Some large (internet scale) services run without a firewall, although typically ACLs on the router serve a similar function. The issue is that firewalls have a hard time scaling to internet scale volumes. (source: I have served as the lead systems architect on very large scale internet infrastructure).
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Link to Original Source
The accusations against bitcoin could be applied to many of the citizens of the united states. Stop and think about how you have handled money over the last money - buying things for folks, getting paid back, trading small amounts of cash for services etc.
I am no Microsoft fan however I am glad to see them responding to customer feedback on their product. IT is good to see large companies shape products based on customer response - particularly when they command a very large share of a market.
Thanks - I didn't mention licensing, sounds as though you read that into my comment.
This is a violation of trust more than anything else.
What this has to do with open source is that open source provides the means to identify impostors more readily - and the nicest thing is that there is a means to work around them without being required to use their "version".
This is one of the big reasons for supporting open source applications - violations like this can be exposed without relying on a single central authority to uncover it and trusting that the central authority will not be beholden to other interests.
Kudos to the firefox team!
Am I the only one that is decidedly uncomfortable with drinking from anything with a septum?
Based on my experience (26 years in the software development industry), I am unconvinced that "old" programmers are any less likely to change - I have seen plenty of young programmers unwilling to adapt to new technologies. I think the more important answer lies with the attitude and disposition of the programmer than their age.
I am ready to admit that I might be biased since I fall into the old category a lot more easily than the young category - but I am comfortable with my own subjective conclusion on this issue
How is this even a question. James Tiberius Kirk made the original series what it was - a really cool, minimalist SCI-FI odyssey that delivered great stories with nicely integrated moralizing. I honesty believe that the quality of the original series goes far deeper than campy special effects and occasional marginal acting.
The whole idea of an academic ecosystem distinct from the reality that the rest of the world operates in is an elitist adaptation of medieval socio-political structures. Granting someone an insulated job from which they can not be removed is ridiculous under any conditions. Whether someone publishes a peer reviewed article on something is irrelevant to whether they know what they are talking about in the current model.
The REAL peers are the folks doing work in the profession day in and day out. As a rule most peer reviews are conducted by people with a decidedly academic focus - the experts in the field are working day jobs that don't afford them time to participate in silly self congratulatory exercises.
The only non-academic institutions that have something like tenure are US federal government jobs - yours to loose. Neither one provides us an example of healthy thinking or efficient and innovative work products.
Both right and left wing economics are Keynsian at their roots. The Austrian model is the only one that works - economies are more organic than formulaic because they are comprised of organic components.
Maybe I misunderstood your use of left/right - it may be a symptom of context. In the US, the "right" typically fights for the right to bear arms while the left typically pushes for gun control. This is not universally true, but I suspect that more than 90% of the candidates that identify themselves as "left" are pro gun control.
The assertion regarding taxes on the wealthy is disingenuous. I have been directly affected by high tax rates and I am not in the 1%. The question is not who's hands you put money in, the question is how do you generate more money. Giving money to the poor has been proven to seize the recipients in an iron grip of dependency.
There is no FACT that taking money from business owners increases investment. When I pay the taxes I pay now I simply can't afford to pay someone else to do jobs that I can do on my own. THAT is a fact. The government is the single least efficient means for putting oney into anyones hands.
Our (US) founders knew these - they wrote that when more than 50% of the population becomes dependent on the remaining portion of the population due to government influence then their experiment would have failed.
Why do you hate the constitution?
The right are far more interested in infringing on your liberties than the left.
Cite evidence please. While I think both parties are a joke, this statement is just plain silly
The police state is a right wing construct.
And the Democrats are less right wing than the Republicans.
Why do you hate America? Not only are the Republicans hell bent on stripping away the freedom of religion, expression, privacy, fair trial, etc. But they are pushing for a road to abject economic annihilation. The only balanced budget proposal is from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It has been objectively proven that deregulation has destroyed the economy and directly lead to this last great recession, as it led to the great depression almost a hundred years ago. Republican economics are an abject disaster.
I think you may be confused. Is gun control typically a platform for the left or right? Are property rights more often abused by the left or right (think about the effects of profound regulation via EPA etc.).
De-regulation destroyed the economy? Really? You might want to brush up on your history and economics.
I am constantly amazed at arguments in favor of whatever government action folks want that base their premise on the trustworthiness of government. Why does anyone think they can trust a government? Now I am certainly not an anarchist, however I take the same view of centralized government that the founders of the US took - powerful central governments will inevitably grow and be corrupted because they are comprised of humans who are imminently corruptible.
It amuses me to see folks distrust a corporation and turn to the government as if the people in a government job are somehow more moral or ethical than those in private sector. They are all made of the same human stuff, all just as corruptible - the only meaningful difference is that the humans in government wield the power of massive force to accomplish their goals.
The government has NO business getting involved with cyber security any more than they do getting involved with how I secure my house or car. The government sucks at doing things efficiently and using best practices - the examples are legion.
People need to take personal responsibility for their systems and decisions.
The history of computer technology has involved a sequence of changes ~ZT\ one type of physical realization to another from gears to relays to valves to ~3nsistors to integrated circuits and so on. Today's advanced lithographic *r-:hniques can squeeze fraction of micron wide logic gates and wires onto the s^face of silicon chips. Soon they will yield even smaller parts and inevitably each a point where logic gates are so small that they are made out of only a -^ndful of atoms; i.e. the size of the logic gates become comparable to the size r atoms."
Link to Original Source