complicated for unit tests which means that all testing had to be performed manually in an integrated environment or using a vast array of virtual machines to push the test data? Did that project require extremely tight security with many different clients in the private and public sectors (requiring drastically different security checks) as the system processed data from those sources and sent custom-filtered data back? I could go on and on, but again, it probably wouldn't matter because it's not something you can appreciate until you've actually done it.
You are insanely naive. You have no idea just how hard it is to build a safety-critical system on this scale. These systems have to be up nearly 24/7/365 and balance a ridiculous amount of data from redundant data sources while avoiding deadlocks and other sources of data contention. In addition to that, they undergo way more testing than you can imagine to ensure that the system handles those large volumes of data correctly and doesn't crash along the way. I used to think like you until I actually worked on an air traffic management system, so I can tell you that you can't possibly imagine how difficult it is until you actually do it.
The rate limiting step of the Airway Traffic Control system just might be somewhere else so there would be no need to do anything else.
Just off the top of my head, major limiting factors are runways to get the flights into and out of the air, passenger demand, and the number of air traffic controllers. And like most projects, the cost and effort to scale rises dramatically with the amount of scale you target. Besides, if the system is anything like the air traffic management system I worked on, then it should scale much better than the system it replaced.
I do find it concerning that the system comprises of 'two million lines of code'.
The software on the plane has more lines of code than that and some of that code actually controls the plane, auto-negotiate collision avoidance, etc. I'd be more worried about that - if ERAM goes down for a brief period, controllers wouldn't be able to see flights, but those aircraft would be able to maintain control of their aircraft until ERAM came back up. If the flight's control system went, then the traffic controller would only be able to watch the flight as it hurtled out of control.
The system has been rolled out one center at a time over the past several years. This article is just stating that the last center has been converted and the transition from HOST to ERAM is complete. That's not to say that there weren't glitches along the way.
It's easy to love Swift now since it's relatively new. Enough time hasn't gone by yet for projects to grow big enough to discover all of its shortcomings. I did like many of the core concepts behind Swift when I first heard about it, but I'm not a fan of its low type safety as well as the fact that it only works on one platform.
So rather than empower women by making them better negotiators in the business world, Ellen Pao is trying to take the process of negotiating out of the business world. I'm sure that will end well.
No, it is used by every major system today for very good reasons.
Some will say that is how Macs do it
Macs do have shared libraries - the files have a.dylib file extension.
sounds good when storage was expensive
Statically linked apps don't just take up orders of magnitude more storage, but also significantly more memory. Not only that, but a critical security update to one library requires recompiling and redeploying ALL of the apps that use that library.
today we are virtualizing full platforms just to prevent version incomparably
There are tons of reasons to virtualize that have nothing to do with version compatibility or network security.
Since you seem so committed to statically linking apps, I suggest you go through the Linux From Scratch project and statically compile everything. Then, deploy it to an enterprise environment that requires five-nines uptime as well as all security updates. Be sure to set up a video camera so that I can watch with a bug bucket of popcorn.
Re:Have they fixed the invisible file mgr borders?
on
GNOME 3.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Slow your roll, cowboy. You expected Gnome3 to handle multiple windows at the same time? What do you think it is, so kind of manager of windows? Full-screen all the way!
How is the upcoming Chevy Bolt going to get 200 miles per charge with a base price of $30,000? I ask because one of the biggest costs of the car is the batteries and not even Tesla will be able to reach that price point until they have their GigaPlant up and running?
Of course not because it exposes the ugliness that occurs when people are operating outside the reach of government regulation and is therefore used by opponents of completely free markets.
Fraud is by definition a departure from the market
Fraud is not a departure from the market any more than it is a feature of the market. It is simply a reality in every society, regardless of how they do business. Of course, fraud can be mitigated through proper regulation but there are a lot of people who oppose that for strictly ideological reasons.
The demand for hacked computers and the information gained from hacking may not be as much as the demand for drugs, but it's certainly up there and I'm sure BitCoin would make a great currency for that market.
Regardless, the original point that everyone has strayed away from is that the libertarians that championed BitCoin as a currency free of government regulation are getting a cold dose of reality. Apparently some government regulation actually serves a usual purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
If I ran Ars, I would have responded with a promise that IMAX would never be mentioned in any form on Ars or any of its affiliates ever again.
Wait, what? You don't believe that the people that go through the effort of creating and maintaining their own forum should have the ability to exercise some control over the content being posted on that forum? The comments they host become a reflection of that site and mold its reputation.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate censorship and I think Reddit is doing a great job of tearing itself apart from the inside out. But if you really believe in liberty, then you also have to recognize the liberty of the owners and moderators to shape their content and the liberty of the users to migrate to other forums.
That path that HBO took was a three-month exclusive deal with Apple, so I'm deducing that Showtime has a similar deal based on the phrase "mirrors the path" in the article. I guess, if true, that isn't that bad, especially compared to the rumors of Apple trying to get content providers to avoid using other distribution channels entirely once the Apple music streaming service goes live.
Did they, though? Now instead of being locked into a cable provider you're locked into a cable provider or the Apple ecosystem. It looks like Apple is pushing everyone who wants to do digital distribution with them into exclusivity deals. Slightly less evil than their previous tactics of price fixing but still pretty evil.
FTFY
Love him or hate him, this guy's designs helped Apple to create an entirely new market that is the envy of all other hardware companies: premium disposable electronic devices.
How did this straw man argument get modded up? I never suggested anything of the sort. I was implying that maybe these clever names for vulnerabilities aren't coming from within the open source community and that closed source software seems to be getting off easy when it comes to the level of effort in having their vulnerabilities named for them.
I should have made my statement more clear. I didn't mean to imply that all open source projects have bad names (although I still believe that many do) but I was more focused on the fact that it seems to be only open source projects that have vulnerabilities with marketing-friendly names despite the fact that closed source software has had many vulnerabilities just as severe and I can't recall one closed source vulnerability with a memorable name. The point is: who is responsible for naming these vulnerabilities and why aren't they just as clever in naming closed source vulnerabilities as they are for open source?
Not to get too far offtopic, but as a long-time user of open source software, it bothers me that open source software seems to have inferior names for its applications (GIMP, Yakuake, etc) but very marketing-friendly names for its vulnerabilities (Heartbleed, Shellshock, Venom). If you look at closed-source software it is the complete opposite - applications have marketing-friendly names while vulnerabilities are called something like "KBstringofnumbersnobodywillrememberorcareabout". So are open source developers just much better at naming vulnerabilities or are the marketing departments of closed software companies quietly assisting with the naming of open-source vulnerabilities?
So Chrome offers great speed, stability, and separate processes per tab and Firefox has a huge selection of add-ons. But Microsoft has done very little to divulge what Edge has to offer to differentiate itself from the other browsers and become more than just the best browser to download Chrome or Firefox.
I was going to upgrade my servers to Ubuntu 15.04 until I learned that they integrated SystemD into that release, so now is a great time to evaluate OpenBSD in a virtual machine. Maybe OpenBSD could create a section on their web site that provides documentation on the advantages of BSD over Linux as well as some advice on how to avoid common pitfalls that Linux users typically make in BSD. Just for fun, they could call that section "Because of SystemD". In any event, I'm curious to see what I'll miss coming from the Linux world after spending some time in OpenBSD.
On a semi-related note: what's with replacing nginx with their own http daemon? Is the NIH syndrome spreading to OpenBSD as well?
And were those projects for safety-critical systems? Were they replacing 20 years of development where the new system was required to perform every task almost exactly as the original using an entirely different architecture or did you get to make your own requirements from scratch and adapt them however you pleased? Was that system so heavily integrated that a basic task was way too complicated for unit tests which means that all testing had to be performed manually in an integrated environment or using a vast array of virtual machines to push the test data? Did that project require extremely tight security with many different clients in the private and public sectors (requiring drastically different security checks) as the system processed data from those sources and sent custom-filtered data back? I could go on and on, but again, it probably wouldn't matter because it's not something you can appreciate until you've actually done it.
You are insanely naive. You have no idea just how hard it is to build a safety-critical system on this scale. These systems have to be up nearly 24/7/365 and balance a ridiculous amount of data from redundant data sources while avoiding deadlocks and other sources of data contention. In addition to that, they undergo way more testing than you can imagine to ensure that the system handles those large volumes of data correctly and doesn't crash along the way. I used to think like you until I actually worked on an air traffic management system, so I can tell you that you can't possibly imagine how difficult it is until you actually do it.
Just off the top of my head, major limiting factors are runways to get the flights into and out of the air, passenger demand, and the number of air traffic controllers. And like most projects, the cost and effort to scale rises dramatically with the amount of scale you target. Besides, if the system is anything like the air traffic management system I worked on, then it should scale much better than the system it replaced.
The software on the plane has more lines of code than that and some of that code actually controls the plane, auto-negotiate collision avoidance, etc. I'd be more worried about that - if ERAM goes down for a brief period, controllers wouldn't be able to see flights, but those aircraft would be able to maintain control of their aircraft until ERAM came back up. If the flight's control system went, then the traffic controller would only be able to watch the flight as it hurtled out of control.
The system has been rolled out one center at a time over the past several years. This article is just stating that the last center has been converted and the transition from HOST to ERAM is complete. That's not to say that there weren't glitches along the way.
It's easy to love Swift now since it's relatively new. Enough time hasn't gone by yet for projects to grow big enough to discover all of its shortcomings. I did like many of the core concepts behind Swift when I first heard about it, but I'm not a fan of its low type safety as well as the fact that it only works on one platform.
Actually, at that point the only thing left that they can improve would be the quality of the actual content. So yeah, they may very well go belly up.
So rather than empower women by making them better negotiators in the business world, Ellen Pao is trying to take the process of negotiating out of the business world. I'm sure that will end well.
No, it is used by every major system today for very good reasons.
Macs do have shared libraries - the files have a .dylib file extension.
Statically linked apps don't just take up orders of magnitude more storage, but also significantly more memory. Not only that, but a critical security update to one library requires recompiling and redeploying ALL of the apps that use that library.
There are tons of reasons to virtualize that have nothing to do with version compatibility or network security.
Since you seem so committed to statically linking apps, I suggest you go through the Linux From Scratch project and statically compile everything. Then, deploy it to an enterprise environment that requires five-nines uptime as well as all security updates. Be sure to set up a video camera so that I can watch with a bug bucket of popcorn.
Slow your roll, cowboy. You expected Gnome3 to handle multiple windows at the same time? What do you think it is, so kind of manager of windows? Full-screen all the way!
It wouldn't be surprising if this is true - Australia is already the home of the deadliest form of everything else on this planet.
How is the upcoming Chevy Bolt going to get 200 miles per charge with a base price of $30,000? I ask because one of the biggest costs of the car is the batteries and not even Tesla will be able to reach that price point until they have their GigaPlant up and running?
Of course not because it exposes the ugliness that occurs when people are operating outside the reach of government regulation and is therefore used by opponents of completely free markets.
Fraud is not a departure from the market any more than it is a feature of the market. It is simply a reality in every society, regardless of how they do business. Of course, fraud can be mitigated through proper regulation but there are a lot of people who oppose that for strictly ideological reasons.
The demand for hacked computers and the information gained from hacking may not be as much as the demand for drugs, but it's certainly up there and I'm sure BitCoin would make a great currency for that market.
Regardless, the original point that everyone has strayed away from is that the libertarians that championed BitCoin as a currency free of government regulation are getting a cold dose of reality. Apparently some government regulation actually serves a usual purpose.