Both windows and exchange are very very scriptable. One trick is to export your exchange account settings into a delimited file, make your changes to it, then import it back in, for example.
Also, I propose that the reason the PS is much bigger than the 64 is not because of the cartridge vs cd issue at all, but rather one of marketing.
Wrong, and for one reason: time.
With the NES/SNES (not sure if the same system held for the n64), a company would create a game, then order X amount of carts from Nintendo; there was no other source. They had to order a load; three months later, they'd get them. This presented two real possibilities: order too few, and miss the wave, or order too many, and take a bath.
Sony, on the other hand, with the PSX, went with fully standard CDs, other than the bad sector copy protection. This means a) once you write a game, you can get it pressed anywhere, and b) you can order a small run, and if it takes off, you can have your stocks completely refilled in three days. This meant you could take a chance on lesser titles.
There were, of course, other factors, like Nintendo requiring final veto power over any title, blah blah blah, and lets not forget: The N64 was a flop *compared to the NES and SNES*. By any other standard, it was a success. Nintendo is like Microsoft; they can blow millions on a project, decide they don't like the colour of it, throw it out, and never notice. They'll put out a good product this time around.
NT *tried* to be a microkernal, but found it was too slow and pathetic, so they moved bits back into kernal space.
One example is the GDI subsection, which runs the graphics. NT 3 had it in userspace, but it was too slow, so NT 4 moved it back into the kernal. Which is why a good 60+ percent of NT blue screens say 'ati.dll' somewhere on them.
I don't know about SV, but computers in general are.
Think about it; you've got a priesthood of techno-literate people who dispense wisdom and justice to the common folk, and who's knowledge seems divinely inspired.
Most common folk using computers involves the ritual offering of the CD, the invocation of the CD-Key followed by the ritual of the install program.
People regard the computer itself as the magic box, praying for it's favour, (oh please work, please work, please work), thanking it when it blesses them, and curseing it when, in it's mysterious ways, it curses them.
People also ascribe mystical powers to the magic box; it can change their DNA, evil doers can steal their credit card information from it, even if the CC info has never been put into the computer in any way shape or form, etc etc.
But then Carol can read the file. She's only supposed to be able to write to it, not to read it.
And no, that's not stupid a concept, to have write but not read. Think about it. Although ideally, instead of 'write' it would be 'append', but then you'd be back into pure ACL Land.:-)
In UNIX, there are three entities that can be given rights to an object; the owner, a group and everybody. Thusly, no more than one group can have control over a an object. In other words, Finance and Marketing cannot be both given write access to a directory; you'd need a third group which had, as members, the first two groups.
Access Control Lists start out by stating the default permissions (usually 'nobody can do anything') and then applying exceptions (Bill can read, Lucy can read/write, Doug can read/write/execute.)
ACLs also allow for more options; with UNIX, you're stuck with read/write/execute. With an ACL, you can define almost any operation and allow/deny it. Read, write, execute, list contents, create subdirectory, grant rights to others, revoke rights from others, copy files in, copy files out, etc etc.
ACLs are a requirement of any level of Trusted Computing above c2, I think. They're very powerful, but also much more difficult to maintain than UNIX style permissions.
Never said I was a pacifist, just using it as an example. As far as I'm concerned, democracy doesn't, and cannot, work, and peace is brought about by the demonstration of the ability to wage terrible war.
Don't forget that there are moral objections as well as ones to the safety of your box. Say that I'm a pacifist, but my box is being used to create terrain maps for missile guideance systems. Or to do particle simulations of the effects of a nuke.
More importantly, two to three times a year when a *new* macro-virus comes out that the scanners *can't* spot, it's going to rip through your office like anthrax, and the additional load is going to make your Exchange server eat itself and DIE.
Your server-side virus scanning software (if you're a company, use it. Otherwise, you're being irresponsible.) should be able to block attachments with arbitrary filenames. Like, say, *.vbs, *.js, etc etc.
modifying settings, changing accounts, installing security hole patches, installing OS patches, upgrading OS, rebooting perodically, etc. etc. etc.
Wow! Sun boxes never need patches! Wow! I always thought Sun actually had revisions of individual patches, but I was wrong! And you never need to add or modify user accounts? It must be that Sun Telepathic Systems Interface API I read about! I'm there, man!
Can you help me come up with opinions/facts/experiences why exchange sucks as an enterprise e-mail solution versus a nice solid Unix solution to present to management?
Well, if that's your attitude, I hope for their sakes they don't put you in charge if it, because you'll wind up sabotaging it, purposefully or not.
HA = High Availabilty. Two boxes; either load split, or one doing nothing, but if one goes down, the other takes over 'transparantly' and the users never notice.
Actually, Exchange 2000 has the ability to have multiple mail stores. Seeing as how you're using AD anyway, a good idea is to make a seperate mail store per OU.
In other words, Executive Office has a mailstore, Finance has one, R&D has one (or several; break it down however you want) etc etc.
They can be mounted/dismounted/backed up/restored seperately and without bugging ones that are up and running. Nice feature.
Motorized Ballzooka and a healthy supply of extra balls are good too, and less damaging to the arms.
You can watch the Pavlovian reaction when you rack the action....
A UCAV is simply applied technology, just like the jet engine.
How difficult would it be, in real terms, for a single man to hump a stinger missle pack somewhere where they could take a shot at an AWACS?
hardened against EMP
Hardened, not invulnerable.:-) I remember one little debate when American scientists took apart a (I think) MiG 29 and found the radar was tube based; couldn't decide if it was a fiendish defense against EMP, or a pathetic display of old technology....
I'm surprised somebody hasn't, for example, made smart flechettes; take something the size of a coke can, put on something that can point it at a radar emitter, and have a single-shot rocket pack that will boost and burn out. Pack a bunch into the warhead of a missle, and shoot some at the AWACS. It gets close enough, bursts open, these things spray out, point at the AWACS, and boost. Stuff like that.
As we always learn as kids, the expensive toys are often broken by the cheap toys.:-)
It is very hackable, thats why we dont use it during attack missions.
I'll reply to most of your posts here, Sanchi.
Thanks for proving my point. The article isn't discussing current military technology, but future. It's talking about networked units.
I'm well aware of what AWACS is, and how well it works. However, it's also a single point of failure. And possible one of the only reasons it works is because it's never been in a serious 'war' situation. What would happen if a solid phalanx of HARM anti-radiation missiles were launched at it? It'll either die, or shut down and evade. Either situation more or less destroys American air superiority.
You yourself point out that doing actual communication, instead of just pumping out millions of watts of radar and letting the planes pick up the return, is too dangerous. Which it is.
I'm reminded of Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, a good stab at a conventional WW3. One of the tricks used by the Sovs in that book is to take a bunch of old missiles; Kelts, I think, and fix them up with radar transponders, so that they look like long-range bombers to radar. Then, they sent them towards a carrier battle group. The Tomcats, of coursed, engaged BVR, wasting a shitload of Phoenixes on some missles, while the real bombers came in from a slightly different direction.
Or another such novel, where a helicopter avoids detection by an AWACS by following a train.
Or the fact that the AWACS may be up today, but a cruise missile strike against it's airfield will prevent it from being up tomorrow.
The only reason America is king shit is that they've been able to have far better military technology. It's now easier than ever to come across military technology through means fair or foul; one of these days America is going to go to war with it's usual arrogance, realize that it can no longer fight two and a half wars, and either a) repeat Vietnam against a guerilla enemy, or b) be overwhelmed by hordes of Chinese infantry, or possibly c) lose to an information war; it would be an interesting exercise to get an EMP weapon close to an AWACS, to keep the conversation topical.
Slashdot Mirror
Both windows and exchange are very very scriptable. One trick is to export your exchange account settings into a delimited file, make your changes to it, then import it back in, for example.
Nah. It's the 'gore' code from the Sega Genesis version of Mortal Kombat. :-)
Code of Honor: a b a c a b b
Dreamcast using Bleemcast plays PS1 games better than a PS2. :-)
NT *tried* to be a microkernal, but found it was too slow and pathetic, so they moved bits back into kernal space. One example is the GDI subsection, which runs the graphics. NT 3 had it in userspace, but it was too slow, so NT 4 moved it back into the kernal. Which is why a good 60+ percent of NT blue screens say 'ati.dll' somewhere on them.
Are you suggesting that he runs his public Internet site off of his laptop?
Pilots have specific rules about how much sleep they need and how many hours per month they can spend piloting.
There was a GEOS for the Commodore 64.
I don't know about SV, but computers in general are. Think about it; you've got a priesthood of techno-literate people who dispense wisdom and justice to the common folk, and who's knowledge seems divinely inspired. Most common folk using computers involves the ritual offering of the CD, the invocation of the CD-Key followed by the ritual of the install program. People regard the computer itself as the magic box, praying for it's favour, (oh please work, please work, please work), thanking it when it blesses them, and curseing it when, in it's mysterious ways, it curses them. People also ascribe mystical powers to the magic box; it can change their DNA, evil doers can steal their credit card information from it, even if the CC info has never been put into the computer in any way shape or form, etc etc.
But then Carol can read the file. She's only supposed to be able to write to it, not to read it. And no, that's not stupid a concept, to have write but not read. Think about it. Although ideally, instead of 'write' it would be 'append', but then you'd be back into pure ACL Land. :-)
In UNIX, there are three entities that can be given rights to an object; the owner, a group and everybody. Thusly, no more than one group can have control over a an object. In other words, Finance and Marketing cannot be both given write access to a directory; you'd need a third group which had, as members, the first two groups. Access Control Lists start out by stating the default permissions (usually 'nobody can do anything') and then applying exceptions (Bill can read, Lucy can read/write, Doug can read/write/execute.) ACLs also allow for more options; with UNIX, you're stuck with read/write/execute. With an ACL, you can define almost any operation and allow/deny it. Read, write, execute, list contents, create subdirectory, grant rights to others, revoke rights from others, copy files in, copy files out, etc etc. ACLs are a requirement of any level of Trusted Computing above c2, I think. They're very powerful, but also much more difficult to maintain than UNIX style permissions.
Never said I was a pacifist, just using it as an example. As far as I'm concerned, democracy doesn't, and cannot, work, and peace is brought about by the demonstration of the ability to wage terrible war.
Don't forget that there are moral objections as well as ones to the safety of your box. Say that I'm a pacifist, but my box is being used to create terrain maps for missile guideance systems. Or to do particle simulations of the effects of a nuke.
Couldn't pay me enough to run arbitrary code for anonymous third parties.
WhatsUp Gold from Ipswitch is also a good alternative to HP OpenView and the like. VERY nice network monitoring software.
HA = High Availabilty. Two boxes; either load split, or one doing nothing, but if one goes down, the other takes over 'transparantly' and the users never notice.
Actually, Exchange 2000 has the ability to have multiple mail stores. Seeing as how you're using AD anyway, a good idea is to make a seperate mail store per OU. In other words, Executive Office has a mailstore, Finance has one, R&D has one (or several; break it down however you want) etc etc. They can be mounted/dismounted/backed up/restored seperately and without bugging ones that are up and running. Nice feature.
Motorized Ballzooka and a healthy supply of extra balls are good too, and less damaging to the arms. You can watch the Pavlovian reaction when you rack the action....