Here's a story about a guy who has successfully clustered some G4 Cubes, bypassing the heat problem by adding some fans and removing the computer from the plastic casing. Sure, it's not quiet any more, but it apparently makes for a decent cluster.
"As a general rule, the CERT/CC recommends disabling any service or capability that is not explicitly required, including SNMP. Unfortunately, some of the affected products exhibited unexpected behavior or denial of service conditions when exposed to the OUSPG test suite even if SNMP was not enabled. In these cases, disabling SNMP should be used in conjunction with the filtering practices listed below to provide additional protection. "
As someone who has recently (in the last two months) switched from Windows 2000 to Debian, I can say that the tools *are* scary, or at least intimidating, for someone with no exposure to *nix whatsoever.
Dealing with dependencies, lib and all those damn command line switches is a major hurdle to overcome. Dpkg goes a long way towards solving that, but it's still no peach compared to windows installation methods. For example; how to do "uninstall" (to use a windows term) a package in debian:
dpkg --purge <package name> (or dpkg -r if you still want the config files.)
OK, great -- so if I want to reconfigure a package, that must be:
dpkg --reconfigure <package name>
Right? Nope -- instead you have to use:
dpkg-reconfigure <package name>
Not a big deal once you figure that out, but it's certainly not intuitive.
The rest of the GNU tools are equally as confusing. Some use -V to print out the version. Others use -v. There's no consistency whatsoever.
And then there's figuring out all the different config options for/etc/<whatever daemon>.
Sure, it's all doable, but it's not a walk in the park. It took me a solid month of forcing myself to use Debian before I could start to feel comfortable.
(and, for the record, I'm not picking on Debian in particular -- all linux distros suffer from this.)
Think about this from a business perspective
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Most comments seem to look at Segway from a consumer's point of view. Did anyone think about this from a business point of view? As the time article points out, the real winners here are companies like the Post Office, FedEx, Amazon, etc.
Think about running one of those big FedEx trucks in downtown San Francisco. Now, they can toss a Segway in the back of the truck, park once and hit 10 city blocks. What about large packages, you ask? What, you think they can't hook a basket to the front or even a trailer to the back? Sure, they'll have to work on the gyros to get it to balance under load, but that's not insurmountable.
Think about pulling stock in an Amazon warehouse. People use to use roller skates, now they can use a Segway.
This could be a big hit for consumers, but I think it will be even bigger for big business.
OK, so let's debunk each one of your arguments, one at a time, shall we?
a. Drop an atom bomb and kill 125,000 civilians at hiroshima to satisfy a military objective. (Thats ok because they started it so it wasnt "unprovoked" or "sneaky").
The alternative was to continue to the lengthy island hopping campaign and then stage an all-out invasion of Tokyo, resulting in many, many more American deaths. Sorry sport, but choosing between killing lots of them or killing lots of our own boys isn't hard to make.
b. Napalm children in vietnam. (because you didnt like communists).
No, in fact, it was because some of those children were known to act as couriers for the Bad Guys, or even to engage in actual combat and we didn't know who was what. Again, if it comes down to killing them or letting them kill us, it's an easy choice to make.
c. Bomb civilians in Iraq after providing their leaders with weapons to bomb civilians in Iran after giving F-14's to Iran to bomb civilians elsewhere. (because you wanted oil).
In fact, the Gulf War had some of the lowest civilian casualties in any full-scale military conflict.
d. invade and assasinate the indonesian government. (because the IMF and WTO want mineral rights).
I'll admit ignorance here -- I haven't researched this issue enough to debate it cogently. Based on the tone and (in)accuracy of your other arguments, it seems likely that this argument is similarly grossly oversimplified with many of the pertinent facts left out that don't support your argument.
I apologize if you aren't a citizen of the "Real World".
Remember, it's easy to be an armchair quarterback. It's much more difficult to be faced with reality and have to deal with it head-on.
Let's not forget that DirecTV has proven that it can fight back.
I'll be interested to see DirecTV's response. I don't think anyone doubts that there will be one. Hopefully they fight back like they did before and not resort to lawyers and lawsuits.
OK, so you just showed that you didn't look at any of the links in the original article. Specifically, this one where the customer states he signed up for service on 2/15/01 at $39.95 per month and, as of 5/17/01, was being billed $49.95 per month.
So, it appears that Earthlink IS charging this increase retroactively, or at least midway through some people's $39.95 contracts.
TiVo is actually *good* for advertisors
on
Calling Out TiVo
·
· Score: 2
OK, let's accept the premise that commercials needs to continue as an effective means of advertising in order to keep network television free.
Let's also assume that we *want* network television to continue to be free.
In that case, TiVo, et al is a good thing for advertisors. We've all heard about how TiVo tracks our viewing habits -- how long before they inject some sort of targeted advertising based on those viewing preferences? (ignore the privacy issue -- that's a whole separate argument)
When used appropriately, I like targeted advertising. I only have to watch commercials that are applicable to me. That means no douche, tampon or Pampers commercials. Hell, I'd pay extra for that.
Yes, I'd prefer to skip commercials altogether, but the economic realities mean someone has to pay for y'all to watch the contestants on Survivor eat their young. I'd much rather pay for that by watching some commercials targeted at me specifically than paying triple/quadruple my DirecTV bill.
PVRs are the easiest and quickest way to deliver targeted advertising capabilities. If John could see outside his grossly over-inflated ego, maybe he'd realize this.
Email Dvorak with your own opinions...
on
Calling Out TiVo
·
· Score: 1
and be nice. Remember, flaming rarely persuades anyone of anything other than the fact that you're an immature asshole. Persuasive, well-reasoned arguments might get you a whole lot further.
Not sure you read the rules of the puzzle correctly. If any of the players guess incorrectly, they all lose. So, player 3 will be wrong about 50% of the time, never mind players 1 and 2.
What this article fails to realize, as well as many other arguments along the same vein, is that we, the people, ultimately decide what we do and don't want. We do this one of two ways:
1. By voting with our wallet.
If we don't want something, we simply don't buy it. We're not a bunch of sheep that simply go where the "Big Corporate Giants" steer us, as much as some people might like to argue. Those "Big Corporate Giants" have to make stuff that we LIKE and are willing to PAY MONEY for. If the Big Corporate Giants don't make stuff we like, we go buy from the Little Guy. (until they become a Big Corporate Giant, too, at which point the whole, vicious circle starts anew)
2. By voting, period.
Again, something that many people forget or overlook -- we make the laws in this country. Sure, the Big Corporate Giants have a lot of influence through PACs and SIGs, but we ultimately make the decisions. (And, anyone who wants to disagree -- just go out and try to reform Social Security and watch the nice little old lady down the street vote you out of office faster than you can say "pacemaker")
I get tired of the fatalistic, I-have-to-take-it-up-the-ass outlook on life. We DO have the power to change things -- we just need to remember that.
I spoke with the President of ICAAN about this...
on
VeriSign Usurps .com
·
· Score: 4
Well, I exchanged emails with him, at least. I asked him to clarify whether, under these proposed changes, ICANN was looking to simply restrict commercial activity within the.org TLD (which I support) or if they were, in fact, trying to strictly regulate it to legally-recognized non-profit organizations.
He pointed out that he has already made a post about this on ICANN's Public forum. When I mentioned that I didn't think it was clear enough, and asked him to clarify further to avoid a lot of confusion, he responded that they were "discussing this internally".
This tells me the following:
It's not set in stone that you have to be a legally-recognized non-profit to hold a.org TLD under the proposed changes
They haven't worked out all the details yet
They at least appear concerned with the public opinion (read his post)
Granted, I'm not a huge fan of ICANN's previous activities, but I will say Mike was responsive and courteous in his emails. Perhaps if we voice our opinions just as politely and courteously (rather than flaming them about) we might get somewhere.
There are actually quite a few applications, with vehicle location being the one that this specific company is targeting.
I've seen a lot of people say "why would you do this if you can get really cheap satellite bandwidth". Well, because this method uses FREE bandwidth.
It's a niche application certainly, but there is a place for this technology. Rural areas, mountainous areas that can't get LOS to the geosynchronous ring, etc.
In fact, here's an article that talks about an ambulance company that is using the technology right now. (The article mentions a further niche use for their technology as a sort of Lojack system.)
The problem with Micropayments, as least with today's technology, is that by the time you build the system to process the micropayments, the cost per transaction to run that system (including depreciation on all the equipment, etc.) is actually more than the micropayments themselves.
Think about it -- you need to build a transaction system that will:
Handle thousands if not hundreds of thousands of transactions securely and quickly.
Interface with credit card companies, who take a percentage of any transaction. (and if you think micropayments can be successful without credit card companies, you should be sharing whatever it is that your smoking. People aren't going to tape two dimes to a postcard and mail them off 50 times per day)
Have some sort of settlements system so the proper people get paid the proper amount. (Not all the cash goes to the same person -- several different people have to get their cut)
Have at least a few system administrators and accountants to make the whole system work
Oh, and after all this, it also needs to be profitable enough so the company running this micropayment settlement system can stay in business.
This system is absolutely buildable with today's technology, but it costs so much to build and then maintain that there's almost no chance of a positive ROI.
I'm not saying this is an insurmountable problem, but so far, I haven't seen anyone with a successful, wide-spread solution.
OR, these people could read a thing or two about software installation before trying it.
Hey Sport -- newsflash for you. The whole purpose of the article was to ASK if there were any good sources TO READ about installing software, configuring Gnome, etc.
How about reading the original post before criticizing people.
The problem with micropayments is the cost to process them. Since most transactions on the net (including micropayments, I imagine) are based on a credit card, you automatically lose ~3% of any transaction. (and credit card companies usually charge a higher percentage for small transactions)
From there, you have to built a settlements system that is able to a) manage the contracts between the web site, advertisers, content providers and whoever else has their hand in the pie; b) manage a very high volume of transactions (think about paying $.01 for every/. page you read); and finally c)interface with your financial system to send out bills or charge credit cards or do whatever you do to get paid.
That doesn't even factor in the cost of receiving payments and crediting the books. Even if you automate all this (which you'd have to) how are you going to recover the cost of the multi-million dollar system you just purchased, as well as the multi-million dollar IT department you just hired to keep it running.
Micropayments aren't going to be feasible for a long time....
Sorry, but that's not Mr. Dickinson's argument. He's arguing for adherence to the system and, in those cases where the system doesn't work, participation by all stakeholders to improve said system.
He repeatedly stated that he is strongly in favor of anything that will improve the patent office's access to prior art. He also made it clear that people who argued for changes in the system (i.e. the independent inventors lobby) got those changes. He rightfully pointed out that there was no significant representation from people who share Mr O'Reilly's point of view.
What he didn't come out and say, but what I'm inferring is basically, since we didn't lobby then, we don't have a right to bitch now. And, if we *do* want to bitch, then go through the proper channels and get new legislation introduced.
To me, this seems analogous to voting -- if you participate, you earn the right to complain. If you choose not to vote, you have no right to whine later when things don't go your way.
Or, we could take a novel approach and consider the movie for exactly what it is:
PURE ENTERTAINMENT
Why should we infer any moral lessons from Star Wars? In case you didn't catch it, Star Wars is a Science Fiction movie. Meaning it isn't real. Meaning you shouldn't read too deeply into it.
I get sick and tired of all the people who want to draw social, economic and moral conclusions from a damn movie. Maybe some of those Indie artsy-fartsy movies are trying to send a message, but most Holywood blockbusters are only trying to do one thing; make money.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned ReplayTV. It's just like TiVo, but doesn't have the monthly subscription charge.
Why pay TiVo every month when you can get the same service from ReplayTV for free? (clarification: I don't own either TiVo or ReplayTV yet, so I don't have first hand experience with either.)
Personally, I think NBC is being quite hypocritical with this issue. Remember some years ago when Dateline (an NBC news show) ran a story about the hazards of the saddle gas tanks on GM pickups. The anchor of the whole piece was a shot of a pickup exploding when being hit broadside.
It was later discovered that Dateline had purposely rigged the truck with explosives so it would be guaranteed to explode on impact.
IMO, all mainstream media is guilty of unethical behavior to some degree. Be it deliberately clipping sound bites to take someone's words out of context or faking backgrounds of news anchors. So for one media company to criticize another media company for unethical behavior is quite laughable.
Perhaps rather than casting stones at CBS, NBC could be more proactive and propose standards and solutions that would help reformm the industry and increase public confidence and trust. As it stands, I find it increasingly difficult to believe the things that I see on TV and read in the paper.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never used it, but supposedly it works well.
Here's a story about a guy who has successfully clustered some G4 Cubes, bypassing the heat problem by adding some fans and removing the computer from the plastic casing. Sure, it's not quiet any more, but it apparently makes for a decent cluster.
Oh really? Like it crippled the reputation of linux?
Just because Microsoft can't write decent code doesn't mean that Apple (or any other vendor) will succumb to the same mistakes.
"As a general rule, the CERT/CC recommends disabling any service or capability that is not explicitly required, including SNMP. Unfortunately, some of the affected products exhibited unexpected behavior or denial of service conditions when exposed to the OUSPG test suite even if SNMP was not enabled. In these cases, disabling SNMP should be used in conjunction with the filtering practices listed below to provide additional protection. "
As someone who has recently (in the last two months) switched from Windows 2000 to Debian, I can say that the tools *are* scary, or at least intimidating, for someone with no exposure to *nix whatsoever. Dealing with dependencies, lib and all those damn command line switches is a major hurdle to overcome. Dpkg goes a long way towards solving that, but it's still no peach compared to windows installation methods. For example; how to do "uninstall" (to use a windows term) a package in debian:
dpkg --purge <package name> (or dpkg -r if you still want the config files.)
OK, great -- so if I want to reconfigure a package, that must be:
dpkg --reconfigure <package name>
Right? Nope -- instead you have to use:
dpkg-reconfigure <package name>
Not a big deal once you figure that out, but it's certainly not intuitive. The rest of the GNU tools are equally as confusing. Some use -V to print out the version. Others use -v. There's no consistency whatsoever.
And then there's figuring out all the different config options for /etc/<whatever daemon>.
Sure, it's all doable, but it's not a walk in the park. It took me a solid month of forcing myself to use Debian before I could start to feel comfortable.
(and, for the record, I'm not picking on Debian in particular -- all linux distros suffer from this.)
Most comments seem to look at Segway from a consumer's point of view. Did anyone think about this from a business point of view? As the time article points out, the real winners here are companies like the Post Office, FedEx, Amazon, etc.
Think about running one of those big FedEx trucks in downtown San Francisco. Now, they can toss a Segway in the back of the truck, park once and hit 10 city blocks. What about large packages, you ask? What, you think they can't hook a basket to the front or even a trailer to the back? Sure, they'll have to work on the gyros to get it to balance under load, but that's not insurmountable.
Think about pulling stock in an Amazon warehouse. People use to use roller skates, now they can use a Segway.
This could be a big hit for consumers, but I think it will be even bigger for big business.
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives.html# s-sid
a. Drop an atom bomb and kill 125,000 civilians at hiroshima to satisfy a military objective. (Thats ok because they started it so it wasnt "unprovoked" or "sneaky").
The alternative was to continue to the lengthy island hopping campaign and then stage an all-out invasion of Tokyo, resulting in many, many more American deaths. Sorry sport, but choosing between killing lots of them or killing lots of our own boys isn't hard to make.
b. Napalm children in vietnam. (because you didnt like communists).
No, in fact, it was because some of those children were known to act as couriers for the Bad Guys, or even to engage in actual combat and we didn't know who was what. Again, if it comes down to killing them or letting them kill us, it's an easy choice to make.
c. Bomb civilians in Iraq after providing their leaders with weapons to bomb civilians in Iran after giving F-14's to Iran to bomb civilians elsewhere. (because you wanted oil).
In fact, the Gulf War had some of the lowest civilian casualties in any full-scale military conflict.
d. invade and assasinate the indonesian government. (because the IMF and WTO want mineral rights).
I'll admit ignorance here -- I haven't researched this issue enough to debate it cogently. Based on the tone and (in)accuracy of your other arguments, it seems likely that this argument is similarly grossly oversimplified with many of the pertinent facts left out that don't support your argument.
I apologize if you aren't a citizen of the "Real World".
Remember, it's easy to be an armchair quarterback. It's much more difficult to be faced with reality and have to deal with it head-on.
I'll be interested to see DirecTV's response. I don't think anyone doubts that there will be one. Hopefully they fight back like they did before and not resort to lawyers and lawsuits.
"In its Timeport line of telephones, Motorola has already incorporated an OLED display made by Pioneer Electronics of Japan
So, it appears that Earthlink IS charging this increase retroactively, or at least midway through some people's $39.95 contracts.
Let's also assume that we *want* network television to continue to be free.
In that case, TiVo, et al is a good thing for advertisors. We've all heard about how TiVo tracks our viewing habits -- how long before they inject some sort of targeted advertising based on those viewing preferences? (ignore the privacy issue -- that's a whole separate argument)
When used appropriately, I like targeted advertising. I only have to watch commercials that are applicable to me. That means no douche, tampon or Pampers commercials. Hell, I'd pay extra for that. Yes, I'd prefer to skip commercials altogether, but the economic realities mean someone has to pay for y'all to watch the contestants on Survivor eat their young. I'd much rather pay for that by watching some commercials targeted at me specifically than paying triple/quadruple my DirecTV bill.
PVRs are the easiest and quickest way to deliver targeted advertising capabilities. If John could see outside his grossly over-inflated ego, maybe he'd realize this.
and be nice. Remember, flaming rarely persuades anyone of anything other than the fact that you're an immature asshole. Persuasive, well-reasoned arguments might get you a whole lot further.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. But hell -- email Pud if you don't believe us. He made amIfuckedornot.com as a spoof of amIhotornot.com.
Not sure you read the rules of the puzzle correctly. If any of the players guess incorrectly, they all lose. So, player 3 will be wrong about 50% of the time, never mind players 1 and 2.
What this article fails to realize, as well as many other arguments along the same vein, is that we, the people, ultimately decide what we do and don't want. We do this one of two ways:
1. By voting with our wallet.
If we don't want something, we simply don't buy it. We're not a bunch of sheep that simply go where the "Big Corporate Giants" steer us, as much as some people might like to argue. Those "Big Corporate Giants" have to make stuff that we LIKE and are willing to PAY MONEY for. If the Big Corporate Giants don't make stuff we like, we go buy from the Little Guy. (until they become a Big Corporate Giant, too, at which point the whole, vicious circle starts anew)
2. By voting, period.
Again, something that many people forget or overlook -- we make the laws in this country. Sure, the Big Corporate Giants have a lot of influence through PACs and SIGs, but we ultimately make the decisions. (And, anyone who wants to disagree -- just go out and try to reform Social Security and watch the nice little old lady down the street vote you out of office faster than you can say "pacemaker")
I get tired of the fatalistic, I-have-to-take-it-up-the-ass outlook on life. We DO have the power to change things -- we just need to remember that.
He pointed out that he has already made a post about this on ICANN's Public forum. When I mentioned that I didn't think it was clear enough, and asked him to clarify further to avoid a lot of confusion, he responded that they were "discussing this internally".
This tells me the following:
-
It's not set in stone that you have to be a legally-recognized non-profit to hold a
.org TLD under the proposed changes
- They haven't worked out all the details yet
- They at least appear concerned with the public opinion (read his post)
Granted, I'm not a huge fan of ICANN's previous activities, but I will say Mike was responsive and courteous in his emails. Perhaps if we voice our opinions just as politely and courteously (rather than flaming them about) we might get somewhere.Sign me eternally optomistic...
I've seen a lot of people say "why would you do this if you can get really cheap satellite bandwidth". Well, because this method uses FREE bandwidth.
It's a niche application certainly, but there is a place for this technology. Rural areas, mountainous areas that can't get LOS to the geosynchronous ring, etc.
In fact, here's an article that talks about an ambulance company that is using the technology right now. (The article mentions a further niche use for their technology as a sort of Lojack system.)
Think about it -- you need to build a transaction system that will:
- Handle thousands if not hundreds of thousands of transactions securely and quickly.
- Interface with credit card companies, who take a percentage of any transaction. (and if you think micropayments can be successful without credit card companies, you should be sharing whatever it is that your smoking. People aren't going to tape two dimes to a postcard and mail them off 50 times per day)
- Have some sort of settlements system so the proper people get paid the proper amount. (Not all the cash goes to the same person -- several different people have to get their cut)
- Have at least a few system administrators and accountants to make the whole system work
- Oh, and after all this, it also needs to be profitable enough so the company running this micropayment settlement system can stay in business.
This system is absolutely buildable with today's technology, but it costs so much to build and then maintain that there's almost no chance of a positive ROI.I'm not saying this is an insurmountable problem, but so far, I haven't seen anyone with a successful, wide-spread solution.
Hey Sport -- newsflash for you. The whole purpose of the article was to ASK if there were any good sources TO READ about installing software, configuring Gnome, etc.
How about reading the original post before criticizing people.
From there, you have to built a settlements system that is able to a) manage the contracts between the web site, advertisers, content providers and whoever else has their hand in the pie; b) manage a very high volume of transactions (think about paying $.01 for every /. page you read); and finally c)interface with your financial system to send out bills or charge credit cards or do whatever you do to get paid.
That doesn't even factor in the cost of receiving payments and crediting the books. Even if you automate all this (which you'd have to) how are you going to recover the cost of the multi-million dollar system you just purchased, as well as the multi-million dollar IT department you just hired to keep it running.
Micropayments aren't going to be feasible for a long time....
He repeatedly stated that he is strongly in favor of anything that will improve the patent office's access to prior art. He also made it clear that people who argued for changes in the system (i.e. the independent inventors lobby) got those changes. He rightfully pointed out that there was no significant representation from people who share Mr O'Reilly's point of view.
What he didn't come out and say, but what I'm inferring is basically, since we didn't lobby then, we don't have a right to bitch now. And, if we *do* want to bitch, then go through the proper channels and get new legislation introduced.
To me, this seems analogous to voting -- if you participate, you earn the right to complain. If you choose not to vote, you have no right to whine later when things don't go your way.
PURE ENTERTAINMENT
Why should we infer any moral lessons from Star Wars? In case you didn't catch it, Star Wars is a Science Fiction movie. Meaning it isn't real. Meaning you shouldn't read too deeply into it.
I get sick and tired of all the people who want to draw social, economic and moral conclusions from a damn movie. Maybe some of those Indie artsy-fartsy movies are trying to send a message, but most Holywood blockbusters are only trying to do one thing; make money.
Get over it.
Why pay TiVo every month when you can get the same service from ReplayTV for free? (clarification: I don't own either TiVo or ReplayTV yet, so I don't have first hand experience with either.)
It was later discovered that Dateline had purposely rigged the truck with explosives so it would be guaranteed to explode on impact.
IMO, all mainstream media is guilty of unethical behavior to some degree. Be it deliberately clipping sound bites to take someone's words out of context or faking backgrounds of news anchors. So for one media company to criticize another media company for unethical behavior is quite laughable.
Perhaps rather than casting stones at CBS, NBC could be more proactive and propose standards and solutions that would help reformm the industry and increase public confidence and trust. As it stands, I find it increasingly difficult to believe the things that I see on TV and read in the paper.