Slashdot Mirror

And the answer is apparently yes. According to techtarget.com It'll be running CentOS just like slashdot does.

that you actually need a GPS phone to be accurately tracked.

In fact, any phone can be tracked. This is because of how the phones operate. A phone, while it is on, sends at set intervals these pings. In a suburban area you're constantly surrounded by a telco receiver antennae mesh. Thus the ping is received by multiple receivers. Using data of just 3 such receivers, your position can be pinpointed. It's called "signal triangulation". See e.g. http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci753924,00.html

A true Faraday Cage is essentially a grounded metal structure (whether solid metal sheets, a conductive metal coating/paint, or some type of metal 'mesh') which acts like a force-field for electromagnetic radiation. (What we commonly call radio signals) Here is another definition: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci942282,00.html

As I understand Faraday Cages, devices inside them and outside of them technically can still transmit/receive signals individually, but, any electromagnetic radiation is effectively blocked by the Faraday Cage itself between what is inside and outside of it, thus electromagnetically isolating what is inside and outside of it.

A modern microwave oven is the most common example of a Faraday Cage as it is essentially a "Microwave" transmitter inside a Faraday Cage with a internal space on which to place food. The Faraday Cage of a Microwave oven is 'good enough' for most people's safety, but some people have an implanted pacemaker and/or defibrillator with wiring connecting to electrodes directly into their heart tissues. Stray Microwaves 'leaking' from the cheaply manufactured/engineered Faraday Cages used in Microwave Ovens can induce currents in these electrodes and interfere with the implanted devices functions and possibly the heart itself. I would not want to be in the same room with a microwave oven that happened be be modified to operate with its door open.

Another common example of Faraday Cages are the room-sized ones built around modern hospital MRI machines. I witnessed one of these being built in 2002 out of heavy sheets of 1/4" thick Steel. Every steel seam was precision welded and the welds were then x-ray photographed for perfection (similar to the mission-critical verification methods used on welds on nuclear reactors, etc.) The Welder told me that if even the smallest pin-hole was present in the MRI's 1/4" steel Faraday Cage's welds, stray electromagnetic radiation could effect MRI scans. And I do recall my Nokia cell phone was operational when I was in the MRI room... I could still play 'snake' only it just had absolutely "No Signal". (Note: There was a cell tower less than 200 yards across the street from the hospital)

You seem very firm in your beliefs, but you're wrong. Any electronic communication within a public company is covered, regardless of whether it's a shady transaction or you asking what's for lunch. Verbal communication isn't (yet) covered - but note that in many industries phone calls are already taped for legal reasons. By intentionally preventing the required logging you are most certainly putting yourself and the company as a whole at risk.

A nice summary, note that the restrictions are even tighter for financial & healthcare institutions.

Even in legal proceedings the courts recognize the difference between a private conversation, and an official statement.


Of course they do. They realise that a private conversation is much more likely to be honest and accurate :)

It can be both! Linus Torvalds said one thing he's watching in 2008 is solid state drives.

I actually write for Information Security Magazine http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/magazineCurrent/0,296884,sid14,00.html

Voice Print.

Not that these things would be used against a person just for reporting a crime, but the potential is there.

Me, I use a cell phone to file complaints with the police department. Yes, I have become *that* guy who doesn't hesitate to call the cops. Being a homeowner with an apartment building with redneck tenants across the street turns you into a dime-dropper real quick, and I am getting too old to be a hero. Get drunk and start fighting at 3AM and wake me up, then I am calling the cops. I know my cell phone can be traced, and there are sunshine laws that enable someone who is really determined to find out who filed the report. But the rednecks across the street aren't nearly smart enough and don't have the resources to track me down anyhow.

Using a cell phone and remaining anonymous is safe. If you are scared of that, you have to follow a certain path of logic that involves collusion between the police dept and the person committing the crime. You'd have to be pretty paranoid to follow that path, unless you have some organized crime stuff going on.

But if you want to be realistic, then you have to realize that *any* form of electronic communication can be tracked and traced. Pay phone, cell phone, anything. Don't like that? Then stay off the grid

that's why people use blink, it protects from weird crap like this real well. i run the blink personal at home too, it's got some really interesting stuff in it. my fav is the vuln assessment part since we use they're vuln scanner at our hospital, now i use it at home since its free.

check this out, this is kinda new: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/magazineFeature/0,296894,sid14_gci1280028_idx9,00.html

funny thing is, based on this testing, it looks like eeye's tool would be the only that will protect from this flac stuff on wind0wz. the rest of the tools did really crappy on the client-side and 0day tests.

you should post it somewhere...but dont use hushmail. >=]

It's the same problem and the problem is simply allowing untrusted and unverified code to execute on a client. Neither are ad networks the only delivery mechanism, response splitting and standard XSS will do nicely.

FWIW, here's the registers coverage which specifically mentions JS.

Similar ...

Quote: "The end result of all this is what finally shipped: the lowest common denominator, the simplest and least controversial option."

CC.

The word you're looking for is probably orthogonal.

Normally I wouldn't bother with the vocabulary-naziism, but it's one of my favorite words. :-)

Read about it here.

a mainframe running virtualized Linux instances can do the work of about 250 x86 processors while using as little as 2% of the energy.

(also PHP, Perl and Python runs seamlessly on Linux rather than on Mac, I mean PHP or Perl or Java is well TESTED on Linux rather than on Mac).

What the hell are you talking about?

PHP PERL PYTHON and all your linux and most Unix server software has been running perfectly in OSX since the day it was released.
every single mac install comes with apache, php, perl and python installed by default.
Mysql is one click away as well.

Furthermore most software that needed to be recompiled to run on the power architecture doesn't need to be anymore as an apple server is just another x86 server.

Most developers who I work with on major web projects using PHP/Mysql/postgres/Oracle/Python/Ruby do all their work in OSX, with some compatibility testing on windows, not much on Linux. (iVillage, BlackPlanet, VH1, MTV, Coke, L'oreal, Nickolodeon, Scolastic, etc) This is to their advantage because they can use all vi or emacs on the command line, they can use all opensource tools, as well as subetha, bbedit, etc, but then they can have MSword, excel and all the garbage that production managers/account execs send them as well, without using some clanky converter software.

further down your post:
How many really bother whether Linux is an OFFICIAL UNIX or not

Why should it matter if its an official Unix?
Well for starters because it means that most applications and application frameworks from any other Unix system can run on osx, either with a recompile or directly if from another x86 based Unix; again obviating your ignorant argument about Linux being the ONLY server.

Second because any Unix admin can open an osx command line and will feel at home, as he would on Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Unixware, etc.

All I care is it should be scalable, secure and supports major application frameworks and databases. Exactly, which is what OsX does. its scalable, you can form a grid system in a few clicks or command line commands, it supports every major framework as all the other Unix systems do, and it runs mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, DB2, and any other unix compatible open source database .

Nothing can replace Linux in the server market, but there is a great chance that Linux can exceed market share of Mac OS X
OsX might not be the most popular server for sure, but Linux market share in that market is DECLINING, not increasing:
http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/28/the-server-market-share-battle-microsoft-gains-2/
http://www.geekpedia.com/news193_Linux-server-market-share-plummeting.html
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/184429419
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/48999.html

on desktop (I think Linux already exceeds Mac OS X in market share)
Hugh, dood... come on alright:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/techhardware/10385313.html
and the money is showing the opposite as well here:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/22/apple-q407-financials-triumph-of-the-steve


how did this post get a 5 -- are you kidding me? what is informative about it?

I don't use Vista and wouldn't recommend most people would, at least until hardware catches up, and Vista SP2.

However, lots of FUD has spread about Vista:

If my system is running DRM, it uses more CPU power when I do anything with video. So i use Win2k on my render machines.

First of all DRM takes a toll on your HDMI enabled hardware, and less so on your CPU. You buy more expensive hardware for the extra chip and protection to do the crypting.

But there's no DRM applied to plain video. It's simply not, never was (can't say never will).

Second, rendering video is even less relevant to playback of DRM-ed video. DRM in Vista means absolutely nothing for your rendering machines.

I simplified my rant too much apparently. In general terms, Vista uses more system resources no matter what you are doing than XP or Win2k. The more free resources, the better the system runs applications. on the DRM issue, i'll just give you a few links to follow, ok? here is one on how Vista DRM causes system slowdown no matter what you are doing; The next related issue is with Distributed rendering, or rendering a animation on several network machines at the same time. While there is a fix for both these issues(that a lot of people are reporting doesn't work), the Vista DRM system has been linked to slowdowns in copying files, and reducing network speed to about 5% of normal; you can read about that here. There is also a issue that hasn't been fully nailed down yet where whenever you access a "registered" codec (like, you know, when you are rendering?) the DRM system on Vista goes nuts and slows things down. that particular error only seems to be effecting some some people and not others, andd has not been conclusively proven to be DRM/Vista related. yet.

I also like to play games. The less bullshit my computer has to deal with in the way of DRM, non-needed glitz & glow, the better it will run games. So I use Win2k for games, and sometimes run them on my Windows XP MCE laptop.

Again DRM, no DRM is applied from Vista on *games*. DirectX adds new shader capabilities which game producers may opt to use or not use. If they use them it's to make games look better.

Or you'll tell me now you prefer games look same as in the pre-DirectX days.

Some pre-directX games are pretty darn nice in the graphics department, and I would prefer OpenGL to DirectX in general, but that isn't what I was talking about. I wasn't specifically implicating DRM in making games slow, it was more the "Vista uses more system resources" thing I mentioned above; the less resources your system uses to just sit there, the more it has for applications. There is also that whole "DRM system polling every piece of hardware 30 times a second" thing; I have to think that, on comparable systems, the one NOT doing that would be a bit faster.

Essentially, unless you have a 64-bit processor or an older "Hyper-threading" CPU, you will be better off running Windows 2000 than XP or Vista; your system will be able to work better and will give you less problems.

XP is just a minor revision of 2000. Is the skin that makes you feel bad about XP? It can be completely disabled. I run XP and it's disabled. It lookslike Windows 2000.

It may look like it, but its not. Windows XP comes with integrated DRM; Win2k doesn't. XP has product activation that can kill your system when you make changes to it. whether or not you disable the crap, XP still uses more system resources than win2k. and there is that whole networking & thread limiting thing. But i actually don't have anything against

I'd like to present to you the following;

The OSI reference model

The article refers specifically to changes at the "transport" and "session" layers, not to the layers above that in the diagram.

Changing "the internet" to me, implies broad-reaching changes below the level that most applications would be affected. What these guys are proposing should have as much to do with email as whether you have a DSL or Cable modem connection.

What you are talking about is changing "email", which is dependent on a handful of protocols that run at a higher level than any changes discussed here. The sort of changes you can make at the level they are proposing can't do much to improve the situation with spam, and may even introduce some new security quandaries relating to being able to detect whether hosts are responsive, or allowing the discovery of more information by "enumeration" techniques, which is always a danger when you make low level modifications to network protocols.

Everyone I've talked to who's used Office functionality above and beyond a simple letter, or presentation

You can't do serious worksheet manipulation in open office

you can't track changes in your documents

You can't integrate with countless applications

you just can't do a lot of things that people take for granted in MS Office

you also can't properly open MS Office documents

Its the countless people who parrot each other saying that an open source alternative is always better than a closed source alternative that turn people off from linux.

I am no zealot. I prefer open source, but isntall closed source when necessary: although at the moment I use very little proprietary stuff (Flash and Java are about it, apart from Opera which I no longer really use).

At least according to this article.

It's planned to go running next spring, but it's already at 3.5 PB. (The old LEP collider working in the same tunnel produced quite a bit of data too).

John Heasman, director of research at NGS Software, spent an hour and a half at the conference scaring the audience out of its wits with his descriptions of several techniques for using the memory space on PCI cards and other devices to load rootkits . Heasman has been at this particular task for some time now, and his work is in no way theoretical; these are working exploits. He's found methods for loading a rootkit onto a PCI device via the flashable ROM.

And you got all this unsubstantiated speculation from where, exactly?

Well, since you asked, Microsoft's ME II, better known as Vista, is causing unhappy faces everywhere I go. It isn't just that people don't want to use it, or that it's insecure and buggy or that the very word vista has "failure" attached to it. It isn't that Vista isn't even compatible with Microsoft's own SQL Server.

Most of the people that I know only care that it's not possible to deploy Vista with industry standard tools. A rollback is likely, and there are substantial unresolved issues preventing deployment.

Although I'm aware you don't appreciate twitter's attention to these matters, I do. I do appreciate twitter's attention to these things quite a lot.

Thanks, twitter.

It HAS to make some files it creates, writable, in order to create an output file of results I imagine...

I don't care if it makes them writable. It should not have to make them world-writable. Big difference there.

Writable means someone can write to them -- usually the user who created the file.

World-writable means anyone can write to them -- including anonymous/guest accounts, system services that aren't supposed to write to anything, or even just another user who isn't supposed to have admin rights.

THIS IS A SECURITY RISK? Come on...

Yes, I would say so.

Your casual "come on" statement comes up against decades of best practices in Unix, as well as some opinions by some people in security that I actually know of and respect. It's so obvious a bad idea that I can see it for myself, too -- I don't even need a second opinion.

And even if I ran it, what would it prove? If they can't even secure their own security-testing program, I'd say any results they come up with are suspect.

No, that's not a way of "getting out of a bad score" -- even if I got an incredibly good score, I would question the results. I wouldn't just use them to push an agenda, the way you seem to be.

You've got to be kidding me man... then, just install SUN's JVM, install the program & run it...... & then uninstall it.

So your solution to wanting me to run an obviously insecure program is to uninstall it when I'm done?

You're kidding, right?

In that case, I have a challenge for you: Here's a link I found in my spam. Go ahead and download that file, and run it. Then uninstall it. Your system should be secure again, right?

If you aren't willing to do that, you should be able to understand why I'm not willing to download some random, stupidly-insecure program to test my machine.

If you are willing to do that, I imagine you'll get an object lesson in how spyware works.

I don't see how that matters, as long as you were modded up for reasons other than "funny" or "karma" (these 2, to myself @ least, don't mean much - technical points mods, however, do)!

Not that I expect it to change your mind, but registered users get a whole bunch of preferences like that. If you wanted to, you could actually set funny and karma bonuses to have 0 effect on a post's apparent score to you, or even a negative effect.

They already are

I love how people can make garbage claims like this, yet there are companies that are running NTFS volumes that are 15years old without any incident. You know companies like EDS, GM, and other agencies like Lockheed and NASA.

NTFS was introduced in July of 1993... That's 14 years ago and the first go round was hardly stellar.

But I'm sure youf 'assessment' of NTFS is much smarter than the 'rocket scientists' at these organizations.

Rocket science and system administration are two different animals. I work as a Windows Sysadmin for a Fortune 20 company and some days I'm amazed the whole show is still up and running with some of the people we have on staff. The size of a company is not automatically proportionate to the depth of the staff's technical knowledge.

Would you care to explain how this could possibliy, logistically or physically even be possble? Fragmentation is the only thing that could slow a FS over time unless the FS used a really stupid indexing system for the File Table. And yet not only is NTFS is still one of the best FS for handing fragmentation, ever, it has a well managed and fast file table indexing system.

Microsoft's defragmentation tools are the some of the best at handling defragmentation. After the fact. This is due to the fact that the filesystem is prone to fragmentation when there are a lot of reads/writes and a lot of small files. While most of the servers I work with are fine as is, our File Cluster needs to be defragged approximately once a month (we use Diskkeeper for that).
Just for giggles check your NTFS filesystem after a fresh install of Windows 2003 Server (or Windows XP for that matter). It'll likely need to be defragmented immediately (or perhaps after the subsequent few hours of patching that must take place).

On the other hand Ext2 and Ext3 (to name two) are some of the best at handling fragmentation on the fly and so do not need to be defragmented. This is why *nix doesn't come with very robust defragmentation tools.

So please do englighten us all with your knowledge so I can call my contacts at NASA and tell them how stupid they are for trusting NTFS and explain to them that their systems are getting slower.

Better get NASA on the phone.

Go read up on NTFS, and Windows NT before you come back, you are only embarrasing yourself, and that is hard to do on Slashdot when talking about Windows and NT.

You might want to go grab a book yourself (or at the very least use google!). Or better yet put down the crappy Microsoft manual and actually take a look at a variety of machines before going on the attack with such silly assertions.

Some random links:
http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289 483,sid68_gci1215568,00.html
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/archive /2006/12/27/ntfs-fragmentation-bad-for-databases.a spx

It certainly was a real threat. When RedHat was beginning to put together RHEL5, this was widely reported. For example, http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/o riginalContent/0,289142,sid94_gci1245982,00.html . When the claims started to be made about this, RedHat simply played it safe and backed off on using the Xen name and trademark at all. It was simply the prudent thing to do. So there's no FUD here. What's clear to you is irrelevant. It's all about what the lawyers at RedHat recommend they do to CTA in case the claims about Xen trademarks turned (or will turn) out to be true. Simply put RedHat could not take that change. Today things might be different. Maybe RHEL6 will use the Xen trademark. Who knows.

Whatever the case, the Xen developers *are* credited by RH. Their copyright was never altered or hidden by RH. The source code still maintains their copyright notices assigned to them.

Personally I want to see kvm go far. Giving xen competition is a good thing.

Boy you don't really know do you?? The iSeries is virtually the SAME as the pSeries. In fact, it runs the same processor, a Power5 in the newest machines. Alot of people will claim that the pSeries itself is a mainframe but it is most definitely NOT a mainframe. The pSeries is IBM's part of the PowerPC Triumvirate of Motorola, Apple and IBM. Apple is now done with PowerPC and Motorola still makes them. IBM is the leader now and the pSeries is selling like hotcakes. Power5's work so well that the iSeries uses them. In fact, OS/400 will run on a pSeries and AIX will run on a iSeries. IBM's pSeries even have PCI-X slots and in fact had them before most PC's did.

The only thing is where did you get this information? I am guessing MAYBE that IBM is going to use Power5's in EVERY platform....i, z and p. I did a quick google search and found this. This article goes on to say that it is FALSE and the Power6 isn't going to be used in the zSeries. I DO think myself that this would be a smart way to go. As the pSeries gets more and more powerful, I see it as inevitable. In fact, Power6 plus AIX 5.4 will allow you to move running LPARS between 2 different physical machines (machines similar to the p570 and p590/595). This means the Power platform will gain abilities that VMware's ESX server has now very soon. This may seem late, however a LPAR is different then VMware. LPAR's more like virtualizing the server at a PHYSICAL level. You have to have the physical CPU's in order to run the partition.....BUT you can also do what is similar to what VMware does and do a Micropartition. With Micropartitioning, you can assign as little as .001 of a processor dynamically to a LPAR. When setting it up, you can allocate as little as .1 processor and inrease the processing power as it's running by .001 processor increments. You may ALSO have that LPAR think it's running on a dual processor machine even though it's only running on a percentage of one processor.

IBM's Power platform is definitely not dead and definitely not a mainframe, although it kind of acts like one at times! :D Long live PowerPC! :D

"IT managers gathered in New York City earlier this week to get advice from experts on when, why, and how to virtualize their server environments. The takeaway from the conference: if you want to run an enterprise-class virtualization platform in production today, stick with VMware."

And in the Linux world, you're seeing all kinds of nifty new virtualization technologies as well. Don't count out Xen.

And some of us prefer IE to other browsers.

You are entitled to your opinion sir, but I'm guessing the vast majority of the Slashdot crowd will disagree with you. In fact, I think most web designers will disagree with you. You don't see tons of websites dedicated to saying exactly how much Firefox is the worst piece of software ever created, but there and tons, and tons of such sites dedicated to explaining exactly how horrible IE is. The moment you attempt to tell me that IE is a good piece of software, you lose all credibility with me and come across as a troll. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and we'll continue.

Lastly if XP and 2000 sucked at one point, but they were fixed, for free, then they shouldn't be included. OS X sucked and then you got charged for 10.1, bitch about that.

Well, the parent asked for a list of Microsoft products, so mentioning OS X really has no place in the discussion. I specified 2000 pre-SP2 and XP pre-SP1 because I am not this huge hater. I dislike Microsoft as a company, and most of their products. But often I defend XP as being a pretty good OS in the end. I prefer XP with SP1, and not SP2 personally. SP2 added nag screens and bloat without really fixing security problems so much. However, when XP first launched, it broke apps, broke drivers, ran slow, and was extremely buggy. SP1 improved the OS in all those areas.

Also how do you knock a free email service? What did any other free service do that was so much better.

Because Hotmail is absolutely horrid. Slow, insecure, and they sell your email address out so you get spam. They try to sign you up for various newsletters, tons of people have complained about entire accounts and all their email magically vanishing, slow service, and not very feature rich. GMail destroys Hotmail. The new Yahoo-beta destroys Hotmail. Hell, SquirrelMail destroys Hotmail. Note, defending IE and now Hotmail? You have to be kidding me, right?

Same with Messenger, what does anyone else do that takes it out back behind the shed and beats it with a stick?

I would urge you to look at Gaim/Pidgin, Kopete, Trillian, etc. How about the fact that Messenger would put itself back in the startup group repeatedly when it was removed? That alone makes it crappy and annoying software. What about the fact that you could be blasted with unsolicited spam via Messenger, and many people had no way or clue to get rid of it? So you're defending IE, Hotmail, and Messenger, three of the most hated things on the planet. Are you sure you're not trolling.

Works may suck but how many options were there for you if you didn't want to spend a ton of money on an office suite 10 years ago? Or even 5? Works and...? And oo.o wasn't really an option unless you had high speed, or wanted to spend $40 on a cd version of free software. Plus you had to go to compusa or some other store full of untrained morons who either don't know what you're looking for or spend the whole time trying to talk you into ms office (quick rant, I went into a compusa to buy a tv, pre massive shutdown, and I had to tell the guy 5 times I didn't want the extended warranty, I finally had to tell him that if he didn't shut the fuck up I was going

The survey featured developers at enterprises, VARs and system integrators, and covered both client and server application development. According to the survey, the decline in Windows targeting by developers started in 2005, and has increased year-over-year as Linux matured and gained in popularity as an enterprise level OS.

...the number of developers targeting Linux for their server- and client-side applications increased by 34% over the past year. ...the growth in Linux development came at the expense of Microsoft Windows, which decreased 12% from one year ago.

I don't know enough about the details of the challenge or if it is meaningful. I do know Nate Lawson is at least partially a fraud.

Nate Lawson claims credit for Decru DataFort (never hesitating to push his claim in every place I see his name mentioned, for example: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/columnItem/0, 294698,sid14_gci1256055,00.html ). His claims range between having designed DataFort to having written the first implementation.
The truth is, Nate Lawson left Decru very shortly after joining (probably less than 4 months), long before DataFort was in any way well defined, let alone implemented. In addition, whatever little work he did initially contribute was thrown out as close to useless.

How do I know? I started at Decru shortly before Nate Lawson left and I still work there. The building janitor has contributed more to DataFort's existence than Nate Lawson has.

The story also says the 60-day period is just the construction time period, and not the planning behind it, etc. But whatever. They created some hype and it worked. It worked too well, apparently.

Overall, consolidation with virtualization and blades can offer significant help with both space and power and cooling, but awareness of power/cooling requirements and careful planning are essential.

http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/c olumnItem/0,294698,sid94_gci1243507,00.html

Upon the initial migration of the workload from 120 servers, AISO.net achieved a drastic 50-60 percent reduction in power consumption

http://www.mysiriuszone.com/index.php?option=com_d ocman&task=doc_download&gid=1708&Itemid=292

contain such virtualization features. According to Waugh, virtualization boosts overall performance while reducing server room power consumption.

http://www.serverwatch.com/hreviews/article.php/36 39556

It's tempting to say that after long periods of testing, an increasing number of organizations are seeing the benefits of running applications on virtual servers housed in fewer physical boxes: increased resource utilization, faster server implementation, fewer devices to manage, lower management costs, a smaller data center footprint, and lower power and cooling costs.

http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/3 637631

Processor virtualization allows concurrent operating system execution environments to co-exist and share a fixed set of hardware resources. One of its many advantages is that this technology facilitates server consolidation, reducing both operating costs and power consumption.

http://whitepapers.techrepublic.com.com/whitepaper .aspx?docid=289268

"Data center power demands are growing at an unsustainable rate," said Bill Zeitler, senior vice president, IBM Systems and Technology Group. "The most important thing now is utilization of servers through technologies like virtualization."

http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/originalCon te

Overall, consolidation with virtualization and blades can offer significant help with both space and power and cooling, but awareness of power/cooling requirements and careful planning are essential.

http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/c olumnItem/0,294698,sid94_gci1243507,00.html

Upon the initial migration of the workload from 120 servers, AISO.net achieved a drastic 50-60 percent reduction in power consumption

http://www.mysiriuszone.com/index.php?option=com_d ocman&task=doc_download&gid=1708&Itemid=292

contain such virtualization features. According to Waugh, virtualization boosts overall performance while reducing server room power consumption.

http://www.serverwatch.com/hreviews/article.php/36 39556

It's tempting to say that after long periods of testing, an increasing number of organizations are seeing the benefits of running applications on virtual servers housed in fewer physical boxes: increased resource utilization, faster server implementation, fewer devices to manage, lower management costs, a smaller data center footprint, and lower power and cooling costs.

http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/3 637631

Processor virtualization allows concurrent operating system execution environments to co-exist and share a fixed set of hardware resources. One of its many advantages is that this technology facilitates server consolidation, reducing both operating costs and power consumption.

http://whitepapers.techrepublic.com.com/whitepaper .aspx?docid=289268

"Data center power demands are growing at an unsustainable rate," said Bill Zeitler, senior vice president, IBM Systems and Technology Group. "The most important thing now is utilization of servers through technologies like virtualization."

http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/originalCon te

There is no place in that article where the author tells you there will be an overall increase in power used. Period, end of discussion. Do you know why there is no place in that article where it says that? Because it would not happen.

Virtualisation is the silent enemy Virtualisation has been touted as a technology that can be used to reduce power consumption because it allows computing tasks to be consolidated to fewer servers. Unfortunately, reducing the number of physical servers by increasing the workload on the remaining servers can result in increased power consumption.

Other sources caution that virtualization can increase power consumption.

The statement that virtualization ALWAYS reduces total power consumption is false.

Umm, read VMware's own announcement that in three years they EXPECT to remove all overhead in virtualization? Oh, look. I still happen to have the page bookmarked. Here you go.

I believe Wikipedia. True Color is defined as millions of colors here:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gc i213224,00.html
http://www.scala.com/definition/true-color.html
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/true_color.html
http://www.sketchpad.net/basics6.htm

All of these sights say 16 million colors. I'm sure I could easily find a dozen more. True Color MEANS millions of colors. Microsoft is just disguising their guilt with another term. Let the lawyers converge on Redmond!

All I am trying to say is, if Apple is guilty, the WHOLE INDUSTRY is guilty.

Throw it out of court before it sets a precedent!

Andy

Of course IBM rolled this out six years ago in the Domino server, although I don't really expect Google's offering to handle Replication/Save conflicts as well as Domino does. Of course, now that there is actually another product out, the anti-Notes trolls can start complaining that the 6 year old tech from IBM isn't using the same API that the brand new offering from Google uses.

I wonder if the Coraid ATA-over-Ethernet would be good enough? It ditches TCP/IP in favor of raw Ethernet frames so has much lower overhead than iSCSI and only major loss is no routing. http://www.coraid.com/

BTW, I read recently that where 4Gb FC really excels is in large block sequential transfers and that small random access transfers are actually better over gigabit iSCSI. Check it out: http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,2 94698,sid5_gci1161824,00.html

Plus you really have to think about other bottlenecks. How many disks need to be striped to consistently saturate the bandwidth of 1Gb Ethernet? 10Gb ethernet? What about the bus that the host adapter/NIC is on? Precious few boxes have 4x PCIe and then what about CPU overhead, managing all this streaming data? Just food for thought...

I don't think that email is the issue -- the whole discussion is really about organizational styles. There should be more than one "right" way to handle email. If emptying your inbox periodically is what works for you -- then do it!

In this period of FUD Against GPL3 We have understimate some problem?

Based on the new specification and SoH protocol, users now have an NAP client that is built into Microsoft Windows Vista to communicate with a TNC server. In addition, they can mix and match which NAP tools they want to use -- for example Longhorn Server, when it's released -- in concert with tools offered by TNC, a consortium of NAC vendors offering a variety of tools.

"It makes it easier for an NAC rollout," Hanna said, noting that many users are on the fence about an NAC deployment because of the uncertainty of future interoperability.

http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/originalCon tent/0,289142,sid7_gci1255666,00.html

This stuff doesn't seem to be just an IE problem. WhatIs.com has a quiz about Web-based malware that's quite enlightening.

Really???

Then what the hell happened in Massachusetts wanted to switch to ODF?? Here's a long-winded citation: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/origin alContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1144104,00.html

No, they'll do what they already do with everything that's not a .doc (or whatever extension is next) make it _really_ hard to use anything but .whatever.

With omnidirectional radiation, W/m^2 falls off with the square of the radius from the source. (Sr is steradian, a solid angle; omnidirectional emissive power from a point source is in W/Sr, the area of a steradian goes with the square of the radius, just as the length of a radian goes linearly with the radius).

The biggest hypernovae we've seen could be dangerous inside a radius of some 8 pc (that's about 26 light-years), and that presupposes that civilization would be imperiled by a dose increase of 1% (at the Van Allen belt) compared to the radiant energy of the sun.

No known star within that radius is a candidate for going nova in the next hundred thousand years.

There is a very small chance that a star outside that radius could prove dangerous, should it become a nonuniform emitter. Rather than radiating omnidirectionally, a number of factors can increase power across a smaller surface angle. That power would still decrease with the square of distance, so even then there is a power-law difference between inverse-square falloff and signal concentration. Moreover, a tighter beam means the probability of Earth intercepting any the signal at all is substantially reduced.

A civilization in a similar galactic neighbourhood would face similar small risks.

Generally speaking, rocky and icy chunks are more likely to cause civilization-disrupting events through collision than any irradiation.

There is a weak concept of a galactic bio-belt or habitable zone, with the inner border set sufficiently far from the much denser core of galaxies like ours or M31, that the risk of collision irradiation events is not substantially elevated. In most cases, the collision risks dominate -- coreward stars have greater metallicity, increasing the odds of them having rocky or icy debris fields; the greater star density means more gravitational interaction between star systems, which will pull debris fields out of regular stellar orbits. However, the greater number of coreward stars per volume of space, and their greater mass, does increase the risk from stellar explosions, both in terms of irradiation and in terms of ejected mass. On the other other hand, there is also lots of non-stellar matter found coreward that will absorb high-energy radiation and re-emit harmless lower-energy photons...

In short, for a civilization anything at all like ours, radiation bursts are not a very urgent cause for concern.

So your original question about how many civilizations (or even life/life-like forms) were wiped out is dominated by the question of how prevalent civilizations and life/life-like forms are in the first place. Unless the prevalence approaches a constant one population per ca. 5 pc^3, the answer will be that the odds of a civilization being wiped out by any given nova like event will be approximately zero.

Web apps tend to be far more susceptible to failure than traditional desktop-based applications. This is a widely known fact, that many people have written about. Here are a few such articles talking about when web apps go bad:

7 More Reasons Why Web Apps Fail

What's The Worst Web Application You've Ever Seen?

Web 2.0: A serious case of diarRIA.

AOL's AIM Today Beta: When Good Web Apps Go Bad

Web apps remain a trouble spot

Web apps ready for MySQL 5?

Technorati listed a lot more articles beyond those. So it's safe to say that web apps just don't offer the quality and reliability we'd expect from even the lousiest of desktop apps. At least when a desktop app fails, you usually are able to try to recover your data on your own, from files stored on your own system. But that's not something you can do with web apps. You'll just have to hope and pray that whoever manages the web app that just failed is able to recover your information.

You might also read Bumper crop of malware expected in 2007 which starts with Gartner's prediction that

75% of all enterprises will become infected with undetected, financially motivated malware by the end of 2007.

What do you mean, near-line. USB speeds compare favorably with other consumer harddrive connection protocols.

More than anything else, this is evidence that they don't believe there's any real threat of people switching to linux or MacOSX. In their view they have a monopoly.

• http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=7 687
• http://gyaku.jp/en/index.php?cmd=contentview&pid=0 00112
• http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/origin alContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1245710,00.html

MS might slow things down by suing small companies back to Windows but how many times can they do that to governments ?

MyNewPlace.com just replaced a two year, painful investment in Nagios. Turns out SNMP isn't the best way to manage *everything*. Latency caused huge alert storms. Anyway, they looked at HP and after recovering from the sticker shock and realizing that it was going to take an army of consultants to build workarounds to functionality that wasn't there, they landed on Hyperic. Took 1.5 hours to convince them. Nagios network monitoring felled by SNMP false alarms

Very good points. Looks like this article agrees with you - http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/origin alContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1250897,00.html