NAT or no NAT - any protocol which requires connections be accepted on varying port numbers is going to cause problems. Examples - SIP, BT, most IM protocols for file send.
Best is if there's a netfilter module for the protocol; it can watch the traffic and open up holes dynamically for related connections.
how do you manage server security on a tight budget with literally no system admin (except for me and I know I'm a n00b)?
You do the best you can. Sheesh. Learn about the system and how to secure it. It's not slashdot's problem you're under-funded and under-resourced.
There's a triangular spectrum. Corner 1 is how much you're willing to pay. Corner 2 is how much you're willing to learn and do by yourself. Corner 3 is your probability of getting r00ted. If you don't want to spend any money on sysadmin and you don't want to spend any time to secure your system, then expect to get r00ted sometime.
Further to the above, evolution is a fact. We observe evolution occurring through fossils, genetics, biological research and other areas. The amount of evidence is huge.
The Theory of Evolution is our explanation to account for these observations, including natural selection, genetic mutations and other factors. The explanation fits the evidence very well.
You say I haven't a clue and then you agree with everything I said and I agree with everything else you said. What the hell?
Let me try to put it in simpler words that you can understand.
The BBC did great work in 1984 to get those images, video, text and etc onto a system which they could sell to consumers. But they stuffed up by thinking that it was a "do once" project and not realising that 20+ years later, people would still want to see/use this thing.
For longevity it is necessary to migrate to new technology over time. This is particularly important for the BBC since they invented the technology they used - as JPEGs and HTML and so on became popular the BBC should have progressively converted to newer formats.
And the main point of my post - that we're dealing with a mostly human problem - is explaining that BBC should have obtained enough copyrights to reuse and reissue the images/video/etc later. Copyright law wasn't that much different in 1986 to today (certainly shorter durations). And BBC didn't preserve their originals very well as you said. Those are human problems, not a failure of technology.
I doubt that your average salary code monkey could redevelop the Linux kernel no matter how many bodies were thrown at the problem. We'd end up with Windows.
The UK fouled up by inventing new proprietary storage formats which needed custom hardware and software to read and process the data. The laserdisc needed a special laserdisc player and a BBC Micro. The BBC who produced this were years ahead of their time and had to invent a lot of stuff. Unfortunately the rest of the world invented a lot of different stuff, which is what we use today.
And how many of these systems were produced? I don't know, but they cost 4000 pounds each which is a significant investment for a school and certainly the high price reduced the number of items which were sent into the community.
Even though we have extracted the data from the original formats (and also obtained improved images by re-mastering original video footage) it seems that one of the main impediments to putting this data online is copyright - the contents of the 1986 project won't be out of copyright until 2090!
The above two points come together with "keep converting to new formats". If your stuff is all proprietary, it may be hard to convert to new formats. If your stuff is copyrighted, you may be able to convert it but you can't distribute it, and widespread distribution is one of the requirements of effective data preservation.
The data which was produced in 1986 wasn't lost and won't be lost. People are working with it and upgrading it. However, you won't be able to see it, primarily due to the shortsightedness of the original project.
So loss of digital data is not so much a technical problem, more a social problem, of shortsightedness in creation, distribution and copyright.
Kinda like the BBC's lost videotapes of Monty Python (or was it Dr Who?)... priceless recordings were allowed to degrade and become unusable, were thrown away, or were overwritten ("media re-used"). I don't mean to point the finger only at the BBC - NASA did it too. Lack of foresight, folks.
Evolution is not a religion. You can study the scientific basis behind it to whatever level of detail you need to feel comfortable.
There's extensive evidence in different categories (e.g. DNA, fossil, observational) and enough in each category to independently prove that evolution occurs, if we didn't have the other two.
Karl Popper also went on to say, in the same paper, "And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection." I don't agree with his characterisation as metaphysical. It seems Karl Popper had a lot of bizarre theories and the metaphysical nature of Darwinism looks like one of them.
Karl Popper also said "The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism."
I find it bizarre that you quote Karl Popper in your argument that evolution is false, and yet Karl Popper clearly accepted that evolution occurs.
I think it's a serious lack of intellectual capacity. I watch creationist videos and so frequently I am reminded of Forrest Gump saying "I'm not a smart man, but..."
That's not all Christians or all the time, but their brains definitely seem to turn off when scientific facts, theories or methods start to conflict with their sky-daddy beliefs.
It might be related to the phenomenon noticed in a recent study of responses to political articles: people tended to pay more attention to statements which complied with their preconceived political worldview (e.g. republicans, democrats) and and ignore statements in the same article which conflicted with their established position. Basically republicans would take in more pro-republican information, and democrats the opposite, even within the same article.
I think the religious belief must be something like that, and that's why the same old discredited arguments are rolled out time and time again. Their brains stop at the "jesus loves me and flowers" level and so they get stuck at ridiculous beliefs about evolution such as "evolutionists say we came from rocks" or "we never saw one kind of thing turn into another kind".
Learning about biology is hard. Science is hard. You have to read papers with big words in them. But it's not impossibly hard. There are plenty of books which explain the evidence and results of science to the lay person. These books present the conclusion (e.g. that evolution happens and this is why and how) without the justification, but the justification exists for anybody who takes the time and effort to understand the details.
It seems to me that Christians rarely do. So they see a book which said "evolution happened" and they see their church or creationist websites saying "we never saw evolution between kinds" and think that these statements are equivalent. Wrong. One is backed by masses of complicated science, one is just somebody's opinion.
The long day theory is just another attempt to rationalise biblical nonsense into something which vaguely fits the observed facts - if one isn't too clear on what those facts are.
For example, look at this:
"Evolution took place, but it was likely guided by God. This is an idea known as theistic evolution. Living species lived and died over the course of many millions of years. Then man was created. Man was created from the soil as the scripture says. Other animals may have evolved from prior species that God created, but man was created directly. While plants and animals have lived on Earth for a long time in this theory, we can still assume that the length of time that man has lived on this earth is roughly 6000 years."
Guided evolution - there's no evidence that any deity is controlling the process of evolution. We know the mechanisms underlying evolution, and there are several of them which are sufficient to explain the variety of life, and none of them involve a god.
Man created independently - DNA analysis overwhelmingly refutes this. We are primates; our ancestors were primates; so are chimps and their ancestors. People say "I couldn't have evolved from a smelly, dirty ape!" but it's just pride and prejudice talking. Humans are primates, humans are animals, we evolved along with every other lifeform on this planet - deal with it.
Mankind only 6000 years old - A pathetic attempt to justify belief in biblical inerrancy with absolutely no relationship to any facts yet observed. Fossil evidence of human ancestors and closely related species dated way more than 6000 years ago: Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis.
Sorry, but your bible is wrong. Understanding the fact that evolution is occurring and the underlying processes documented in the Theory of Evolution doesn't preclude belief in some deity which created the universe and then immediately left it alone, but it does utterly destroy any credibility for the Christian creationist myth.
The problem is that selling two hundred books for $2 does not provide an adequate income for the
publisher. Even if the manufacturing cost was only $1, and the publisher is nominally making 100%
profit, they're making a lot less revenue than if they could sell, say, 200 books individually for $2 per book.
So I expect that was one reason the idea was never developed. If it had been, the publishers would
never have supported it. They might have tried to make it illegal. The product would have become
popular only when readers could print on it for themselves, and the industry would continue to fight
against such practices with slogans like "Home scribing is killing literature" and "Don't copy that... hard... copy".
Please leave Blakes 7 alone. The original is as good as it gets; remakes will suck.
No more reboots KTHX. I don't need to see a remake of Citizen Kane or Dr Strangelove
because the originals still exist and are still watchable. Reboots and remakes are just
Hollywood reducing its risk dollar by going with something they already know was popular.
Get some new ideas for a change.
When you have a high profile job in the public sector, you can expect that people are going to find out a lot about you. The media will want to know, and if you have any skeletons in your closet, they could well be revealed, one day.
Bravo on you for wanting to keep your personal details private, but don't seek out any high profile positions as a result.
Physicists around the world a dedicating a large amount of their lives to theories many of which ARE MUTALLY EXCLUSIVE meaning someone is going to be wrong.
Perhaps you don't understand the scientific process. That's OK if they are mutually exclusive. One day somebody will make a prediction and do an experiment which falsifies one or other of the theories. Then the false theory will be amended or discarded, perhaps both (since investigation of theories is not a process limited to a single person). Science is a quest to find the truth, and false starts and back-tracking is part of the process.
Not at all like Religion, which is: Get an idea. Ignore contradicting evidence. Keep idea forever. (thanks to WellingtonGrey for that).
I concur. OpenVZ is very lightweight. For a large number of small servers it saves on disk management
because the OpenVZ instances' root directories are just a subdirectory on the physical server (and so they can share space in the same host partition). There's no dealing with virtual disk drives.
Here's the background:
I have a Verizon unlimited data plan in the U.S. and recently crossed the border to Canada. Prior to crossing the border I called customer service to find out what rates I'd be paying for voice and data. The data rate I was quoted was ".002 cents per kilobyte."
I was surprised at the rate so I confirmed it with the representative I spoke to, and she confirmed it "point zero zero two cents per kilobyte." I asked her to note that in my account.
Slashdot Mirror
NAT or no NAT - any protocol which requires connections be accepted on varying port numbers is going to cause problems. Examples - SIP, BT, most IM protocols for file send.
Best is if there's a netfilter module for the protocol; it can watch the traffic and open up holes dynamically for related connections.
Verisign just told me they're going to truncate the list of eligible email addresses down to a more manageable 6.
Linux: "It's not a bug, not any more."
You do the best you can. Sheesh. Learn about the system and how to secure it. It's not slashdot's problem you're under-funded and under-resourced.
There's a triangular spectrum. Corner 1 is how much you're willing to pay. Corner 2 is how much you're willing to learn and do by yourself. Corner 3 is your probability of getting r00ted. If you don't want to spend any money on sysadmin and you don't want to spend any time to secure your system, then expect to get r00ted sometime.
The Theory of Evolution is our explanation to account for these observations, including natural selection, genetic mutations and other factors. The explanation fits the evidence very well.
Actually the NASA footage showed Dr Who and the Tardis and aliens, so it was incredibly important that the videos never see the light of day.
You say I haven't a clue and then you agree with everything I said and I agree with everything else you said. What the hell?
Let me try to put it in simpler words that you can understand.
The BBC did great work in 1984 to get those images, video, text and etc onto a system which they could sell to consumers. But they stuffed up by thinking that it was a "do once" project and not realising that 20+ years later, people would still want to see/use this thing.
For longevity it is necessary to migrate to new technology over time. This is particularly important for the BBC since they invented the technology they used - as JPEGs and HTML and so on became popular the BBC should have progressively converted to newer formats.
And the main point of my post - that we're dealing with a mostly human problem - is explaining that BBC should have obtained enough copyrights to reuse and reissue the images/video/etc later. Copyright law wasn't that much different in 1986 to today (certainly shorter durations). And BBC didn't preserve their originals very well as you said. Those are human problems, not a failure of technology.
I doubt that your average salary code monkey could redevelop the Linux kernel no matter how many bodies were thrown at the problem. We'd end up with Windows.
Because they forgot key parts of the process:
The UK fouled up by inventing new proprietary storage formats which needed custom hardware and software to read and process the data. The laserdisc needed a special laserdisc player and a BBC Micro. The BBC who produced this were years ahead of their time and had to invent a lot of stuff. Unfortunately the rest of the world invented a lot of different stuff, which is what we use today.
And how many of these systems were produced? I don't know, but they cost 4000 pounds each which is a significant investment for a school and certainly the high price reduced the number of items which were sent into the community.
Even though we have extracted the data from the original formats (and also obtained improved images by re-mastering original video footage) it seems that one of the main impediments to putting this data online is copyright - the contents of the 1986 project won't be out of copyright until 2090!
The above two points come together with "keep converting to new formats". If your stuff is all proprietary, it may be hard to convert to new formats. If your stuff is copyrighted, you may be able to convert it but you can't distribute it, and widespread distribution is one of the requirements of effective data preservation.
The data which was produced in 1986 wasn't lost and won't be lost. People are working with it and upgrading it. However, you won't be able to see it, primarily due to the shortsightedness of the original project.
So loss of digital data is not so much a technical problem, more a social problem, of shortsightedness in creation, distribution and copyright.
Kinda like the BBC's lost videotapes of Monty Python (or was it Dr Who?) ... priceless recordings were allowed to degrade and become unusable, were thrown away, or were overwritten ("media re-used"). I don't mean to point the finger only at the BBC - NASA did it too. Lack of foresight, folks.
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your magazine.
Evolution is not a religion. You can study the scientific basis behind it to whatever level of detail you need to feel comfortable.
There's extensive evidence in different categories (e.g. DNA, fossil, observational) and enough in each category to independently prove that evolution occurs, if we didn't have the other two.
Karl Popper also went on to say, in the same paper, "And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection." I don't agree with his characterisation as metaphysical. It seems Karl Popper had a lot of bizarre theories and the metaphysical nature of Darwinism looks like one of them.
Karl Popper also said "The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism."
I find it bizarre that you quote Karl Popper in your argument that evolution is false, and yet Karl Popper clearly accepted that evolution occurs.
I never saw so many straw-men arguments in one post. Mod up Funny, please.
I think it's a serious lack of intellectual capacity. I watch creationist videos and so frequently I am reminded of Forrest Gump saying "I'm not a smart man, but ..."
That's not all Christians or all the time, but their brains definitely seem to turn off when scientific facts, theories or methods start to conflict with their sky-daddy beliefs.
It might be related to the phenomenon noticed in a recent study of responses to political articles: people tended to pay more attention to statements which complied with their preconceived political worldview (e.g. republicans, democrats) and and ignore statements in the same article which conflicted with their established position. Basically republicans would take in more pro-republican information, and democrats the opposite, even within the same article.
I think the religious belief must be something like that, and that's why the same old discredited arguments are rolled out time and time again. Their brains stop at the "jesus loves me and flowers" level and so they get stuck at ridiculous beliefs about evolution such as "evolutionists say we came from rocks" or "we never saw one kind of thing turn into another kind".
Learning about biology is hard. Science is hard. You have to read papers with big words in them. But it's not impossibly hard. There are plenty of books which explain the evidence and results of science to the lay person. These books present the conclusion (e.g. that evolution happens and this is why and how) without the justification, but the justification exists for anybody who takes the time and effort to understand the details.
It seems to me that Christians rarely do. So they see a book which said "evolution happened" and they see their church or creationist websites saying "we never saw evolution between kinds" and think that these statements are equivalent. Wrong. One is backed by masses of complicated science, one is just somebody's opinion.
The long day theory is just another attempt to rationalise biblical nonsense into something which vaguely fits the observed facts - if one isn't too clear on what those facts are.
For example, look at this:
Guided evolution - there's no evidence that any deity is controlling the process of evolution. We know the mechanisms underlying evolution, and there are several of them which are sufficient to explain the variety of life, and none of them involve a god.
Man created independently - DNA analysis overwhelmingly refutes this. We are primates; our ancestors were primates; so are chimps and their ancestors. People say "I couldn't have evolved from a smelly, dirty ape!" but it's just pride and prejudice talking. Humans are primates, humans are animals, we evolved along with every other lifeform on this planet - deal with it.
Mankind only 6000 years old - A pathetic attempt to justify belief in biblical inerrancy with absolutely no relationship to any facts yet observed. Fossil evidence of human ancestors and closely related species dated way more than 6000 years ago: Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis.
Sorry, but your bible is wrong. Understanding the fact that evolution is occurring and the underlying processes documented in the Theory of Evolution doesn't preclude belief in some deity which created the universe and then immediately left it alone, but it does utterly destroy any credibility for the Christian creationist myth.
Not only do I not trust CNNIC, I don't trust Verisign either. Nor any of the dozens of CAs which are installed by default.
In other words, the whole CA concept is flawed.
The problem is that selling two hundred books for $2 does not provide an adequate income for the publisher. Even if the manufacturing cost was only $1, and the publisher is nominally making 100% profit, they're making a lot less revenue than if they could sell, say, 200 books individually for $2 per book.
So I expect that was one reason the idea was never developed. If it had been, the publishers would never have supported it. They might have tried to make it illegal. The product would have become popular only when readers could print on it for themselves, and the industry would continue to fight against such practices with slogans like "Home scribing is killing literature" and "Don't copy that ... hard ... copy".
Please leave Blakes 7 alone. The original is as good as it gets; remakes will suck.
No more reboots KTHX. I don't need to see a remake of Citizen Kane or Dr Strangelove because the originals still exist and are still watchable. Reboots and remakes are just Hollywood reducing its risk dollar by going with something they already know was popular. Get some new ideas for a change.
When you have a high profile job in the public sector, you can expect that people are going to find out a lot about you. The media will want to know, and if you have any skeletons in your closet, they could well be revealed, one day.
Bravo on you for wanting to keep your personal details private, but don't seek out any high profile positions as a result.
FAIL - [...] there is no doubt that quantum physics is the most successful theory of physical phenomena yet invented by the human mind. Why is it successful? Because it predicts physical phenomena, phenomenally accurately.
Perhaps you don't understand the scientific process. That's OK if they are mutually exclusive. One day somebody will make a prediction and do an experiment which falsifies one or other of the theories. Then the false theory will be amended or discarded, perhaps both (since investigation of theories is not a process limited to a single person). Science is a quest to find the truth, and false starts and back-tracking is part of the process.
Not at all like Religion, which is: Get an idea. Ignore contradicting evidence. Keep idea forever. (thanks to WellingtonGrey for that).
Don't talk to the Chancellor that way!
There, fixed that for you.
I concur. OpenVZ is very lightweight. For a large number of small servers it saves on disk management because the OpenVZ instances' root directories are just a subdirectory on the physical server (and so they can share space in the same host partition). There's no dealing with virtual disk drives.
So the linkage doesn't have to be preserved/implemented, only documented. They should publish their mapping database sometimes.
"... but still, they come..."
If they're not robots, what can possibly explain this:
Verizon doesn't know Dollars from Cents
The stupidity just goes on, and on, and on ...