Yes, I mean they stole the source code to Cold Fusion?!? That's kind of like breaking into Ford automotive and stealing the blueprints for the Pinto...
Of Course the Senator knows all about the computers at the contractors to the NSA and what they can do,
while the guy who used to be a sysadmin there knows nothing about it.
Uh huh.
Because we all know that Senators know everything about technology.
There's Dvorak (for two-handed typing) and Fitaly for stylus/one-finger operation.
Both are designed for minimum finger travel (in English, anyhow). I doubt seriously that this "new" layout improves upon them in
any signifigant fashion, and (from the Wikipidia Dvorak article):
In 1956, a General Services Administration study by Earle Strong, which included an experiment involving ten experienced government typists, concluded that Dvorak training would never be able to amortize its costs.
So if you wanted to switch in any major fashion, you always have to get poeple ewho already type on some
other layout to switch, and it's not generally cost effective.
Ideas like deriving code from specifications, developing proof outlines and code in tandem, and just generally more rigorously thinking about code and why it works.
You should definitely look at Scratch, which is designed for kids, even (especially?) kids who don't type very well yet, yet it teaches them programming skills. This is the same crowd who initially did Logo all those years ago, and they think this is better...
First: learn about networking generally. In your case I'd recommend the Doug Comer/Dave Stevens Xinu networking books,
volumes I and
II, but a lot of folks
also like the books by W Richard Stevens TCP/IP Illustrated set. The Xinu books, particularly volume II, have the entire source code of a straightforward impelementation, which
is really good if you're a person who reads code well.
Then pick 2 network vendors you like and learn how to configure their gear. Probably start with whatever gear you have now;
it may be perfectly serviceable if setup properly, or at least usable as a corner of a better network design.
The fly-a-plane-into-a-building attack already didn't work the fourth time. Once people knew that was a mode of attack, it stopped working. No more security needed be done, not even locking the cockpits.
Tobacco companies killed more people in the USA in 2001 than terrorists, by a considerable margin. So where did we spend our money? Invading Afghanistan(!), to punish a government (our former allies) who correctly concluded that they physically couldn't hand over the organizers.
So now we've been there for almost 10 years, and spent uncounted billions of dollars, and we can't catch them either.
It's plain woolly-headed thinking; acting like sheep.
A while back, I signed onto the peer-to-patent website for awhile, and tried to add some prior art references. I tried to refer the patent examiners to a Communications of the ACM article from 20 years ago, and they said they didn't have access to that and I'd have to get them a PDF(!) Similarly they couldn't seem to come up with a copy of Karrels & McKusic et al. to see what was in 4.3BSD a quarter century ago. I mean, they ought to have a library, right? As a public service, I got an ACM membership again for a year so I could pull down the ACM article and give them a copy...
How are they going to recognize a rehash of old ideas if they don't even have the basic reference materials?
So you had a brick house, while those around you had wood... When the whole city goes up
in flames and there are 10 story fire tornadoes going around your house, it doesn't matter that your house was reasonably fire safe on its own.
So yeah, we don't care about them, until their myriad systems become malware platforms and clog up the entire internet with spam, DDOS attacks, and generally make the whole internet a mess.
The copyright notices in the comments, etc were then replaced with AT&T ones, replacing
the Berkeley ones (also replacing the earlier AT&T ones, btw.) I can vouch for this personally, having worked on the "vi" source code both at Purdue (original BSD 4.3 code) and at AT&T (System Vr4 code) -- all of the BSD copyrights, as well as the (bad) poetry, had been removed from the comments in the vi sources.
The Folks from the UCB law school took advantage of this in the counter suit,
since the AT&T folks, having changed the copyright notices in the troff sources, ended up doing this this then in the printed manuals.
So while AT&T was suing about vague things like including code derived from code derived from code they wrote; UC Berkeley countersued about printed, published, paper manuals, where AT&T was clearly publishing them without the UCB copyright and license info. Clear, obvious, game-set-match, paper copyright violations.
So rather than have to find and "Destroy all Copies" of SystemVr4 manuals (including those published in turn by licencees like HP, IBM, etc.) AT&T agreed to drop their
initial suit and make the countersuit go away.
Actually, there used to be wireless links between the mainland US and Hawaii back in the 70's that used TCP/IP and sent emial, did FTP, and telnet just fine...
In particular 5,436,960, and I note that something
like half of the paragraphs in it, though numbered differently,
all say:
the identification number is added to the originated information by matching an identification of the at least one of the plurality of destination processors with a stored identification of the at least one of the plurality of destination processors and adding an identification number stored with the matched identification of the at least one of the plurality of destination processors to the originated information as the identification number.
Which sounds like a particulary contorted way to describe a router taking the data out of a packet routed to it, and routing it to
another system based on the destination address.
Then, in the Description he lies:
Electronic mail services are basically a wire line-to-wire line, point-to-point type of communications. Electronic mail, similar to facsimile transmissions, provides a one-way message. A recipient typically does not have to interact with the message. Electronic mail, unlike facsimile, is a non-real-time message transmission architecture.
Email has always had a send-to-multiple recipients functionality, and has always used store-and-forward servers over packet networks and/or instances dial-up lines. It is not
"point-to-point" except rarely when sending to the same host
where the mail originates.
Basically, when you realize that an Ethernet is an RF frequency network, this patent describes email being forwarded by an outgoing
mail server and being routed to one or more destinations. Pretty
much what SMTP over TCP/IP had been doing for over 20 years at the
time this lame-o patent was filed. I can't wait to see what the other ones look like (shudder).
Those big long hex numbers are revision id's in the GIT version control
system used for the kernel. Perusing any instance of said repository
(such as the one here will let you look at that commit, what files changed, what log messages
were included, who made it, etc.
"Particle physics in the United States is in transition. Two of the three high-energy
physics colliders in the US have now permanently ceased operation. The third,
Fermilab's Tevatron, will turn off in the next few years. The energy frontier, defined for
decades by Fermilab's Tevatron, will move to Europe when CERN's Large Hadron
Collider begins operating. American high-energy physicists have played a leadership
role in developing and building the LHC program, and they constitute a significant
fraction of the LHC collaborations--the largest group from any single nation. About
half of all US experimental particle physicists participate in LHC experiments."
Fermilab plans to keep running neutrino experiments, and working on Project X, which will be developing small accellerator sections which could be combined to make a new, more powerful than ever, linear collider, or possibly even for Accellerator Driven Subcritical nuclear reactors, which could burn fuel that won't undergo fission on its own, or waste from curent reactors, and which would shut down when you turned off the beam.
So there is life for Fermilab beyond the Tevatron. But it is a little sad that what I see out my window isn't the Worlds Most Powerful Accellerator anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
And you get usable lumber and nails to make stuff out of.
Burning them is a waste.
Ah... so the Cold Fusion source code was stored on a box running Cold Fusion?
Yes, I mean they stole the source code to Cold Fusion?!? That's kind of like breaking into Ford automotive and stealing the blueprints for the Pinto...
Of Course the Senator knows all about the computers at the contractors to the NSA and what they can do,
while the guy who used to be a sysadmin there knows nothing about it.
Uh huh.
Because we all know that Senators know everything about technology.
or don't you read Pratchett?
There's Dvorak (for two-handed typing) and Fitaly for stylus/one-finger operation.
Both are designed for minimum finger travel (in English, anyhow). I doubt seriously that this "new" layout improves upon them in any signifigant fashion, and (from the Wikipidia Dvorak article):
So if you wanted to switch in any major fashion, you always have to get poeple ewho already type on some other layout to switch, and it's not generally cost effective.
Only if you don't clean the screen before you put it on...
Fix an O.S. bug yourself?
3M has a fix for that...
...and it protects your real screen from scratches, etc.
Ideas like deriving code from specifications, developing proof outlines and code in tandem, and just generally more rigorously thinking about code and why it works.
You should definitely look at Scratch, which is designed for kids, even (especially?) kids who don't type very well yet, yet it teaches them programming skills. This is the same crowd who initially did Logo all those years ago, and they think this is better...
First: learn about networking generally. In your case I'd recommend the Doug Comer/Dave Stevens Xinu networking books, volumes I and II, but a lot of folks also like the books by W Richard Stevens TCP/IP Illustrated set. The Xinu books, particularly volume II, have the entire source code of a straightforward impelementation, which is really good if you're a person who reads code well.
Then pick 2 network vendors you like and learn how to configure their gear. Probably start with whatever gear you have now; it may be perfectly serviceable if setup properly, or at least usable as a corner of a better network design.
Actually, Shakers thought THEY shouldn't have sex; they were a celibate order, like Catholic nuns. They realized most folks should procreate.
They got done in when the state started orphans homes, and they no longer had orphans to raise and recruit from.
The fly-a-plane-into-a-building attack already didn't work the fourth time. Once people knew that was a mode of attack, it stopped working. No more security needed be done, not even locking the cockpits.
Tobacco companies killed more people in the USA in 2001 than terrorists, by a considerable margin. So where did we spend our money? Invading Afghanistan(!), to punish a government (our former allies) who correctly concluded that they physically couldn't hand over the organizers. So now we've been there for almost 10 years, and spent uncounted billions of dollars, and we can't catch them either.
It's plain woolly-headed thinking; acting like sheep.
We need a Sarek to start preaching Logic.
A while back, I signed onto the peer-to-patent website for awhile, and tried to add some prior art references. I tried to refer the patent examiners to a Communications of the ACM article from 20 years ago, and they said they didn't have access to that and I'd have to get them a PDF(!) Similarly they couldn't seem to come up with a copy of Karrels & McKusic et al. to see what was in 4.3BSD a quarter century ago. I mean, they ought to have a library, right? As a public service, I got an ACM membership again for a year so I could pull down the ACM article and give them a copy...
How are they going to recognize a rehash of old ideas if they don't even have the basic reference materials?
And in the minds of the Patent Office that's somehow Really Different...
They adjust what they see/hear/read based on their biases.
Once you realize everyone does this, the strangeness of the world starts to make more sense.
"You can either cut their heads off, or burn 'em. They go up pretty easy..." -- _The Original Night of the Living Dead_
So yeah, we don't care about them, until their myriad systems become malware platforms and clog up the entire internet with spam, DDOS attacks, and generally make the whole internet a mess.
The code was first copied, correctly.
The copyright notices in the comments, etc were then replaced with AT&T ones, replacing the Berkeley ones (also replacing the earlier AT&T ones, btw.) I can vouch for this personally, having worked on the "vi" source code both at Purdue (original BSD 4.3 code) and at AT&T (System Vr4 code) -- all of the BSD copyrights, as well as the (bad) poetry, had been removed from the comments in the vi sources.
The Folks from the UCB law school took advantage of this in the counter suit, since the AT&T folks, having changed the copyright notices in the troff sources, ended up doing this this then in the printed manuals. So while AT&T was suing about vague things like including code derived from code derived from code they wrote; UC Berkeley countersued about printed, published, paper manuals, where AT&T was clearly publishing them without the UCB copyright and license info. Clear, obvious, game-set-match, paper copyright violations.
So rather than have to find and "Destroy all Copies" of SystemVr4 manuals (including those published in turn by licencees like HP, IBM, etc.) AT&T agreed to drop their initial suit and make the countersuit go away.
Actually, there used to be wireless links between the mainland US and Hawaii back in the 70's that used TCP/IP and sent emial, did FTP, and telnet just fine...
In particular 5,436,960, and I note that something like half of the paragraphs in it, though numbered differently, all say:
Which sounds like a particulary contorted way to describe a router taking the data out of a packet routed to it, and routing it to another system based on the destination address.
Then, in the Description he lies:
Email has always had a send-to-multiple recipients functionality, and has always used store-and-forward servers over packet networks and/or instances dial-up lines. It is not "point-to-point" except rarely when sending to the same host where the mail originates.
Basically, when you realize that an Ethernet is an RF frequency network, this patent describes email being forwarded by an outgoing mail server and being routed to one or more destinations. Pretty much what SMTP over TCP/IP had been doing for over 20 years at the time this lame-o patent was filed. I can't wait to see what the other ones look like (shudder).
Those big long hex numbers are revision id's in the GIT version control system used for the kernel. Perusing any instance of said repository (such as the one here will let you look at that commit, what files changed, what log messages were included, who made it, etc.
I mean, with undead legislation, you really have to not take chances...
See for example, the P5 Report:
Fermilab plans to keep running neutrino experiments, and working on Project X, which will be developing small accellerator sections which could be combined to make a new, more powerful than ever, linear collider, or possibly even for Accellerator Driven Subcritical nuclear reactors, which could burn fuel that won't undergo fission on its own, or waste from curent reactors, and which would shut down when you turned off the beam.
So there is life for Fermilab beyond the Tevatron. But it is a little sad that what I see out my window isn't the Worlds Most Powerful Accellerator anymore.