While the proposed explanation is quite possible, there is a simpler explanation: The spammer's upstream ISP disconnected them. Cut them off, and their advertised BGP routes will automatically lapse -- resulting in the rest of the internet simply seeing a spam source followed by a withdrawn BGP route.
When dealing with processes waking up independently (which isn't *completely* wrong in the case of a web server) the load will tend towards [number of processors] * ([cpu utilization]/(1-[cpu utilization])). Your load of 0.5-1.5 on a dual processor machine equates to a cpu utilization of 20-43%.
While linux has a tradition of giving stable kernels even subversions and unstable kernels odd subversions, the history of the 2.4 kernel has been far from stable so far.
Wouldn't it make more sense to take 2.4.14 (or 2.4.15 whenever it comes out) and call that 2.5.0, while moving the unstable kernels over to 2.6? While it would break the even/odd numbering paradigm, that seems a better option than having a subversion which starts out unstable and partway through morphs into a stable form.
Why couldn't you release the software under your favourite license, and assign the copyright to the university, for example?
If the university owns the copyright -- which, under their statutes, they do -- then I can't release the software under any license.
There is a clause which restricts University ownership of software to software "which can reasonably be seen to have commercial potential", but that doesn't really help much... I can't exactly send daily patches off to the university for approval as "not commercially viable".
One of the many statutes to which I implicitly agreed upon entering Oxford University states that "The university claims ownership to various forms of intellectual property produced by students in the course of or incidental to their studies". This includes any patents I might be granted (almost certainly none) *and* any software I might write while I'm here.
Which means that I immediately have to stop work on any Free Software projects, because by licensing my work Freely I would be violating the university statutes. Since I'm doing research at the moment into computer networking -- and working specifically on transport protocol design -- this isn't exactly going to help further my research.
I'm trying to get the university to agree to let me release my work "if it will promote my research goals", but after two emails and a couple weeks without any response I'm a bit dubious about whether this will work.
Who exactly is going to sell insurance on a neutrino detector? As a general rule, insurance companies want to have some understanding of the likely risk involved in whatever they are insuring; neutrino detectors (and interplanetary probes) don't satisfy this criterion, so any insurance policy you could get would come at a very high cost.
For an airworthiness directive of this magnitude, Airbuses should have been grounded until they were fixed.
I'm no expert on how the FAA operates, but I assumed that the instruction "Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the electrical connector..." meant that the planes could still be operated for up to 18 months without the modifications being made. If not, what does that clause mean?
Since the latest reports seem to suggest that there was a mid-air explosion before the plane came down, people might be interested in reading this notice from the FAA requiring that modifications be performed on Airbus A300 series aircraft in order to eliminate a possible cause of fuel tank explosion. Judging by the dates on the notice -- effective September 10, modifications must be performed within 18 months -- I'd guess that many planes haven't been modified yet.
FreeBSD doesn't need a journaling file system: FreeBSD has softupdates, which ensure that the filesystem metadata is always in a consistent state while providing better performance than journaling.
but a software implementation of an invention does not render the invention unpatentable either.
All this latest directive does is clarify that an implementation in software has no effect on an invention's patentability: If you could get an patent on a method for doing something by using LEGO bricks, you could likewise get a patent on a method for doing the same thing using software.
FreeBSD already has Evolution in its ports tree, and in the past people have found that FreeBSD ports have worked fine under OS X (probably since OS X is based on FreeBSD).
I don't know about everyone else here, but personally after 2000 I've been a bit skeptical of claims that something "is breaking new ground and traditional structures and theory don't fully apply to it."
This is a Good Thing. It gets tiring after a while to keep on telling people "Well, the 2.4 kernels are in the middle of a VM flamewar so you should probably stay away from them until they settle down... but the latest 2.2 kernel has some icky security holes, so what you need to do is get 2.2.19 and then add these two security patches... hey, where did you go?"
Re:Quick and Dirty Interrupt Handler
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 2
[MS-DOS] didn't protect itself from userland programs, which is generally considered a bad thing.
How exactly would you implement such protections on processors (eg 8086) which don't support protected memory?
I'll agree that there are many thing that MS-DOS did not do, but in most cases such things were impossible on x86 hardware until the 286 (and the 386 if you wanted to do things properly).
They may be running linux on the controller, but I wouldn't call it linux powered. Unless there are robot-control drivers built into the linux kernel, it isn't really "powered by linux" -- it is "powered by xyz robot-control code".
Why limit the peer review process to the opinions of a select group of people?
Because there's a lot of idiots in the world.
The purpose of peer review isn't so much to decide if results are interesting enough to be worth publishing; the purpose of peer review is mainly to decide if results are *correct* enough to be worth publishing. For an average paper in a major scientific journal, there might only be a few dozen people in the world who are qualified to make that judgement. Fortunately, the journal editors know who does what research, and thus the journal editors can send papers to the right reviewers.
If you open up peer review to the masses, you'll have people "moderating up" papers because "they look interesting", even if the papers are complete BS -- because most people can't tell the difference between a scientific paper and BS. We see the same thing on/. -- very often comments are moderated up as "insightful" or "informative" even though the comments are actually *completely wrong*.
At an absolute minimum, peer review should be restricted to people who have published papers in related fields; ideally, it should be restricted to people who have published several major papers in related fields... which is exactly the status quo of peer-reviewed journals.
Use desktop boxes, and stack them on top of each other without any sort of enclosing rack.
Seriously, the major advantage of rackmount systems (vs. "pile of boxes") is that you can pull a server out from the bottom to fix/replace it without the rest toppling over -- and I don't think that most people replace hardware in their home network all that often.
Yeah, sure. Where local means anywhere within a thousand klicks or so
Sure. But if people around the world are going to be using the same data, that will cause problems -- because the world is larger than a thousand km.
I'm not saying that these issues can't be handled, but the idea of having everything run off of a computer in Redmond is unworkable; it would have to be hundreds if not thousands of servers strategically placed around the world. (In sharp contrast to the WWW, where a website *can* run off of a single server in one location).
Slashdot Mirror
Already in Monday the Duesseldorfer offerer Isis Multimedia Net changed appropriate DN-its-slow-acting on its name server.
Can someone who speaks german please explain what a DN-its-slow-acting is?
A $50k violin?!? Are you insane?
No.
A new violin would be a great gift... hmm, I suppose playing a musical instrument exposes me as a non-geek.
Shouldn't that be
In order to install sendmail you must complete level 25
and
In order to install bind you must completey level 53?
While the proposed explanation is quite possible, there is a simpler explanation: The spammer's upstream ISP disconnected them. Cut them off, and their advertised BGP routes will automatically lapse -- resulting in the rest of the internet simply seeing a spam source followed by a withdrawn BGP route.
When dealing with processes waking up independently (which isn't *completely* wrong in the case of a web server) the load will tend towards [number of processors] * ([cpu utilization]/(1-[cpu utilization])). Your load of 0.5-1.5 on a dual processor machine equates to a cpu utilization of 20-43%.
While linux has a tradition of giving stable kernels even subversions and unstable kernels odd subversions, the history of the 2.4 kernel has been far from stable so far.
Wouldn't it make more sense to take 2.4.14 (or 2.4.15 whenever it comes out) and call that 2.5.0, while moving the unstable kernels over to 2.6? While it would break the even/odd numbering paradigm, that seems a better option than having a subversion which starts out unstable and partway through morphs into a stable form.
Why couldn't you release the software under your favourite license, and assign the copyright to the university, for example?
If the university owns the copyright -- which, under their statutes, they do -- then I can't release the software under any license.
There is a clause which restricts University ownership of software to software "which can reasonably be seen to have commercial potential", but that doesn't really help much... I can't exactly send daily patches off to the university for approval as "not commercially viable".
One of the many statutes to which I implicitly agreed upon entering Oxford University states that "The university claims ownership to various forms of intellectual property produced by students in the course of or incidental to their studies". This includes any patents I might be granted (almost certainly none) *and* any software I might write while I'm here.
Which means that I immediately have to stop work on any Free Software projects, because by licensing my work Freely I would be violating the university statutes. Since I'm doing research at the moment into computer networking -- and working specifically on transport protocol design -- this isn't exactly going to help further my research.
I'm trying to get the university to agree to let me release my work "if it will promote my research goals", but after two emails and a couple weeks without any response I'm a bit dubious about whether this will work.
Who exactly is going to sell insurance on a neutrino detector? As a general rule, insurance companies want to have some understanding of the likely risk involved in whatever they are insuring; neutrino detectors (and interplanetary probes) don't satisfy this criterion, so any insurance policy you could get would come at a very high cost.
For an airworthiness directive of this magnitude, Airbuses should have been grounded until they were fixed.
I'm no expert on how the FAA operates, but I assumed that the instruction "Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the electrical connector..." meant that the planes could still be operated for up to 18 months without the modifications being made. If not, what does that clause mean?
Since the latest reports seem to suggest that there was a mid-air explosion before the plane came down, people might be interested in reading this notice from the FAA requiring that modifications be performed on Airbus A300 series aircraft in order to eliminate a possible cause of fuel tank explosion. Judging by the dates on the notice -- effective September 10, modifications must be performed within 18 months -- I'd guess that many planes haven't been modified yet.
FreeBSD doesn't need a journaling file system: FreeBSD has softupdates, which ensure that the filesystem metadata is always in a consistent state while providing better performance than journaling.
but a software implementation of an invention does not render the invention unpatentable either.
All this latest directive does is clarify that an implementation in software has no effect on an invention's patentability: If you could get an patent on a method for doing something by using LEGO bricks, you could likewise get a patent on a method for doing the same thing using software.
What's the big deal?
FreeBSD already has Evolution in its ports tree, and in the past people have found that FreeBSD ports have worked fine under OS X (probably since OS X is based on FreeBSD).
I don't know about everyone else here, but personally after 2000 I've been a bit skeptical of claims that something "is breaking new ground and traditional structures and theory don't fully apply to it."
This is a Good Thing. It gets tiring after a while to keep on telling people "Well, the 2.4 kernels are in the middle of a VM flamewar so you should probably stay away from them until they settle down... but the latest 2.2 kernel has some icky security holes, so what you need to do is get 2.2.19 and then add these two security patches... hey, where did you go?"
[MS-DOS] didn't protect itself from userland programs, which is generally considered a bad thing.
How exactly would you implement such protections on processors (eg 8086) which don't support protected memory?
I'll agree that there are many thing that MS-DOS did not do, but in most cases such things were impossible on x86 hardware until the 286 (and the 386 if you wanted to do things properly).
They may be running linux on the controller, but I wouldn't call it linux powered. Unless there are robot-control drivers built into the linux kernel, it isn't really "powered by linux" -- it is "powered by xyz robot-control code".
They're quoting *Sendmail* as an example of well-written, bugfree code? Perhaps they count remote root holes as "remote server management" features?
Now if they said qmail on the other hand...
basically they want $100,000 and then they will put all of their code back into wine.
20,000 people $5 each, not that much of a problem to me.
They don't want $100K. They want $100K per month. You might not mind paying $5, but paying $5/month is somewhat more significant.
Why limit the peer review process to the opinions of a select group of people?
/. -- very often comments are moderated up as "insightful" or "informative" even though the comments are actually *completely wrong*.
Because there's a lot of idiots in the world.
The purpose of peer review isn't so much to decide if results are interesting enough to be worth publishing; the purpose of peer review is mainly to decide if results are *correct* enough to be worth publishing. For an average paper in a major scientific journal, there might only be a few dozen people in the world who are qualified to make that judgement. Fortunately, the journal editors know who does what research, and thus the journal editors can send papers to the right reviewers.
If you open up peer review to the masses, you'll have people "moderating up" papers because "they look interesting", even if the papers are complete BS -- because most people can't tell the difference between a scientific paper and BS. We see the same thing on
At an absolute minimum, peer review should be restricted to people who have published papers in related fields; ideally, it should be restricted to people who have published several major papers in related fields... which is exactly the status quo of peer-reviewed journals.
What do Weakly Interactive Massive Particles have to do with pipes?
Use desktop boxes, and stack them on top of each other without any sort of enclosing rack.
Seriously, the major advantage of rackmount systems (vs. "pile of boxes") is that you can pull a server out from the bottom to fix/replace it without the rest toppling over -- and I don't think that most people replace hardware in their home network all that often.
Yeah, sure. Where local means anywhere within a thousand klicks or so
Sure. But if people around the world are going to be using the same data, that will cause problems -- because the world is larger than a thousand km.
I'm not saying that these issues can't be handled, but the idea of having everything run off of a computer in Redmond is unworkable; it would have to be hundreds if not thousands of servers strategically placed around the world. (In sharp contrast to the WWW, where a website *can* run off of a single server in one location).