I had also considered this while reading the patent. One important difference exists between a dual tape VCR and tivo; tivo allows this functionality on a single media, the VCR does not.
Windows will merge the files from the source directory to the (duplicate) destination directory overwriting any dups. It doesn't replace the entire directory contents./alpha/baz/(one,two,three)/beta/baz/(one,four,five)
Let's say I copy directory/beta/baz to/alpha/
Windows:/alpha/baz/(one,two,three,four,five)
Some other OS:/alpha/baz/(one,four,five)
Basically, it nukes the conflicting/alpha/baz and then performs the copy. Brain dead behavior if you ask me.
Twice, actually. Slashdot is hosted in an Exodus legacy data center. Exodus was bought by Cable & Wireless who then sold their US network assets to Savvis.
Depending on who you talk to, you'll get different responses about Savvis. This is mainly due to the heritage of various customers. i.e. Savvis/Bridge/Intel vs Exodus reputation.
Savvis is actually the conglomeration of _many_ companies.
Exodus == (Exodus, AIS, Arca, Cohesive, Network-1, Global Center) C&W US == (MCI (IP backbone), Exodus, Digital Island) Savvis == (C&W US, Intel Hosting, Bridge Networks)
While many applaud (or loathe) the writers for this "artful" ending, the cynic in me sees this as a financial decision. Whacking Tony destroys the possibilities for a Soppranos movie. You'd be stuck with a prequel and those are _so_ passé.
Services that require secondary/back-connections are not all that common. FTP is obviously the most common but even $40 firewalls can handle it. BT doesn't count since it uses well known ports (i.e. no negotiation of which ephemeral ports to leverage). The firewalls that are present in environments which use RPC are more than capable of intercepting portmapper requests and opening ports.
You can actually remap just about any key in XP. I've mapped CAPS on my Model M to control without any problem.
Check out [HKLM\SYSTEM\CCS\Control\Keyboard Layout "Scancode Map"] The maps aren't exactly _easy_ to build but they do work. There are some utilities out there to help you do this but I've not found any that actually work.
For various reasons, the primary one being privacy, many people don't care to relay their email through an ISP controlled relay. Even more so, many businesses utilize closed systems for corporate email. Internal communications are secure so long as email is not relayed through 3rd party servers. Close 25/tcp and organizations are forced to run their MTA on non-standard ports, likely resulting in end-user support overhead.
Closing ports and effectively requiring users to proxy is _not_ the right solution. Rate limiting and/or shutting down customers exhibiting aberrant usage patterns is a far more effective and flexible solution. Other ISPs do this. Charter is just too cheap to choose the better solution.
I live in BFE Idaho where the guy who handles your bill of sales is also a notary. Watch closely the next time you buy a car at a _licensed dealership_. Private party sales have no such requirement.
Of course, this doesn't accomplish anything if the notary is a crook.
You do understand how email works right? How exactly do you expect Charter customers to send email? Do _you_ want a mega-conglomerate ISP relaying _your_ email? Do you care about privacy? TLS, SSL... all standard on port 25.
Charter should consider intelligent filtering. Time Warner will gladly shut your connection down when they find you flooding their network with SMTP.
Everyone keeps saying that Contivity is notorious for not working w/ firewalls and/or NAT traversal. I've used the client with 3 completely different firewall implementations and have had no problems. What gives?
So if the v5 client I'm running was released in '04, v4 is circa '03 and v3 is the broken client you speak of, how can you claim that the client has "long sucked" ? I'm not a Nortel fanboy or anything but it seems unfair to gripe about the shortcomings of a 4 year old client. v4 and v5 work fine w/ NAT. It doesn't surprise me that the Flintstone's build doesn't.
What _is_ fair is bitching about Apple's product (QA anyone?). Read up... Contivity isn't the only app broken by this gateway.
I succesfully ran Contivity through a PIX for years. Having recently moved to DD-WRT, Contivity works for _most apps_. Unfortunately, interactive data services like SSH seem to be very fragile now. I know it's due to packet loss though I cannot figure out why iptables isn't forwarding the packets. I've watched the counters for the connection and it's in no danger of timing out.
I will agree that Contivity is a finicky pile of poop. Cisco and Checkpoint's clients are far better.
I don't own one of these devices so I cannot test this for sure, but instead of blindly forwarding everything to a "default host" (I presume this is like "DMZ mode" on other routers), has anyone tried forwarding requisite ports?
Most VPN clients encapsulate ESP packets in UDP for NAT traversal. It sounds to me like the router's handling of pseudo-stateful connections (how firewalls handle protocols like UDP in a stateful fashion) is broken. If it were _completely_ broken, DNS queries wouldn't work either. Anway... blindly forwarding everything would fix this by ensuring that all related return packets are forwarded to the VPN client.
HP gives a bad example of how to use applets properly.
I'm reminded of an HP print server (180wtfe) whose administrative web interface was packed full of applets. My response to the interface, "Why Java applets?" Applets were used for a very short navigation menu and even for info screens that had nothing other than text in them. It's almost as if they used applets just to fulfill the product's buzz quota.
In short, it would have been much more usable had they stuck with straight HTML.
All security systems which require human interaction are flawed.
B of A simply needs to make sure the user is paying attention to the sitekey. This is easily solved by presenting the user with _multiple_ keys and asking the customer if their key is present. Present additional sets of keys until they answer yes. If, at any point, they answer incorrectly, make them read a detailed explanation of the sitekey system and the dangers of phishing.
However, I believe none of this should be necessary as the correct mechanism is already in place... the server certificate. Unfortunately, the average Joe seldom if ever checks server certificate details to ensure validity. Shouldn't browsers advertise this information with something more than a tiny lock icon?
Anyway, both systems fail due to a lack of end-user education. This will never change.
I'll be the first to admit that Ubuntu vs. Debian was a terrible (i.e. completely erroneous) example. However, I'm quite sure that plenty of derivative distributions exist. And regarding the Microsoft equivalent, as another slashdotter pointed out, NT vs. NT embedded would be a far better example.
I don't care to argue semantics or challenge the ever omniscient wikipedia. I'm sure you understood the point I was trying to make.. that is that OS X is not just XNU. I believe that XNU as well as the many software layers above it comprise OS X.
XNU could be easily ported and optimized for use on embedded devices. However, it seems awfully bloated for the task. For example, since CPU is a precious commodity, why use a microkernel in the first place? Does the OS really need I/O kit? Above the kernel, I'd expect core and application services to be _much_ lighter.
It seems that instead of going crazy with preprocessor macros, it makes more sense to fork many of the OS X layers while striving to maintain a homogeneous API.
Anyway... I could pontificate all day. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
It would seem that I chose a very poor example. I always assumed Ubuntu was derived work but it is not (uninformed BSD user). Regardless, the point stands. Many distributions are forks of other distributions. While they may share a common kernel, they are still maintained independently from one another.
Slashdot Mirror
You're nit picking. The current US President would declare war on "the gravity" in order to accelerate the space program.
I had also considered this while reading the patent. One important difference exists between a dual tape VCR and tivo; tivo allows this functionality on a single media, the VCR does not.
Is cheering from the grave.
Windows will merge the files from the source directory to the (duplicate) destination directory overwriting any dups. It doesn't replace the entire directory contents. /alpha/baz/(one,two,three) /beta/baz/(one,four,five)
/beta/baz to /alpha/
/alpha/baz/(one,two,three,four,five)
/alpha/baz/(one,four,five)
/alpha/baz and then performs the copy. Brain dead behavior if you ask me.
Let's say I copy directory
Windows:
Some other OS:
Basically, it nukes the conflicting
I'm new to OSX so I'll have to test this later.
Twice, actually. Slashdot is hosted in an Exodus legacy data center. Exodus was bought by Cable & Wireless who then sold their US network assets to Savvis.
Depending on who you talk to, you'll get different responses about Savvis. This is mainly due to the heritage of various customers. i.e. Savvis/Bridge/Intel vs Exodus reputation.
Savvis is actually the conglomeration of _many_ companies.
Exodus == (Exodus, AIS, Arca, Cohesive, Network-1, Global Center)
C&W US == (MCI (IP backbone), Exodus, Digital Island)
Savvis == (C&W US, Intel Hosting, Bridge Networks)
"Pencils son. Pencils." Sorry. The article title is just plain silly.
Aside from referrer checks, I don't see how a security gateway is supposed to prevent this.
While many applaud (or loathe) the writers for this "artful" ending, the cynic in me sees this as a financial decision. Whacking Tony destroys the possibilities for a Soppranos movie. You'd be stuck with a prequel and those are _so_ passé.
Services that require secondary/back-connections are not all that common. FTP is obviously the most common but even $40 firewalls can handle it. BT doesn't count since it uses well known ports (i.e. no negotiation of which ephemeral ports to leverage). The firewalls that are present in environments which use RPC are more than capable of intercepting portmapper requests and opening ports.
(points) Bigot fight!
Anyone else read "full ack" as "f*ck all" ??
*cough* libel.
You can actually remap just about any key in XP. I've mapped CAPS on my Model M to control without any problem.
Check out [HKLM\SYSTEM\CCS\Control\Keyboard Layout "Scancode Map"] The maps aren't exactly _easy_ to build but they do work. There are some utilities out there to help you do this but I've not found any that actually work.
Did you actually read my post?
For various reasons, the primary one being privacy, many people don't care to relay their email through an ISP controlled relay. Even more so, many businesses utilize closed systems for corporate email. Internal communications are secure so long as email is not relayed through 3rd party servers. Close 25/tcp and organizations are forced to run their MTA on non-standard ports, likely resulting in end-user support overhead.
Closing ports and effectively requiring users to proxy is _not_ the right solution. Rate limiting and/or shutting down customers exhibiting aberrant usage patterns is a far more effective and flexible solution. Other ISPs do this. Charter is just too cheap to choose the better solution.
I live in BFE Idaho where the guy who handles your bill of sales is also a notary. Watch closely the next time you buy a car at a _licensed dealership_. Private party sales have no such requirement.
Of course, this doesn't accomplish anything if the notary is a crook.
You do understand how email works right? How exactly do you expect Charter customers to send email? Do _you_ want a mega-conglomerate ISP relaying _your_ email? Do you care about privacy? TLS, SSL... all standard on port 25.
Charter should consider intelligent filtering. Time Warner will gladly shut your connection down when they find you flooding their network with SMTP.
Everyone keeps saying that Contivity is notorious for not working w/ firewalls and/or NAT traversal. I've used the client with 3 completely different firewall implementations and have had no problems. What gives?
So if the v5 client I'm running was released in '04, v4 is circa '03 and v3 is the broken client you speak of, how can you claim that the client has "long sucked" ? I'm not a Nortel fanboy or anything but it seems unfair to gripe about the shortcomings of a 4 year old client. v4 and v5 work fine w/ NAT. It doesn't surprise me that the Flintstone's build doesn't.
What _is_ fair is bitching about Apple's product (QA anyone?). Read up... Contivity isn't the only app broken by this gateway.
I succesfully ran Contivity through a PIX for years. Having recently moved to DD-WRT, Contivity works for _most apps_. Unfortunately, interactive data services like SSH seem to be very fragile now. I know it's due to packet loss though I cannot figure out why iptables isn't forwarding the packets. I've watched the counters for the connection and it's in no danger of timing out.
I will agree that Contivity is a finicky pile of poop. Cisco and Checkpoint's clients are far better.
Wrong.
I've been using Nortel Contivity Client from behind a PIX (subject to interface PAT) for 3 years without any problem.
I don't own one of these devices so I cannot test this for sure, but instead of blindly forwarding everything to a "default host" (I presume this is like "DMZ mode" on other routers), has anyone tried forwarding requisite ports?
Most VPN clients encapsulate ESP packets in UDP for NAT traversal. It sounds to me like the router's handling of pseudo-stateful connections (how firewalls handle protocols like UDP in a stateful fashion) is broken. If it were _completely_ broken, DNS queries wouldn't work either. Anway... blindly forwarding everything would fix this by ensuring that all related return packets are forwarded to the VPN client.
HP gives a bad example of how to use applets properly.
I'm reminded of an HP print server (180wtfe) whose administrative web interface was packed full of applets. My response to the interface, "Why Java applets?" Applets were used for a very short navigation menu and even for info screens that had nothing other than text in them. It's almost as if they used applets just to fulfill the product's buzz quota.
In short, it would have been much more usable had they stuck with straight HTML.
All security systems which require human interaction are flawed.
B of A simply needs to make sure the user is paying attention to the sitekey. This is easily solved by presenting the user with _multiple_ keys and asking the customer if their key is present. Present additional sets of keys until they answer yes. If, at any point, they answer incorrectly, make them read a detailed explanation of the sitekey system and the dangers of phishing.
However, I believe none of this should be necessary as the correct mechanism is already in place... the server certificate. Unfortunately, the average Joe seldom if ever checks server certificate details to ensure validity. Shouldn't browsers advertise this information with something more than a tiny lock icon?
Anyway, both systems fail due to a lack of end-user education. This will never change.
I'll be the first to admit that Ubuntu vs. Debian was a terrible (i.e. completely erroneous) example. However, I'm quite sure that plenty of derivative distributions exist. And regarding the Microsoft equivalent, as another slashdotter pointed out, NT vs. NT embedded would be a far better example.
I don't care to argue semantics or challenge the ever omniscient wikipedia. I'm sure you understood the point I was trying to make.. that is that OS X is not just XNU. I believe that XNU as well as the many software layers above it comprise OS X.
XNU could be easily ported and optimized for use on embedded devices. However, it seems awfully bloated for the task. For example, since CPU is a precious commodity, why use a microkernel in the first place? Does the OS really need I/O kit? Above the kernel, I'd expect core and application services to be _much_ lighter.
It seems that instead of going crazy with preprocessor macros, it makes more sense to fork many of the OS X layers while striving to maintain a homogeneous API.
Anyway... I could pontificate all day. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
It would seem that I chose a very poor example. I always assumed Ubuntu was derived work but it is not (uninformed BSD user). Regardless, the point stands. Many distributions are forks of other distributions. While they may share a common kernel, they are still maintained independently from one another.