IPFS does look interesting, but how does it provide updateable references? What's the equivalent of "give me today's headlines", which is pointedly not content-addressible because you don't know the content yet?
IPNS is a layer on top of IPFS that is essentially a map from public key to something signed by the corresponding private key. So you can store an IPFS hash in IPNS under your public key. Then whenever you create new content, just update the hash in your IPNS entry. People only need to remember your public key to find your latest content.
I suspect that there's a way to identify the latest content built into IPFS, but if not, it's easy to build that on top of something like Ethereum. If you're new to Ethereum, it's a global, trustless, blockchain-based coordination platform—it gives us the ability to determine what "The New York Times" is, without having to trust someone else to tell you. The New York Times would have an Ethereum contract with storage space that only their private key can write to that would hold the hash of the latest state of the site. A site state would contain set of hashes that point to the day's articles and perhaps previous states of the paper.
In the very near future, the entire New York Times archives will be fetchable just by asking for it. Your computer will ask your neighbor for the front page for July 21, 1969, and they'll send it right over.
Anonymous/pseudonymous speech is a long standing tradition of free speech, which many of us are enjoying right now right here. However, there is a difference between private conduct and conduct as a government agent. Government is an agency owned (ultimately) by the people and created by them to achieve certain purposes. To further those purposes, people can institute rules of conducts for the agents of the government. Not using anonymous/pseudonymous speech while performing government duties may very well be one of these rules. Not because government is always evil, but because we think our goals will be achieved better if government would act openly and identifiably and the reasons why we value anonymous/pseudonymous speech largely do not apply to the government actions. The government as such does not have inherent rights that people have (though its agents have them as people, but when working for hire as agents they may be bound by stricter rules than in their private life). That is the difference.
I hadn't heard about seamlessrdp before. That sounds nice, except for, "Please note that Windows 7 and Windows 8 are not supported." I usually use XP in VMs when possible, but that becomes less and less possible...
What about performance, though? And compatibility, like with XP guests? I used QEMU a long time ago, but when VirtualBox became available, it was a big step forward in performance and usability. KVM happened since then, but last I heard it still lagged behind VB (but I probably haven't kept up).
* Add support for versioned Provides [!]:
- Packages can provide a specific version, “virtual (= 1.0)” which will
be honored, previously it would just be accepted when parsing.
- Non-versioned virtual packages will not satisfy versioned dependencies.
- Versioned virtual packages will satisfy non-versioned dependencies.
The former doesn't imply the latter. Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. That's not an example of biased search results; that's useful integration. And I can't see any possible reason why Google should be forced to make the same integration possible with MapQuest.
> Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter.
It's also useful to open a link from Word. Do you see any reason why Microsoft should make it possible to open it in anything else than IE?
The way the game works is that you can get away with vertical integration and anti-competitive behaviour as long as you are not in a situation of monopoly. Then the rules change.
There's a difference between clicking a link (where "open in default browser" is the obvious behavior, and there's no advantage to forcing any particular browser) and searching for an address (where it makes sense to recognize an address and offer special handling, such as displaying a map, or directions).
Searching for an address is a special case of search. If you search for an address, you're unlikely to get useful results by just searching the web, unless the address happens to be that of a business who lists their address on their site; even then, the result you want from the address is probably a map or directions, rather than the site for the business at that address. So what, precisely, would you suggest Google or another search engine do in that case to continue providing a good user experience? (Answers such as "don't do that" are obviously wrong, as are answers like "go to extra trouble to build a generic search plugin API and make users explicitly select a map provider". Neither of those provides a satisfactory experience for users.)
> There's a difference between clicking a link (where "open in default browser" is the obvious behavior, and there's no advantage to forcing any particular browser) and searching for an address (where it makes sense to recognize an address and offer special handling, such as displaying a map, or directions).
Clearly, there is a competitive advantage in controlling the browser, or Google would not have spend so much money in giant billboards in the Paris subway to explain how Chrome was better than anything.
> So what, precisely, would you suggest Google or another search engine do in that case to continue providing a good user experience?
Agree with map service vendors on a standard API, and make it possible in the settings to select the service to handle an address search. You know, competition and all that.
> Its also there in virtually all rental agreements; the existing caselaw (cited in this decision) supports the position that using the managements authority to access for 'need' as a pretext for a search is unlawful.
Does that same caselaw imply that if police want to search an apartment without a warrant, and a landlord lets them in, but the tenant did not grant permission, the search was illegal? I was under the impression that that was permitted, which is a downside of living in an apartment/rental.
Tenant's rights laws usually ban the landlord from entering the apartment without notice (except in the case of an emergency). So they presumably don't have a right to enter that they can extend to the police.
A few searches say that the landlord cannot consent to the search. A sample result:
There was a case, I can't remember the specifics, of a drug bust where there was more than one person in the house, the person charged did not want the police to come in, but someone else ended up letting them in. The search was contested as unlawful, but I'm not sure how it turned out...
Edit: Here it is, as long as they arrest the disagreeing party and remove them from the home, the Supreme court ruled the arrested party can no longer object to the search, and in that case they don't need a warrant. So I think the racket is they claim exigent circumstances to enter, arrest you, and then perform the search.
Curious about this as well. I was under the impression that even though you might not own your apartment or house (or in the case of a mortgage wherein the bank really owns it), you still have protections due to it being your home.
What's a bit unusual about Python is that it tries all three environment variables on every OS. I would have expected that it would only try TMPDIR on Unix-like machines, and TMP/TEMP on Windows-based machines. There's no compatibility expectation that Windows environment variables would work on Unix-like OSes, or vice versa.
FWIW, TMPDIR was part of standard Unix practices before Torvalds wrote the first line of the Linux kernel. For example, 4.3BSD-Reno came out 1990 . If you grab the tape from http://sourceforge.net/projects/bsd42/files/Install%20tapes/... and page through it you'll see the man pages were "Printed 7/27/90" and contain things like:
If the environment variable TMPDIR is set, the string
denoted by TMPDIR will be used as the name of the directory
where the temporary files are created.
The environmental variable ``TMPDIR'' (if set), the argument
dir (if non-NULL), the directory ``/usr/tmp'' and the direc-
tory ``/tmp'' are tried, in the listed order, as directories
in which to store the temporary file.
Python comes out of the Unix heritage (van Rossum contributed the glob() routine to BSD Unix in 1986), which is likely why the first commit of tempfile.py, Nov. 12 1991, mentions TMPDIR, though it didn't actually support the environment variable until Jan 14 1992.
OTOH, it didn't gain TMP/TEMP support until Aug 12 1997. Even then, the file says at the top:
# XXX This tries to be not UNIX specific, but I don't know beans about
# how to choose a temp directory or filename on MS-DOS or other
# systems so it may have to be changed...
Those communication stacks are not suitable for general-purpose use; they sacrifice everything, including usability, robustness, portability, and a hundred other factors in favor of latency.
For example, such stacks often put the entire communication stack in userspace, with hardcoded knowledge of how to talk to a specific hardware networking stack, and no ability to cooperate with other clients on the same hardware.
I doubt it. As with patents, sometimes they burn the people wielding them, but those wielding them as a weapon still see more value in excluding smaller players and those who don't cross-license than in stopping damage to themselves.