Slashdot Mirror

So, I hope they aren't trying to patent too much of this idea. It's been prior art for 10 years. Here is a link to an archived version of my post: http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsg.... It is all I could find from my phone.

I don't mind them using the idea. I posted it publicly hoping someone would. But they can't claim to own the idea or prevent others from using it.

That was Dale Brown in Flight of the Old Dog - http://newsgroups.derkeiler.co...

Not to say that Tom Clancy didn't make mistakes, but Dale Brown was certainly on the trashier end of the scale. Then Dan Brown came along - I bought Deception Point by mistake (I was still buying Dale Brown books and misread the author) - he's somewhere up in near x-rays in the trashy spectrum.

"My low opinion of your comments is not a reflection on my reading ability; It's a reflection of your diminished critical thinking skills. You're fixated on internet access ...

It most certainly *IS* provably tied to your reading ability, or lack thereof, because I have at least twice now explained to you that I was referring to upcoming technologies, like the ability to access a medical history database. But that is just one of example. I also stated explicitly that I was not referring to things like Google. However, you keep writing here as though you insist that I am talking about doing Web searches or some damned thing.

"... but there's nothing on the internet that can't be accessed just as readily as a radio, or simply kept in the vehicle."

Haha. That's funny. Once again: there may be little on the Internet today, but there certainly will be tomorrow. Try accessing a medical history over the radio. You will be tied up with back-and-forth queries, the party on the other end will answer your questions wrong sometimes, etc. No, it is not as easy to access it over the radio as it is to have it available to read the way you want, right in front of you.

"Once upon a time, there was a point someone was trying to make."

Way back above *I* was making the point that internet connection can be valuable to first responders. It has been you and that other person who have been raising all the hell about it. I haven't wavered from that single position. So again you demonstrate apparent reading difficulties. Or maybe it's comprehension or memory. How should I know?

"You're the one advocating internet access, yet you've failed to come up with a single concrete example of how having internet access could improve any aspect of an EMTs primary job function."

Yes, I have. I have already given you once concrete example. And it wasn't even my own idea... there have been whole medical conferences on the topic. There are experimental systems in the works. Why don't you know about them? Hell, they've been on the Discovery channel. And that was just the one thing. There are more.

"Why don't you step back from this a moment, and then look at this from the perspective of a manager who has asked you to provide a business proposal? Because you might know a shit ton about IT and maybe you're even Dr. House himself as well, and can diagnose people just by looking at them crossways, but you clearly don't have a clue about business. In business, you need justifications beyond "Well, I think it would be nice."

Hahaha. You painted yourself into a corner.

Tell you what: why don't you ask a company that's doing it?

Or maybe you could ask this one.

Or maybe you could ask this company that is also doing it.

You don't argue very well, and you obviously don't feel the need to, for example, bother to research the stuff you argue about. It took me no more than 30 seconds with a web search to find those companies, who obviously think it has valid business justification, or they would not be doing it. Granted, they are at an early stage, but they are doing it today. And not the only three, but just three out of the big list that I found.

I thought the promise of Republican politics was smaller government and less taxes, but when they got handed the Presidency and later control of Congress with the debt on the run, I didn't notice any decline in taxes

That's because you weren't part of the Republican base, to whom those promises were made.

Are you running VOS or FTX? I don't know about FTX, but if you're running VOS, and you're (at least) two years out, I highly recommend upgrading to the V-Series. Stuff that used to compile overnight now takes seconds; we stopped building an inverted index of our source code because "display *.pl1 -match x" was instant. More on the port:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.sys.stratus/2007-11/msg00005.html

"Gawker used this broken implementation, which replaced all non-ascii characters with question marks prior to hashing". link

"Versions of jBCrypt before 0.3 suffered from a bug related to character encoding that substantially reduced the entropy of hashed passwords containing non US-ASCII characters.

"An incorrect encoding step transparently replaced such characters by '?' prior to hashing. In the worst case of a password consisting solely of non-US-ASCII characters, this would cause its hash to be equivalent to all other such passwords of the same length". link

Didn't anyone ever test the algorithm to see if if functioned as designed, as in producing unique hashs for very similar passwords. Would be most important as part of an encryption suite ..

There's also no reason to throw away an ISA that has proven to be extremely scalable and very successful, just because it's ancient or it looks ugly.

Uh, scalable? Not really... The only reason x86 is still around (i.e. successful) is because it's pretty much backwards compatible since the 8086- which is over THIRTY YEARS OLD.

The advantage of the x86 instruction set is that it's very compact. It comes at a price of increased decoding complexity, but that problem has already been solved.

Whoa nelly. compact? I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it's called CISC and not RISC for a reason! if you think x86 is compact, you might be interested to find out that you can have a fifteen byte instruction In fact, on the i7 line, the instructions are so complex it's not even worth writing a "real" decoder- they're translated in real-time into a RISC instruction set! If Intel would just abandon x86, they could reduce their cores by something like 50%!
The low number of registers _IS_ a problem. The only reason there are only four is because of backwards compatability. It definitely is a problem for scalability, one cannot simply rely on a shared memory architecture to scale vertically indefinitely, you just use too much power as a die size increases, and memory just doesn't scale up as fast as the number of transistors on a CPU.
A far better approach is to have a decent model of parallelism (CSP, Pi-calculus, Ambient calculus) underlying the architecture and to provide a simple architecture with primitives supporting features of these calculi, such as channel communication. There are plenty of startups doing things like this, not just Intel, and they've already products in the market- though not desktop processors. Picochip and Icera to name just a couple, not to mention things like GPGPU (Fermi, etc.)
Really, the way to go is small, simple, low power cores with on-chip networks which can scale up MUCH better than just the old intel method of "More transistors, increase clock speed, bigger cache".

The full citation of your quote is: Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29 (1981), although being a creationist you probably got it from Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982), or somebody who read that and quoted the quote, which you in turn quoted. As for the original source, Robert E. Lee (not the general) was briefly the editor/publisher of what could be summed up as a "vanity journal" called "Anthropological Journal of Canada" that was set up by his father Thomas E. Lee. The journal went defunct shortly after the death of the elder Lee. It consisted mostly of his father's own papers, according to a quick search. This is probably the most you can find about Robert E. Lee (not the general) due to the similarity in name to Robert E. Lee (the general).

So your sole support is a 29 year old quote from an article, written by somebody who may or may not have any expertise in the subject, in a now-defunct and obscure journal.

Suse developers suggested a fix for this vulnerability six years ago http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-09/7904.html however for reasons unknown it wasn't noticed or merged.

I'm no one special, in fact I don't even know Droopus. I just did the research based on his comments. I was going to keep the whole dialog more confidential, but after a delved more into the topic I decided there wasn't a point to that. I can see why he would be paranoid, and it's completely understandable. However if you read some of the comments he made on other sites (mostly gun hobbyist forums) you see a different sort of person, was who was defiant and inflammatory. I didn't include those links because it wasn't relevant to my line of inquiry, which was why he thought he framed.

Being a media pirate, it's understandable why he would have large amounts of thermite on hand. Being a braggart and a bit of a show off it's easy to see him getting enjoyment from blowing up stuff, and from getting away with something (just raising the stakes from piracy, really). Throw in a pattern of drug abuse and it's easy to see how he could make poor decisions that could potentially affect his future (that's kind of a broad generalization, but not outside of the realm of possibility). This is why I asked him to explain to me what actually happened. Since he is saying I can't trust the legal documentation because he was set up, I was hoping he would tell me in his words what he believed happened.

It is a very intriguing story any way you slice it, and even outside of this piece he sounds like a very interesting man with quite a colorful and amazing life. From DJ to audio engineer to pirate to felon- Not many have a chance to live as fully as he has.

To be frank, I don't think making and blowing up a few bombs should be an arrestable offense, provided you do it safely on your own property, and I feel that our current judicial system focuses too much on punishing people for violating the law, ands not enough focus on the intent of the law and fostering rehabilitation.

Here are the links that attribute to his character around the time of his arrest: they are poorly threaded in most cases, these sites are very poorly laid out:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2006-01/msg03695.html
http://www.lesjones.com/2003/10/17/range-report-silenced-walther-p22-22/
http://www.therepublicansonline.com/droopus-bruce-forest-thinks-you-a-mac-address-when-you-use-a-dialup.-31832.html (see the links in the sidebar)
http://med.nomadlife.org/2006/03/25-new-messages-in-21-topi_114296709731403372.html
http://www.therepublicansonline.com/droopus-the-wimp-continues-make-challenges-he-cant-back-up.-29832.html
http://www.car-groups.com/post/33200/Re:_Droopus_tries_to_weasel_away_from_his_own_words..html

Again, these posts are not indicitive of anyhting, but they help to paint a picture of the mindset he was in at the time.

buwahahaha! It does now! http://unix.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.vms/2009-04/msg00012.html

emacs and VIM are capable of using spell-checking only in comments:
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Spelling.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.editors/2008-09/msg00049.html

For comparison, Russia (USSR) leader refused to acknowlege that we were attacked for 3 days after the invasion begun. Border troops were not prepared, and Germans literally marched deep into USSR before encountering any significant resistance (except Leningrad). Also of interest would be the fact that Stalin had all the high command officers executed years ago. Yes, Maginot Line was a big mistake, and now the jokes are on French army, although it was the French high command's fault, not the people. ... and here is another one : http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.humor.funny/2007-10/msg00005.html

You want "make localmodconfig", which I think was also added recently, possibly to 2.6.32 actually. This builds a kernel using a local .config file, except that it only compiles modules that show up in lsmod. So if you boot off your vendor kernel with a squillion modules, let it load the modules you actually *use* then do make localmodconfig, you can make a kernel that only contains those modules. I don't know what it does if module names etc change, maybe you'd need manual fixup then - should still be less work than you currently are doing though.

There's some explanation here, though it might be for an out-of-date version of the patch:
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-09/msg04230.html

As the other reply said, make oldconfig is also useful to important settings from a previously configured kernel, can save a lot of time.

No, this is dangerous. Very Stasi-like. This is a disturbing trend in official and informal law-enforcement because it encourages things like community-based harassment. People will band together and participate in government-sanctioned stalking of atheists, commies, homosexuals, or whomever else they just don't like.

It is simply turning the people against each other to distract them from their discontent with their government.

July 19th, 2009 3:15 PM

Sheila Samples

If you keep on excusing, you eventually give your blessing to the slave camp, to cowardly force, to organized executioners, to the cynicism of great political monsters; you finally hand over your brothers~~Albert Camus

There is no subject more restricted nor more controlled in the United States than a critical discussion of Israel. Balanced argument is ignored while each word is parsed -- and condemned. It's strange that we are free to rant and rave and point out the war crimes of our own administration -- of all other administrations throughout the world -- but not those of Israel. The few who dare to question the damage Israel has wrought throughout the Middle East for decades are immediately labeled "anti-Semitic," and are in danger of losing their friends, jobs, their reputations and, if they persist, their country -- for America has zero tolerance for those who recognize Israel's brutality.

Why is this? Are not crimes against humanity just that, regardless of who is committing them? For example, when one-and-a-half million human beings are imprisoned like caged animals, with no food, electricity, medical care, clean water, and then are exterminated like so many insects -- cut to pieces, burned to a crisp with illegal weapons banned by the Geneva Conventions -- is that not a crime against humanity? Are the men, women and children trapped behind the walls of Gaza with nowhere to run -- nowhere to hide -- not human?

Kill Them All

If you've been listening to the Israeli leadership for the past 60 years, the last 10 years -- the last year -- you know very well that Palestinians are many things, but not human. In 1982, former Likud leader and prime minister Menahim Begin said Palestinians "are beasts walking on two legs." The next year, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces Raphael Eitan gloated, "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." And, in 1988, Yitzhak Shamir, a Likudnik elected Prime Minister twice, told the settlers taking over the Palestinian land, "The Palestinians will be crushed like grasshoppers...heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

But it was our own Evangelical, oxy-moronic (sic) Judeo-Christian (sic) cloven-hoofed Pat Robertson, who chats often with God who gave us the real lowdown on Israel's "moral" savagery. Robertson explained God's rationale to his 700 Club members in May 1985...

"The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they know what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry; they sacrificed their children; they had all kinds of abominable sex practices; they were having sex, apparently, with animals; they were having sex men with men, and women with women; they were committing adultery, fornication; they were worshipping idols, offering their children up; and they were forsaking God.

"God told the Israelites to kill them all -- men, women and children, to destroy them. And that seems to be a terrible thing to do. Is it? Or isn't it? Well, let us assume there were 2,000 of them, or 10,000 of them living in the land, or whatever number there was of them. I don't have the exact number. Pick a number. God said, 'Kill them all.' . . . the

Looks like the only reason to set this to 0 would have been to run wine. For support of 16bit windows apps.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.linuxplanet.org/blogs/?cat=408
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0907.2/01466.html
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0907.2/00715.html
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-07/msg08106.html

You were doing so great until this bit. Or I hadn't realised that one of the biggest ISPs in the USA lacked the capability to do something as simple as filtering out unwanted ACKs.

That discussion appears to address 2 separate problems, both in infeasible ways:

1. Rejecting unsolicited ACKs - "SYN+ACK -> (check if your network requested it) -> (if yes) -> then -> ALLOW -> else (REJECT)":
It doesn't really expand on a method of doing this, but usually you would use connection tracking, whereby you remember the state of all connections running through the router. This is a pretty resource intensive setup and is nigh on unworkable in networks with asymmetric or non-deterministic routing. I.e. it isn't something that I would expect an ISP as big as AT&T to be able to implement, especially at the drop of a hat. Sure, it's easy enough to do on your home network, but it just ain't going to work at the ISP level without some *serious* effort.

2. Prevention of SYN floods by proxying the connection initialisation:
The method described here will lead to you being able to connect to *any* server, even if it isn't accepting connections. Only once the connection is fully established will the real server be contacted, whereupon you may well discover that the server doesn't accept connections on that port, or doesn't even exist. If my ISP pulled that kind of stunt, I'd be finding a new ISP as soon as possible and I would be advising my customers to do the same because messing with network traffic like that is going to cause all sorts of "weird shit" problems, cause software to use incorrect error messages when reporting failures and generally make debugging network issues absolute hell.

Both of the above methods also suffer from the exact same problem that SYN cookies were invented to prevent - namely, there is a device on the network which has to remember the status of all the pending connections which may have been started by spoofed packets. Sure, your firewall is protecting the real server from seeing these spoofed packets, but the firewall itself will collapse under the load of tracking millions of half-open connections from an attacker.

there was nothing they could do but pull the plug on the source of the collateral ACKs

You were doing so great until this bit. Or I hadn't realised that one of the biggest ISPs in the USA lacked the capability to do something as simple as filtering out unwanted ACKs.

You were certainly right about there being a knee-jerk reaction, pity it appears to be yours.

It's not that GUIs are that hard in assembler.

ms windows
x-window

Mountain flying is technically challenging -- as challenging for an experienced pilot, as just flying is for a person who doesn't know how to fly. There are a lot of things you do when you train in mountain flying to minimize your risk, but if you're in a small piston-engined plane, there are a lot of places where you just don' t know what the best plan is, so you have to make a quick decision and hope you were right.
First off: fly down valleys, not up them. That's not always possible, though: you sort of have to fly up one valley to go over the pass and fly down the next. Another is you don't fly up the middle of a valley. You fly up one side, so that you have room to make a quick turn if you find that you're in a narrow bit of the valley and you need to get out. But here's the tradeoff: there are sometimes strong upslope/downslope winds along the valley sides, so by preserving your ability to turn, you might run into an intense downdraft. (Generally, winds are faster, the higher you go, but in valley conditions, downslope winds known as foehn or scirroco winds tend to be intense right around the valley itself, particularly if you're flying up an old glacial valley with hanging valleys intersecting it: there are these big cold air currents flowing down them just like water would and pouring down into the main valley.)
Likewise, once you're in a downdraft you have to make some hard decisions. You pull the nose up to best angle of climb, full power, and you hold it. What if you're aiming right towards a big rock? If you turn, your stall speed increases, and you're already fairly close to stall speed, so you have to weigh reducing your angle of climb (which in a microburst or downdraft means increasing your speed towards the ground) to make the turn, vs. trying to ride out your current heading and hoping you'll miss that big object. You don't know, a priori, which one is going to work. Maybe you'll break out of the downdraft. Maybe it's worse over there where you're about to turn. That's where skill, experience, and lots and lots of luck come into play.
Where I live, sometimes the clouds from the mountain waves are visible in long rows at over 25,000 feet elevation, in lines for a hundred miles downwind of the mountains themselves, and every one of those is strong enough to shake a plane like a ragdoll. A B-52 bomber had its vertical tail ripped off and lost part of a wing in clear air turbulence 5000 feet above the nearest mountain.

Huh, so gamers don't mention their family? Funny, because when I googled Elrous0, one of the first pages I found was this... and hey, looky what's in the "Relevant Pages" section at the bottom:

"I am the only one to use the PS3 in this household ... I very much doubt my wife would want to play Warhawk"

And *even still*, it'd still be hypocritical to have a policy *ban* one group from doing so and not another.

It's all one liners until someone puts an eye out.

This seems to relate quite similarly.

The quest for ring 0:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/402

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/402/33600#33600

(^replaces a broken link^)

http://www.mackido.com/EasterEggs/CD-System70.html

Researchers: Rootkits headed for BIOS:
(comments especially)

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11372

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/33017/threaded#33017

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/34206/threaded#34206

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/33500/threaded#33500

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/34207/threaded#34207

http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?c=articlecomments&op=display_comments&ArticleID=11372&expand_all=true&mode=threaded

http://www.spywareinfoforum.com/index.php?s=3a3ce02c4055e269a0220c239560f3f9&showtopic=6056

Nancy:

https://tagmeme.com/exmachina/a/002450.html

This possible variant is out of "beta" (12 years old) it seems and truly roams "at will", those with the coding chops will understand what even a partial AI engine is capable of (SOAR).

On Macintoshes it leaves strings:

http://www.google.com/search?q=NuNV+N%5ENuNV&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2

PCs become junk as well:

http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/microsoft.public.security.virus/2005-09/0230.html

This Gal has a handle on it:

Joanna Rutkowska, Invisible Things Lab:

http://invisiblethingslab.com/itl/About.html

I started to RTFA when something caught my eye: "his discovery of a significant DNS flaw -- known as the Kaminsky Bug"

Except Kaminsky wasn't the original discoverer of this bug (or the workaround). Dr. Bernstein is. Dr. Bernstein discusses hte Kaminsky bug here; that page has been around since about late 2000.

For the record, I am no fan of DJB. I feel he has acted unprofessional and childlike at time; his response to an announcement of my DNS server on Bugtraq being just one example of his inappropriate behavior. But, personal differences aside, I recognize he's a genius and that he's the original discoverer of this particular DNS issue.

(I also wish DJB would own up to the remote denial of service bug DjbDNS has, but that's another issue)

By suck you mean the 2nd most used operating system in the world..

The jealousy is plain. MS has a superior OS and Linux is a huge failure on the desktop. 0.85% market share, at a time when OSX sales are picking up a bit, Linux is down in the dumps. How sad..

Maybe its time for distros to take a trip to redmond and learn how to make a real OS that 90% of the world uses. I'm sure Ballmer can throw some pity cash at you smelly linux commies.

http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-01/msg02552.html

YEAH OF THE LINUX !! HUZZAH !

That is .. if it doesnt keep crashing.. damn I wish there was someone to sue for the shitty linux code..

http://unix.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.unix.solaris/2007-01/msg00690.html

It can be disabled. However, you'd expect that the admin there would know better. Don't flip switches on hardware unless you know what it does.

A bit off topic, but I had the exact same freezing issue with FreeBSD. This mailing list post proved to be the solution for me: http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/hackers/2008-05/msg00318.html It seems to boil down to FreeBSD still loading the atkbd driver even if you only have a USB keyboard connected. Pressing capslock/numlock/scrolllock causes some delays doing this. The solution for me was to add 'hint.atkbd.0.flags="0x01"' to my /boot/device.hints. This resolved the problem entirely for me. Hope this helps.

Or.. you use "lossy" encryption.

The quickest link I could find there was this one.

That fails "best for the consumer", because now I'm getting a degraded product -- and yet, once we know it's being done, it's usually possible to circumvent.

But if you can do non-lossy watermarking, or if it actually doesn't impact quality (for example, it is applied during the encoding process, and produces no lossier output than without it), I have no problem with it. Still possible to circumvent, but impossible to be sure that it's circumvented until you release enough copies for them to check the watermark. At the same time, it doesn't affect legitimate use.

I generally categorize watermarking outside of DRM, however -- it's the only kind of "DRM" which doesn't also require specific software to play the media back. And it's that requirement for specific software that is what bothers me the most about DRM. (After all, I don't mind Steam so much, because you already need specific software (the game itself) to play any games. But I want to play my media on anything that has the right codecs.)

isn't PHP supposed to include closures soon?

i don't know much about closures but that's just what i've read while researching closures in PHP. in what kind of situation would you specifically need to use closures? couldn't you still create bound variables through nested or recursive functions? or do closures serve a more explicit purpose that cannot be achieved any other way?

also, what language would you recommend for web development that are more robust than PHP?

Have they fixed the aacraid driver yet? The new kernel doesn't do me a bit of good if all I get on boot is a continuous stream of:

aac_srb: aac_fib_send failed with status: 8195

and my disk array is not recognized.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/12/365

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450444

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233364

http://bugs.centos.org/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=2911

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122166454808377&w=2

http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2008-10/msg02493.html

Two people have sent me the below e-mail. The problem of course is that 85B/200M=425 not 425,000. The people were both intelligent, one is an electrical engineer and the other is a former coworker of mine in the accounting field.
  [I was going to paste the email below - but /. rejected it because some of the lines had few than 28 letters. So there is a link instead.]

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.music.artists.springsteen/2008-09/msg05897.html

There is plenty evidence showing the current problem is from government intervention in getting banks to make loans to people that are overly risky.

Okay, did you actually, really just try to blame the current economic crisis on people who didn't follow the strictures of the 'Free Market' obediently enough?

That is the most bugged-out bit of spin-doctored delusional insanity I've heard today, --and it's pushing 1 o'clock, so I've already heard a ton of bullshit! "Government intervention in getting banks to make loans to people".?????

Twist that sucker! Make it sing the tune you want!

--Because, you are right! There was government intervention. But the intervening act was to remove intervention. See there? Double-negative. Because it was in fact an act of Deregulation carried out under the aegis of "Free Market Capitalism." --The government deliberately prevented states from exercising their existing regulatory laws which would have punished the banks for predatory lending! In true psychopathic style, Bush-co deliberately set up the housing crisis time bomb by preventing regulation of the mortgage market so that lower level sociopaths could move in and screw people. Attorneys general from 50 states all protested a blue streak, but Bush-co ignored them, and blind worshippers of the 'Free Market' were so brainwashed that they actually cheered! Eliot Spitzer does a good job in clarifying the legal gymnastics used to perpetrate the home lending mess.

So, just to be very clear and leave no allowance for wiggle-room, you had that one backwards. Re-do.

The idea of a "free market", what it is, what it means, and how it works, is much older than the Bush and Reagan presidencies. IIRC the modern idea traces back to the 1700s in England. It is not a belief or a religion. It is the historically proven most effective way for people to organize and be productive.

Now hold on. It is a "Historically proven most effective way for people to organize"? Except, you don't have to actually believe in it or follow any sort of philosophy in order to organize yourself accordingly? So how do you know if you're doing it right? --Because you can obviously do it 'wrong', otherwise people wouldn't exist to gush on about it with such fervor, (you've heard them. I suspect you might even BE one of them). --And there wouldn't be a Bush-co to fight for 'right' way of doing things. Oh, and let's not forget that the 'Free Marekt' belief system isn't really there. The Free Market is just the 'way' things are. It's like magic, and by gum they'll tie your hands behind your back if you don't believe in it with the same certainty that they deign proper!

Pardon me, but that's EXACTLY like a religion. The fact that it's based on an actual principal (supply and demand) doesn't change the fact that it has ballooned into a belief system.

And, yeah, I know it's origins go further back than Reagan. But with generational gaps and new preachers, you get updated and newly energized versions of the same old sermons. That's all I was referring to.

Every other system has either not worked or been markedly less effective. I hope the connection between the incredible increase in productivity and lives saved in countries with relatively free markets is understood by you.

Oh just stop it with that. That's a tired old chestnut, and not even you truly believe it, otherwise you wouldn't have dropped in that, 'relatively' qualifier. I live in Canada, which has a lot more regulation than the U.S., and having traveled extensively in both countries over the last couple of decades, I can tell you that I'm damned happy to have a maple leaf on my passport. --Those portions of the U.S. where they refuse to regulate things are just plain screwed up and unfit for human life. Regulation very simply doesn't mean So

http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/questions/2005-01/2996.html In short, that email was sent to a bunch of techie related lists. If you had bothered to search on a phrase in the email, you would have found it too.

I think this one will be under debate for some time. Japanese inherits from multiple sources; whether it once had an Altaic root or contributing source is still under debate among some linguists, as far as I know.

A better explanation:

There is no such thing as a Finno-Ugro-Ural-Altaic language group.

There are Uralic and Altaic language families, and the Uralic family
divides up into two stocks, Finno-Ugric and Samoyed. The limits of Altaic
remain controversial, with Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic constituting
the core group, and Korean, and possibly Japanese being outliers.

The Uralic, and particularly the Finno-Ugric languages within them, are
closely related enough that the relationship can be demonstrated by
application of the traditional methods of comparative linguisics based on
systematic sound correspondences in basic inherited vocabulary. Within
Altaic the number of putative cognates is far smaller, and the distinction
between inherited words and *WanderwÃrter* is not always clear. The
relationship between them is based more on typological similarities than
on the presence of inherited morphemes exhibiting systematic phonological
correspondences. Japanese, and particularly Korean, although undoubtedly
demonstrating some Altaic-like structural features, are both strongly
mixed languages with elements of Sinetic (Chinese) and, particularly in
the case of Japanese, Malayo-Polynesian in their core structures.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.nordic/2006-07/msg00007.html

Apologies if I did not make that clear.

Insightful? well it is to know some people really think like that.
Maybe I am feeding a troll, maybe your rant is just a part of the picture and you are more balanced in your vision, but...

Reality doesn't give a damn that I'm tired of installing overpriced compact fluorescents that give dim, ugly light.

reality is that we need a major breakthrough or we are in for an energy crisis. No, energy supply will not end. It will become FUKING expensive over time.

As the people who lost their house to a mortgage gone bad live in a car, you WILL turn off aircon when it will become too expensive. Or at least you will keep it at 23C^ and not 18^ .... unless you are a RICH man....

Again your wallet doesn't care how you feel.

Dont' believe its coming? fine your guess is as good as mine ...

Don't believe its possible ?

educate yourself : http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.history.medieval/2008-07/msg00083.html

sure in a couple of centuries it produced the industrial revolution. Mainly kicking wheeners in the butt, making them adapt and face reality to find new solutions.

Just hope it will take us less.

bindo

http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~wooters/persistentX.html

I've not tried this but it looks good.

Some for vnc
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/16011.html

With xinetd?
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.comp.os.linux/2006-02/msg00109.html

It has. But unfortunately people who do not understand the issues are the ones making the choices. There are still a number of things it lacks. And don't you like how anyone criticizing lamps automatically get marked down. Especially the M, and P part.

Here, stupid moderators, here's another one - REDCRAP SUCKS. IT HAS ALWAYS SUCKED, AND WILL CONTINUE TO SUCK NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU MODERATE ME DOWN.

And here's a tidbit - RPMs are one of the reasons why REDCRAP SUCKS. Especially there're logged corruption issues, and RHELL's response is "ticket closed, no further action" - an example (and there are a number of others) http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Fedora/2004-06/2946.html

[The inverse Ackermann function] appears in the time complexity of some algorithms, such as the disjoint-set data structure and Chazelle's algorithm for minimum spanning trees. ...
In fact, alpha(n) is less than 5 for any conceivable input size n, since A(4, 4) is on the order of 2^{2^{10^{19729}}}. "For all practical purposes", alpha(n) can be regarded as being a constant.

Perhaps this is why KC theory is so often ignored. People can't wrap their minds around A(4,4) as an example of an extremely small number. The problem is, the philosophical question of invented/discovered demands this cognitive shift. A(4,4) is *not* a large number on the *philosophical* landscape.

Chaitin's omega, however, is the total perspective vortex of theoretical mathematics.

There seems to be a small number of special constants, such as e and pi, that any universal computer anyone has ever found a use for can obtain from a short program. Within this nucleus, a nanoscopically small filagree in the multidimensional fractal of all possible mathematics, the balance shifts toward "discovered". The further one departs from this minute filigree of felicity and virtue, the more the scale tips toward "invented".

If that sounds like fluff, answer this: what is the shortest number one can copyright?

Due to subitization it has never been possible to copyright the integers 1..4. The copyright on 5 probably expired 50,000 years ago. In modern society, there is evidence that 128-bit numbers remain fair game, though the difficulties of enforcing this are notorious. Clearly, five was discovered, the AACS constant was invented.

Not everyone agrees with Chaitin. This post makes a coherent statement of what he might be presuming:

http://coding.derkeiler.com/A

http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/C_CPP/comp.lang.c/2004-09/2535.html

Here's a rant I did 4 years ago.

How the hell do you tell your clients which dns servers to use? I've been trying to figure it out for a while now, but no luck. Here's a post about it I on one of the FreeBSD lists (without answers):
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/current/2007-12/msg00231.html

Now, don't get me wrong, *any* protection is obviously better than none

That article does not say that the only reason for him quitting was the swap pre-fetch. It was just that Con announced his departure in a discussion related to it. I am sure swap prefetch was a small fry to him compared to the whole scheduler issue.

What you say is contradicted by Con Kolivas himself:

"everyone seems to think I quit because CFS was chosen over SD (hint: it wasn't)." - Con Kolivas

You claim you did no misappropriations in your post:

Note that you cannot pinpoint any misappropriations in my post.

Read the lwn article that was linked to and it becomes clear that you only told half of the story. (Which is not necessarily malice on your side, as you linked to the apcmag article that only tells Con Kolivas's side of the story, so that's probably your main source of information.)

The lwn article gives a fuller picture as it also outlines the mistakes Con Kolivas made. Kernel patches are rejected routinely and sometimes it takes years to get a feature accepted.

The difference to other kernel hackers is that Con (and the group of fans around him) made a big fuss about it, with that he alienated the kernel developers and finally, he gave up on it. Other kernel hackers just learn from their mistakes and do it better next time around.

One of the comments here says that you got the second half of the story somewhat wrong too, and I agree with that:

Roman wrote a poorly documented monolithic patch. Ingo requested that he split it into more manageable pieces isolating the various changes. Roman didn't, so Ingo did, crediting him in the description and on all the segments based on Roman's ideas. How is that wrong?

This is exactly what kernel developers are expected to do when people send them patches.

Roman tried to make a big deal out of it but this is not the first time he has a fit about something bogus and other kernel hackers quickly shot his complaints down in the discussion.

If I understand your argument correctly, you claim Ingo's failure in the Con case was that he did not integrate his ideas fast enough - and that in the Roman case he integrated them too fast?

Combined with your friendly posting history towards Microsoft, that does bring out the conspiracy theories here on slashdot. Your opinion looks sincere to me, so claiming astroturf is likely an overreaction. You might not be a Microsoft shill, but that kind of posting history does raise questions as Microsoft is known to resort to such PR tactics. Here's a simple and straight question: are you using Linux on your main desktop machine? If not, why your sudden interest in Linux kernel matters? Is it perhaps what Linus said in TFA:

"I suspect that the issue is that the scheduler is one of the few things that a lot of people think they understand what it is doing. Schedulers are easy to argue about, and so people get into what the BSD people call 'painting the bikeshed'; there's a lot of discussion about the issue just because everybody feels competent to talk about it. The desktop is still what I personally care about most, and actually use."

Ok, now a clarification: the code I think you meant to link to is not an exploit for IIS, it deletes the 1337 h4x0r's files. The exchange is a good way to run out the clock on a Friday, at least through:

You are wrong again, it's "Smashing the Stick" you moron. Not smashing the stack. Ask anyone here!

Just to narrow it down, I redid your search with quotes and found 67. But the first one's a blast. It goes to the "w4ck1ng" forum where the thread goes...

...and the response goes:

"you can not use exe files under unix y0u have to compile it with GCC..."

I *think* IIS is safe from *this* guy...

No thanks, I'll just use my work's DNS servers from anywhere I go, since we're not douchebags and don't want to make more income by hijacking other people's surfing.

If you are able to do this, your work's DNS servers are misconfigured. A quick Google search leads you to this informative article about the problem and what to do about it.

Oh, and why your work DNS servers are misconfigured, threatening the safety of MY Internet connection...

i posted a /. comment with a link to this mailing list post a few weeks ago...

I just played around a bit with those lists and as it seems,
Google did a splendid job, even capturing some people's login data.
Like here:
http://sb.google.com/safebrowsing/update?version=g oog-black-url:1:7753

Regards,
J.M.
Professional Lurker

Although, obviously this password is saved somewhere, right? Any known security issues with having Windows remember the password in this manner?

Well, the statement "it was not possible to erase the data on them" directly contradicts the possibility of an answer the question of how to "non-destructively (physically) destroy data on a hard disk without access to a bulk eraser", unless of course, your current limitations include the magical exception of having access to some really fun electronics equipment.

Then again, I'm still wondering WTF the term "bulk eraser" is supposed to mean.

A useful starting point would be reading Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory. A quick Google search also came up with this tidbit concerning NTFS file systems.