It's compassion that makes me feel the need to enlighten people.
That said, I don't ever feel the need to harass people into trying the stuff. I just inform them when somethings convenient and can save them time and money... then I move on.
I inform a lot of people about firefox, picassa, gmail, ubuntu, and openoffice (among other things)... notably, not all open source.
They do have the button, I don't know what it does on their end, but I suppose it might do all that, but if it does, they do an excellent of ignoring it.
I've mailed the on-call editor a number of times lately with plenty of time left for the stories to be pulled before they go live, and it never happens. I never recieve any reply to the messages either.
Normally, I've been getting the note to the on-call editor somewhere between 5-10 minutes before the article goes live.... I don't think their on-call person really does anything.. Ever.. I hate to say, though, that I missed this one..That could have been about #4 in 1.5 weeks..
It's getting really sad.. maybe they should just give subscribers the ability to delay a post until it, and the note the subscriber left as to why, can be reviewed by someone with authority over there.
I was working on my motorcycle once, trying to figure out why I would lose spark sporatically every now and then... So I decided to pull the electronic ignition out and take a look at it's connectors etc.. Well, I couldn't see much, so I though I'd take it apart and look inside, and in the process of trying to dislodge it from it's plastic case, I snapped the pcb right down the middle.
Once it was apart, I could clearly see that it was built in such a way that it was intended to never be disassemled. Well, since a new ignition was more than I wanted to pay for, a friend and I went and got a bunch of paperclips. We found the end points of all the traces that were snapped, and soldered the paperclips there instead. Once we had replaced every trace with a paperclip (about 25 or so) we put some glue across it all to keep them in place. and then wrapped it in foam and a plastic bag.
Once the rebuilt electronic ignition was put back in, my bike ran better than ever, and never studdered again. We're thinking that it was a cold solder joint some where. I'm sure it was just poor manufacturing, since I had already replaced the ignition for like $300 a couple months before, for that exact same reason.
a) non-trivial Quantum computers can be constructed at all [who says there are not limits?
OK, why would you assume some arbitrary limit on the number of quantum gates that can be linked together? You only need to link as many gates as the bits of encryption you're trying to crack. I know that currently quantum computers are only factoring numbers like 15, and that the methods that are used to link the gates are not easy, but there is no reason that the exact same methods can't be used to link more gates.
b) The time per solution is not greater than a brute force attack.
OK, now I know you're just a complete dumbass! Do you know anything about quantum computing? I don't know how long you think it takes an electron to change state, but in case you're wondering, it's not very long. All of the work in a quantum computer is actually done before you ask for the solution. The actual work side also takes virtually no time. You'll simply be asking it the same question every time, and it calculates all the answers for you (over simplified to the point of being wrong, but at this point it seems quite necessary) and you simply tell it which answer you'd like. The time it takes for all this to happen is short enough that I doubt it could be measured. Even if the different gates in your computer are miles or light years apart, the quantumly linked actions are (were last time I read) considered to be instantaneous (yes, faster than light). The slowest part of the system will be where you want to interface your quantum computer with the "real" world.
This type of hype always pisses me off.
Why don't you read some literature the explains quantum computing and then read your comments again. If you haven't read anything about how it actually works, then you can only depend on the/. headlines or other one-line summaries of the technology. Contrary to popular belief, it's really not all that confusing. It's just an interesting way to exploit something that was observed in nature (like most other inventions). Try something like "The Feynman Processor". It's kinda old now (everything is "in the future"), but it's all explained so that my cat could understand it given enough time.
I fear that I've greatly over-estimated the average/. reader.
What if the man in the middle is there from the start, and manages to fabricate the entire connection, and retransmit everything as if he/she originated it?
OK.. sorry for summarising.. but quantum computers can crack conventional encryption in a single cycle. They make it trivial to factor things down to prime numbers, no matter how large. And since this is the basis of most current cryptography, they will obsolete our current cryptography.
Quantum cryptography (at least in under current theory) cannot be cracked, or intercepted, or decoded twice by two different entities. It is the king of the mountain as far as secure goes.
There are huge problems in trying to transfer the information using quantum cryptography in a non point to point situation, but then again, isn't the point of cryptography (most of the time) to keep your communication as point to point as possible?
Some day, the only way to transfer your information completely securely will be to lock that info into the spin of an electron, or the polarity of a photon, and store those in some secure phyisical media. Then transfer that physical media to the intended recipient, and later verify with them that they are the ones that decoded it. It'll be a pain, but it might be the only way to actually be secure in the end.
Hopefully someone finds a way to automate that system to an extent, without losing it's completely secure nature. Optical switching that somehow manages not to touch that photon? Hmm..
In this case though, quantum cryptography, and quantum computing both have a lot to do with how secure your data can be.
Of course it will become commonplace. As quantum computing becomes more commonplace, quantum cryptography will have to be. In the end, quantum cryptography will be the only way to secure your data to any reasonable extent.
Really, the.mail TLD is the exact same thing as SPF. They're just trying to make it seem like a much bigger idea, and they're taking away control from the people that actually own the domains. (Maybe they'll give it back, but who knows).
As I imagine, such a system is difficult to write and test in an open source context, as it again requires any of the horrendously expensive enterprise shared storage setups on the market.
Or you could wait a month or so, and just use the new version of DRBD that enables a Primary/Primary configuration. It may not be what you'd want to use to run your cluster, but it's a software solution for development purposes.
A lot of the locking issues have probably been dealt with by projects like GFS/OpenGFS already. It's basically a shared storage filesystem, but the differences between a filesystem and a database are sometimes quite negligible. I've never used it, so I can't say how well it works, but it is probably a good starting point. The primary/primary configuration of DRBD is being worked on specifically to support things like OpenGFS.
Frankly, I use jpico (joe).. It's easy, and effective.. I've redefined some key mappings to do what I need, but the nice thing about it, is that stuff like that is easy. I can use vi and emacs, but don't see any real advantage to it (yes, I write code, not just edit my email text). An editor doesn't have to have a huge learning curve to be effective.
1) Don't go in July.. It's damn hot.. not too humid, but damn hot..
2) Don't put any of your money into their damn machines.. If you're a proper geek, you already knew that..
3) Don't go in July.. It's really stinking hot, and it never cools off at night!
There's a lot of great stuff to see while you're there, Here's a list of the things I really liked.
1) Bellagio fountain show.. It's on the street, and it's free, and it's a *must see* sorta thing. Wander through the inside of the hotel too, it's really nice, and currently there are other small fountain shows inside.
2) The Venitian. Gondola rides inside.. fake sky.. pretty interesting.
3) The Paris. It seems so unlike Vegas to have done something 1/2 of the original size.. I would normally expect double size, but their Eifel tower is still pretty cool. (architecture)
4) Mandalay Bay's Shark reef is pretty nice.
5) You have to wander through the Luxor. Brightest light in the world, and pretty interesting architecture for a hotel.. Large hollow pyramid. There's a ton of freaky Egyptian-like decoration as well.. some of it pretty nice.
6) Excalibur. It's a castle... need I say more? If you like seeing people joust, then go inside too, but at least go by the front.
7) New York New York. It's a little New York (see the real one too of course), and they have a roller coaster right through the middle.
8) MGM It's right across the street, you might as well go in.
9) Mirage. Don't they have the volcano? They've also got white tiger's and dolphins. Sigfreid and Roy sucked. I could see how almost every one of their tricks worked which I found really annoying. Maybe if I had managed to drink the jet fuel they were calling mixed drinks, things could have been different. Ceaser's Palace.. Day and night indoors. Animated statues.
10) Stratosphere. Tallest thing around, and it has a roller coaster and freaky ride on top. The "Big Shot" is a blast.. You're starting out at something like 1000 feet, and it launches your little seat up another 100 something feet for a really nice view.. (at 4 G's, and then -2 G's, it's a very "quick" view too).
1,2, and 3 are all right next door to eachother.
4,5,6,7 and 8 are all right next to eachother.
9 is actually two places near eachother.
10 isn't next to anything really.
The technology they put into everything in Vegas is just absurd. Every place has to have their own freak show thing to attract people, and in Vegas they're all trying to out-do one another, so almost everything ends up being the biggest/best anywhere, and since they think you're going to give them free money later on, most of the really cool stuff is free.
I have.. but our system never ate any of the email.. but it was down for almost 72 hours, and every attachment from the week before the crash was lost. crappy backups you say? Well, we were working on the system because suddenly one day it decided to stop allowing backups. We had the db files from before our repair attempts, but they refused to let us connect/recover anything.. We just got plain lucky that the files from the week before let us connect, and extract the attachments.
If you're just looking to transfer files back and forth, then FTP is the way to go.. If you only want to send out files, you might want to stick with the warm fuzzy feeling by knowing you've only got apache exposed to the outside world.
We run ftp, but we have to have people send us files, and also distribute them on a regular basis.The client software available for doing the sending and receiving on a regular basis is a lot better for FTP.. it's pretty klunky, but it is very doable for http.
I hate to be a downer, but I'm sure this is so late that noone will actually read it anyway.
We have a document imaging system that does basically just that. It's a Win32 package called application extender from OTG software. It hooks into your file->save dialogs and stores all your documents in a share with a nasty ID as the name, but then you look things up via the attributes you've set. Normal users don't actually even interact, or know where the true files are stored.
It's actually excruciatingly painful for users to deal with sometimes, since their interface makes it very difficult for normal users to figure out how to open an "actual file" rather than something in the application extender database.
...It's written by OTG (actually I think they bought it from someone), and it hooks into all the M$ office applications though, so I'm sorry to say that I don't think it would have been impossible if it weren't an open source situation. I'm not sure what method they used, but I know it's been done, and I don't think with M$'s help in any way.
Well, then make sure you don't work on that project. I know vb under gnome seems silly, but if noone wanted it, then it wouldn't be there. Even more to the point, the people coding it are probably the people that wanted it, so if they'd like to spend their time doing silly things, then let them..
A lot of people (myself included) are in situations where they're forced to integrate linux and the win32 world, often including many silly little apps that may need things like this..
Re:Why is MySQL more popular than PostgreSQL?
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 2
Ok, for starters, it *IS* open source. I know this, I have read much of the source (not trying to be an ass, but it's very clearly open source, and 99.9% of the time, it's also freeware).
..back to the question. I think that above everything else (features, licensing, etc), the main reason that MySQL is so popular is the documentation. The documentation for mysql is excellent, it's easy to find, and it's got everything you need to know to get started, right in one spot. I think the "In your face" documentation with the almost "HOWTO" style installation section gets most people out of the gate and running before they even figure out how to connect to oracle.
PHP is another project that seems to have this same thing going for it. PHP is also without equal which doesn't hurt it either..
Two html files... one for the PHP documentation, and one for the MySQL documentation, and you've got everything you need to go from complete newbie to semi-advanced user.
...but make sure that you write the new samba license so that reverse engineering is illegal for Microsoft.. that way you'd have a great counter suit opportunity..
No, the secrect can't really be protected, but the contents of their document can be by copyrighting the document (which they've done)
It seems to me that most people are missing how dirty and underhanded this move really is on Microsoft's part.
Reverse engineering their software to figure out how to impliment this in an open source project, is still a totally valid way to go. You can't use their document to find out, but you can reverse engineer a solution. The problem is, they're flooding the planet with the information intentionally to taint the pool of people to reverse engineer it!!!!!!!!!!
Now what happens is that someone wants to create software to work with M$'s software, so they start learning what they can about the protocol. They immediately run across this document and take a look at it.. oops, they are no longer available for the reverse engineering effort.
Some day, when enough people actually manage to get this thing reverse engineered, without having looked at the document, then they're stuck with trying to prove that they never got a single hint anywhere anytime in any way from that document. That means no hints from anyone in a newsgroup that read the document, about anything about the protocol, it's weaknesses, it's fundamental design, or even probably how many bits the encryption they're using is.
Microsoft has learned their lessons well with regard to reverse engineering... You can make it hard by not giving out any information, or you can make it impossible by giving it all out but writing nasty license agreements. What the samba team did with the NT PDC code, Microsoft thought was impossible... This time they're not taking any chances on it.
Re:Keep the Govt. out of Linux and Linux out of Go
on
Auditing for Linux?
·
· Score: 1
Free Software has nothing to do with socialism
Actually, free software is an excellent model for socialism, but the way it was imagined, not the way it turned out.... And no, I don't know why I'm responding to obvious flame bait.
It seems to me that one could argue that this was one if the primary reasons for creating the DNS system in the first place. Making internet connections more manageable seems to me to be the point behind DNS. It's normally used to track session after session. Just because someone's using it to track single sessions instead of many doesn't seem like it's really anything new. I think that's why it seems like such an obvious solution too all of us.
Certainly using something for the purpose for which it was created isn't a patentable process, even if it is being done slightly differently than other places.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows: Avoid windows. If unavoidable, then zone alarm.
That said, I don't ever feel the need to harass people into trying the stuff. I just inform them when somethings convenient and can save them time and money... then I move on.
I inform a lot of people about firefox, picassa, gmail, ubuntu, and openoffice (among other things)... notably, not all open source.
I've mailed the on-call editor a number of times lately with plenty of time left for the stories to be pulled before they go live, and it never happens. I never recieve any reply to the messages either.
Normally, I've been getting the note to the on-call editor somewhere between 5-10 minutes before the article goes live.... I don't think their on-call person really does anything.. Ever.. I hate to say, though, that I missed this one..That could have been about #4 in 1.5 weeks..
It's getting really sad.. maybe they should just give subscribers the ability to delay a post until it, and the note the subscriber left as to why, can be reviewed by someone with authority over there.
I was working on my motorcycle once, trying to figure out why I would lose spark sporatically every now and then... So I decided to pull the electronic ignition out and take a look at it's connectors etc.. Well, I couldn't see much, so I though I'd take it apart and look inside, and in the process of trying to dislodge it from it's plastic case, I snapped the pcb right down the middle.
Once it was apart, I could clearly see that it was built in such a way that it was intended to never be disassemled. Well, since a new ignition was more than I wanted to pay for, a friend and I went and got a bunch of paperclips. We found the end points of all the traces that were snapped, and soldered the paperclips there instead. Once we had replaced every trace with a paperclip (about 25 or so) we put some glue across it all to keep them in place. and then wrapped it in foam and a plastic bag.
Once the rebuilt electronic ignition was put back in, my bike ran better than ever, and never studdered again. We're thinking that it was a cold solder joint some where. I'm sure it was just poor manufacturing, since I had already replaced the ignition for like $300 a couple months before, for that exact same reason.
a) non-trivial Quantum computers can be constructed at all [who says there are not limits?
/. headlines or other one-line summaries of the technology. Contrary to popular belief, it's really not all that confusing. It's just an interesting way to exploit something that was observed in nature (like most other inventions). Try something like "The Feynman Processor". It's kinda old now (everything is "in the future"), but it's all explained so that my cat could understand it given enough time.
/. reader.
OK, why would you assume some arbitrary limit on the number of quantum gates that can be linked together? You only need to link as many gates as the bits of encryption you're trying to crack. I know that currently quantum computers are only factoring numbers like 15, and that the methods that are used to link the gates are not easy, but there is no reason that the exact same methods can't be used to link more gates.
b) The time per solution is not greater than a brute force attack.
OK, now I know you're just a complete dumbass! Do you know anything about quantum computing? I don't know how long you think it takes an electron to change state, but in case you're wondering, it's not very long. All of the work in a quantum computer is actually done before you ask for the solution. The actual work side also takes virtually no time. You'll simply be asking it the same question every time, and it calculates all the answers for you (over simplified to the point of being wrong, but at this point it seems quite necessary) and you simply tell it which answer you'd like. The time it takes for all this to happen is short enough that I doubt it could be measured. Even if the different gates in your computer are miles or light years apart, the quantumly linked actions are (were last time I read) considered to be instantaneous (yes, faster than light). The slowest part of the system will be where you want to interface your quantum computer with the "real" world.
This type of hype always pisses me off.
Why don't you read some literature the explains quantum computing and then read your comments again. If you haven't read anything about how it actually works, then you can only depend on the
I fear that I've greatly over-estimated the average
What if the man in the middle is there from the start, and manages to fabricate the entire connection, and retransmit everything as if he/she originated it?
Quantum cryptography (at least in under current theory) cannot be cracked, or intercepted, or decoded twice by two different entities. It is the king of the mountain as far as secure goes.
There are huge problems in trying to transfer the information using quantum cryptography in a non point to point situation, but then again, isn't the point of cryptography (most of the time) to keep your communication as point to point as possible?
Some day, the only way to transfer your information completely securely will be to lock that info into the spin of an electron, or the polarity of a photon, and store those in some secure phyisical media. Then transfer that physical media to the intended recipient, and later verify with them that they are the ones that decoded it. It'll be a pain, but it might be the only way to actually be secure in the end.
Hopefully someone finds a way to automate that system to an extent, without losing it's completely secure nature. Optical switching that somehow manages not to touch that photon? Hmm..
In this case though, quantum cryptography, and quantum computing both have a lot to do with how secure your data can be.
Of course it will become commonplace. As quantum computing becomes more commonplace, quantum cryptography will have to be. In the end, quantum cryptography will be the only way to secure your data to any reasonable extent.
Really, the .mail TLD is the exact same thing as SPF. They're just trying to make it seem like a much bigger idea, and they're taking away control from the people that actually own the domains. (Maybe they'll give it back, but who knows).
Most HP equipment doesn't really care what queue you send things to, it just prints whatever it gets.. It sure makes life easier.
Or you could wait a month or so, and just use the new version of DRBD that enables a Primary/Primary configuration. It may not be what you'd want to use to run your cluster, but it's a software solution for development purposes.
A lot of the locking issues have probably been dealt with by projects like GFS/OpenGFS already. It's basically a shared storage filesystem, but the differences between a filesystem and a database are sometimes quite negligible. I've never used it, so I can't say how well it works, but it is probably a good starting point. The primary/primary configuration of DRBD is being worked on specifically to support things like OpenGFS.
Frankly, I use jpico (joe).. It's easy, and effective.. I've redefined some key mappings to do what I need, but the nice thing about it, is that stuff like that is easy. I can use vi and emacs, but don't see any real advantage to it (yes, I write code, not just edit my email text). An editor doesn't have to have a huge learning curve to be effective.
-Jeff
1) Don't go in July.. It's damn hot.. not too humid, but damn hot..
2) Don't put any of your money into their damn machines.. If you're a proper geek, you already knew that..
3) Don't go in July.. It's really stinking hot, and it never cools off at night!
There's a lot of great stuff to see while you're there, Here's a list of the things I really liked.
1) Bellagio fountain show.. It's on the street, and it's free, and it's a *must see* sorta thing. Wander through the inside of the hotel too, it's really nice, and currently there are other small fountain shows inside.
2) The Venitian. Gondola rides inside.. fake sky.. pretty interesting.
3) The Paris. It seems so unlike Vegas to have done something 1/2 of the original size.. I would normally expect double size, but their Eifel tower is still pretty cool. (architecture)
4) Mandalay Bay's Shark reef is pretty nice.
5) You have to wander through the Luxor. Brightest light in the world, and pretty interesting architecture for a hotel.. Large hollow pyramid. There's a ton of freaky Egyptian-like decoration as well.. some of it pretty nice.
6) Excalibur. It's a castle... need I say more? If you like seeing people joust, then go inside too, but at least go by the front.
7) New York New York. It's a little New York (see the real one too of course), and they have a roller coaster right through the middle.
8) MGM It's right across the street, you might as well go in.
9) Mirage. Don't they have the volcano? They've also got white tiger's and dolphins. Sigfreid and Roy sucked. I could see how almost every one of their tricks worked which I found really annoying. Maybe if I had managed to drink the jet fuel they were calling mixed drinks, things could have been different. Ceaser's Palace.. Day and night indoors. Animated statues.
10) Stratosphere. Tallest thing around, and it has a roller coaster and freaky ride on top. The "Big Shot" is a blast.. You're starting out at something like 1000 feet, and it launches your little seat up another 100 something feet for a really nice view.. (at 4 G's, and then -2 G's, it's a very "quick" view too).
1,2, and 3 are all right next door to eachother.
4,5,6,7 and 8 are all right next to eachother.
9 is actually two places near eachother.
10 isn't next to anything really.
The technology they put into everything in Vegas is just absurd. Every place has to have their own freak show thing to attract people, and in Vegas they're all trying to out-do one another, so almost everything ends up being the biggest/best anywhere, and since they think you're going to give them free money later on, most of the really cool stuff is free.
I have.. but our system never ate any of the email.. but it was down for almost 72 hours, and every attachment from the week before the crash was lost. crappy backups you say? Well, we were working on the system because suddenly one day it decided to stop allowing backups. We had the db files from before our repair attempts, but they refused to let us connect/recover anything.. We just got plain lucky that the files from the week before let us connect, and extract the attachments.
I've heard the normal ATI TV Wonder is ok though. I just got one off E-Bay for $40 including shipping.
ah yes... uuencode it all.. that's perfect!!
We run ftp, but we have to have people send us files, and also distribute them on a regular basis.The client software available for doing the sending and receiving on a regular basis is a lot better for FTP.. it's pretty klunky, but it is very doable for http.
We just choose to stay on top of our ftp updates.
We have a document imaging system that does basically just that. It's a Win32 package called application extender from OTG software. It hooks into your file->save dialogs and stores all your documents in a share with a nasty ID as the name, but then you look things up via the attributes you've set. Normal users don't actually even interact, or know where the true files are stored.
It's actually excruciatingly painful for users to deal with sometimes, since their interface makes it very difficult for normal users to figure out how to open an "actual file" rather than something in the application extender database.
A lot of people (myself included) are in situations where they're forced to integrate linux and the win32 world, often including many silly little apps that may need things like this..
PHP is another project that seems to have this same thing going for it. PHP is also without equal which doesn't hurt it either..
Two html files... one for the PHP documentation, and one for the MySQL documentation, and you've got everything you need to go from complete newbie to semi-advanced user.
...but make sure that you write the new samba license so that reverse engineering is illegal for Microsoft.. that way you'd have a great counter suit opportunity..
It seems to me that most people are missing how dirty and underhanded this move really is on Microsoft's part.
Reverse engineering their software to figure out how to impliment this in an open source project, is still a totally valid way to go. You can't use their document to find out, but you can reverse engineer a solution. The problem is, they're flooding the planet with the information intentionally to taint the pool of people to reverse engineer it !!!!!!!!!!
Now what happens is that someone wants to create software to work with M$'s software, so they start learning what they can about the protocol. They immediately run across this document and take a look at it.. oops, they are no longer available for the reverse engineering effort.
Some day, when enough people actually manage to get this thing reverse engineered, without having looked at the document, then they're stuck with trying to prove that they never got a single hint anywhere anytime in any way from that document. That means no hints from anyone in a newsgroup that read the document, about anything about the protocol, it's weaknesses, it's fundamental design, or even probably how many bits the encryption they're using is.
Microsoft has learned their lessons well with regard to reverse engineering... You can make it hard by not giving out any information, or you can make it impossible by giving it all out but writing nasty license agreements. What the samba team did with the NT PDC code, Microsoft thought was impossible... This time they're not taking any chances on it.
Actually, free software is an excellent model for socialism, but the way it was imagined, not the way it turned out.... And no, I don't know why I'm responding to obvious flame bait.
Certainly using something for the purpose for which it was created isn't a patentable process, even if it is being done slightly differently than other places.