Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Advantages? (Score 1) 144

by mrchaotica (#47554023) Attached to: Comcast Carrying 1Tbit/s of IPv6 Internet Traffic

The fact that someone bothered to make uPnP suggests that there's a need for this capability for average users.

There's also a "need" for antigravity and wish-granting genies. They're just needs that may remain unfulfilled due to impossibility.

I assume since you bring up uPnP without citing it as a viable solution, you're aware that it's disasterous for security. I think at least some of that is due to inherent problems in the concept, not just a poor implementation.

Granted, we seem to have gone down that path already (perhaps driven in no small part by the prevalence of NAT), and these services may have a place, but do we want it to be *all* there is to the internet?

I agree that we want people to not be reliant on centralized servers... however, the way to accomplish that would be to upgrade the "average" technical expertise of users to the point where they'd be competent to configure a firewall. That may be practically impossible, but I think developing a technical solution capable of saving them from themselves would be even harder.

I accidentally left my Windows box connected to the internet without an external firewall for a few months with no ill effects.

...that you know of!

+ - The Ottawa Linux Symposium Needs You!->

Submitted by smitty_one_each
smitty_one_each (243267) writes "I haven't actually attended since 2008, but OLS is something worth supporting, whether you're a "newbie" like me, an über hacker like Linus, or just want to check out a wonderful Canadian city in the summer. I chipped in a nominal amount.

Check out this Indegogo project, which lays out a sad tale, but with some hope of redemption, and contribute whatever you can to keep a great event alive."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Bullshit.... (Score 3, Informative) 73

by mrchaotica (#47553795) Attached to: A Fictional Compression Metric Moves Into the Real World

Can you explain in more detail?

If you have a multi-dimensional set of factors of things and you design a metric to collapse them down into a single dimension, what you're really measuring is a combination of the values of the factors and your weighting of them. Since the "correct" weighting is a matter of opinion and everybody's use-case is different, a single-dimension metric isn't very useful.

This goes for any situation where you're picking the "best" among a set of choices, not just for compression algorithms, by the way.

Like, if you're trying to compress a given file, and one algorithm compressed the file by 0.00001% in 14 seconds, another compressed the file 15% in 20 seconds, and the third compressed it 15.1% in 29 hours, then the middle algorithm is probably going to be the most useful one.

User A is trying to stream stuff that has to have latency less than 15 seconds, so for him the first algorithm is the best. User B is trying to shove the entire contents of Wikipedia into a disc to send on a space probe, so for him, the third algorithm is the best.

You gave a really extreme[ly contrived] example, so in that case you might be able to say that "reasonable" use cases would prefer the middle algorithm. But differences between actual algorithms would not be nearly so extreme.

Comment: Re:What's your point? (Score 1) 17

by smitty_one_each (#47553645) Attached to: Practical socialism

where on earth can you find an example of non-fiat money that is in common use and has an agreed-upon value?

While 'value' is an ebb-and-flow sort of thing, precious metals remain relatively more stable than the current regime of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, supporting the U.S. exporting its inflation abroad.
That is one issue where the country has a substantial basis to be ashamed.

I ask you third-grade level questions, to see if you have even third-grade level comprehension, and you generally show that you do not.

Oh Progressive moral superior! I throw myself at your feet and beg forgiveness for having the temerity to think that I could gainsay you! Wait: you're daft. Forget that noise.

Programmers do it bit by bit.