I'm more interested, right now, in how much Xandros was paid for this "deal". Particularly after the problems Novell had with their's. And with Jeremy Allison leaving Novell after that deal.
They know their standing in the community is going to take a hit. So, how much was it worth to them?
it matters because if you have good rep on slashdot, chances are you're not a complete mumpty.
So you're saying that it would help filter out a majority of the "complete mumpty".
That's a possibility. But it would be even easier to just use Slashdot's reputation/moderation system on your own site. That would solve the "complete mumpty" problem while also solving the problem of someone with excellent karma for his programming knowledge posting his conspiracy theories on your site.
And it automatically tunes itself to your audience.
It really ensures that if you post good stuff somewhere you can be trusted to post good stuff on other sites too.
Not really. Check back on the "creationism vs evolution" stories here.
What would be considered "good stuff" on one site (or even by one moderator) would be considered ignorant drivel on another site (or by a different moderator).
You achieve all the same benefits without the problems just by having your own reputation/moderation system.
It seems that everyone trying to "solve" this "problem" doesn't know what they're trying to achieve.
So what if you can make a perfect pseudonym identification system? What does that achieve for you? What do you accomplish beyond that?
Does it really matter to anyone else if your Slashdot 'nym can be verified to match your 'nym's on a dozen other boards? Who really cares if you have excellent karma on Slashdot?
"Publishing" is not "personal, private usage". Fair use is not republishing. Fair use is sitting in your personal space looking at the tablature and playing.
In that case, no book reviews or movie reviews or any other review would ever be legal without express permission.
I can publish a movie review complete with character names, plot and spoilers.
You can read my movie review and write your own, private, screen play with that same plot and characters and events.
What's the difference between listening to a song so you can guess at the tablature and publishing that and Reading a book so you can publish a review (with spoilers and character names)?
You cannot use those characters in your own book without licensing them. You cannot use that tablature in your own song without licensing it.
We should have nuked the country and been done with it.
And what did the Iraqi people do to deserve being nuked?
Its a damned war, the only goal is to win.
We "won" the war when we took over the Iraqi government. Years ago.
Again, specifically, which of those agreements was worth the 3,400+ of our troops that have died over there? Or the uncounted number of Iraqi civilians who have died?
And Saddam was refusing to let people in to inpect, which to any logical person would indicate someting wrong was going on.
We had inspectors in Iraq. Right up until our invasion. And they found NOTHING to even indicate that Saddam had any weapons facilities. Much less actual "WMD's".
Dont forget the entire UN agreed with what was going on, and since you all simply want to bash Bush, dont forget that this ( apparently wrong ) intelligence was around long before Bush was around.
Which was why those inspectors were in Iraq.
I was one of the ones protesting the war BEFORE it started. We wanted to wait for the inspectors to do their job.
Meanwhile, everyone who was pushing for war was claiming that the inspectors were incompetent because they couldn't find the "WMD's" that we "knew" Saddam had.
You people make me sick. Get over your loss and move on. Or better yet, get the hell out.
The problem is that we are losing more of our troops over there ever week. Kind of hard to 'get over your loss' when they just died, isn't it?
Plus it was a violation of his agreements which automaticaly authorized action, regardless of existance of any WMD type technology.
And which of those agreements was worth the 3,400+ of our troops that have died over there? Or the uncounted number of Iraqi civilians who have died? Please be specific in your answer.
"In all file-sharing systems, you need a database to locate where these files are," Ross says. "The trick is to poison the database, to put bogus entries in that say that a very popular file is located at some target address that you want to attack."
Thousands of computers will then start contacting the target computer requesting, for example, the latest Britney Spears song or episodes of The Office.
Actually, that won't happen.
Computers do not AUTOMATICALLY hit the "target computer". A person has to CHOOSE to download whatever the content is supposed to be.
In order to get "thousands of computers" to attack the target, you'd have to claim that the content was something that "thousands" of people wanted... RIGHT THEN!
Otherwise your "attack" will be limited to how many people are trying to download the content at any one time that have not timed out.
They created modified versions of BitTorrent files, and their own "tracker" a computer, which stores the databases that peers use to find one another on the network. Then, using 25 bogus files, they were able to trick more than 50,000 computers into cooperating within a few hours.
It's not how many TOTAL computers over a TOTAL time period.
If each of those 50,000 computers timed out and gave up in 60 seconds (a very reasonable time frame), then you're only looking at 278 (rounded up) "attacks" a minute.
Between 4 and 5 "attacks" a second.
It doesn't sound like much when you do the math, does it?
All Eve has to do is to have two taps on the wire. She can watch the signal propagate from one to the other and determine who sent it.
And I'm not seeing why there would be three noise levels on the wire. You'd start off with the plain wire. Then Eve's taps. Then Eve would see the wire characteristic change when Alice put her resistor on. So she'd know that information. Then she'd see it change again when Bob put his resistor on. So she'd have that information also.
All Alice and Bob would know is the state AFTER Eve's taps went in.
"This is a system that should be taken seriously," says security specialist Bruce Schneier, who founded network security firm BT Counterpane. He says he was seduced by the simplicity of the idea when it was first proposed by Kish, and now wants to see independent tests of the working model. "I desperately want someone to analyse it," he says. "Assuming it works, it's way better than quantum."
Although I don't recall seeing anything about it on his website. Bruce knows a lot more than I do, but this just sounds weird.
And not just Ethernet. Any wire that has a repeater or relay or amplifier sounds like it would break this.
And don't forget man in the middle attacks. If Eve or Mallory get to the wire first, then the "normal" wire state that Alice and Bob see will include their taps.
Yes, every time evolution comes up, the same arguments against it are presented. Despite the fact that those same arguments have been discredited time and time again (if one would but do some basic research).
#1.
The only thing that has ever been observed is minor changes within a kind of animal over time: adaptation.
No, DNA mutations have been observed. Most of these mutations have NO adaptation value AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THEY OCCURRED. Changes to the environment AFTER those mutations caused them to become advantageous.
#2.
No real evidence has ever been discovered (or much less reproduced) that one kind of animal can bring forth an animal of a different kind: i.e. a fish giving birth to a frog.
Yes, it has. The easiest example is a colony of fruit flies. Split them into two sub-colonies and within a dozen generations they will no longer be able to inter-breed between the colonies. They have become two different species.
Your fish/frog example is flawed because there is no reason to believe that one those different animals could achieve gestation within each other. Modern fish came from animals that were ALMOST identical to modern fish. Modern frogs came from animals that were ALMOST identical to modern frogs.
#3.
The idea that a complicated organism can "evolve" one part at a time is just idiotic, no matter how many people believe it.
And yet the evidence seems to support that theory.
And not only that, but the theory of evolution is the basis of our entire medical science now. And that seems to work, also.
If rDNS resolves to Comcast's home addresses (and other ISP's), drop it.
If rDNS resolves to Comcast's (HotMail's, GMail's, AOL's, etc) mail servers, run it through SpamAssassin and drop it if it scores above 8. (HotMail has a problem with this because they add mortgage spam to their outbound messages).
Okay, that should have taken care of 90% of the problem.
As the article said, Novell is getting ready to "retire" the CNE 6 certification. And they're only up to NetWare 6.5.
Novell is killing NetWare. And GroupWise.
It's a shame. They were good products. I'm still running 7 NetWare boxes with 4 GroupWise post offices. But they will pretty much be reduced to 1 NetWare box with 1 GroupWise post office by this time next year.
Novell should have, long ago, migrated the look and feel of the NetWare utilities to SuSE so that their customers would not have seen a difference when migrating.
"C++ and C Sharp are still alive and kicking, but try to find a basic C-only programmer today, and you'll likely find a guy that's unemployed and/or training for a new skill," he says.
Now I know some people who've learned on C#, but I'm sure that will change in the near future.
Anyone who originally learned C, and is still writing code, has probably picked up a few other languages over the years.
Exactly. Their diagram is pretty and has unused resources in the overly simplified "before" case... but it does NOT scale when your have multiple senders and not every receiver wants every message.
So each point in their diagram will either have to be aware of every other point (you think routing tables are bad right now) or they have to send MASSIVE amounts of extra data.
Just from their diagram, they went from 3 lines to 6 lines at the first router. Then they fed those into 6 routers each with TEN lines.
That is a total of 7 routers and and 66 lines to deliver 3 messages to 20 recipients (60 transmissions). Or, 10% more than would be needed if you just ran 1 each.
Now add 2 more senders and 20 more recipients. But 5 of those only want 1 message, 10 want both the new messages and the other 5 want all 5 of the messages from all five of the senders.
You end up with congestion just from the packets telling the receivers which streams are merged and which streams they need to unlock them.
And the machines that only want 1 message have to decode 5 messages to get it.
I wasn't explaining their example, I was giving you a different example where network coding can be put to good use with a clear reason for the existence of the additional unused resources.
So while the discussion was about their example (did you notice the part where I said that the numbers in the diagram didn't match up with their example) you decide that you should be talking about something completely different.
Yes, I'm glad you managed to work your way through the simple A B C problem.
It's just a shame that that wasn't the topic of discussion. And the topic of discussion is the problem they're having getting A to D and B to C.
And it seems that they are talking about using additional channels, simultaneously. Which is why we were discussing their example and why I kept pointing out that you were leaving "D" off of your example.
Their discussion isn't about A to B to C and C to B to A
It's about A sending to D while at the same time B is sending to C.
You've left off "D".
And you failed to account for how B would know ahead of time that C would be sending a message. Which fails completely when you try to account for "D" in the equation. You need to account for the packets telling B which points wish to transmit.
In your wireless example, it would be easier to just skip B and have A broadcast its message to all and sundry and then C can broadcast. B and D would pickup whatever was meant for them.
1. A broadcasts to everyone, D receives the message. 2. B broadcasts to everyone, C receives the message.
Only two steps required. A further 33% savings and it includes an additional recipient.
Slashdot Mirror
Xandros was the Linux distribution running on Microtel hardware that WalMart was selling. It was a very big deal back then.
It's sad to see how far they've fallen.
The patent threat is just FUD.
I'm more interested, right now, in how much Xandros was paid for this "deal". Particularly after the problems Novell had with their's. And with Jeremy Allison leaving Novell after that deal.
They know their standing in the community is going to take a hit. So, how much was it worth to them?
So you're saying that it would help filter out a majority of the "complete mumpty".
That's a possibility. But it would be even easier to just use Slashdot's reputation/moderation system on your own site. That would solve the "complete mumpty" problem while also solving the problem of someone with excellent karma for his programming knowledge posting his conspiracy theories on your site.
And it automatically tunes itself to your audience.
Not really. Check back on the "creationism vs evolution" stories here.
What would be considered "good stuff" on one site (or even by one moderator) would be considered ignorant drivel on another site (or by a different moderator).
You achieve all the same benefits without the problems just by having your own reputation/moderation system.
It seems that everyone trying to "solve" this "problem" doesn't know what they're trying to achieve.
So what if you can make a perfect pseudonym identification system? What does that achieve for you? What do you accomplish beyond that?
Does it really matter to anyone else if your Slashdot 'nym can be verified to match your 'nym's on a dozen other boards? Who really cares if you have excellent karma on Slashdot?
In that case, no book reviews or movie reviews or any other review would ever be legal without express permission.
I can publish a movie review complete with character names, plot and spoilers.
You can read my movie review and write your own, private, screen play with that same plot and characters and events.
Two examples of "fair use".
What's the difference between listening to a song so you can guess at the tablature and publishing that
and
Reading a book so you can publish a review (with spoilers and character names)?
You cannot use those characters in your own book without licensing them. You cannot use that tablature in your own song without licensing it.
This is about personal, private usage.
And what did the Iraqi people do to deserve being nuked?
We "won" the war when we took over the Iraqi government. Years ago.
Again, specifically, which of those agreements was worth the 3,400+ of our troops that have died over there? Or the uncounted number of Iraqi civilians who have died?
We had inspectors in Iraq. Right up until our invasion. And they found NOTHING to even indicate that Saddam had any weapons facilities. Much less actual "WMD's".
Which was why those inspectors were in Iraq.
I was one of the ones protesting the war BEFORE it started. We wanted to wait for the inspectors to do their job.
Meanwhile, everyone who was pushing for war was claiming that the inspectors were incompetent because they couldn't find the "WMD's" that we "knew" Saddam had.
The problem is that we are losing more of our troops over there ever week. Kind of hard to 'get over your loss' when they just died, isn't it?
And which of those agreements was worth the 3,400+ of our troops that have died over there? Or the uncounted number of Iraqi civilians who have died? Please be specific in your answer.
Actually, that won't happen.
Computers do not AUTOMATICALLY hit the "target computer". A person has to CHOOSE to download whatever the content is supposed to be.
In order to get "thousands of computers" to attack the target, you'd have to claim that the content was something that "thousands" of people wanted
Otherwise your "attack" will be limited to how many people are trying to download the content at any one time that have not timed out.
It's not how many TOTAL computers over a TOTAL time period.
If each of those 50,000 computers timed out and gave up in 60 seconds (a very reasonable time frame), then you're only looking at 278 (rounded up) "attacks" a minute.
Between 4 and 5 "attacks" a second.
It doesn't sound like much when you do the math, does it?
Thanks!
And Bruce does note that it is vulnerable to a man in the middle attack.
All Eve has to do is to have two taps on the wire. She can watch the signal propagate from one to the other and determine who sent it.
And I'm not seeing why there would be three noise levels on the wire. You'd start off with the plain wire. Then Eve's taps. Then Eve would see the wire characteristic change when Alice put her resistor on. So she'd know that information. Then she'd see it change again when Bob put his resistor on. So she'd have that information also.
All Alice and Bob would know is the state AFTER Eve's taps went in.
So Eve would have all of the information.
Although I don't recall seeing anything about it on his website. Bruce knows a lot more than I do, but this just sounds weird.
And not just Ethernet. Any wire that has a repeater or relay or amplifier sounds like it would break this.
And don't forget man in the middle attacks. If Eve or Mallory get to the wire first, then the "normal" wire state that Alice and Bob see will include their taps.
#1.
No, DNA mutations have been observed. Most of these mutations have NO adaptation value AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THEY OCCURRED. Changes to the environment AFTER those mutations caused them to become advantageous.
#2.
Yes, it has. The easiest example is a colony of fruit flies. Split them into two sub-colonies and within a dozen generations they will no longer be able to inter-breed between the colonies. They have become two different species.
Your fish/frog example is flawed because there is no reason to believe that one those different animals could achieve gestation within each other. Modern fish came from animals that were ALMOST identical to modern fish. Modern frogs came from animals that were ALMOST identical to modern frogs.
#3.
And yet the evidence seems to support that theory.
And not only that, but the theory of evolution is the basis of our entire medical science now. And that seems to work, also.
Get over there and establish residency!
Yep. And even better than having the drivers available is having the drivers PRE-LOADED!
#1. It's $80 and why send money to Microsoft if you aren't buying Microsoft software?
#2. It's Dell. They have nationwide support. If you move, you can still get support.
#3. It'd Dell. They move a LOT of boxes. This will be incentive for those hardware vendors to support Linux to get in on this market.
Check rDNS - if it doesn't exist, drop it.
If rDNS resolves to Comcast's home addresses (and other ISP's), drop it.
If rDNS resolves to Comcast's (HotMail's, GMail's, AOL's, etc) mail servers, run it through SpamAssassin and drop it if it scores above 8. (HotMail has a problem with this because they add mortgage spam to their outbound messages).
Okay, that should have taken care of 90% of the problem.
They phrased it very badly. C isn't going anywhere. But if all you know is C, then you are very rare.
Most programmers who know C also know at least one other language.
In any event, putting that on the list was just stupid.
As the article said, Novell is getting ready to "retire" the CNE 6 certification. And they're only up to NetWare 6.5.
Novell is killing NetWare. And GroupWise.
It's a shame. They were good products. I'm still running 7 NetWare boxes with 4 GroupWise post offices. But they will pretty much be reduced to 1 NetWare box with 1 GroupWise post office by this time next year.
Novell should have, long ago, migrated the look and feel of the NetWare utilities to SuSE so that their customers would not have seen a difference when migrating.
Now I know some people who've learned on C#, but I'm sure that will change in the near future.
Anyone who originally learned C, and is still writing code, has probably picked up a few other languages over the years.
So, you're typing in a URL and you make an error.
And you end up at a page with nothing but ads. Lots of ads. Ads for EVERYTHING. Ads all over the place.
Does ANYONE here click on ANY of those ads?
If so, why?
It just rules out the ability for beneficial mutations to be acquired from different lines.
Viruses don't have sexual reproduction, yet they mutate and form resistant strains.
Exactly. Their diagram is pretty and has unused resources in the overly simplified "before" case ... but it does NOT scale when your have multiple senders and not every receiver wants every message.
So each point in their diagram will either have to be aware of every other point (you think routing tables are bad right now) or they have to send MASSIVE amounts of extra data.
Just from their diagram, they went from 3 lines to 6 lines at the first router. Then they fed those into 6 routers each with TEN lines.
That is a total of 7 routers and and 66 lines to deliver 3 messages to 20 recipients (60 transmissions). Or, 10% more than would be needed if you just ran 1 each.
Now add 2 more senders and 20 more recipients. But 5 of those only want 1 message, 10 want both the new messages and the other 5 want all 5 of the messages from all five of the senders.
You end up with congestion just from the packets telling the receivers which streams are merged and which streams they need to unlock them.
And the machines that only want 1 message have to decode 5 messages to get it.
So while the discussion was about their example (did you notice the part where I said that the numbers in the diagram didn't match up with their example) you decide that you should be talking about something completely different.
Yes, I'm glad you managed to work your way through the simple A B C problem.
It's just a shame that that wasn't the topic of discussion. And the topic of discussion is the problem they're having getting A to D and B to C.
And it seems that they are talking about using additional channels, simultaneously. Which is why we were discussing their example and why I kept pointing out that you were leaving "D" off of your example.
Can we stay on the subject of their example now?
Their discussion isn't about
A to B to C
and
C to B to A
It's about A sending to D while at the same time B is sending to C.
You've left off "D".
And you failed to account for how B would know ahead of time that C would be sending a message. Which fails completely when you try to account for "D" in the equation. You need to account for the packets telling B which points wish to transmit.
In your wireless example, it would be easier to just skip B and have A broadcast its message to all and sundry and then C can broadcast. B and D would pickup whatever was meant for them.
1. A broadcasts to everyone, D receives the message.
2. B broadcasts to everyone, C receives the message.
Only two steps required. A further 33% savings and it includes an additional recipient.