If anyone is wondering, here's a list of the 35 visa-waiver countries:
Andorra
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brunei
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Republic of Malta
San Marino
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
It's common practice in bioinformatics to measure the same data repetitively in an effort to reduce the error.
It's common practice on Slashdot to read the article before posting. From the abstract of the Science article:
Consensus sequences were generated from the single-molecule reads at 15-fold coverage, showing a median accuracy of 99.3%, with no systematic error beyond fluorophore-dependent error rates.
So that's 99.3% after averaging 15 reads. Not exactly replicating the same read 15 times..more like taking random starting points and aligning the results where they overlap, so that each base is covered in 15 different reads.
Don't get me wrong - this is really cool, and a massive speed-up over current "next-gen" sequencing. And I'm sure that it will get better.
To answer the GP - yes, this is an acceptable error rate, for now.
Since changing my SSH ports to something really high (above 50000),
Really, wouldn't any port other than 22 that isn't used for anything else bots attack work?
Confirmed.
I've had zero failed password attempts in 5 years on (port < 1024 & port != 22).
Additionally, anyone using the examples on the man page of nmap don't see the box. Of course, if they actually know how to use nmap, it falls back to security by obscurity. Which is why I also keep ssh patched, use strong passwords, disallow root login, etc. etc. etc..
The port switch is really just to keep the logs clean enough for me to notice incidents which require attention.
Hmm...interesting. I'm also on Bell Canada's network (in my case "directly"), and currently pulling the iso at ~520KB/s, with an estimated 2 hours from start to finish.
I've been wondering about all of this throttling talk, because I haven't seen any evidence of it. Are they only throttling the "indirect" users? (I assume that your ISP buys bandwidth from Bell?)
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone is wondering, here's a list of the 35 visa-waiver countries:
Andorra
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brunei
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Republic of Malta
San Marino
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
It's common practice in bioinformatics to measure the same data repetitively in an effort to reduce the error.
It's common practice on Slashdot to read the article before posting. From the abstract of the Science article:
Consensus sequences were generated from the single-molecule reads at 15-fold coverage, showing a median accuracy of 99.3%, with no systematic error beyond fluorophore-dependent error rates.
So that's 99.3% after averaging 15 reads. Not exactly replicating the same read 15 times..more like taking random starting points and aligning the results where they overlap, so that each base is covered in 15 different reads.
Don't get me wrong - this is really cool, and a massive speed-up over current "next-gen" sequencing. And I'm sure that it will get better.
To answer the GP - yes, this is an acceptable error rate, for now.
I assume that the hardware at Science can withstand a slashdotting better than the crappy blog linked in the summary:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5910/133
C|N>K
Really, wouldn't any port other than 22 that isn't used for anything else bots attack work?
Confirmed.
I've had zero failed password attempts in 5 years on (port < 1024 & port != 22).
Additionally, anyone using the examples on the man page of nmap don't see the box. Of course, if they actually know how to use nmap, it falls back to security by obscurity. Which is why I also keep ssh patched, use strong passwords, disallow root login, etc. etc. etc..
The port switch is really just to keep the logs clean enough for me to notice incidents which require attention.
Hmm...interesting. I'm also on Bell Canada's network (in my case "directly"), and currently pulling the iso at ~520KB/s, with an estimated 2 hours from start to finish.
I've been wondering about all of this throttling talk, because I haven't seen any evidence of it. Are they only throttling the "indirect" users? (I assume that your ISP buys bandwidth from Bell?)
Ok, that's perverse. But I'm on side.
When spectacular science fails, it does so in a spectacular way!