There turned out to be a bug in the 10.5 update process that rendered File Vault home directories unmountable after the first reboot (WTF?) but the data was recoverable by booting the 10.4 install DVD, mounting the disk image from there and copying all of the files off it.
I remember that one, I ended up booting to console and converting the filevault image to a regular disk image in order to get the data out from it, then I did a complete reinstall.
That was definitely a pretty sloppy mistake by Apple and hopefully something we won't see with 10.6.
Ah, but MySQL is a lot more well-known and popular than Oracle XE which makes it ideal as a marketing tool. A few tweaks here and there and you could make it so that it's a piece of cake to replace a MySQL db with an Oracle db.
Being involved in terrorist activities does not mean it is fair to label an entire organisation as "terrorists" much in same way that you can't call all police officers "powertripping crypt-fascistists" just because the police occasionally do things (either as an organisation or individual members of that organisation) that fit that description.
Well, I suspect that Oracle will attempt to position MySQL as their "free Oracle-compatible" database offering, less support and high-end features but still feature-complete enough that people will continue using it (and hopefully, in Oracle's eyes, upgrade to their full database suite when need arises).
I wasn't aware that FARC had anything to do with cannabis and I'm pretty sure it would be big news to many others as well.
And while FARC are definitely a revolutionary bunch of rebels involved in various criminal enterprises I'm not sure they're a cut and dried "terrorist organisation", that's a term that's been watered down so much that soon people are going to be calling anyone who runs a red light a "terrorist".
Which leads me to another gripe: Considering Goblins have been a neutral faction in the MMORG up to this point, making them Horde-only just because they are getting help from the Horde seems completely silly considering all the help they've received from Alliance players via quests over the years. Not to mention that the closing off of a significant market that going to war with Alliance would represent also seems out of character for the Ferengi-like Capitalists.
I was sort of hoping for a twist on the whole faction thing with the goblins, like being able to actually play as a neutral (able to communicate with both alliance and horde as an added perk while having other drawbacks like say, much harder to gain reputation with either faction). It would have made for some interesting gameplay.
Actually, most people I've met who find regular mice (optic or rubber ball-based) inferior tend to use Wacom tablets instead, going from a Wacom table to a regular mouse is quite frustrating because you get used to not only the precision of the table but also that mouse movement is relative to the tablet and not the rotation of the mouse.
Lots of people were doing filtering pre-NAT, as an example I can take the university I attended, every workstation on campus had a public IP address and if you were on the campus network (or if you were on the off-campus network for students provided by a third party in cooperation with the uni) you could access any workstation directly, if you were off-campus then access to these machines was heavily restricted (no access to ports < 1024) and you had to go through one of the "big" machines that were specifically set up so that you could log in from the outside.
Yes, knowledge of firewalls used to be horribly poor among regular users and still is today, as can be seen in your comment where you seem to assume that NAT == Firewall.
The proper solution is to go back to what those who actually cared about security pre-NAT were already doing, packet filtering firewalls that block unauthorized access, something that you do no need NAT for.
First, cute little troll, I'm going to point out a few flaws lest someone takes you seriously.
Not to mention that IPv6 has no security whatsoever in its design. Any form of encryption is either a bolt on, or goes on a higher layer, such as how SSL and SSH ride on top of TCP. On the IP layer, there isn't any standard form of encryption.
IPSec was originally developed specifically for IPv6. 'nuf said.
Of course, we all know about IPv6 and NATs. If you want to hide your internal network, you put it on IPv4. Which means on a "pure" IPv6 network an attacker can easily nmap every single box on your private network, then start running targeted attacks against every single thing, from the router with the last year's firmware to the Linux box that wasn't patched in six months.
NAT != Firewall. What you want is a firewall that blocks incoming traffic to those addresses that aren't supposed to accept incoming connections. NAT means "Network Address Translation" and that's exactly what you get, it translates addresses and keeps track of connections.
The rest of your post seems to have been mostly pointless filler and hyperbole so I'll just ignore it (as should everyone else).
No it doesn't, at best there are 4,294,967,296 available IPv4 addresses, in reality there aren't nearly as many since the entire network isn't one huge subnet. With IPv6 there are 3.4*10^38 addresses. There is no real competition in terms of "we give you your own class C" vs "We give you one address" when it comes to IPv4 because most ISPs can't actually hand out addresses like they're candy. With IPv6 an ISP would have no problem whatsoever handing out a/64 to each customer since they'll have a shitload of/64s to hand out.
He doesn't need to. He may want to. He has that option today.
You can assign IPv6 addresses manually to your heart's content as long as you have a block assigned to you, but for client machines there is rarely a reason to do this (just like how you normally don't go about handing out static IPs to every workstation, you set up a DHCP server (or many depending on the size of your organisation) and hand out dynamic addresses to most machines).
I've seen your second link before and I'm not particularly impressed by it.
I think that first of all it's obvious that the examples chosen for Star Trek are sometimes underpowered compared to other Star Trek ships/weapons available which skews the comparison.
There's also the bigger issue of having ships from one universe that is based on "Big numbers that Lucas dreamed up while high as a kite" (example: "Light guns" that fire 6 MT shots in a world where shields are quite rare) versus ships from another universe where it seems like the authors at least tried to make the numbers believable. In order for the comparison to be fair you'd either need to adapt the specs of Star Wars ships to the Star Trek universe or adapt the specs of the Star Trek ships to the Star Wars universe.
You also have to factor in something that the page clearly avoids which is things like how in Star Trek targeting is done by the computer and even "manual" targeting involves a certain level of computer assistance while in Star Wars targeting is done by a bunch of guys in funny-looking helmets who are manning what looks like a WWII era AA gun that shots slow-moving globs of something.
Basically, the comparison is biased, if you adapted a Borg cube to the Star Wars universe it would be the size of our entire solar system and be manned by a bunch of inept "droids" like C3PO who would spend most of their time stumbling around.
I'm not sure I'm following you here, so what you're saying is that instead of Joe Q. Sysadmin always having his internal router be 10.0.0.1 and all the hosts having 10.x.x.x IPs tied to hostnames he'd have something like 2001:1001:f00f::1 as the router and all hosts would be in the same subnet? Yeah, that's really scary and confusing...
Also, NAT is an ugly hack that doesn't really need to exist, the packet filtering can be handled with a plain old packet filtering firewall just like it used to be done prior to everyone using NAT and what exactly is the point of address translation? Isn't that like going back to pre-IP days when every network seemed to use its own protocol (or in this case, everyone uses local addresses internally and a single or small number of external addresses) and inter-network communication was a PITA?
And I'd rather see devices that don't need public addresses getting them than "The amazing NAT future" where you have to pay big bucks to get a public IP address instead of being stuck in NAT hell (first they came for the residential connections, but I did not speak up because I wasn't running a home server or playing games, then they came for the small business DSL customers but I did not speak up for I was not running a small business and finally they came for the corporate customers and we ended up paying thousands of dollars per server to avoid getting thrown off the 'net)...
All I see in the description is Isakson's description of what happened along with pictures of pictures of Benjamin and him, both of which could have been picked deliberately to fit with the angle the paper was going for ("this poor guy was VIOLENTLY ASSAULTED by the cable guy!"), it's quite possible that Benjamin looks a lot more respectable when he's at work and that his side of the story includes "he called me a crackhead" and "...and then he shoved me", we've only heard one side of the story.
Do you have trouble imagining that the customer may have shoved the tech or otherwise behaved (physically) in a threatening manner that to any sane person would indicate that the customer was about to attack the tech?
How much could the victim possibly have egged him on considering the tech hadn't even made it in the front door yet?
Well considering that back when I worked tech support I had plenty of calls that started with what could best be described as "a shitstorm of racial slurs (against white people like myself!), accusations of me and all my coworkers being homosexual and other general nastiness" I can definitely imagine that he managed to get out a whole bunch of undeserved crap. Hell, most of those calls I got weren't people who had been without DSL for weeks or anything like that, it would be people who's DSL had gone out minutes earlier due to the massive thunderstorm in their area and they felt that the best way to deal with the issue was to yell at some random stranger who would otherwise have done his best to help them.
Hell, I've even had incidents in which I was extremely friendly (and so was the customer) and later on my employer would get a complaint about how I had supposedly blurted out racial slurs and other insults at the customer.
I have no trouble imagining that this incident was a lot different from how the alleged victim describes it.
Repeat after me: latency != bandwidth. You're both getting full use of the pipe. The only difference is that protocols that humans use are handled more quickly than protocols that computers use. If you send an IM, do you really want its packet queued up behind an emailed Powerpoint presentation of a dog peeing on something? If the email server takes an extra 1/1500th of a second to receive, no one will notice. If the IM client takes an extra 10 seconds to receive, you'll notice the heck out of it.
Of course, this isn't what Comcast did, what they did was that when they detected a specific type of traffic they would send fake traffic to both hosts that were communicating, this fake traffic told both hosts that the connection had been reset. As others have pointed out, the car analogy would be to redirect all trucks onto an off-ramp that leads them straight off a cliff.
Well, here in Sweden we actually use L/10km (10km is a "mil" in Sweden) but in order not to start an argument over how many km are normally used I just use L/km.
What you offer doesn't really seem like it's better than what companies here (in Sweden) offer.
Five weeks of vacation time is pretty standard, and being on call 24/7 (including when on vacation) sounds horrible, I'd never go along with being on call unless I was compensated for it (my time is my time, if you want me to be ready to work outside of my regular 40 hours per week then I expect you to compensate me for the inconvenience).
Well, technically they went in after repeatedly telling the Georgians to stop fucking with the south ossetians. Obviously there is more to it than this but for those of us who actually followed the events leading up to the russian forces entering south ossetia it's painfully obvious that most people only noticed something was going on when western media outlets began pumping out "Russia invades Georgia!", "$POLITICIAN says Russian attack on Georgia worse than nazi atrocities" and similar headlines.
Perhaps, morally I think most people would find it a lot different from creating a sentient machine in that the machine could (perhaps) be engineered from the ground up to fulfill a specific purpose, all its talents, personality traits and so forth would be added only to help it perform the tasks it was created to perform.
This is not to say that I necessarily agree with this point of view, just that in the eyes of most people it would not be the same to take human DNA and remove certain things and add others instead of these.
And as I stated previously, if we create a true AI the inner workings of which we fully understand then we could also do things such as make an AI designed for factory work be curious, but only about performing its job more efficiently. All of which still just once again raises the question of where the line should be drawn for when something is considered sentient and alive, is an intelligent machine that is aware of its own existance in a carefully delimited way only because it is necessary in order for the machine to perform the task it was designed to really sentient?
What if we create an AI that derives satisfaction from working in tech support? Or an AI that actually wants to bag groceries at Walmart? Or how about an AI that wants nothing but to be the best damn construction worker it can?
I've actually thought about this at times, most likely the first "virtual brains" (if we ever create them) will be run on fairly specialised hardware, but as time goes by you just know they'll end up running on plain vanilla Intel chips (whatever the current generation will be called).
Of course, I wouldn't mind a word in which specially crafted "virtual workers" did most of the work, assuming you can get the whole "three laws" bit working properly...
Slashdot Mirror
There turned out to be a bug in the 10.5 update process that rendered File Vault home directories unmountable after the first reboot (WTF?) but the data was recoverable by booting the 10.4 install DVD, mounting the disk image from there and copying all of the files off it.
I remember that one, I ended up booting to console and converting the filevault image to a regular disk image in order to get the data out from it, then I did a complete reinstall.
That was definitely a pretty sloppy mistake by Apple and hopefully something we won't see with 10.6.
/Mikael
Ah, but MySQL is a lot more well-known and popular than Oracle XE which makes it ideal as a marketing tool. A few tweaks here and there and you could make it so that it's a piece of cake to replace a MySQL db with an Oracle db.
/Mikael
Being involved in terrorist activities does not mean it is fair to label an entire organisation as "terrorists" much in same way that you can't call all police officers "powertripping crypt-fascistists" just because the police occasionally do things (either as an organisation or individual members of that organisation) that fit that description.
/Mikael
Well, I suspect that Oracle will attempt to position MySQL as their "free Oracle-compatible" database offering, less support and high-end features but still feature-complete enough that people will continue using it (and hopefully, in Oracle's eyes, upgrade to their full database suite when need arises).
/Mikael
I wasn't aware that FARC had anything to do with cannabis and I'm pretty sure it would be big news to many others as well.
And while FARC are definitely a revolutionary bunch of rebels involved in various criminal enterprises I'm not sure they're a cut and dried "terrorist organisation", that's a term that's been watered down so much that soon people are going to be calling anyone who runs a red light a "terrorist".
/Mikael
Which leads me to another gripe: Considering Goblins have been a neutral faction in the MMORG up to this point, making them Horde-only just because they are getting help from the Horde seems completely silly considering all the help they've received from Alliance players via quests over the years. Not to mention that the closing off of a significant market that going to war with Alliance would represent also seems out of character for the Ferengi-like Capitalists.
I was sort of hoping for a twist on the whole faction thing with the goblins, like being able to actually play as a neutral (able to communicate with both alliance and horde as an added perk while having other drawbacks like say, much harder to gain reputation with either faction). It would have made for some interesting gameplay.
/Mikael
Actually, most people I've met who find regular mice (optic or rubber ball-based) inferior tend to use Wacom tablets instead, going from a Wacom table to a regular mouse is quite frustrating because you get used to not only the precision of the table but also that mouse movement is relative to the tablet and not the rotation of the mouse.
/Mikael
I'm sure no matter how many lasers they're using Gillette will come out with one that has one laser more...
/Mikael
Lots of people were doing filtering pre-NAT, as an example I can take the university I attended, every workstation on campus had a public IP address and if you were on the campus network (or if you were on the off-campus network for students provided by a third party in cooperation with the uni) you could access any workstation directly, if you were off-campus then access to these machines was heavily restricted (no access to ports < 1024) and you had to go through one of the "big" machines that were specifically set up so that you could log in from the outside.
Yes, knowledge of firewalls used to be horribly poor among regular users and still is today, as can be seen in your comment where you seem to assume that NAT == Firewall.
The proper solution is to go back to what those who actually cared about security pre-NAT were already doing, packet filtering firewalls that block unauthorized access, something that you do no need NAT for.
/Mikael
First, cute little troll, I'm going to point out a few flaws lest someone takes you seriously.
Not to mention that IPv6 has no security whatsoever in its design. Any form of encryption is either a bolt on, or goes on a higher layer, such as how SSL and SSH ride on top of TCP. On the IP layer, there isn't any standard form of encryption.
IPSec was originally developed specifically for IPv6. 'nuf said.
Of course, we all know about IPv6 and NATs. If you want to hide your internal network, you put it on IPv4. Which means on a "pure" IPv6 network an attacker can easily nmap every single box on your private network, then start running targeted attacks against every single thing, from the router with the last year's firmware to the Linux box that wasn't patched in six months.
NAT != Firewall. What you want is a firewall that blocks incoming traffic to those addresses that aren't supposed to accept incoming connections. NAT means "Network Address Translation" and that's exactly what you get, it translates addresses and keeps track of connections.
The rest of your post seems to have been mostly pointless filler and hyperbole so I'll just ignore it (as should everyone else).
/Mikael
No it doesn't, at best there are 4,294,967,296 available IPv4 addresses, in reality there aren't nearly as many since the entire network isn't one huge subnet. With IPv6 there are 3.4*10^38 addresses. There is no real competition in terms of "we give you your own class C" vs "We give you one address" when it comes to IPv4 because most ISPs can't actually hand out addresses like they're candy. With IPv6 an ISP would have no problem whatsoever handing out a /64 to each customer since they'll have a shitload of /64s to hand out.
/Mikael
He doesn't need to. He may want to. He has that option today.
You can assign IPv6 addresses manually to your heart's content as long as you have a block assigned to you, but for client machines there is rarely a reason to do this (just like how you normally don't go about handing out static IPs to every workstation, you set up a DHCP server (or many depending on the size of your organisation) and hand out dynamic addresses to most machines).
/Mikael
I've seen your second link before and I'm not particularly impressed by it.
I think that first of all it's obvious that the examples chosen for Star Trek are sometimes underpowered compared to other Star Trek ships/weapons available which skews the comparison.
There's also the bigger issue of having ships from one universe that is based on "Big numbers that Lucas dreamed up while high as a kite" (example: "Light guns" that fire 6 MT shots in a world where shields are quite rare) versus ships from another universe where it seems like the authors at least tried to make the numbers believable. In order for the comparison to be fair you'd either need to adapt the specs of Star Wars ships to the Star Trek universe or adapt the specs of the Star Trek ships to the Star Wars universe.
You also have to factor in something that the page clearly avoids which is things like how in Star Trek targeting is done by the computer and even "manual" targeting involves a certain level of computer assistance while in Star Wars targeting is done by a bunch of guys in funny-looking helmets who are manning what looks like a WWII era AA gun that shots slow-moving globs of something.
Basically, the comparison is biased, if you adapted a Borg cube to the Star Wars universe it would be the size of our entire solar system and be manned by a bunch of inept "droids" like C3PO who would spend most of their time stumbling around.
/Mikael
I'm not sure I'm following you here, so what you're saying is that instead of Joe Q. Sysadmin always having his internal router be 10.0.0.1 and all the hosts having 10.x.x.x IPs tied to hostnames he'd have something like 2001:1001:f00f::1 as the router and all hosts would be in the same subnet? Yeah, that's really scary and confusing...
Also, NAT is an ugly hack that doesn't really need to exist, the packet filtering can be handled with a plain old packet filtering firewall just like it used to be done prior to everyone using NAT and what exactly is the point of address translation? Isn't that like going back to pre-IP days when every network seemed to use its own protocol (or in this case, everyone uses local addresses internally and a single or small number of external addresses) and inter-network communication was a PITA?
And I'd rather see devices that don't need public addresses getting them than "The amazing NAT future" where you have to pay big bucks to get a public IP address instead of being stuck in NAT hell (first they came for the residential connections, but I did not speak up because I wasn't running a home server or playing games, then they came for the small business DSL customers but I did not speak up for I was not running a small business and finally they came for the corporate customers and we ended up paying thousands of dollars per server to avoid getting thrown off the 'net)...
/Mikael
All I see in the description is Isakson's description of what happened along with pictures of pictures of Benjamin and him, both of which could have been picked deliberately to fit with the angle the paper was going for ("this poor guy was VIOLENTLY ASSAULTED by the cable guy!"), it's quite possible that Benjamin looks a lot more respectable when he's at work and that his side of the story includes "he called me a crackhead" and "...and then he shoved me", we've only heard one side of the story.
/Mikael
Do you have trouble imagining that the customer may have shoved the tech or otherwise behaved (physically) in a threatening manner that to any sane person would indicate that the customer was about to attack the tech?
/Mikael
How much could the victim possibly have egged him on considering the tech hadn't even made it in the front door yet?
Well considering that back when I worked tech support I had plenty of calls that started with what could best be described as "a shitstorm of racial slurs (against white people like myself!), accusations of me and all my coworkers being homosexual and other general nastiness" I can definitely imagine that he managed to get out a whole bunch of undeserved crap. Hell, most of those calls I got weren't people who had been without DSL for weeks or anything like that, it would be people who's DSL had gone out minutes earlier due to the massive thunderstorm in their area and they felt that the best way to deal with the issue was to yell at some random stranger who would otherwise have done his best to help them.
Hell, I've even had incidents in which I was extremely friendly (and so was the customer) and later on my employer would get a complaint about how I had supposedly blurted out racial slurs and other insults at the customer.
I have no trouble imagining that this incident was a lot different from how the alleged victim describes it.
/Mikael
Repeat after me: latency != bandwidth. You're both getting full use of the pipe. The only difference is that protocols that humans use are handled more quickly than protocols that computers use. If you send an IM, do you really want its packet queued up behind an emailed Powerpoint presentation of a dog peeing on something? If the email server takes an extra 1/1500th of a second to receive, no one will notice. If the IM client takes an extra 10 seconds to receive, you'll notice the heck out of it.
Of course, this isn't what Comcast did, what they did was that when they detected a specific type of traffic they would send fake traffic to both hosts that were communicating, this fake traffic told both hosts that the connection had been reset. As others have pointed out, the car analogy would be to redirect all trucks onto an off-ramp that leads them straight off a cliff.
/Mikael
Well, here in Sweden we actually use L/10km (10km is a "mil" in Sweden) but in order not to start an argument over how many km are normally used I just use L/km.
/Mikael
For those of us in europe this means about 0.01 L per km (no, we don't use the km/L stated in the summary, we use L/km).
/Mikael
What you offer doesn't really seem like it's better than what companies here (in Sweden) offer.
Five weeks of vacation time is pretty standard, and being on call 24/7 (including when on vacation) sounds horrible, I'd never go along with being on call unless I was compensated for it (my time is my time, if you want me to be ready to work outside of my regular 40 hours per week then I expect you to compensate me for the inconvenience).
/Mikael
Well, technically they went in after repeatedly telling the Georgians to stop fucking with the south ossetians. Obviously there is more to it than this but for those of us who actually followed the events leading up to the russian forces entering south ossetia it's painfully obvious that most people only noticed something was going on when western media outlets began pumping out "Russia invades Georgia!", "$POLITICIAN says Russian attack on Georgia worse than nazi atrocities" and similar headlines.
/Mikael
Perhaps, morally I think most people would find it a lot different from creating a sentient machine in that the machine could (perhaps) be engineered from the ground up to fulfill a specific purpose, all its talents, personality traits and so forth would be added only to help it perform the tasks it was created to perform.
This is not to say that I necessarily agree with this point of view, just that in the eyes of most people it would not be the same to take human DNA and remove certain things and add others instead of these.
And as I stated previously, if we create a true AI the inner workings of which we fully understand then we could also do things such as make an AI designed for factory work be curious, but only about performing its job more efficiently. All of which still just once again raises the question of where the line should be drawn for when something is considered sentient and alive, is an intelligent machine that is aware of its own existance in a carefully delimited way only because it is necessary in order for the machine to perform the task it was designed to really sentient?
/Mikael
What if we create an AI that derives satisfaction from working in tech support? Or an AI that actually wants to bag groceries at Walmart? Or how about an AI that wants nothing but to be the best damn construction worker it can?
/Mikael
I've actually thought about this at times, most likely the first "virtual brains" (if we ever create them) will be run on fairly specialised hardware, but as time goes by you just know they'll end up running on plain vanilla Intel chips (whatever the current generation will be called).
Of course, I wouldn't mind a word in which specially crafted "virtual workers" did most of the work, assuming you can get the whole "three laws" bit working properly...
/Mikael