No need - just tow a trailer and put them on there
No need - just tow a trailer and put them on there
I've used Docker a bit, and I get it. I'd like to build a container of my client's Rails app + gems + ruby and just run it wherever without having to 'dirty' my system with all that stuff. I get it.
What I don't get is why I'd want Docker for MySql or Postgres? I install that on a dedicated box, so whatever crap it wants to pull in and spew all over the place is fine with me. When its time to upgrade, I'm yet to see if Docker can help me, I can't see how (at the very least, not much).
So... what I'm saying is... I can see Docker making a lot of inroads in a lot of places, I'm just not sure its the special sauce for every situation, which is what the hype seems to suggest.
No remote working? Quite the irony for a cloud company most of its customers couldn't even locate on a map, that peddles a distributed, decentralised source code control product.
as for their growth... I understand their need to make money and assure their market position. Couldn't they just do that by being good at git and not worrying about all the other fluff?
If I were in the business of intrusive ways to protect my imaginary property, I could think of a bunch of far better options that would actually do them some good rather than this incredibly obvious fail. For example:
1) If evil bit is set, then don't allow fast forward (and return to normal playing if fast forwarding). Set evil bit during ad breaks, product placements etc.
2) If evil bit is set, then do not allow viewing on anything other than the device that recorded the content (so no network or copy-to-usb or download for later viewing)
3) If evil bit is set, then only allow copying to authorised devices, but watch freely on device that did the recording
If anyone fancies using any of these ideas, then you'll need to obtain a license from me to do so
I suspect Japan will be the test bed for these idiotic ideas. If whatever comes out of that wash has this sort of bollocks in it by the time it gets to me, then I guess I won't worry about getting 4K/8K capable devices until the whole thing has been hacked and reverse engineered to shreds like every previous attempt to do this sort of thing has eventually become.
...they also won't have to worry about learning what the hell Open Source is, how it benefits humankind (and indeed the big corps too), how they can contribute and be useful, and how it has it's own legal framework that's remarkably easy to stay comfortably inside if you have half a brain. They'll be far too busy trying to learn about imaginary property, non-transferable licenses, annual subscriptions and contract lengths.
All sounds great to me
I complained to my MP (in the UK, where our PM has publicly stated he'd like back doors all over the place) and got a response which essentially said "we invest in strong encryption, we don't advocate weakening encryption at all. However, we do want tech companies to give us access to data when we ask for it".
In other words - it's all about double-speak. To turn this into slashdot friendly words: "we come in peace. shoot to kill".
Strong statements are all well and good, but until they also legislate to say (to tech companies) "it's okay to store data in encrypted form that you don't have the keys for", they're not really any different from the other countries of the western world that are keen to snoop on our every move. They're less in-bed with the Americans than we Brits are, so hopefully not quite as pervasive as we are, but apart from scale and efficiency, not that far different.
You forgot the part where they managed to miniturise the reactor to fit into a man's arm (1973): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All on Blu Ray
When we've grown a few humans with similar growing differences as we've done to this salmon, I'll start thinking the salmon is okay. Until then, forget it.
I know that humankind knows less than there is to learn. We have no idea if this salmon is safe or not - we don't know what makes a wild salmon safe (or not). All we can do is check for things we know are bad, and we really don't know very many bad things compared to how many there are (we can't even count them, to be honest). The fact you and I disagree on this general point suggests also that we can't agree what's 'bad' and what's not. In other words, we've got a long way to go in this area before we're "pretty knowledgeable".
Until the salmon can tell us it feels okay, it's physically okay and that it's pretty happy with its lot in life, we honestly have no way to know if it's the same as a non-GM salmon. At least a human can tell us what it's thinking and feeling, and can be compared to other humans. Thus, we stand a chance of finding out if the GM-human really is the same as a non-GM human. Even this doesn't tell you everything, but I'm pretty sure nature has a way of adapting or rejecting things that are too par "out of spec", and so asking how things are seems like a reasonable first step in lieu of a more "star trek tricorder scan" sort of solution.
I just asked mine to tell me what use weakened encryption would be since France has already outlawed it and still missed these guys (as indeed did GCHQ and the Five Eyes nations). I went on to ask him to publish the same information the Bill calls for, but for his home, office and Parliament use of the Internet (I even said I'd install suitable equipment to collect the information if he didn't have it already). Anything less is hipocrisy
I know doing this does about jackshit most of the time. However, if we all do it then they at least have to reply to all our letters, which might slow them down a bit. Gotta give writetothem.com a +1 though, it really is a great resource.
I plan to start out by saying (as someone above said) that you can't pass a law to make maths easier. Then I'll go on to explain the One Time Pad, and after s/he is bamboozled with all that, suggest that they should indeed pass a law to make maths easier because it'll make our kids achieve far greater things than the rest of the world and make the scrambling of conversations easier to unscramble. There's no need to make this a "snoopers charter" - just make it an Education Bill instead
I agree, but RAC is like crack, and Oracle know it. FWIW, RAC is actually pretty good - esoteric, yes, but actually capable of an awful lot.
The thing about Oracle is that if you run single server, then you could conceivably migrate to Postres. You've got a world of dev work to do, but you could do it. Once single server starts puffing a bit and the sharp suited Oracle guys tell you RAC is your best option, the PHBs get involved. In fairness to them, they're faced with a big license fee to pay each year, or to pay more in dollars and lost dev time to convert to Postgres. Spending (say) 3-6 months engineering out of Oracle and onto Postgres is pretty career limiting if not done exactly right - not only have you got to convince the CxOs that it's the right way to go (which is hard), but you've got to hit your deadlines and Postgres *has* to give you headroom beyond the next 2-3 years at least (and you've got to push back on your feature delivery a bit). That's a hell of a personal risk to take as a PHB, and so it becomes much easier to spend a lot of someone else's money and buy RAC instead. The implementation costs are tiny in comparison, and you guarantee headroom for several more years at least.
Whilst I can understand all of this, what I can't understand is how anyone thinks Oracle isn't just going to turn up the thumb screws in years 2-3. I mean, once you've used RAC enough that you couldn't "just drop in postgres", then they know you've got months of dev work just to shard up your data, never mind actually use a different RDMS. As much as I think Oracle are arseholes, cranking up the license to a captive customer is pretty understandable. How on earth the CxOs can't see this up-front is beyond me - what the hell do they teach on MBA courses?
What I can't abide is the slight-of-hand stuff Oracle also does. The subtle changes to contract wording that mean you sign your contract renewal and are instantly in violation of your contract (which they only tell you about a few months later). That to me seems more like a protection racket, and surely must be illegal in a lot of jurisdictions. I wonder if customers can ask for assurances that they're license-compliant on day one of contract renewals? That wouldn't stop you having to pay, but at least you'd get some transparency while dealing with the contract, and would mean you could at least stay compliant until the next renewal.
So anyway, if you're about half-using an Oracle single server, then start looking at Postgres. That way you're always small to Oracle and not worth hassling too much, and you won't ever get into all this horrible stuff.
The sketchy side of the internet (in part) supplies them with the tools of their trade. Given all the other sh*t these agencies have been up to, I wouldn't be surprised to find out they were in charge of some ransomware so that they could fund other extra-curricular activities (via suitable layers of third parties, of course).
exactly as this thread shows, though, they have a perception problem. They may have arrived at having a cloud offering in the same was as Microsoft (ie. buy it in), but unlike Microsoft, to paraphrase a common expression, you can get fired for buying Wallmart.
That said, if Wallmart could offer Amazon's list of services at the sort of lower price most people perceive Wallmart as offering, then it could get some traction (at least from the smaller companies).
William Hague told us that the innocent have nothing to fear and that they're only collecting meta data etc. Successors to him have repeated that they work within a robust legal framework, must be necessary and proportionate, yadda yadda yadda.
Surely, with all these protections and assurances they can't be worried can they?
The thing that annoys me more than any of this story alone is that none of the Home Secretaries that spouted this utter bullshit will face any sort of recrimination. Tossers the lot of 'em*.
* Any MP that wants to convince me that they're not a tosser is welcome to explain themselves. I even invited my MP to demonstrate he wasn't a tosser, and all he could manage was a letter back to say he "worked very hard", thus re-inforcing my view of him.
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.