The SSL cert was issued for "www.mountain-america.net". The bank in question is "www.mtnamerica.org".
If ever there was a good case for launching a cyber-squatting suit, I think this would be it.. I don't know who applied for mtnamerica.org, but
mountain-america.net seems like a far better domain name. If you'd shown me both domain names, and I had no other infor, I would have guessed that mountain-america.net was the legitimate address.
Hopefully, this case would be a slam-dunk for the credit union.
I think that I could second this motion.
ext{2,3} can handle nice, big files, and just about any version of linux can read it. You can even get modules for the Microsoft world to read ext2 filesystems. If you're looking at a read-mostly filesystem, then journaling won't get you much (other than making for a fast FSCK if you lose power).
Just remember to specify '-T largefile' on the mke2fs command line to optimize for larger files.
If you haven't thought about it yet, I'd also suggest raid5 rather than raid0. It's worth the extra expense to be able to recover from a dying drive (which will happen, sooner or later).
If you're getting lots of I/O errors with XFS, I'd be inclined to look at a hardware problem (unless the I/O errors consist of attempts to read past the end of the partition -- which could be caused by you manually specifying the partition size, rather than letting mkfs.xfs figure it out).
Like someone else said -- try using badblocks(8) -- or just use dd to make sure you can read the entire partition without errors.
Bad disks do happen -- even new ones. Production code in Linux is generally very stable, and (unlike with windows), you can usually start with the presumption that things like I/O errors are caused by real hardware problems of some sort (even if it's just bad/loose cables).
while the good old human made reports are potentially much more prone to error? Isn't that why we went to automated systems in the first place?
Human errors (like addition problems) are more common, but they're rarely in the order of adding 4 extra digits to the value of a house. As one murphy's corrolary stated:
To err is human. To really foul up requires a computer
And probably the biggest advantage to computers is that you can do more things faster than you can with humans. Human errors will still mess up computer reports as long as humans are in the loop (and even when you don't think that they are).
Today, it would have probably just consisted of a 'cease and desist order'. Some of the similarity was just from the fact that it was the same person drawing a rodent. -- and Walt might have had some cause for a countersuit, if it came to a full lawsuit (Universal had, apparently, hired out his entire studio while he was in LA negotiating with them).
Just because one method of getting a message from A-to-B is naturally insecure, it doesn't give license for anyone to artificially introduce insecurity into a different system.
What the govenment is asking for is what the Sendmail (and general SMTP) manuals call Envelopeinformation. They're also arbitrarily removing the Subject header line.
By your analogy -- given that most email is transmitted across the net in an entirely un-encrypted form, they would probably get access to the entire contents of the message (since a sysadmin would have the technical ability to read it without disturbing your ability to get it in it's original form). If the Pen & trap orders are OK, then I would expect that these 'envelope information' orders would be similarly OK... it's the same kind of information.
Not that I'm entirely comfortable with this, but I think that it's a reasonable compromise.
Where I'm still upset is that it seems like all that they're doing to get a 'PATRIOT Act' snoop orders OKd is saying (in a boilerplat) "I think that this information will be pertinent to an investigation", without even having to detail what they're investigating, what information they're looking for, or how it would help the investigation.
For all we know it could be a jealous cop investigating his wife for unfaithfullnes.
If this is anything like their other indemnificaiton program, it gives them the right to tell you to use an 'upgrade' that deletes the infringing technology -- at the most expensive they can give you your money back and tell you to burn uninstall the program and burn the installation CD. In other words, the worst that they're likely to be forced to cover you for is the cost of your software.
Now the can go a more expensive route to support you, but they have no requirement to, unless it jives with their business plan.
Then, of course there's Microsoft's dealings with Timeline, where they (for a substantial discount), signed a license with the company for a data warehousing technology that was almost guaranteed Not to cover customers and developers, because it didn't cover the case where the customer included any code of their own.
When Microsoft's lawsuit (which pretty much echoed SCO's charge against Novell for the rights to UNIX of "We must have gotten those rights -- why would we pay so much for a contract that gives us so little"?) failed, their response to Timeline was. 'If you don't like it, then sue our customers.'
Their software indemnity policy specifically does not seem to cover the kind of situation that they created with Timeline (where there is any sort of custom programming involved -- whether by the customer or Microsoft).
(IANAL)
Hmm... And almost immediately after a judge told Microsoft that they had this indemnity exposure for their customers, SCOg gets this 'idea' to create a big (fake) kerfluffel about how Linux has an indemnity exposure... along with a $BIG 'license purchase' from Microsoft.
"OK, so if it's free, how do the people who build the distro make money?"
There are two answers:
They charge for support
In terms of how the support works, If I have an itch to scratch and fix an issue, I can then forward that fix to the people who maintain the 'cardinal copy' of that product. If they fold it into the official version, then I get free support for that improvement in the future. (( been there, done that, by the way ))
If they don't fold in the fix, by the way, then I would still have to manually fold our improvement into any future version (( which is something you can't do with a closed-source product )).
There are, of course, mondo tools for 'patching' your local fixes into open source products.
As Perens (I think) pointed out, if 10 companies get together and each donate an hours work to an Open Source project that they all use, they each get 9 free hours of development work done. Even if half of that work is on a feature you won't use, that's still 5 hours of productive development for free. That's why companies are willing to contribute to Open Source.
It's a model that's hard for a good capitalist manager to walk away from -- and as the numbers improve, so does the free-work ratio.
The Red Cross emblem is one of the easiest ones to program.
No problem -- just make it black, or green or blue, Bright pink might even do. Yellow would be legal, but hard to see.
The point is that the red cross is to be reserved for things that are sacrosanct under the Geneva Convention.
Personally, I think that proper use of the Red Cross in games should be encouraged, since it will train young soldiers-to-be that Red-Cross-On-White means "don't shoot" and "humanitarian aid" -- a lesson that they'll take into the battlefield.
If doing that, then they should also be similarly be trained to similarly recognize the Green Crescent.
On the other hand, having men with red-cross armbands acting as effective combatants (and thus legal targets) defeats the purpose.
Crazy as he is, a few of his ideas aren't completely off the wall.
To create a good conspiracy theory, you have to have something that's at least reasonably close to provable. From there you can bounce in almost any direction and, as long as there seems to be a logical stream, you've got the possibility of bamboozling at least some people.
Take for example Bush's 'proof' that Saddam was an Al-Quaida ally and making WMDs.
You had:
Someone from al-Quaida once visited him (of course, so did Rumsfield -- but Rumsfield got a more friendly reception).
He had been making WMDs (with US help).
He was 'teasing' the weapons inspectors, and generally just annoying them and making their life difficult.
Weapons inspectors couldn't say with absolute certainty that he wasn't building more WMD's (they were just reasonably sure).
The 9/11 bombers were arab (mostly Saudi arab), and so was he.
The fact that weapons inspectors couldn't find any proof was proof that he was hiding the proof that they couldn't find. -- and thus proof that Saddam was actually building WMDs (that's right: Lack of proof was proof of existence).
The first 3 points are actually facts -- They still had to be spun right, but you can start from there and build in whatever half-truths you want. The more competent you look, the more likely that you'll pull people into your conspiracy theroy.
The guy has a link to a 'humor' page on the navigation bar on the left. Personally, I think that his 'Nasty Little Truths' page is funnier than his humor page.
Seriously though, who decided to call it a 'Lunar Reconaissance Rover'? Makes it sound as if we're spying... on the moon.
Reconaissance is " An examination of a region as to its general
natural features, preparatory to a more particular survey
for the purposes of triangulation, or of determining the
location of a public work." (The Collaborative International Dictionary of English / kdict).
Military reconaissance (what you're thinking of) is doing a similar thing in a military context. Obviously, you've spent too much time in the military, and not enough time in an engineering department.:-)
Whenever you let the pressure off, just a little bit, they jump up and karate chop you.
{{
Yes, I realize that James Henson isn't Jim Henson (at least, he's not "The" Jim Henson -- the grown man who played with dolls.... Oh, never mind.
}}
Remember that Deutsch isn't the only person on the NASA payroll who's trying to censor scientists. As Henson pointed out -- he's a small, but significant player in this larger problem.
Also: It kinda looks to me like he was fired more for his censorship (and creating a big flap about pushing creationism) than for the fact that he didn't have a degree. By the time The Times started calling abou this, he was already not answering calls.
The observation of comets was that they had very little ice on the surface, but a good deal of water was kicked up by the impact (thus, it was probably not more than a couple of metres below the surface).
from this CBC article it appears that finding any ice on the surface was actually a mild surprise for scientists. This NASA mission update also indicates a powdered iceball construction of the comet.
It starts as an observation. I don't know where you live, but I've also seen the result when snowmen and snow banks melt. It is as he described -- the surface basically distills down to the non-evaporative elements that were in the upper depth. For dirtier snow (e.g. snow tossed off of the road that was also sanded for traction) the distilled dirt insulates the remaining snow and keeps it from melting weeks past when the 'clean' snow is gone.
Those are actually data points that can be extrapolated to comets, which scientists have already extrapolated should look like dirty snowballs. The question then arises of how would a snowball last through millions of passes inside the earth's orbit -- which would get the surface pretty hot.
A metre's worth of insulation distilled from the previously melted outside mile or so of evaporated matter would easily explain this.
Of course, this leaves me wondering (if this theory is accurate) what Haley's Comet would have looked like earlier in it's life when it didn't have the isulation.
Like the grandparent post said... It's like a snowman that started much larger and has been melting for millions of years. It started as an dirty snowball, but billions of years of slow evaporation have resulted in an outer layer of dirt essentially insulating the water just below the surface so that it doesn't all evaporate in one pass.
As for the dirt being souffle-like -- what do you expect? There's barely enough gravity to keep the comet together, and almost nothing to force the residual dust to compact. When it's warm, the sublimation of the ice underneath is going to push the
dirt out. When it's cold, any residual vapor is going to freeze and cement the dirt in place.
Over the aeons, you're going to be left with a layer of dust that's incredibly lightly packed over a core of ice.
I think that the best spin that NASA can put on this is that (like Brown) Bush has, once again, appointed an incompetent top administrator who is causing longtime employees to leave in disgust -- and possibly threatening another structural disaster.
She's not using a computer. She's not downloading porn^w music illegally. This means that she's denying the RIAA the right -- the right(!) to sue her for illegally downloading music.
Slashdot Mirror
If ever there was a good case for launching a cyber-squatting suit, I think this would be it.. I don't know who applied for mtnamerica.org, but mountain-america.net seems like a far better domain name. If you'd shown me both domain names, and I had no other infor, I would have guessed that mountain-america.net was the legitimate address.
Hopefully, this case would be a slam-dunk for the credit union.
Bush will take these churches to court for violating the separation of church and state.
ext{2,3} can handle nice, big files, and just about any version of linux can read it. You can even get modules for the Microsoft world to read ext2 filesystems. If you're looking at a read-mostly filesystem, then journaling won't get you much (other than making for a fast FSCK if you lose power).
Just remember to specify '-T largefile' on the mke2fs command line to optimize for larger files.
If you haven't thought about it yet, I'd also suggest raid5 rather than raid0. It's worth the extra expense to be able to recover from a dying drive (which will happen, sooner or later).
Like someone else said -- try using badblocks(8) -- or just use dd to make sure you can read the entire partition without errors.
Bad disks do happen -- even new ones. Production code in Linux is generally very stable, and (unlike with windows), you can usually start with the presumption that things like I/O errors are caused by real hardware problems of some sort (even if it's just bad/loose cables).
Human errors (like addition problems) are more common, but they're rarely in the order of adding 4 extra digits to the value of a house. As one murphy's corrolary stated:
And probably the biggest advantage to computers is that you can do more things faster than you can with humans. Human errors will still mess up computer reports as long as humans are in the loop (and even when you don't think that they are).Today, it would have probably just consisted of a 'cease and desist order'. Some of the similarity was just from the fact that it was the same person drawing a rodent. -- and Walt might have had some cause for a countersuit, if it came to a full lawsuit (Universal had, apparently, hired out his entire studio while he was in LA negotiating with them).
Yeah, but you can imagine the ego deflation when he got the call into the office...
"We've come to an agreement with NBC. You're being traded for a rabbit."
What the govenment is asking for is what the Sendmail (and general SMTP) manuals call Envelope information. They're also arbitrarily removing the Subject header line.
By your analogy -- given that most email is transmitted across the net in an entirely un-encrypted form, they would probably get access to the entire contents of the message (since a sysadmin would have the technical ability to read it without disturbing your ability to get it in it's original form). If the Pen & trap orders are OK, then I would expect that these 'envelope information' orders would be similarly OK... it's the same kind of information.
Not that I'm entirely comfortable with this, but I think that it's a reasonable compromise.
Where I'm still upset is that it seems like all that they're doing to get a 'PATRIOT Act' snoop orders OKd is saying (in a boilerplat) "I think that this information will be pertinent to an investigation", without even having to detail what they're investigating, what information they're looking for, or how it would help the investigation.
For all we know it could be a jealous cop investigating his wife for unfaithfullnes.
Now the can go a more expensive route to support you, but they have no requirement to, unless it jives with their business plan.
When Microsoft's lawsuit (which pretty much echoed SCO's charge against Novell for the rights to UNIX of "We must have gotten those rights -- why would we pay so much for a contract that gives us so little"?) failed, their response to Timeline was. 'If you don't like it, then sue our customers.'
Their software indemnity policy specifically does not seem to cover the kind of situation that they created with Timeline (where there is any sort of custom programming involved -- whether by the customer or Microsoft).
(IANAL)
Hmm... And almost immediately after a judge told Microsoft that they had this indemnity exposure for their customers, SCOg gets this 'idea' to create a big (fake) kerfluffel about how Linux has an indemnity exposure ... along with a $BIG 'license purchase' from Microsoft.
There are two answers:
If they don't fold in the fix, by the way, then I would still have to manually fold our improvement into any future version (( which is something you can't do with a closed-source product )).
There are, of course, mondo tools for 'patching' your local fixes into open source products.
As Perens (I think) pointed out, if 10 companies get together and each donate an hours work to an Open Source project that they all use, they each get 9 free hours of development work done. Even if half of that work is on a feature you won't use, that's still 5 hours of productive development for free. That's why companies are willing to contribute to Open Source.
It's a model that's hard for a good capitalist manager to walk away from -- and as the numbers improve, so does the free-work ratio.
No problem -- just make it black, or green or blue, Bright pink might even do. Yellow would be legal, but hard to see.
The point is that the red cross is to be reserved for things that are sacrosanct under the Geneva Convention.
Personally, I think that proper use of the Red Cross in games should be encouraged, since it will train young soldiers-to-be that Red-Cross-On-White means "don't shoot" and "humanitarian aid" -- a lesson that they'll take into the battlefield.
If doing that, then they should also be similarly be trained to similarly recognize the Green Crescent.
On the other hand, having men with red-cross armbands acting as effective combatants (and thus legal targets) defeats the purpose.
To create a good conspiracy theory, you have to have something that's at least reasonably close to provable. From there you can bounce in almost any direction and, as long as there seems to be a logical stream, you've got the possibility of bamboozling at least some people.
Take for example Bush's 'proof' that Saddam was an Al-Quaida ally and making WMDs.
You had:
- Someone from al-Quaida once visited him (of course, so did Rumsfield -- but Rumsfield got a more friendly reception).
- He had been making WMDs (with US help).
- He was 'teasing' the weapons inspectors, and generally just annoying them and making their life difficult.
- Weapons inspectors couldn't say with absolute certainty that he wasn't building more WMD's (they were just reasonably sure).
- The 9/11 bombers were arab (mostly Saudi arab), and so was he.
- The fact that weapons inspectors couldn't find any proof was proof that he was hiding the proof that they couldn't find. -- and thus proof that Saddam was actually building WMDs (that's right: Lack of proof was proof of existence).
The first 3 points are actually facts -- They still had to be spun right, but you can start from there and build in whatever half-truths you want. The more competent you look, the more likely that you'll pull people into your conspiracy theroy.The guy that runs the crackpot science site has proof that Microsoft is secretly working on a Linux port.
:-)
The guy has a link to a 'humor' page on the navigation bar on the left. Personally, I think that his 'Nasty Little Truths' page is funnier than his humor page.
No they won't!
You really don't think like a conspiracy theorist, do you?Reconaissance is " An examination of a region as to its general natural features, preparatory to a more particular survey for the purposes of triangulation, or of determining the location of a public work." (The Collaborative International Dictionary of English / kdict).
Military reconaissance (what you're thinking of) is doing a similar thing in a military context. :-)
Obviously, you've spent too much time in the military, and not enough time in an engineering department.
{{ ... Oh, never mind.
Yes, I realize that James Henson isn't Jim Henson (at least, he's not "The" Jim Henson -- the grown man who played with dolls.
}}
Also: It kinda looks to me like he was fired more for his censorship (and creating a big flap about pushing creationism) than for the fact that he didn't have a degree. By the time The Times started calling abou this, he was already not answering calls.
The observation of comets was that they had very little ice on the surface, but a good deal of water was kicked up by the impact (thus, it was probably not more than a couple of metres below the surface).
from this CBC article it appears that finding any ice on the surface was actually a mild surprise for scientists. This NASA mission update also indicates a powdered iceball construction of the comet.
It starts as an observation. I don't know where you live, but I've also seen the result when snowmen and snow banks melt. It is as he described -- the surface basically distills down to the non-evaporative elements that were in the upper depth. For dirtier snow (e.g. snow tossed off of the road that was also sanded for traction) the distilled dirt insulates the remaining snow and keeps it from melting weeks past when the 'clean' snow is gone.
Those are actually data points that can be extrapolated to comets, which scientists have already extrapolated should look like dirty snowballs. The question then arises of how would a snowball last through millions of passes inside the earth's orbit -- which would get the surface pretty hot.
A metre's worth of insulation distilled from the previously melted outside mile or so of evaporated matter would easily explain this.
Of course, this leaves me wondering (if this theory is accurate) what Haley's Comet would have looked like earlier in it's life when it didn't have the isulation.
As for the dirt being souffle-like -- what do you expect? There's barely enough gravity to keep the comet together, and almost nothing to force the residual dust to compact. When it's warm, the sublimation of the ice underneath is going to push the dirt out. When it's cold, any residual vapor is going to freeze and cement the dirt in place.
Over the aeons, you're going to be left with a layer of dust that's incredibly lightly packed over a core of ice.
Ugh! There I go again.
I think that the best spin that NASA can put on this is that (like Brown) Bush has, once again, appointed an incompetent top administrator who is causing longtime employees to leave in disgust -- and possibly threatening another structural disaster.
This is costing them income and thus profit.
Them's fightin' words!