Slashdot Mirror

I'd love to use tape again, but with 1.5/3.0TB drives selling in the $1,500 range it still doesn't make sense, not when I can buy a dozen 2TB hard drives for the price of one 1.5/3.0TB tape drive

Right, and if all you need is a few dozen drives, it's probably not worth it. Let's talk when you need to backup 12 TB every night and you can only recycle the tapes yearly. Two drives and 1800 tapes is cheaper than 1800 drives, and until convinced otherwise I believe the tapes will take the time in storage with a better chance of coming back to life.

Tape isn't for days of storage, it's for archival.

I've missed my tape drive! My TR-3 1.6/3.2 circa 1996, was plenty for the hard drives available at time and pretty much a requirement for Windows 95 considering how often it killed itself, but within just a few years the hard drives far exceeded the capacity of tape. Fortunately by then Windows 2000 was out and life has been good since.

I'd love to use tape again, but with 1.5/3.0TB drives selling in the $1,500 range it still doesn't make sense, not when I can buy a dozen 2TB hard drives for the price of one 1.5/3.0TB tape drive

Try this example.

Log out of Google if you are logged in.

Go to CNET.COM

Click Login (upper right), then the little "Sign in with Google icon.
Notice you get a HTTPS (Secure) page from Google. Google is the only one that sees your LoginId or your Password.
It sends a token to Cnet. Maybe sends your Gmail name (real or fake).

CNET gets nothing more. You control access to this via your Google Dashboard: https://accounts.google.com/b/0/IssuedAuthSubTokens?hl=en

If you were already signed in to Google when you went to Cnet, clicking Cnet's sign in with google button already knows about you, and may not ask for a password (unless your sign in was many minutes ago).

So you never actually give Cnet anything. At most they might get an OpenID login and it might contain a name and email, but then they had previously been collecting that (and having it stolen) anyway.

This is how Gawker will work when they get it established. And no, its not that hard any more, and the problems mentioned in the article you linked were fixed. OpenID4Java has been patched with the fix in version 0.9.6.662 (19th April, 2011)

Note that I don't consider a gmail account a "social networking" account. Some people have dozens of them.

Your statement :

Gawker advertizes on Facebook, this indirectly gives them access to demographics information about the accounts they are advertizing to, which they can now link with Gawker accounts

is very worrisome (if true), and its part of the reason I refuse to ever open a facebook account. Google does not provide this kind of information, with any degree of specificity. All Gawker would get from Google is your email address and name. They get access to NOTHING more, directly or indirectly.

Since you're either retarded or willfully obtuse, I'll spell out one XSS scenario for you.

Go read up on OpenID and then come back and apologize for calling people names.
See also how Google does this.

1) Gawker puts a sign in with Gmail account button on the page.
2) You click that and a NEW HTTPS window shows up, sent to you by GOOGLE. (You do understand HTTPS don't you?)
3) You enter your Gmail address and password.
4) GOOGLE sends an encrypted token saying Yes/No and possibly your name back to Gawker.
5) Gawker waits for this token and validates it directly with Google.

Call me naive, but I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication. Is there something so secure that I can trust Facebook with any and all logins and passwords for not just me, but all my users?

I won't call you naive, just misinformed.

1) Gawker will not know your Google/FB password.
2) You won't have a Gawker password any more.
3) Gawker asks google to authenticate joerandomuser@gmail.com
4) Google pops up a SECURE web page and gathers your gmail password
5) Google sends Gawker a YES or a NO, and possibly your name.

That's it. You have one less password, and you get logged in with what ever gmail account you enter. That gmail account need never be stored on Gawker's server, (unless you ask for notifications of replies or something). Gawker never has any passwords at all.

This makes Gawker less of a hacking target.
It frees Gawker of having to maintain any login system of their own.
It reduces cost.
You still maintain fine grained control of which sites can use this facility (at least with Google via your dashboard).

See https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OpenID?hl=pl-PL for an explanation of how it works.

The upshot: You want this. You didn't know how it works, so you rightly mistrusted it. But Its better.

Because you get directed to Google's login page.

More precisely: A direct to Google SECURE login page. https.

And you can control what that login will offer on your dashboard: https://accounts.google.com/IssuedAuthSubTokens?hl=en

This!

Too many people posting here have no clue about how this works.

But its even more restrictive than that. At least in the case of Google.

Gawker sends an email address to Google, gets a YES or NO from Google. Google pops up its own https page to gather your password. Gawker sees none of this. And Google tells you exactly what Gawker asks for as far as "Real" name (wink wink).

And you can control this from your Google Dashboard "Websites authorized to the Account". If that page (Direct link) simply has a listing like the following:

    postings.somesite.com — Sign in using your Google account [ Revoke Access ]

then all they can get from Google is a Yes or NO.

Other third party authentication services may not be as transparent as Google and may not allow as fine grained control.

If conservatives are so skeptical of faked data, then please explain the blind adherence to their religious texts.

American conservatives are not that simple. We live in a two-party system and going independent essentially erases your voice, so most people pick a label and form sub-groups. Under "conservative" you have libertarians, (far more than are in the Libertarian Party, mind you) the religious right, the log cabin republicans, most of wall street :p, and a whole slew of other conflicted groups who only really agree on economic policy a little. (one of the drums beat during Tea Party movements was to put social issues on the back burner, though the candidates have been somewhat contrary to this -- especially Santorum) Liberals also have libertarians, socialists (both authoritarian and "legalize everything"), people who want free stuff, etc. People on both sides hold their nose and pretend some of the people on their side don't exist. Third parties can't prosper because then the "other side" will have a supermajority, and "all hell will break loose".

That said, it's a bit of a blanket statement to make that assumption. Cable news is all about getting ratings from people who are generally unemployed and can't find something better to do than sit in front of the TV. I've been going along with the right for the last few years (and believe me, my nose is bleeding from how hard I've held it) but I'm as interested in interacting with the religious right as I am with the free stuff left. My argument isn't about liberals and conservatives, it's about politics and science. Missteps like the claimed exclusion of the medieval warm period from presentations made to the public may have been the biggest political blunder related to climate change.

If you're going to convince the public to do something extremely inconvenient, you have to be honest. It doesn't matter if you're right, it matters that the public believes you are.

If you look at it this way, how would you -personally- go about verifying all the data and conclusions about climate change? That's the heart of the problem.

Just because you let Google handle the login doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past. And since Gmail is already great at handling spam, there is precious little opportunity for Gawker to profit from this by selling your email address. Spamming Gmail accounts is already a fools errand.

At least in Google's case, they glean nothing either, other than the fact that you use Gawker, but any advertising revenue that comes to google via that knowledge goes to Google, and not Gawker. All they provide Gawker is a YES or NO answer when you ask to log in.

Given the rapidity with which one can create gmail/facebook/twitter accounts it won't assure "secure and responsible" posting either. Its easy enough to have an account that is reserved for such postings, even one per web-site if you want.

All this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target, because there will be Nothing Much There to Gain. (Some would say this is an attribute of Gawker Media in general.) Having one less web site holding my passwords in an insecure database is a plus as far as I am concerned.

"Some fruit? Some minerals?" Are you serious or just trolling? Here, have some reading or google it yourself

He did post on an amiga advocacy board as well.

...change explorer.exe to what exactly?

KDE? Sure
Gnome? Why Not?
XFCE? Not yet. But for lightweight you have LDE(x)

Was there more or less famine and war at the time when earth had half the population it has now ? Shouldn't there have been much less, if your theory is correct ?

Overpopulation is a problem in some places, and the birth-rate is still somewhat too high globally, but it's improved a lot.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global+fertility+rate+trend

This shows fertility has fallen from ~5 to 2.5, it needs to be 1.9 or some such for stability. (slightly under 2, to compensate for average lifespan going up)

Pegging Google as an ad company is overly simplistic. It doesn't allow you to adequately predict the range of Google's actions, thus it's not a useful classification (beyond rhetoric). It also leaves you vulnerable if they ever pose a threat, since targeted advertising is far less sinister than many of the things they could do.

Collecting "we know what you like to do" data is much more consistent with their mission statement and allocation of resources than with the actions of any ad company. Look at a company like Doubleclick if you're having trouble seeing the difference. You cannot reduce their actions to a simple "they want to sell our eyeballs to advertisers", for if that were true, they'd be one of the most random and inefficient companies of all time, which their track record disagrees with.

Don't forget vitess, which is a Google project aimed at making MySQL databases scale better, and is used in YouTube. The Thanksgiving Google Doodle was also written in Go, and developed in 24 hours. Google does eat their own dogfood.

This sounds like an idea I had recently.

Actually, it sounds more like an idea Kenton Varda had :)

Jokes aside,

Do we have lasers that won't diverge more than a meter over a few gigameters of distance?

No, we don't. I couldn't find numbers, but as you'd probably need lenses to produce a collimated beam it'd be extremely difficult to manufacture them with enough precision. Even a meter of divergence would be far to wide to generate enough heat to cause a burst of ejected material. According to the researchers in The Fine Article you'll want to get those lasers in as close as possible.

You can use Go on Google App Engine: https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/go/

I'm going to download it.

30% is comes out of the publisher.

"not being able to offer the book for less anywhere else"
and that's just false.

return of the king
Apple: 9.99
http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-return-of-the-king/id503026877?mt=11

Google: 8.51
https://play.google.com/store/books/details/John_Ronald_Reuel_Tolkien_The_Return_Of_The_King?id=WZ0f_yUgc0UC&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImJvb2stV1owZl95VWdjMFVDIl0.
That's just one example.

Stop 'Just sayin' and start thinking for yourself.

Maybe a big deal for you. I'd rather someone had beat the shit out of the geoshit imbecile a long time ago. Thankfully he works for Facebook now, so whatever damage he causes will be contained in a product I never use.

--
Marcan, asshole and proud.

This sounds like an idea I had recently.

I wonder if the spacecraft actually have to get close to the asteroid for this to work. I mean, once you're in orbit, you're more than half way to anywhere you want to go, but I still wonder if a system like this wouldn't be more responsive and easier to maintain if we kept it in earth orbit? Do we have lasers that won't diverge more than a meter over a few gigameters of distance?

the description is the basis for granting the patent, it's the part that actually matters. The claim matter, too, but in a different way. They're calling out parts of the invention description that the inventor claims are unique. But the patent is granted on the basis of the description, not the claims.

I don't know why you think that. Andrew Tridgell did a good talk about how to read patents, and it was covered on Slashdot. Maybe you missed it.

Only the claims matter, and for purposes of invalidating a patent, only the independent claims matter. See for example, this explanation, and this more boring one (look for IIA).

You just wrote a whole lot of text that is completely wrong. You might want to consider where you got that information, and modify your method of collecting information so it doesn't happen again.

The technology required for feasible interstellar travel requires extremely concentrated energy.

Such as uranium 238 and a breeder reactor. The wacko problem still exists, but it's not "Davros with a vial" level of wacko.

I also think you're doing a bit of anthropomorphizing here. There's no reason to expect that human mental problems would be common to every form of life out there.

I think it more likely that either life is prevalent in the galaxy and we just don't know it yet, or we're among the first.

Probably should point out the original AP story has had the headline updated to little water. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izZXHoP17G8R-yOYb9RjczkhL1UQ?docId=dff2ed1434ab430c86596f672dab8414 .

Also, I wonder how money people stop to think that other non-damaged reactors also contain dangerously/lethally high radiation, ya know ... cause they are reactors.

Relevant link via Google Translate

US laws don't apply except in the US.

Not entirely true. Here's but one web page describing laws that restrict individual and corporate action outside the US:
http://www.bu.edu/globalprograms/global-toolkit/getting-established/us-laws-abroad/

Also, certain parts of the IRS code apply to US citizens with foreign income, even if they are no longer US residents.

And, various laws regarding sex with underage minors, even when legal in the foreign country, still apply to US citizens when abroad.

Not surprisingly, children born to US citizens while abroad are eligible for US citizenship, by US law.

Here's another link with a more scholarly discussion of extra-territorial juristiction:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcorporatecompliance.org%2FContent%2FNavigationMenu%2FResources%2FLibrarymembersonly%2FUS_JurisdictionAbroad.pdf&ei=YyJyT4idOaT20gH-zom2AQ&usg=AFQjCNGOlnjQJ6uhrNRE243R7iDhYXy3FA

Here's a preview of another scholarly article:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2203461?uid=3739696&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698810512577

My lay understanding is that generally, US laws do not apply abroad, but that should not be taken as a 100% certainty. Moreover, there are certain US laws which have been written that specifically claim extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Stating something is undoubtedly true would be anti-science, especially according to the falsifiability definition. But it should be noted that this wasn't (and in my opinion shouldn't) be meant to divorce science from truth: in fact, Popper (who popularized falsifiability) stated that "there are criteria of progress toward the truth".

I really don't understand why no major company has come up with mass produced smaller panels in a roofing-shingle form factor, but, entirely different topic.

Solar shingles have been around for quite some time.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=solar+shingles

If our conversation is going to follow the pattern of a typical slashdot discussion thread, you will now need to retroactively define the terms "major", "mass produced", and "smaller" in such a way that you can insist that I am not only wrong, but also a smelly hippy that likes Hitler.

Here is the location for one that I've seen USGS and TVA surveying for sometime now. When I asked the guy what they were doing, they said they were looking into how easy it would be to slip a hydro-electric generator here.

As you can see, it already is dammed so I'm not sure what ecological effects adding a generator would add, but I doubt that it would be any worst that the current situation of algae bloom happening every five to six weeks at the location.

Google clearly has a defined process for these kinds of cases. These MP's clearly can't read.

i.e., the few thousand tickets available could have theoretically been sold out in seconds. The Moscone Center West would not even have the capacity for 25K+ Google employees, let alone the 10's of thousands of developers/students who would like to attend. My only point here is that there's a lot of demand and very little supply, so there's going to be a lot of disappointed people. I don't think a better registration system, programming challenges, doubling capacity, a lottery, etc will do much to placate everyone who wants a ticket. Perhaps the only sensible way to reduce demand would to be double, triple, or quadruple the price.

FWIW, I've been in 2009 and 2011 - in my experience, it's mostly engineers, developers and others interested in and actively working on Google technology - not people there for just for the freebies (although they are certainly welcomed).

No, you really can't get away with saying that.

Google made 96% of it's money in 2011 from ads. They are an ad company.

They are an ad company that is trying new things and maybe making an honest effort to diversify, but they are an ad company.

http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

Also, we also know that Palpatine is actually Sen Joe Lieberman:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Joe+Lieberman+and+Senator+Palpatine

You mean like the censor results in China?

--
Marcan, asshole and proud.

Google employs over 32,000 people. Some of those old-school, sovereign nation-states (namely the Vatican City, Tuvalu, Nauru, San Marino, and Palau) have fewer.

Considering the effects of a global economy, Google's business also affects the world more than many other countries who don't participate much in international trade.

I recently added LiveReload to my coding process (guard-livereload, LiveReload for Chrome), and it eliminates the second keystroke :-p It also has the added benefit of keeping any element styles you applied in the DOM inspector while reloading CSS or JS (which is kind of nifty).

Given that this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+and+Emperor+Palpatine

yields 16,000 results, I'm gonna go with "yes".

murdoch darth vader gives 1,220,000.

murdoch dick gives 9,080,000, but that ventures way beyond relevance.

But:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+and+Doctor+Frank-N-Furter

has 41,500 hits. What's that say?

Given that this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+and+Emperor+Palpatine

yields 16,000 results, I'm gonna go with "yes".

One annoyance is that your instant settings are stored in the site cookies, not your Google account, so even if you are logged into GMail it will not remember that you turned instant off if you clear your cookies.

To get around this I use this URL as my homepage instead; http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0

Not to mention this:
How do you drive anywhere from here?

If you've got a solution for travel for the 5,000 or so residents of this little town (or the more or less equivalent number of people in the surrounding communities -- and no, this is not unusual up here in Alaska), I'd love to hear about it. "Not driving" isn't a much better option for me either, although it is at least possible...it would just take my entire two weeks of leave getting anywhere I might want to go and back, with no time to actually do anything once I arrive. That makes at least a half million of us for whom "Just drive instead!" isn't a viable option.

Not to mention this:
How do you drive anywhere from here?

If you've got a solution for travel for the 5,000 or so residents of this little town (or the more or less equivalent number of people in the surrounding communities -- and no, this is not unusual up here in Alaska), I'd love to hear about it. "Not driving" isn't a much better option for me either, although it is at least possible...it would just take my entire two weeks of leave getting anywhere I might want to go and back, with no time to actually do anything once I arrive. That makes at least a half million of us for whom "Just drive instead!" isn't a viable option.

My favorite Google link these days:
https://encrypted.google.com/webhp?complete=0&hl=en

No login required, encrypted and no auto-complete, lets you actually finish typing what you want to search for without all the extraneous stuff popping up.

This is what I have my default search setup to use.

Use this link to search google instead
http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0

And you would be correct-they don't.

http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/index.html

Not according to Google

http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/index.html

Stops THAT "dead" too, with ease -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2747153&cid=39475099

* Take a read... because, it really works!

(Per what "the Opportunist" our parent poster here stated in essence & my KLAATU posts here as well in response to those seemingly attempting to use "freedom of speech" & "invasion of privacy" b.s. when their servers or systems that serve up malware or malicious script get cut off... mainly, since it is "cyberspace", hence my analogy on that account here, as well)...

SO... IF anyone doubts me, I can produce loads of testimonials to that effect, while this tool's used in combination with other good security practices I've been outlining to others since 1997 online, here -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=p8FwT-6VCaXz0gGH-9TzBg )

The BEST THING we have going currently, is "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"... & that is what that guide above is ALL about, & especially for Windows folks (the most used & therefore most abused, though ANDROID is showing the same on smartphones, illustrating that Linux is no more secure than Windows is once it gets "concentrated on" by the bogus out there online (botnet herders &/or malware makers)).

Fact is, & I've seen it around here like NO OTHER PLACE ONLINE?

I find it utterly ASTOUNDING & ASTONISHING that the MacOS X camp, like the Linux crowd, actually thought they could FOOL others with that crap (Linux = Secure OR MacOS X = Secure vs. Windows != Secure stuff (PURE FUD))...

Too bad it's turning up lies, eh?

As to proofs of that assertion by myself here? Ask... I will provide it by the TRUCKLOADS (been archiving it since 2003 in fact).

APK

P.S.=> "Here endeth the lesson", ala KLAATU & "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (giving up NO freedoms, except the freedom to act irresponsibly, even if via ignorance)... apk

You are not the only one that doesn't believe "Big Banana Day" is an innocent mistake. Of course, Muno from Yo Gaba Gaba also can't be a mistake.

Don't use RAID 5.

RAID5 was a great solution when disks were very small and very expensive. Now they are relatively huge and cheap, so RAID5 is almost never a good idea.

1mbps can transfer about 10GB/day.

https://www.google.com/search?q=1+megabit+per+second+in+gigabytes+per+day

Uploading 1T would take you a few months.

I would suggest CrashPlan. They have a 'backup seed' service: http://support.crashplan.com/doku.php/feature/seed_service

Basically they mail you a 1T drive, you let it fill up with ecrypted backup data, and then you mail it back to them.