At Cisco, I've found that MacBook Pros are the new "hot" laptop for engineers (320 GB, Snow Leopard, 4 GB RAM, instant on/off, etc. versus dog-slow Lenovos with smaller disks, smaller RAM, etc.). And I'm seeing more and more iMacs on engineers' desks.
To be fair, a lot of those Macs have VMWare Fusion (for those things that absolutely require Windows), but I think the overall goal for the company is to get everything running on Cisco's own hardened version of Linux. It won't happen overnight, but the seeds have already been planted.
On the other hand, Cisco doesn't really bad-mouth Windows. It sees Microsoft as a strategic partner.
I live in a state that went Republican in 2000, and I realized afterward that if a thousand or so additional people voted for Gore, then the whole Florida recount issue would have been moot.
That is the example that I give to people nowadays that say, "I don't bother to vote. I mean, there are millions of people. My vote doesn't count."
If you don't vote, then you shouldn't complain when the you don't like the results of the election.
Do you see any Carpenter forums where they ask a silly question like, "Are vise grips dying? Channel-lock pliers are much more popular! And a recent poll found that torque wrenches are making a comeback!"
If you are a good programmer, you will simply choose from among the tools at your disposal and use the one that is best suited for the job. If you aren't very good with a particular tool and can make do with another, you will either have to learn to use the better tool or work harder with the less effective one. One of those will increase your knowledge for the future; the other will get the job done, but perhaps at a lower quality.
There is an old saying that "when all you have is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail." The same is true with programming languages. Each of them have their strengths and weaknesses. A craftsman will be able to identify the right tool for a given task and will be less likely to try to drive a spike into concrete with a screwdriver. Concentrate on being a craftsman or a software engineer or whatever the current term is, and stop worrying that C or C++ is no longer popular with the masses.
The article refers to forensic software that can track deletions and thought processes. That's speaking specifically about Outlook, which uses Word as its mail editor. Think of it; Word keeps track of all changes to a document (that's how "Track Changes" works). Even if you DON'T send it, the forensic software might spot a message you NEVER INTENDED to send.
The reality is that this cannot be avoided. If your company mandates Outlook, then the only way you can escape this "thought audit" is to compose ALL messages using an external text editor (NOTEPAD is simple enough!), then when you are ready to send it, CTRL-A, CTRL-C to copy it, then compose in Outlook and press CTRL-V.
Windows (and perhaps other systems) keeps track of too much of what you do. Outlook compose should not be tracking changes (except for an undo buffer) unless you tell it to do so.
I mean, the vast majority of people are flat out guilty and the settlement is giving them an out relatively cheaply.
Please cite the studies that show that this is indeed the case. I could look at the people that settled and make an assertion that is equally valid that the settlements were simply extortion fees paid by people that didn't have the money to pursue a legal case, and not necessarily an admission of guilt.
I have seen claims made by the RIAA in reports of cases that they have made that were simply untenable—that an IP address uniquely identifies an individual, that a person that sent a laptop to be repaired and had the hard drive replaced was intentionally destroying evidence, and that a computer screenshot that shows an IP address is conclusive proof that a person was sharing files (I can construct a screenshot that shows any IP address and make any claim I want by those rules of evidence).
What I have NOT seen is any evidence offered that sharing files in any way hurts the RIAA, its member companies, or even the artists, performers, or composers. How much do radio stations pay to play a single recording and make it available to millions of potential listeners? And how much per song is the RIAA demanding for people that they claim are sharing files? How long will the courts allow the RIAA and its companies to claim damages anywhere near the amounts they are currently claiming? If the damages they claim are intentionally misleading, then isn't this perjury?
The RIAA can make up any "facts" it wants to support their cases and then pull damage amounts from their asses and present them to the courts with a straight face. This is simply ridiculous, and it is my earnest hope that they finally get called on it and be made to pay the piper.
Where are the authoritative SHA1 values?
on
Fedora 8 Released
·
· Score: 1
OK. I downloaded the torrent. I can see two ISOs and an SHA1 file. I am not one to immediately trust an SHA1 that was part of the file I just downloaded. I'd rather calculate the SHA1 values and compare them to values stored on the FedoraProject site.
A google search for SHA1 on fedoraproject.com failed to find a single hit.
How do I verify that what I just downloaded is, in fact, really Fedora 8, and not a simple boot-loader with code to write random numbers to all sectors to all my attached hard disks?
The problem with scholarship nowadays isn't the availability of hi-tech gizmos like iPod or cell phones. After all, those are just tools. It's what they are doing with them.
I think Meredith Wilson put it nicely...
Friends, lemme tell you what I mean. Ya got one, two, three, four, five, six pockets in a table. Pockets that mark the diff'rence Between a gentlemen and a bum, With a capital "B," And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!
Not an option. The iBook is PowerPC architecture, so the only way to run "Windows" is through Virtual PC, which would have had a speed cost.
What we ended up doing is setting up a Linux system, and it runs the same things that she can run on the iBook (well, the better looking apps run on the Mac). Running Firefox on OS X and Linux makes it easy for her to download stuff on Kubuntu and then switch to Win2K to do whatever HAS to be done on Windows.
As I said, she managed quite nicely. There was a bit of a learning effort, but aside from that, she's happy--and isn't that the important thing?
When my daughter wanted a system for college, I convinced her to get an iBook. "But that won't run Office!" she protested.
"Yes, it will," I answered, and purchased Office 2004 for her.
"But how about these other things I use all the time?"
I threw her a bonus: I configured a nice Kubuntu Linux system with all the apps that a student would need, including OpenOffice.org, Gimp, Evolution, Firefox, etc.
Then I threw her a second bonus: On the Kubuntu system, I installed VMWare, and installed Windows 2000 to run on it. Win2000 doesn't use as many resources as XP, but apps written for XP run fine on it. In addition, as the OP mentions, the license can transfer.
What about viruses? Well, I did not configure the virtual network interface for W2000. Anything she needs to run on Win2000 has to be downloaded first onto Kubuntu, and then through a shared drive, installed onto the Win2000 process. Viruses just have no vector to get into Win2000, except from trojans.
Now, this isn't the perfect situation, and there are some apps that just won't work for her (Internet Exploiter, her previously-favorite IM client, etc.). However, for those things that she just HAS to run on Windows for her schoolwork, she can run the programs at nearly full speed with just a little hassle. Over the last few months, she figured out how to streamline the process of getting files to/from Win2000, but she also figured out how to make do with the OS X applications, and to a lesser extent, the Kubuntu native applications as well. Since Firefox and a lot of the applications she runs on Kubuntu also run on the iBook, she has an easier time with Kubuntu coming back from the iBook.
Windows 2000 is now a distant third for her, and she is considering "retiring" that system after the next semester if she can get through the next semester without needing Win2000. (Probably won't happen, but back in September, that wasn't even being considered!)
She's happy, and if she just HAS to run something on Windows, she has the ability to do so.
She managed a 3.9 GPA this semester, so this setup didn't hurt her.
As mentioned in another article, shell scripts are usually the best. I'll look at Time Machine when it comes out, but the very fact that it's OS X-specific would relegate it to a curiosity for me.
OS X provides "rsync," which is one of the best tools for the job, and it works on most (all?) Unix-based platforms as well as Windows (using Cygwin). With rsync, you should definitely look into the following options:
--exclude (exclude file name patterns from being backed up. You don't really nead your web cache or other temporary files backed up)
--backup and --backup-dir=dirname Allows rsync to do incremental backups. Use a different "dirname" every day, like "Volumes/USB Drive/Incremental/2006/12/16" (for those files that were modified on 16-Dec-2006). This way, you can have backups of works in progress... I can't tell you how many times these incrementals came in handy! You should also have a periodic process prune the incrementals, as they start to add up.
The nice thing is that rsync can work over a network, which means that you can have it transfer your data to a separate machine. Thus, it's possible to have off-site backup in case of disaster.
As far as other utilities are concerned, they probably work, and might be more suitable for you, since "rsync" is definitely command-line oriented (and scriptable).
Good luck, and here's an "atta boy!" for even thinking about backup solutions... most people don't until it's too late!
Well, how about "sexual congress," a legitimate description of a sexual act? (As Allan Sherman once said about such phrases, "nine months after a couple engages in 'sexual union,' does the woman go into 'organized labor?'")
All kidding aside, how about legimate uses for such words in sexual sites. I remember a pair of models called the Barbie Twins about 5-10 years ago. Would webmasters not be allowed to use that just because Barbie is a toy? How about a Chippendales dancer in rip-off fatigues who markets himself as G.I. Joe?
I think if a web site uses LEGITIMATE keywords, including those of toy names, AND uses the voluntary web filtering keywords, they have a case that they are giving the people the ability to screen.
A more basic problem, one I think they were trying to solve, is the problem of misleading keywords. Why should I get a useless link farm page with ad banners when I am doing research on something completely unrelated just because the person that put up the page wants more banner downloads?
Of course, if you outlaw misleading keywords, people will work around the rules to achieve the same end goals.
The only thing this legislation does is give politicians a way of saying "Look! I'm being proactive about this!" (when they are being stupidly reactive in truth... isn't that misleading as well? Can we outlaw misleading political statements???)
Here's a suggestion. Scan a dozen items, and then walk away, throwing up your hands in frustration, saying "I can't believe this store wants me to do their job for them!"
Don't pay, don't try to take your "purchases" with you. If a manager sees you do this, tell them flat out that their "self checkout" sucks, and you will not waste another second in this store that has no concept of "customer service" and that you are taking your business elsewhere.
You have every right to decide at the last minute that you don't want to make the sale.
You now have a self-checkout lane that is effectively blocked until a real live human clears out the items from the machine and from the computer tally. That human will probably also have to restock the items, although those items may simply go into a queue area for people whose job is to restock. Either way, it allows you to vent your frustration and make a point. AND... since a real employee has to get involved, it makes the machine slightly less able to become a cost saver.
Heck, have a group of friends "slam" all the self-checkouts this way as a form of organized protest. Include people from a variety of backgrounds, ages, etc. Do it a few times to a store before the management refuses to let you enter the store, and then go on to the next store. Or... do it to a bunch of stores, round-robin, returning to a store a week and a half later when some other manager is on duty. Lather... rinse... repeat. If possible, tell the local news station what you are doing, and see if you can get other people similarly frustrated to join your cause. (The more people doing this, the better!)
It's called "customer feedback."
"This is Carlotta Dryspeckle from WUTM at the local FoodMart, where Ms. Emmageek is staging an unusual protest against the dehumanizing and staff-reducing 'self checkout' system that the FoodMart has recently installed. She and her friends are engaging in what they describe as a harmless demonstration of their dissatisfaction with the system and what the installation of this system says about the FoodMart's view of their customers."
"Hi, Carlotta. We're staging this protest here, and a few of my friends will be going to the HomeGoods Warehouse to do the same thing there next week."
"I'm now speaking to Mr. Mertz, the manager on duty here at FoodMart. Tell me, Mr. Mertz, what is your reaction to this groups' protest?"
"This is a protest? That's incredible. I know we lose a few customers who get frustrated with the machines, but I never figured that anybody might do something like this..."
(Meanwhile, Ms. Emmageek and her friends are singing _Kumbaya_ or _We Shall Not Be Moved_ in the background...)
AOL wants to be considered a "common carrier." In other words, they are not responsible for what you get when you surf the internet. If you type in an address in your browser and see nudity, then caveat emptor! AOL isn't responsible... they're just passing along your request and sending you back your results. They can't be sued for what you see on the Internet.
When AOL decides to censor parts of the internet, then should then be held liable. EMail is just another service that they provide. It's not the Internet, but simply a protocol. If AOL says they give you an email account, then this should imply that they are following the relevant protocols and RFCs regarding email and delivery. They do not say anywhere that they are censoring things.
If AOL doesn't follow the protocols, then they can be seen to be censoring. When that censorship is broken (they don't censor enough, or they censor too much), then they should be held liable.
AOL refuses to send any email that my system sends to any of their customers. It simply bounces the message. About half the time, they don't even send a bounce message back. This violates the protocol. And it's censorship.
My system is listed in DNS as the MX for my domain. I also added SPF and other related "guarantee" records to my domain. Still, AOL refuses to deliver any email that my mail server sends--it censors them outright. If I send the same message, but instead of sending it directly to AOL, I send it through my ISP's mail server, AOL will deliver it. Why? "Your system might be compromised."
MIGHT??? It's a bleeding mail server with MX records and SPF and all that other stuff! Why not tag it as potential junk mail and let the recipient decide? What you are doing is simply censorship!
"Too complicated."
"But you are violating the protocols!"
No answer. They're AOL. They don't care. They don't have to.
So, I make an exception. There are too many AOL customers and AOL's obstinate stance in this gave me no choice. Route any email to AOL through my ISP. I hate it... it adds one more party to the equation... one more party that might drop the message, might decide to eavesdrop on my message, might decide to consider its own rules for what is acceptable to deliver on their behalf. But I do it. I hold my nose and put in that exception.
Whoops! cs.com is giving me the same error. Well, they're owned by AOL. Add it to the list. Then nls.net... ameritech.net... comcast.net... juno.com...
WTF?
Since AOL does it, everybody has jumped in on this bandwagon. "Censorship is fun! You're a spammer, plain and simple. We can't back it up, but you might be one, and we can't take the risk of delivering your email."
What risk? I'm not a spammer! I'm sending a single message to just one of your customers. How is this SPAM? Look at the content! It's a reminder that there's a band practice at 8pm. How is that SPAM?
No answer. They are ISPs. They don't care. They don't have to.
Now, AOL decides that this isn't good enough. "Pay this person $2,000 and he'll tell us that you aren't spamming. We'll give your message a blue ribbon!"
How isn't this extortion? I'm not a big corporation with lots of greenbacks to hand out. I just want to send a reminder to Bobbie Sue! You are saying you won't censor my email if I pay somebody. Does the term "RICO" mean anything to you?
No answer. This is AOL. They don't care. They don't have to.
The post office has been around for many years. They have delivered many messages to many people. Some messages have been fraudulent. Some have been used in the commision of a crime. I have yet to see them decide simply looking at the return address of an envelope that a letter isn't worth delivering. (Those letter carriers that do this themselves "as a service to their customers" are usually terminated when their activities are discovered.)
If AOL and the other ISPs want to be considered common carriers and not responsible for all the content of the internet, then fine.
Use iTerm on OS X (freeware), and set it up so that you have a session called "local root." The session can be "sudo bash -login" to get a login shell (pasword required) with root privilege. The session should also have a distinct color (black foreground, yellow background works) so you know you're using a priviledged session.
Then... only use this session for those times when you really need to run a series of commands with root priviledge. Don't keep this session open, or you'll be tempted to use it all the time. After you finish typing your commands, exit the session.
Use "sudo" for one-time escalation commands in your normal shell.
"We're flying in a Lockheed Series L1011. It came off the line 20 months ago. It carries a Sim-5 transponder tracking system. Are you telling me I can flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?"
Apple did this as well. With OS X 10.4, iChat got the capability to do more advanced conferencing. The limitation was that you need a G5 processor to be able to host this facility.
Now, the reason for this is that the G5 is more capable of providing the service. However, it can also be argued that the G5 systems bring more money to Apple, who sells the hardware... so, in order to host this nifty new feature, you need to fork out money to Apple.
Now, this bit of distrust has not been given to Apple. I wonder how much Intel really deserves this right now. Does this deal truly elminiate AMD from participating in 10-way conferences, or is a Skype-AMD deal in the works, and since it's not finalized, people might be jumping to the wrong conclusions?
The police ususally don't have the ability to force you to do things like open the trunk of your car. However, they may ask, and they can even lie to you ("I heard something moving in that trunk!") in order to get you to voluntarily comply with their request.
One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do have contraband in your car and a police officer demands to search it without a warrant, to simply get out of your vehicle, lock all the doors, and close your door after putting your car keys into the car as well. Since everything in the car is locked and you cannot get into it, you have removed any occasion that the police officer may think there is reasonable danger present to the officer in that he/she must break into your vehicle (higher standard of proof required).
However, there ARE people that need less burden of proof. For instance, said police officer may simply radio the Fish and Game wardens that they suspect you have violated state hunting/fishing laws. These people have the right to actually use a crowbar and force your vehicle open without a warrant. Of course, they won't find any illegal game/fish in your vehicle, but now that the car is opened and subject to search, those other things in your car can be considered fair game. (Pun not intended.)
A good lawyer (or perhaps even the public defender) can probably have the evidence dismissed against you, but it's pretty shaky ground you'll be standing on. Judges don't like denying evidence against people that are clearly guilty (despite what you see on crime shows nowadays).
Now, I'm not advocating people feel free to transport drugs or automatic weapons. Actually, I'm advocating that people don't transport illegal things in their vehicles! It's simply stupid to be lulled into a false sense of security because you THINK the police will be unable to search your car without a warrant.
How do you use your iPod as a drive w/out iTunes? I haven't been able to make it work with a Nano? any insight would be helpful.
Take your Nano's USB connector, plug one end into the Nano, and the other end into your computer's USB 2.0 port. The Nano's screen should go to the "Don't Remove" screen, and your O/S should have the drive show up wherever drives show up when they are hotplugged (My Computer on Windows, Desktop on OS X,/media directory on Linux).
That's all you have to do. No additional software is necessary for most platforms out there. Windows XP, Windows 2000, Mac OS X 10.x, Linux... works like a charm without any fus for all the mainstream O/S's that I've tried it on for my own Nano. Probably works on Vista, too, but I try to keep my Nano away from unstable platforms at my house.
Slashdot Mirror
At Cisco, I've found that MacBook Pros are the new "hot" laptop for engineers (320 GB, Snow Leopard, 4 GB RAM, instant on/off, etc. versus dog-slow Lenovos with smaller disks, smaller RAM, etc.). And I'm seeing more and more iMacs on engineers' desks.
To be fair, a lot of those Macs have VMWare Fusion (for those things that absolutely require Windows), but I think the overall goal for the company is to get everything running on Cisco's own hardened version of Linux. It won't happen overnight, but the seeds have already been planted.
On the other hand, Cisco doesn't really bad-mouth Windows. It sees Microsoft as a strategic partner.
I live in a state that went Republican in 2000, and I realized afterward that if a thousand or so additional people voted for Gore, then the whole Florida recount issue would have been moot.
That is the example that I give to people nowadays that say, "I don't bother to vote. I mean, there are millions of people. My vote doesn't count."
If you don't vote, then you shouldn't complain when the you don't like the results of the election.
Actually, this is a stupid question.
Do you see any Carpenter forums where they ask a silly question like, "Are vise grips dying? Channel-lock pliers are much more popular! And a recent poll found that torque wrenches are making a comeback!"
If you are a good programmer, you will simply choose from among the tools at your disposal and use the one that is best suited for the job. If you aren't very good with a particular tool and can make do with another, you will either have to learn to use the better tool or work harder with the less effective one. One of those will increase your knowledge for the future; the other will get the job done, but perhaps at a lower quality.
There is an old saying that "when all you have is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail." The same is true with programming languages. Each of them have their strengths and weaknesses. A craftsman will be able to identify the right tool for a given task and will be less likely to try to drive a spike into concrete with a screwdriver. Concentrate on being a craftsman or a software engineer or whatever the current term is, and stop worrying that C or C++ is no longer popular with the masses.
Um...
After doing the long way, I came up with -1.
No problem.
It gets worse than that.
The article refers to forensic software that can track deletions and thought processes. That's speaking specifically about Outlook, which uses Word as its mail editor. Think of it; Word keeps track of all changes to a document (that's how "Track Changes" works). Even if you DON'T send it, the forensic software might spot a message you NEVER INTENDED to send.
The reality is that this cannot be avoided. If your company mandates Outlook, then the only way you can escape this "thought audit" is to compose ALL messages using an external text editor (NOTEPAD is simple enough!), then when you are ready to send it, CTRL-A, CTRL-C to copy it, then compose in Outlook and press CTRL-V.
Windows (and perhaps other systems) keeps track of too much of what you do. Outlook compose should not be tracking changes (except for an undo buffer) unless you tell it to do so.
Oh... and use your work machine for work. Period.
Please cite the studies that show that this is indeed the case. I could look at the people that settled and make an assertion that is equally valid that the settlements were simply extortion fees paid by people that didn't have the money to pursue a legal case, and not necessarily an admission of guilt.
I have seen claims made by the RIAA in reports of cases that they have made that were simply untenable—that an IP address uniquely identifies an individual, that a person that sent a laptop to be repaired and had the hard drive replaced was intentionally destroying evidence, and that a computer screenshot that shows an IP address is conclusive proof that a person was sharing files (I can construct a screenshot that shows any IP address and make any claim I want by those rules of evidence).
What I have NOT seen is any evidence offered that sharing files in any way hurts the RIAA, its member companies, or even the artists, performers, or composers. How much do radio stations pay to play a single recording and make it available to millions of potential listeners? And how much per song is the RIAA demanding for people that they claim are sharing files? How long will the courts allow the RIAA and its companies to claim damages anywhere near the amounts they are currently claiming? If the damages they claim are intentionally misleading, then isn't this perjury?
The RIAA can make up any "facts" it wants to support their cases and then pull damage amounts from their asses and present them to the courts with a straight face. This is simply ridiculous, and it is my earnest hope that they finally get called on it and be made to pay the piper.
OK. I downloaded the torrent. I can see two ISOs and an SHA1 file. I am not one to immediately trust an SHA1 that was part of the file I just downloaded. I'd rather calculate the SHA1 values and compare them to values stored on the FedoraProject site.
A google search for SHA1 on fedoraproject.com failed to find a single hit.
How do I verify that what I just downloaded is, in fact, really Fedora 8, and not a simple boot-loader with code to write random numbers to all sectors to all my attached hard disks?
I think Meredith Wilson put it nicely...
It's a floor wax that is ALSO a dessert topping!
Why do I have the feeling that this study was funded by the Ira Howard foundation?
Not an option. The iBook is PowerPC architecture, so the only way to run "Windows" is through Virtual PC, which would have had a speed cost.
What we ended up doing is setting up a Linux system, and it runs the same things that she can run on the iBook (well, the better looking apps run on the Mac). Running Firefox on OS X and Linux makes it easy for her to download stuff on Kubuntu and then switch to Win2K to do whatever HAS to be done on Windows.
As I said, she managed quite nicely. There was a bit of a learning effort, but aside from that, she's happy--and isn't that the important thing?
When my daughter wanted a system for college, I convinced her to get an iBook. "But that won't run Office!" she protested.
"Yes, it will," I answered, and purchased Office 2004 for her.
"But how about these other things I use all the time?"
I threw her a bonus: I configured a nice Kubuntu Linux system with all the apps that a student would need, including OpenOffice.org, Gimp, Evolution, Firefox, etc.
Then I threw her a second bonus: On the Kubuntu system, I installed VMWare, and installed Windows 2000 to run on it. Win2000 doesn't use as many resources as XP, but apps written for XP run fine on it. In addition, as the OP mentions, the license can transfer.
What about viruses? Well, I did not configure the virtual network interface for W2000. Anything she needs to run on Win2000 has to be downloaded first onto Kubuntu, and then through a shared drive, installed onto the Win2000 process. Viruses just have no vector to get into Win2000, except from trojans.
Now, this isn't the perfect situation, and there are some apps that just won't work for her (Internet Exploiter, her previously-favorite IM client, etc.). However, for those things that she just HAS to run on Windows for her schoolwork, she can run the programs at nearly full speed with just a little hassle. Over the last few months, she figured out how to streamline the process of getting files to/from Win2000, but she also figured out how to make do with the OS X applications, and to a lesser extent, the Kubuntu native applications as well. Since Firefox and a lot of the applications she runs on Kubuntu also run on the iBook, she has an easier time with Kubuntu coming back from the iBook.
Windows 2000 is now a distant third for her, and she is considering "retiring" that system after the next semester if she can get through the next semester without needing Win2000. (Probably won't happen, but back in September, that wasn't even being considered!)
She's happy, and if she just HAS to run something on Windows, she has the ability to do so.
She managed a 3.9 GPA this semester, so this setup didn't hurt her.
As mentioned in another article, shell scripts are usually the best. I'll look at Time Machine when it comes out, but the very fact that it's OS X-specific would relegate it to a curiosity for me.
OS X provides "rsync," which is one of the best tools for the job, and it works on most (all?) Unix-based platforms as well as Windows (using Cygwin). With rsync, you should definitely look into the following options:
--exclude (exclude file name patterns from being backed up. You don't really nead your web cache or other temporary files backed up)
--backup and --backup-dir=dirname Allows rsync to do incremental backups. Use a different "dirname" every day, like "Volumes/USB Drive/Incremental/2006/12/16" (for those files that were modified on 16-Dec-2006). This way, you can have backups of works in progress... I can't tell you how many times these incrementals came in handy! You should also have a periodic process prune the incrementals, as they start to add up.
The nice thing is that rsync can work over a network, which means that you can have it transfer your data to a separate machine. Thus, it's possible to have off-site backup in case of disaster.
As far as other utilities are concerned, they probably work, and might be more suitable for you, since "rsync" is definitely command-line oriented (and scriptable).
Good luck, and here's an "atta boy!" for even thinking about backup solutions... most people don't until it's too late!
Well, how about "sexual congress," a legitimate description of a sexual act? (As Allan Sherman once said about such phrases, "nine months after a couple engages in 'sexual union,' does the woman go into 'organized labor?'")
All kidding aside, how about legimate uses for such words in sexual sites. I remember a pair of models called the Barbie Twins about 5-10 years ago. Would webmasters not be allowed to use that just because Barbie is a toy? How about a Chippendales dancer in rip-off fatigues who markets himself as G.I. Joe?
I think if a web site uses LEGITIMATE keywords, including those of toy names, AND uses the voluntary web filtering keywords, they have a case that they are giving the people the ability to screen.
A more basic problem, one I think they were trying to solve, is the problem of misleading keywords. Why should I get a useless link farm page with ad banners when I am doing research on something completely unrelated just because the person that put up the page wants more banner downloads?
Of course, if you outlaw misleading keywords, people will work around the rules to achieve the same end goals.
The only thing this legislation does is give politicians a way of saying "Look! I'm being proactive about this!" (when they are being stupidly reactive in truth... isn't that misleading as well? Can we outlaw misleading political statements???)
Don't pay, don't try to take your "purchases" with you. If a manager sees you do this, tell them flat out that their "self checkout" sucks, and you will not waste another second in this store that has no concept of "customer service" and that you are taking your business elsewhere.
You have every right to decide at the last minute that you don't want to make the sale.
You now have a self-checkout lane that is effectively blocked until a real live human clears out the items from the machine and from the computer tally. That human will probably also have to restock the items, although those items may simply go into a queue area for people whose job is to restock. Either way, it allows you to vent your frustration and make a point. AND... since a real employee has to get involved, it makes the machine slightly less able to become a cost saver.
Heck, have a group of friends "slam" all the self-checkouts this way as a form of organized protest. Include people from a variety of backgrounds, ages, etc. Do it a few times to a store before the management refuses to let you enter the store, and then go on to the next store. Or... do it to a bunch of stores, round-robin, returning to a store a week and a half later when some other manager is on duty. Lather... rinse... repeat. If possible, tell the local news station what you are doing, and see if you can get other people similarly frustrated to join your cause. (The more people doing this, the better!)
It's called "customer feedback."
So, what will Vista be? NT 5.1.0.1?
AOL wants to be considered a "common carrier." In other words, they are not responsible for what you get when you surf the internet. If you type in an address in your browser and see nudity, then caveat emptor! AOL isn't responsible... they're just passing along your request and sending you back your results. They can't be sued for what you see on the Internet.
When AOL decides to censor parts of the internet, then should then be held liable. EMail is just another service that they provide. It's not the Internet, but simply a protocol. If AOL says they give you an email account, then this should imply that they are following the relevant protocols and RFCs regarding email and delivery. They do not say anywhere that they are censoring things.
If AOL doesn't follow the protocols, then they can be seen to be censoring. When that censorship is broken (they don't censor enough, or they censor too much), then they should be held liable.
AOL refuses to send any email that my system sends to any of their customers. It simply bounces the message. About half the time, they don't even send a bounce message back. This violates the protocol. And it's censorship.
My system is listed in DNS as the MX for my domain. I also added SPF and other related "guarantee" records to my domain. Still, AOL refuses to deliver any email that my mail server sends--it censors them outright. If I send the same message, but instead of sending it directly to AOL, I send it through my ISP's mail server, AOL will deliver it. Why? "Your system might be compromised."
MIGHT??? It's a bleeding mail server with MX records and SPF and all that other stuff! Why not tag it as potential junk mail and let the recipient decide? What you are doing is simply censorship!
"Too complicated."
"But you are violating the protocols!"
No answer. They're AOL. They don't care. They don't have to.
So, I make an exception. There are too many AOL customers and AOL's obstinate stance in this gave me no choice. Route any email to AOL through my ISP. I hate it... it adds one more party to the equation... one more party that might drop the message, might decide to eavesdrop on my message, might decide to consider its own rules for what is acceptable to deliver on their behalf. But I do it. I hold my nose and put in that exception.
Whoops! cs.com is giving me the same error. Well, they're owned by AOL. Add it to the list. Then nls.net... ameritech.net... comcast.net... juno.com...
WTF?
Since AOL does it, everybody has jumped in on this bandwagon. "Censorship is fun! You're a spammer, plain and simple. We can't back it up, but you might be one, and we can't take the risk of delivering your email."
What risk? I'm not a spammer! I'm sending a single message to just one of your customers. How is this SPAM? Look at the content! It's a reminder that there's a band practice at 8pm. How is that SPAM?
No answer. They are ISPs. They don't care. They don't have to.
Now, AOL decides that this isn't good enough. "Pay this person $2,000 and he'll tell us that you aren't spamming. We'll give your message a blue ribbon!"
How isn't this extortion? I'm not a big corporation with lots of greenbacks to hand out. I just want to send a reminder to Bobbie Sue! You are saying you won't censor my email if I pay somebody. Does the term "RICO" mean anything to you?
No answer. This is AOL. They don't care. They don't have to.
The post office has been around for many years. They have delivered many messages to many people. Some messages have been fraudulent. Some have been used in the commision of a crime. I have yet to see them decide simply looking at the return address of an envelope that a letter isn't worth delivering. (Those letter carriers that do this themselves "as a service to their customers" are usually terminated when their activities are discovered.)
If AOL and the other ISPs want to be considered common carriers and not responsible for all the content of the internet, then fine.
STOP CENSORING OUR EMAIL!
Use iTerm on OS X (freeware), and set it up so that you have a session called "local root." The session can be "sudo bash -login" to get a login shell (pasword required) with root privilege. The session should also have a distinct color (black foreground, yellow background works) so you know you're using a priviledged session.
Then... only use this session for those times when you really need to run a series of commands with root priviledge. Don't keep this session open, or you'll be tempted to use it all the time. After you finish typing your commands, exit the session.
Use "sudo" for one-time escalation commands in your normal shell.
(Quoting from memory)
Toby Ziegler, to Flight Attendant:
"We're flying in a Lockheed Series L1011. It came off the line 20 months ago. It carries a Sim-5 transponder tracking system. Are you telling me I can flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?"
'Nuff Said
Apple did this as well. With OS X 10.4, iChat got the capability to do more advanced conferencing. The limitation was that you need a G5 processor to be able to host this facility.
Now, the reason for this is that the G5 is more capable of providing the service. However, it can also be argued that the G5 systems bring more money to Apple, who sells the hardware... so, in order to host this nifty new feature, you need to fork out money to Apple.
Now, this bit of distrust has not been given to Apple. I wonder how much Intel really deserves this right now. Does this deal truly elminiate AMD from participating in 10-way conferences, or is a Skype-AMD deal in the works, and since it's not finalized, people might be jumping to the wrong conclusions?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of...
Oh, never mind.
The police ususally don't have the ability to force you to do things
like open the trunk of your car. However, they may ask, and they can
even lie to you ("I heard something moving in that trunk!") in order
to get you to voluntarily comply with their request.
One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do
have contraband in your car and a police officer demands to search it
without a warrant, to simply get out of your vehicle, lock all the
doors, and close your door after putting your car keys into the car as
well. Since everything in the car is locked and you cannot get into
it, you have removed any occasion that the police officer may think
there is reasonable danger present to the officer in that he/she must
break into your vehicle (higher standard of proof required).
However, there ARE people that need less burden of proof. For
instance, said police officer may simply radio the Fish and Game
wardens that they suspect you have violated state hunting/fishing
laws. These people have the right to actually use a crowbar and force
your vehicle open without a warrant. Of course, they won't find any
illegal game/fish in your vehicle, but now that the car is opened and
subject to search, those other things in your car can be considered
fair game. (Pun not intended.)
A good lawyer (or perhaps even the public defender) can probably have
the evidence dismissed against you, but it's pretty shaky ground
you'll be standing on. Judges don't like denying evidence against
people that are clearly guilty (despite what you see on crime shows
nowadays).
Now, I'm not advocating people feel free to transport drugs or
automatic weapons. Actually, I'm advocating that people don't
transport illegal things in their vehicles! It's simply stupid to be
lulled into a false sense of security because you THINK the police
will be unable to search your car without a warrant.
I guess the new slogan at Microsoft is "If at first you don't succeed, redefine success."
Let's see... We forecast forty million dollars of sales, so we've lost twenty million because of illegal pirating!
The RIAA's "evidence" has always been that sales haven't hit expectations, even if the actual sales are larger than they ever were.
How do you use your iPod as a drive w/out iTunes? I haven't been able to make it work with a Nano? any insight would be helpful.
/media directory on Linux).
Take your Nano's USB connector, plug one end into the Nano, and the other end into your computer's USB 2.0 port. The Nano's screen should go to the "Don't Remove" screen, and your O/S should have the drive show up wherever drives show up when they are hotplugged (My Computer on Windows, Desktop on OS X,
That's all you have to do. No additional software is necessary for most platforms out there. Windows XP, Windows 2000, Mac OS X 10.x, Linux... works like a charm without any fus for all the mainstream O/S's that I've tried it on for my own Nano. Probably works on Vista, too, but I try to keep my Nano away from unstable platforms at my house.