throw something on your site that checks the referer field for slashdot.org. If there are more than 100 hits in the last minute, fire off a warning, or trigger the safety measure.
Of course, if you're going to take the time to throw that in, your going to have good measures anyway. And i don't think you want to limit the high-traffic capability to slashdot only.
I think SGI will dump irix as soon as it makes sense. That's the whole idea behind them porting their cool 3D stuff to Linux. As soon as that stuff is ported, and also whenever linux scales better to more cpus, they will drop irix.
It just makes more sense, rather than supporting their own OS.
Check their roadmap if you like. They are not saying that, but i think the writing is on the wall.
I work at a small company, so we've got better things to do than spy on everyone's communications regularly. However, i'd like to know how much encrypted communications are allowed at bigger corps.
Is encrypted e-mail allowed? SSH tunnels? I've heard of a lot of big corporations don't allow a lot of certain web access, including Yahoo mail, etc.
Other peoples' machines won't know that your zone's public key is accurate unless you have it signed by its superzone. (The
superzone of e.g. "toad.com" is "com".) Similarly, if you have any sub-zones, you should get a public key from each of them, sign
it, and return the signature to them.
So i guess the "parent" is authority. And ultimately, the root servers are.
OK, this is basically me second time reading about DNSSEC. What i want to know is this: if all our DNS servers are going to have public/private keys and certs like SSL web servers, who is going to be the certificate authority?
Will we have to pay another few hundred bucks to Verisign and the like for EVERY DNS server? Or is there going to be a cheap or publicly run system for certifying DNSSEC keys?
I don't want to put a new system into place that creates the next Network Solutions.
What interests me is why should we care to says "This is an OS" and "This is not"? The only reason to point out this kind of difference is to see to subsequently claim some are better than others.
He should be able to make the claim that Mac OS 10 or whatever is better than "UNIX", for reasons x,y,z.
ASGP was founded after the 1996 elections. They are the partner of the european greens, and they nominated Nader/LaDuke.
Part of the problem is that Green Party USA (the more radical group, but older) is supporting Nader, and make almost no mention of the difference, so most people can't tell.
There was an article in the New Republic some weeks ago, and the writer made the same mistake in confusing GP USA with Nader's green party.
OK, i totally concede IIS is a 'fantastic product', esp. considering features.
Maybe you would like it better if i said Apache has easier security and modularity. And with security, easier is better.
A year ago i did some testing using IIS/ASP for a project, one that also needed basic authentication over SSL. Guess what?
Since IIS uses the OS model of security, i was opening up server privledges to every remote user, unless i set the extremely comprehensive permissions just right, or hired an NT admin to do it all the time. Even then, i can't trust MS to get it right. NT interfaces are just not geared towards easy viewing and updating of security permissions.
I was attracted to the ease of ASP development, but i didn't like being beholden to the windows NT platform for my business. Guess what i did? Found Apache::ASP and used the easy ASP object and scripting model. Plus, forget about COM, i just use Perl as the ASP scripting language and Perl Modules as the object model. I can scale that to any Unix box.
However, i refuse to use IIS on my web servers. I use Apache + mod_perl + SSL on linux. My choice has more to it than performance reasons. Apache has better security, modularity, and better development support. I need to use my time for development, not rebooting my servers and waking up in the middle of the night wondering if my server was hacked.
Seriously though, VRML rendering seemed to be another level of difficulty to get right. Plus, factor in the lower interest level, and even the difficulty navigating in 3D vs. an html page, and you can see why VRML development has been languishing. The barrier to entry is greater, not as much bang for the buck.
It's really the pet project of people determined to live in a virtual world. It would be cool to see better interfaces, but it may be a while.
Maybe what we call virtual communities are more like what we would call social groups in a real community. People with some similar interests, a subsection. The people you choose to associate with.
... between real communities and virtual communities is that in real ones, there are a bunch of people with both similarities and differences, and they HAVE TO live together.
You can have butch lesbians at the convenience store in line behind Jimmy Swaggart. And the checkout guy is a deadhead or whatever.
Virtual communities are basically groups of people with 'like' interests. More homogenous. In fact, people like virtual communities _because_ they are a contrast to real communities. They aren't the same thing. Two different beasts w/2 different purposes.
Dude, that sounds cool. At first i thought that was the answer to all those 'public' passwords we all have on external systems that we have no idea what people do with after we click 'submit'.
However, what's the difference really? The crypted string just becomes the new 'password'. Which can be compromised the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
throw something on your site that checks the referer field for slashdot.org. If there are more than 100 hits in the last minute, fire off a warning, or trigger the safety measure.
if( $ENV{'HTTP_REFERER'} =~ m/slashdot\.org/ ) {
&go_bananas();
}
Of course, if you're going to take the time to throw that in, your going to have good measures anyway. And i don't think you want to limit the high-traffic capability to slashdot only.
It just makes more sense, rather than supporting their own OS.
Check their roadmap if you like. They are not saying that, but i think the writing is on the wall.
I work at a small company, so we've got better things to do than spy on everyone's communications regularly. However, i'd like to know how much encrypted communications are allowed at bigger corps.
Is encrypted e-mail allowed? SSH tunnels? I've heard of a lot of big corporations don't allow a lot of certain web access, including Yahoo mail, etc.
So i guess the "parent" is authority. And ultimately, the root servers are.
OK, this is basically me second time reading about DNSSEC. What i want to know is this: if all our DNS servers are going to have public/private keys and certs like SSL web servers, who is going to be the certificate authority?
Will we have to pay another few hundred bucks to Verisign and the like for EVERY DNS server? Or is there going to be a cheap or publicly run system for certifying DNSSEC keys?
I don't want to put a new system into place that creates the next Network Solutions.
What interests me is why should we care to says "This is an OS" and "This is not"? The only reason to point out this kind of difference is to see to subsequently claim some are better than others.
He should be able to make the claim that Mac OS 10 or whatever is better than "UNIX", for reasons x,y,z.
ASGP was founded after the 1996 elections. They are the partner of the european greens, and they nominated Nader/LaDuke.
Part of the problem is that Green Party USA (the more radical group, but older) is supporting Nader, and make almost no mention of the difference, so most people can't tell.
There was an article in the New Republic some weeks ago, and the writer made the same mistake in confusing GP USA with Nader's green party.
More on the history of ASGP here.
Maybe you would like it better if i said Apache has easier security and modularity. And with security, easier is better.
A year ago i did some testing using IIS/ASP for a project, one that also needed basic authentication over SSL. Guess what? Since IIS uses the OS model of security, i was opening up server privledges to every remote user, unless i set the extremely comprehensive permissions just right, or hired an NT admin to do it all the time. Even then, i can't trust MS to get it right. NT interfaces are just not geared towards easy viewing and updating of security permissions.
I was attracted to the ease of ASP development, but i didn't like being beholden to the windows NT platform for my business. Guess what i did? Found Apache::ASP and used the easy ASP object and scripting model. Plus, forget about COM, i just use Perl as the ASP scripting language and Perl Modules as the object model. I can scale that to any Unix box.
I think IIS is faster, too. Esp. static content.
However, i refuse to use IIS on my web servers. I use Apache + mod_perl + SSL on linux. My choice has more to it than performance reasons. Apache has better security, modularity, and better development support. I need to use my time for development, not rebooting my servers and waking up in the middle of the night wondering if my server was hacked.
... or HTML!
Seriously though, VRML rendering seemed to be another level of difficulty to get right. Plus, factor in the lower interest level, and even the difficulty navigating in 3D vs. an html page, and you can see why VRML development has been languishing. The barrier to entry is greater, not as much bang for the buck.
It's really the pet project of people determined to live in a virtual world. It would be cool to see better interfaces, but it may be a while.
Yeah, i think i know what you are saying.
Maybe what we call virtual communities are more like what we would call social groups in a real community. People with some similar interests, a subsection. The people you choose to associate with.
... between real communities and virtual communities is that in real ones, there are a bunch of people with both similarities and differences, and they HAVE TO live together.
You can have butch lesbians at the convenience store in line behind Jimmy Swaggart. And the checkout guy is a deadhead or whatever.
Virtual communities are basically groups of people with 'like' interests. More homogenous. In fact, people like virtual communities _because_ they are a contrast to real communities. They aren't the same thing. Two different beasts w/2 different purposes.
Count me in too. Maybe we can shoot some pool?
I like your thinking.
Ok, how about this for a password scheme?
-At account creation, get username, password, e-mail address.
-Hash the password (pick an algorithm)
-At login, hash the password, compare to authorize
-When user forgets password, hash the stored password hash. E-mail it to the email address.
-The user can use the string to reset the password. The reset script just compares the string to the hashed stored password hash.
Dude, that sounds cool. At first i thought that was the answer to all those 'public' passwords we all have on external systems that we have no idea what people do with after we click 'submit'.
However, what's the difference really? The crypted string just becomes the new 'password'. Which can be compromised the same way.