Re: On prem hosting
Surely you've already done all that, or you've just been pissing money away for years?
32 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Sep 2009
If you have total control over *everything*, just size the links appropriately so there is no significant congestion.
It works for Google because they control the browser and (their) servers, but not the network in between.
For everyone else? Well, they don't get any extra control by using Google's protocol, but if it happens to work better than TCP for some use-case, why not?
The way I view QUIC is that it's just a custom TCP stack built on UDP.
With control over both endpoints (e.g. Google, Chrome and YouTube.com or whatever) you can make bolder changes to congestion control etc. without worrying about compatibility.
Without such control, it's less appealing (although if there's some open source version with useful tuning for your circumstances it could still be useful).
The "massive implementation overhead" is basically *why* QUIC exists -- to let Google play around with reimplementing TCP to their own tastes.
I know noone can afford editors, but this is painful to read.
"The exposed documents were stored in First American Title Insurance's FAST: a database responsible for holding hundreds of millions of scans of customers' official documents for things like mortgage filings. It is said that in 2014, a vulnerability was accidentally introduced to EaglePro, which is First American's web-based software that shares documents via email from FAST with customers.
That flaw that could be exploited to view any image in the system: documents sent via EaglePro were displayed from a URL that had a ImageDocumentID parameter that could be changed to any other value to pull up other people's paperwork with no authorization checks performed."
"GitHub has acknowledged there's a flaw in its client software and recommended that users upgrade, as soon as possible."
Um, no. It is not a flaw in "its" client software, it's a flaw in *the* Git client. GitHub just happens to be a popular set of 'untrusted' git repositories that makes a perfect pool of victims for those looking to exploit the flaw in the client.
Free speech is exactly that: the freedom to speak your mind and express your opinion.
It does not exempt you from any repercussions of expressing or holding that opinion. It is not a right to legislate against those who do not share your opinion.
Those opposed to his appointment are equally free to express their opinion. Mozilla in turn are entirely free to weigh the implications of his opinion on their company and its perception by the community.
Interestingly, the apple.co.uk homepage now resizes itself to ensure that, no matter the size* of your browser window, the statement and other small(er)-print is not visible unless you manually scroll down.
The apple.com homepage does not go to such lengths to hide its smallprint...
(*Not strictly true, around 2000px it gives up, but who has a browser window that size?)
No, as the author and copyright holder he is not violating the GPL. He can do as he wishes, including stopping distributing it under the GPL and/or releasing it under a different licence.
However, he can't stop anyone else who has already obtained the source from distributing it in accordance with the GPL.
I'm assuming (although he failed to make this clear) that the "unauthorised forks" are not distributing their source, although it does sound like he's released his work under the GPL without reading it...
"The issue is not a rootkit. The Uplay application has never included a rootkit. The issue was from a browser plug-in that Uplay PC utilizes which suffered from a coding error that allowed systems usually used by Ubisoft PC game developers to make their games," it said.
What a terrible coding error -- Ubisoft PC game developers should never be allowed to make games.
"Google Play is entirely cloud-based so all your music, movies, books and apps are stored online, always available to you, and you never have to worry about losing them or moving them again."
Well, except that the T&Cs require me to agree that Google can remotely delete all my music, movies, books and apps...
No, you've just defined "orbit" not "geosynchronous orbit". ALL orbits are "falling towards the ground and missing".
There are two special features of a GSO:
1. The period of the orbit is the same as the rotational period of the Earth (~24 hours).
2. The orbit is aligned with the Earth's equatorial plane.
As a result, from the point of view of an observer on earth, the satellite does not move.
From the point of view of a bit of space junk ejected from an exploding satellite, it's no different to any other orbit. But luckily, everything we try to put into the GSO belt tends to go in the same direction, which should help.