If nothing else you could stick some big-foot shaped shoes on it, cover it in fur and go stalk some rual highways, waiting for a car to pounce on; get hit, and then run into the forest.
With this suit, one could start a frenzy in the bigfoot crowd (also substitute bigfoot for an alien, godzilla, teletubby, barney, etc. for better effect)
No, I understood your point fully, however I see alot of negative hand waving and chicken little synrome.
What the heck do you suggest? You're obviously the security expert, and l33t h4xx0r 3x7r0d1|/|4r3. Do we allow an obviosly oorly designed (and non-peer-reviewed) system do a very important task? Or do we just throw our arms up and say "I give up", then kill ourselves? Or....?
I say that it IS possible to know when something in a WELL DESIGNED system is awry. (not just software, I'm talking a system--be it hardware, software, networking, redudancy, and constant checking by people--as a whole) The problems you point out about an open system are equally as possible in a closed system. Hell, these same problems exist in paper ballot voting (can you trust the poll people and the counters, etc. etc..)
Do I have any idea about how to design such a system? Yeah, I have a few (mostly common sense thigns), but I can't see the forest and the trees; that's going to take quite a few brilliant and motivated people.
As a designer of a system like this, there's a few hypothetical questions I'd have to ask myself: Can I account for every single possible contingency? No. Obviously, to err is human; thus every creation of ours is possibly flawed. Can I do the best that I can to ensure that few . Absolutely. Did I do the best I could?
It's the answer to the last question that would let me sleep at night. Should the designers of many of these voting systems be sleeping well?
I'm not a programmer (was a CS student at one point, but that was another world ago). I have no interest in programming, and I personally don't have the skillset. Therefore, I have no personal interest in examining the code on such a voting machine. However I do know that there are people out there who are interested thusly, and I would have to trust that thier examination was thorough, and I would also have to trust their honesty.
The thing is, I would trust such a person more than I would trust the government. These individuals are more accountable; they've got their professional reputations at stake in a world wide arena--whereas a contractor for the government is hidden behind layers and layers of bureaucracy and red tape, and no individual would be accountable.
I use Linux, and a ton of programs that run on top of it. I haven't a clue what makes it work deep down inside, and I know that even if I were interested in it's innerworking that I would have to spend untold hours trying to get the gist of it, or even to find a single line of problematic code. Regardless, I trust in the work many hundreds of people (but I trust in the many hundreds of people watching intently over thier shoulders more).
No, Open Source's advantage in this case is so WE, and EVERYONE ESLE can understand who has pissed in the pool.
Not to sound paranoid, but I'm not entirely trusting of *my* government to make sure everything is kosher. Shit, I'm sure some (government) people would rather have it very un-kosher if they had the choice.
Busking is street performance, with the idea of soliciting money.
Playing music, jugling, miming, singing, puppetry, performing, dancing, comedy, and just acting like a fool in front of many people with the hope of getting money is what busking's about.
I've never been to Dublin, or Ireland at all (though I am Irish-->American), but I have a hard time beleiving that an abnormally large number of Irish people do this for a living (judging by my family). But maybe I'd be wrong in that assumption.
They used the size variables in HTML to resize it (which of course makes it look terrible). Image size is 446x668, They resize it to 560x839. Makes no sense.
The Jupiter Research survey also found that 20 percent of consumers said playing MP3 files is important, versus 7 percent who would prefer files in Microsoft's WMA format and fewer than 1 percent who prefer the Advanced Audio Coding format, an open standard that was developed by the Moving Picture Experts Group and which is supported on Apple's iTunes music store.
28% have an opinion? I'm wondering what the heck the other 72% have to say about it. Sigh. The only thing I hate more than statistics are glaringly bad(ly used) statistics.
In a proper storage system even fire would have zero impact.
I've seen test footage from the late 70's, when LNG (Liqefied Natural Gas)/LPG (Propane) was first being put into cars and trucks. The Department Of Transportation, of course required much testing, and damned if these tanks aren't tough. They're aluminum, wrapped with a fibreglass mesh composite.
They dropped cars with these tanks in the trunk from cranes (equivalent to 80Mph crashes), shot them with pistol rounds, shot them with M16's, burned them on top of stacks of skids, and even tried to explode them with dynamite (no effect).
The only thing that had any effect at all on the tanks were the armor piercing rifle round, and extremely hot fires. The rifle round penetrated, but it didn't cause a fire, or any explosion. The tank just sat there and vented.
The fire increased the pressure inside of the tank to it's bypass pressure, and some gas vented (but didn't ignite, despite being surrounded by a huge fire...because there was no oxygen to make it burn).
Just try any of that with a regular automotive fuel tank.
People all excited about hydrogen and LNG/LPG are idiots, plain and simple. Gasoline is a far more hazardous fuel than any of those. Ask the Army. It's no wonder all (most?) US military vehicles use diesel fuel (besides some of it's more obvious benefits).
Fibre Channel is just a network, from what I understand (I also have no experience with it, but I've done a bit of research on it in the past), and all sorts of protocols can run over it, just like ethernet. So, you could use IP over FC, or whatever... But SCSI is the protocol of choice for storage, so it should be pretty familair in that regard. The FC controllers should allow booting from the array, and a simple software RAID setup should be all it takes to make it work on the computer side. So, that's easy enough. Not all that much different from SCSI/IDE RAID. Made a mistake, though. FC is 1 gigabit, not 400 megabit as I indicated in my last post. Bonus.
There is a DIY way to go about Fibre Channel, but unfortunately, I can't find the excelent bookmarks that I had which described it all... Including the setup on Linux/Windows, but it seemed pretty easy once you've got all the hardware in order.
Basically, you need a thing called a "T-Card" for each drive. Normally, these are built into the backplane on the FC enclosure, and supply data and power. The T-Card adapter is basically the same thing, except you provide the interconnets in the form of cable and power input. There are 3 interconnect options, DB-9, some high speed serial connector, and optical. I also thought there was an RJ-45 method, but I can't find it.
OKAY... After much googling, I've found the adapter card that can be used with single disks: Cinonic systems made this up. I'm pretty sure that this is what I happened upon before. All you need is one of these for each disk, and a bunch of shielded Cat-5 for hooking 'em up. They're expensive, but hey, you gotta pay if you wanna play, right?:D
It seems that the prices for FC stuff has come down quite a bit, here's an auction similar to the one I mentioned earler, probably by the same vendor. 8 of the back-plane adapters would come up to $480 (60$ each), plus the drives, cabling and whatnot would make such an offer pretty attractive. If you want higher capacity, just get some newer drives and put these on the shelf--it's still a damn good deal. All you would need at that point is a length of DB-9 terminated cable, and some place to put the enclosure. If I had the money, I'd be bidding (but I wouldn't have told you!:P).
If you want to go the more commercial route, Apple has some very competitve options that should work equally well on a PC or Linux/BSD system--those are quite drewl worthy, IMHO. But these are enterprise type systems, so the price is pretty shocking (to someone of my current monetary level anyway).
It would be just as well to go IDE RAID (much much cheaper), except I'd also like to move those noisy drives out of my working environment--which either means FC, or building some sort of sound proof chamber to keep my computers in. Hrm.
Hey, you can get a fibre channel controller and drives/cases for cheap on ebay anymore.
It's exactly what you're looking for, somewhere about 400Mb/s bandwidth, and you can run copper (cat5) up to 10 meters away. There's always a bunch of 9-10GB drives on ebay for around a hundred bucks or less per dozen.
You could definitely get a crazy-throughput 100GB RAID setup for cheap, and put it in a closet or whatever. It's definitely worth looking into, I'd do it, but I'm short on cash:(
Yep. I had a couple drives similar to the one you describe, excapt they were about 40MB, and had 10" platters. One got crushed, so I salvaged the fun stuff out of it: three 10" aluminium disks coated with some ferrous stuff, and two honking big magnets.
They're really quite great to pick up nails / steel shavings with. The problem is getting them off!
At my university nearly everyone used telnet to check their mail, and FTP on the big computer (ran AIX, probably still does). It's really quite stupid, especially when Free software exists for pretty much all platforms under the sun to easiy mitigate that risk.
I once approaced one of the computer dorks at the lab about making PuTTY available to everyone on the lab computers, explaining packet sniffing (what's worse is that most of the individual labs were hubbed), and he turned me into the administration for hacking, and they froze my account. I wrote a letter to the network admins and CS staff, and got my account back explaining this--that I hadn't attempted sniffing passwords, and that I was just illustrating a point. But that's what you get for trying to do the right thing. No good deed goes unpunished, as they say.
So don't doubt that at many universities around the world there's passwords--and all sorts of other good stuff floating around in plaintext--ripe for sniffing.
Admins just need to turn off telnet and FTP where applicable, and force their users to use other methods. That's what it comes down to.
But not at the scale that these places are currently supportig--and definitely not at a scale the average North American (Minus "North") would be happy with.
Yes, perhaps he changed a bit in between the whole set of movies; I wouldn't deny that (but I would attribute it to having more time to better refine their work, and more experience towards the end of the run).
My point was, that unlike Matrix, or many other movies that replace an actor for a scene or two, Gollum's appearance didn't suddenly (and dramatically) change inbetween takes, thereby drawing the viewer out of the movie by focusing his attention on the details. Iv'e seen CGI stunt doubles done well, but they are few and far between. Usually they blur the heck out of them, and the saturation seems all wrong, but eh. Whatever!
I dunno, the original Matrix trailer was designed that way for a purpose, as far as I can tell: to draw the viewer into the theatre to be suprised by the plot.
That's why I would say that it was an excelent trailer: it gave nothing away that was relevant to the story, but still managed to get people into the theatre. It was ingenious compared to most trailers.
They didn't go back and forth between CGI and non-CGI Gollum, and that's what made it beleivable (and they did an exceptionaj job on him, too). If they went between something that was obviously CGI and a puppet/actor, we'd be complaining just as much.
Slashdot Mirror
If nothing else you could stick some big-foot shaped shoes on it, cover it in fur and go stalk some rual highways, waiting for a car to pounce on; get hit, and then run into the forest.
With this suit, one could start a frenzy in the bigfoot crowd (also substitute bigfoot for an alien, godzilla, teletubby, barney, etc. for better effect)
*thump*
If Natalie Portman has hands like that, you can keep her (it)?.
Eeek.
No, I understood your point fully, however I see alot of negative hand waving and chicken little synrome.
What the heck do you suggest? You're obviously the security expert, and l33t h4xx0r 3x7r0d1|/|4r3. Do we allow an obviosly oorly designed (and non-peer-reviewed) system do a very important task? Or do we just throw our arms up and say "I give up", then kill ourselves? Or....?
I say that it IS possible to know when something in a WELL DESIGNED system is awry. (not just software, I'm talking a system--be it hardware, software, networking, redudancy, and constant checking by people--as a whole) The problems you point out about an open system are equally as possible in a closed system. Hell, these same problems exist in paper ballot voting (can you trust the poll people and the counters, etc. etc..)
Do I have any idea about how to design such a system? Yeah, I have a few (mostly common sense thigns), but I can't see the forest and the trees; that's going to take quite a few brilliant and motivated people.
As a designer of a system like this, there's a few hypothetical questions I'd have to ask myself: Can I account for every single possible contingency? No. Obviously, to err is human; thus every creation of ours is possibly flawed. Can I do the best that I can to ensure that few . Absolutely. Did I do the best I could?
It's the answer to the last question that would let me sleep at night. Should the designers of many of these voting systems be sleeping well?
No, absolutely, you've got a good point.
I'm not a programmer (was a CS student at one point, but that was another world ago). I have no interest in programming, and I personally don't have the skillset. Therefore, I have no personal interest in examining the code on such a voting machine. However I do know that there are people out there who are interested thusly, and I would have to trust that thier examination was thorough, and I would also have to trust their honesty.
The thing is, I would trust such a person more than I would trust the government. These individuals are more accountable; they've got their professional reputations at stake in a world wide arena--whereas a contractor for the government is hidden behind layers and layers of bureaucracy and red tape, and no individual would be accountable.
I use Linux, and a ton of programs that run on top of it. I haven't a clue what makes it work deep down inside, and I know that even if I were interested in it's innerworking that I would have to spend untold hours trying to get the gist of it, or even to find a single line of problematic code. Regardless, I trust in the work many hundreds of people (but I trust in the many hundreds of people watching intently over thier shoulders more).
No, Open Source's advantage in this case is so WE, and EVERYONE ESLE can understand who has pissed in the pool.
Not to sound paranoid, but I'm not entirely trusting of *my* government to make sure everything is kosher. Shit, I'm sure some (government) people would rather have it very un-kosher if they had the choice.
Hmm. So now updating your iPod from a non-mainstream OS is illegal?
Of course not! iPods update from MacOS, too!
*ducks*
Busking is street performance, with the idea of soliciting money.
Playing music, jugling, miming, singing, puppetry, performing, dancing, comedy, and just acting like a fool in front of many people with the hope of getting money is what busking's about.
I've never been to Dublin, or Ireland at all (though I am Irish-->American), but I have a hard time beleiving that an abnormally large number of Irish people do this for a living (judging by my family). But maybe I'd be wrong in that assumption.
Better make sure that a clockwork car dosen't collide with an anti-clockwork car... That could be a real mess.
Maniac Mansion? Really? I've got to get that pilot episode.
Damn, just thinking about it... That could actually make a pretty good TV show. Like 3RD Rock + Tentacles. w00t.
Actually, the image looks okay.
They used the size variables in HTML to resize it (which of course makes it look terrible). Image size is 446x668, They resize it to 560x839. Makes no sense.
Still makes their operation look pretty bad.
28% have an opinion? I'm wondering what the heck the other 72% have to say about it. Sigh. The only thing I hate more than statistics are glaringly bad(ly used) statistics.
Seriously, that'd be okay with me!
:P
*grin*
Lot of RAM? Yes.
I'm thinking it's time to take a road trip with the demolition saw.
I mean, they're French Canadians, it's not like they're going to do anything about it (especially when you've got a huge abrasive saw).
Right?
In a proper storage system even fire would have zero impact.
I've seen test footage from the late 70's, when LNG (Liqefied Natural Gas)/LPG (Propane) was first being put into cars and trucks. The Department Of Transportation, of course required much testing, and damned if these tanks aren't tough. They're aluminum, wrapped with a fibreglass mesh composite.
They dropped cars with these tanks in the trunk from cranes (equivalent to 80Mph crashes), shot them with pistol rounds, shot them with M16's, burned them on top of stacks of skids, and even tried to explode them with dynamite (no effect).
The only thing that had any effect at all on the tanks were the armor piercing rifle round, and extremely hot fires. The rifle round penetrated, but it didn't cause a fire, or any explosion. The tank just sat there and vented.
The fire increased the pressure inside of the tank to it's bypass pressure, and some gas vented (but didn't ignite, despite being surrounded by a huge fire...because there was no oxygen to make it burn).
Just try any of that with a regular automotive fuel tank.
People all excited about hydrogen and LNG/LPG are idiots, plain and simple. Gasoline is a far more hazardous fuel than any of those. Ask the Army. It's no wonder all (most?) US military vehicles use diesel fuel (besides some of it's more obvious benefits).
Fibre Channel is just a network, from what I understand (I also have no experience with it, but I've done a bit of research on it in the past), and all sorts of protocols can run over it, just like ethernet. So, you could use IP over FC, or whatever... But SCSI is the protocol of choice for storage, so it should be pretty familair in that regard. The FC controllers should allow booting from the array, and a simple software RAID setup should be all it takes to make it work on the computer side. So, that's easy enough. Not all that much different from SCSI/IDE RAID. Made a mistake, though. FC is 1 gigabit, not 400 megabit as I indicated in my last post. Bonus.
:D
:P).
There is a DIY way to go about Fibre Channel, but unfortunately, I can't find the excelent bookmarks that I had which described it all... Including the setup on Linux/Windows, but it seemed pretty easy once you've got all the hardware in order.
Basically, you need a thing called a "T-Card" for each drive. Normally, these are built into the backplane on the FC enclosure, and supply data and power. The T-Card adapter is basically the same thing, except you provide the interconnets in the form of cable and power input. There are 3 interconnect options, DB-9, some high speed serial connector, and optical. I also thought there was an RJ-45 method, but I can't find it.
OKAY... After much googling, I've found the adapter card that can be used with single disks: Cinonic systems made this up. I'm pretty sure that this is what I happened upon before. All you need is one of these for each disk, and a bunch of shielded Cat-5 for hooking 'em up. They're expensive, but hey, you gotta pay if you wanna play, right?
It seems that the prices for FC stuff has come down quite a bit, here's an auction similar to the one I mentioned earler, probably by the same vendor. 8 of the back-plane adapters would come up to $480 (60$ each), plus the drives, cabling and whatnot would make such an offer pretty attractive. If you want higher capacity, just get some newer drives and put these on the shelf--it's still a damn good deal. All you would need at that point is a length of DB-9 terminated cable, and some place to put the enclosure. If I had the money, I'd be bidding (but I wouldn't have told you!
If you want to go the more commercial route, Apple has some very competitve options that should work equally well on a PC or Linux/BSD system--those are quite drewl worthy, IMHO. But these are enterprise type systems, so the price is pretty shocking (to someone of my current monetary level anyway).
It would be just as well to go IDE RAID (much much cheaper), except I'd also like to move those noisy drives out of my working environment--which either means FC, or building some sort of sound proof chamber to keep my computers in. Hrm.
Hey, you can get a fibre channel controller and drives/cases for cheap on ebay anymore.
:(
It's exactly what you're looking for, somewhere about 400Mb/s bandwidth, and you can run copper (cat5) up to 10 meters away. There's always a bunch of 9-10GB drives on ebay for around a hundred bucks or less per dozen.
You could definitely get a crazy-throughput 100GB RAID setup for cheap, and put it in a closet or whatever. It's definitely worth looking into, I'd do it, but I'm short on cash
Yep. I had a couple drives similar to the one you describe, excapt they were about 40MB, and had 10" platters. One got crushed, so I salvaged the fun stuff out of it: three 10" aluminium disks coated with some ferrous stuff, and two honking big magnets.
They're really quite great to pick up nails / steel shavings with. The problem is getting them off!
At my university nearly everyone used telnet to check their mail, and FTP on the big computer (ran AIX, probably still does). It's really quite stupid, especially when Free software exists for pretty much all platforms under the sun to easiy mitigate that risk.
I once approaced one of the computer dorks at the lab about making PuTTY available to everyone on the lab computers, explaining packet sniffing (what's worse is that most of the individual labs were hubbed), and he turned me into the administration for hacking, and they froze my account. I wrote a letter to the network admins and CS staff, and got my account back explaining this--that I hadn't attempted sniffing passwords, and that I was just illustrating a point. But that's what you get for trying to do the right thing. No good deed goes unpunished, as they say.
So don't doubt that at many universities around the world there's passwords--and all sorts of other good stuff floating around in plaintext--ripe for sniffing.
Admins just need to turn off telnet and FTP where applicable, and force their users to use other methods. That's what it comes down to.
But not at the scale that these places are currently supportig--and definitely not at a scale the average North American (Minus "North") would be happy with.
Meh. It's time for another civil war.
Damit! Why did you have to give me the idea to search for that?
Transexual banks just DO NOT do it for me. What freaks!
*mumbling incoherently, shuffling away*
Yes, perhaps he changed a bit in between the whole set of movies; I wouldn't deny that (but I would attribute it to having more time to better refine their work, and more experience towards the end of the run).
My point was, that unlike Matrix, or many other movies that replace an actor for a scene or two, Gollum's appearance didn't suddenly (and dramatically) change inbetween takes, thereby drawing the viewer out of the movie by focusing his attention on the details. Iv'e seen CGI stunt doubles done well, but they are few and far between. Usually they blur the heck out of them, and the saturation seems all wrong, but eh. Whatever!
I dunno, the original Matrix trailer was designed that way for a purpose, as far as I can tell: to draw the viewer into the theatre to be suprised by the plot.
That's why I would say that it was an excelent trailer: it gave nothing away that was relevant to the story, but still managed to get people into the theatre. It was ingenious compared to most trailers.
At least in LOTR Gollum was consistent.
They didn't go back and forth between CGI and non-CGI Gollum, and that's what made it beleivable (and they did an exceptionaj job on him, too). If they went between something that was obviously CGI and a puppet/actor, we'd be complaining just as much.
I suspect that he just got tired of finding intriguing gestures for his extra hands to make while they weren't doing something useful.
Yep.
At least if you have no return customers you can be satisfied in the knowledge that you're doing a good job!