Considering it worked, and all the data files were correct, it was not a joke. Obviously the font wasn't too small, because at least "I" was able to type it in, and from my conversation with the author, I was not alone. And yes, back in the 70's, we DID type in things from magazine listings. How else were computing enthusiasts supposed to get the data? Punch cards? Mag tape? VERY few people / institutions were connected by a network of any kind back then. USENET didn't exist and there were only 111 hosts on Arpanet.
A few years later, magazines were shipping floppies so you didn't have to key things in, and modems became more affordable and popular so you could share via a BBS, or some expensive service like Compuserve. The internet was still a long way off to the average person.
Yes, quite an unsurprising name from a bunch of pot smoking nerds... Ahh, for the old days of SCO, where "tea time" meant lighting up a fattie and jumping in the clothing-optional hot tub. Then they got all corporate...
It was a summer issue, 1978. I remember it vividly. It was a version written in Basic on an HP 4000. I typed the entire thing into an HP engineering workstation, and had to port some of the funky calls to my flavor of Basic. Got stuck on one thing and called the author to figure out what the heck it did (a user-defined function.)
I lost 3 drives out of 6 within a few hours of each other. Raid 1+0 saved my bacon. Zero down time. Got the email alert about the first drive, and scheduled a trip to the datacenter. Then I got the other two back to back a couple hours later. These were all 15K rpm SCSI drives which had survived a 2 week stress test burn-in, and had been in production for about a year, so it was totally unexpected. In another case, I lost 2 drives in a Raid 5 and had to resort to restoring the machine from backups - a day lost. Raid 6 performance is even worse than Raid 5, so I personally see no point - YMMV. Raid 5 and 6 rebuild time is also VERY slow compared to 1+0, taking 3 times longer in my testing.
Anyway, what's that old saying? Expect the unexpected? When you buy a pile of drives, you are likely to get the batch from the same manufacturing line, day, etc. This probably also increases the chances of simultaneous failures if there is a physical quality problem. If you have two fail, expect a third. I generally don't mix up batches because I want to know where all the drives from a particular batch are, but maybe I should.
most people think the Red Cross is a good organisation.
And for the most part it is... But the ARC has been accused of massive mismanagement and corruption at the top - the same place THIS issue is coming from...
If you are "scrolling for miles through the config files" I would strongly suggest learning how to use your editor (the "Find" function), and how to use separated configuration files for apache.
Having used both extensively over the past 10 years, IMHO 90% of the config tasks are easier with IIS for a non-expert, but 5% are MUCH harder, and the remaining 5% you just can't do at all. Period. It's that 5% that makes IIS a non-option for me personally. For some of the sites we host, either server would work fine, but in those cases, there is no reason to pay a license fee for IIS.
One of the other benefits of having worked with both apache and IIS is that that 90% of what is normally easier in IIS really isn't if you develop internal tools to do that work for apache. In fact, a single web page with just a few fields on it runs a script that sets up DNS, apache, firewall, database, chroot jail, and optionally even an entire virtual machine, fully configured and running.
It's just "by default" those scripts are not included with Apache like they are with IIS.
Also, once you learn the Apache syntax and understand how things work, it turns out that using an editor isn't any harder than the IIS GUI. In fact, it's usually MUCH easier/faster for anything repetitive.
As long as the site is designed to support open standards and work cross browser, does it really matter what is running on the server side?
My take is that this is just more indication that MS's FUD campaign about patents is working.
That said, I have about a hundred servers, most running Linux, supporting a large complex web site. I see no reason to change to a MS based site, and due to the technology used, it would take a MASSIVE effort to port anyway.
The little box will probably just be a multi-protocol proxy. As the other poster said, it will probably munge DNS, returning a fake 10 net address that the proxy uses to know who you are trying to communicate with. No, it won't work for all protocols, but you can make it work for the most common.
The experts are trying to solve 100% of the use cases. Not possible. But you CAN solve for 80-90%, which is good enough for most people that want to retain obsolete software / hardware. At some point in time however, you need to upgrade.
NAT works for most people because they do simplistic things with their internet connection. They think that the internet is web browsing and email, protocols which do just fine over NAT. NAT falls down when you need to do more complicated things, such as VoIP, streaming, P2P, etc. So you end up needing special fixup handlers, proxies (STUN and friends), and other kludges to try and make things work in a NATed environment. Despite all these kludges, it can still be a nightmare to deal with.
Worse is when you are doing cooperative work with other businesses / networks that share the SAME private IP space... What a f*cking nightmare that is... Been there, done that. Double NAT nightmare.
You so easily fall into the FUD trap... The same trap that caused the Patriot Act to become law. You HAVE heard that the FBI has repeatedly used the Patriot Act inappropriately in violation of the law, right? Exactly as predicted BEFORE the law was enacted?
This new license plate system is perfectly designed to be exploited and abused, and it will be, EXACTLY like the Patriot Act.
All the 911 security crap has done VERY little for TRUE security, at a cost of damn near a trillion dollars and our basic rights.
In my area, less than 50% of the population is registered to vote, and on average only 30% of the registered voters actually vote. So "The People" are a fairly small majority.
The Majority sit on the sidelines and bitch about what the Minority is doing.
The time to be up in arms is when the systems are abused.
Kind of like the Patriot Act being abused by the FBI... Of course the people that didn't have their heads firmly placed up their own asses KNEW that it WOULD be abused. How did they know this? Because law enforcement people are humans too. They frequently suffer the same lack of judgment as the rest of us, and are subject to personal prejudice's, power-trips, etc. Laws are tools, and tools can and will be abused. History has proven this over and over again. Not every law enforcement person will abuse the law, but enough will that a bad law that isn't *really* needed should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.
Your analogy fails to hold up in that automatically reading license plates is unobtrusive, versus barcoding someone's forehead which is obtrusive.
That's it? That's your only reason that my analogy fails? How about instead of a barcode we do RFID implants? Would that solve your vanity concerns? Then we just make the tinfoil-hat death penalty worthy...
"Sir, we aren't getting a reading on that pedestrian..."
"Book 'em Dano."
People are a afraid of a police state due to technology, but they so often forget one of the most terrible police states used simple tools. Jackboots and machine guns were much more effective at creating police states in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Were they really MUCH more effective? You are SURE that more subtle, invisible techniques and modern technologies are not equally as effective if not more so? Maybe people have just been so accustomed to "one more little thing" that they can't see how much their rights, freedoms, and privacy have eroded over the years.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. How quickly we forget.
No, I think the barcode analogy is spot on. It's just taking what we already have today one small step farther. We already identify the cars, why not identify the people? I mean, we DO have facial recognition software, THAT is OK with people, why not just make it more accurate / efficient?
Automatically scanning license plates and storing tracking info in an huge DB is one small step further than we have today too, but for some reason that is a small step that is OK with you, but the other one isn't. Why is that exactly?
Some people think that the government knowing everywhere you go is OK, even if you are not a criminal. After all, license plates are public. Why not track you? What can it hurt?
Several states are requiring mandatory DNA samples from all convicted felons, just in case they can be linked with other crimes... Why not take DNA samples from EVERYONE to enable the linking of MORE crimes? After all, there are criminals that haven't been caught out there with no records. Again, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
The bottom line here is that just because something is technically possible, doesn't mean we should be doing it as a society. Some people like to say "Privacy is dead, get over it." Lucky for the rest of us, that opinion is not universally shared. Some of us feel that lack of privacy in the modern technological age isn't such a good thing for society. It exposes the raw edges of humanity and all elements of your personal, private life to all. That is just not a good thing.
Maybe we should put a barcode on your forehead. Covering up the barcode would be punishable by death. After all, only criminals would cover up their barcode. If you were a store owner, wouldn't you want to know that the person who just walked in your door is a shoplifter? Or a school administrator, and a sex offender is on the sidewalk in front of the school?
If you are not a criminal, you have nothing to hide. Scanning the barcode doesn't stop new crimes, but it easily allows the government to identify you in case you DO commit a crime. The barcode simply protects the freedom of all Americans, and helps improve safety. True Americans would wear their barcode with pride.
The value of the forehead barcode on society is too great, and it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of non-criminals. It's just a barcode... It doesn't prevent you from traveling, practicing your religion, choosing which shoes you want to buy, etc. The barcode is fully compatible with your interpretation of Franklin's quote.
I'm sure that there will be some specialty motherboard companies that will continue to service people who want to continue to use old, slow hard drives on their new fast system. Of course, I don't really under stand WHY you would want to do that... It's like putting in a 4" water pipe for a 5/8" hose. But again, sata/IDE adapters are only about $20...
We are not talking about OLD SLOW LEGACY systems here. We are talking NEW. NEW motherboards have VERY good USB keyboard support. There are NO performance issues with NEW equipment with USB keyboards.
Sorry you haven't been able to upgrade your systems since 1998... Must suck.
Guys:
I'm not talking about OLD systems. If you are putting together a NEW SYSTEM with a NEW MOTHERBOARD, you are probably going to need a new power supply, disks, etc. ANYWAY.
It is bizarre to keep using a 15 year old keyboard / mouse on a brand new system - those things get disgusting!
You can't disable the legacy PS/2 keyboard interface on any motherboard I've seen. This also doesn't address my other (larger) concern that I don't want the back panel (or motherboard) real estate wasted. Did you even read my post or is your comment a knee-jerk response to one sentence? I even gave manufacturers an out - a motherboard header with PCI bracket connectors for legacy crap.
Does anyone use PS/2 keyboards / mice anymore? Why can't you use USB adapters? The old parallel printer port is WAY too slow for modern color printers. Too much info. Again, if you NEED a legacy parallel port for a legacy printer, get a USB adapter or better yet, an ethernet print server that has a parallel port.
There are Many common and cheap solutions for legacy devices. No need for the old physical legacy ports to waste the precious real estate on the back panel area.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering it worked, and all the data files were correct, it was not a joke. Obviously the font wasn't too small, because at least "I" was able to type it in, and from my conversation with the author, I was not alone. And yes, back in the 70's, we DID type in things from magazine listings. How else were computing enthusiasts supposed to get the data? Punch cards? Mag tape? VERY few people / institutions were connected by a network of any kind back then. USENET didn't exist and there were only 111 hosts on Arpanet.
A few years later, magazines were shipping floppies so you didn't have to key things in, and modems became more affordable and popular so you could share via a BBS, or some expensive service like Compuserve. The internet was still a long way off to the average person.
they changed their name to Tarantella
Yes, quite an unsurprising name from a bunch of pot smoking nerds... Ahh, for the old days of SCO, where "tea time" meant lighting up a fattie and jumping in the clothing-optional hot tub. Then they got all corporate...
It was a summer issue, 1978. I remember it vividly. It was a version written in Basic on an HP 4000. I typed the entire thing into an HP engineering workstation, and had to port some of the funky calls to my flavor of Basic. Got stuck on one thing and called the author to figure out what the heck it did (a user-defined function.)
Paranoid's will dump all drives into an industrial shredder, and witness the process. Quite a few financial institutions do this.
I lost 3 drives out of 6 within a few hours of each other. Raid 1+0 saved my bacon. Zero down time. Got the email alert about the first drive, and scheduled a trip to the datacenter. Then I got the other two back to back a couple hours later. These were all 15K rpm SCSI drives which had survived a 2 week stress test burn-in, and had been in production for about a year, so it was totally unexpected. In another case, I lost 2 drives in a Raid 5 and had to resort to restoring the machine from backups - a day lost. Raid 6 performance is even worse than Raid 5, so I personally see no point - YMMV. Raid 5 and 6 rebuild time is also VERY slow compared to 1+0, taking 3 times longer in my testing.
Anyway, what's that old saying? Expect the unexpected? When you buy a pile of drives, you are likely to get the batch from the same manufacturing line, day, etc. This probably also increases the chances of simultaneous failures if there is a physical quality problem. If you have two fail, expect a third. I generally don't mix up batches because I want to know where all the drives from a particular batch are, but maybe I should.
most people think the Red Cross is a good organisation.
And for the most part it is... But the ARC has been accused of massive mismanagement and corruption at the top - the same place THIS issue is coming from...
If you are "scrolling for miles through the config files" I would strongly suggest learning how to use your editor (the "Find" function), and how to use separated configuration files for apache.
Work smarter, not harder.
Having used both extensively over the past 10 years, IMHO 90% of the config tasks are easier with IIS for a non-expert, but
5% are MUCH harder, and the remaining 5% you just can't do at all. Period. It's that 5% that makes IIS a non-option for me personally. For some of the sites we host, either server would work fine, but in those cases, there is no reason to pay a license fee for IIS.
One of the other benefits of having worked with both apache and IIS is that that 90% of what is normally easier in IIS really isn't if you develop internal tools to do that work for apache. In fact, a single web page with just a few fields on it runs a script that sets up DNS, apache, firewall, database, chroot jail, and optionally even an entire virtual machine, fully configured and running.
It's just "by default" those scripts are not included with Apache like they are with IIS.
Also, once you learn the Apache syntax and understand how things work, it turns out that using an editor isn't any harder than the IIS GUI. In fact, it's usually MUCH easier/faster for anything repetitive.
As long as the site is designed to support open standards and work cross browser, does it really matter what is running on the server side?
My take is that this is just more indication that MS's FUD campaign about patents is working.
That said, I have about a hundred servers, most running Linux, supporting a large complex web site. I see no reason to change to a MS based site, and due to the technology used, it would take a MASSIVE effort to port anyway.
The little box will probably just be a multi-protocol proxy. As the other poster said, it will probably munge DNS, returning a fake 10 net address that the proxy uses to know who you are trying to communicate with. No, it won't work for all protocols, but you can make it work for the most common.
The experts are trying to solve 100% of the use cases. Not possible. But you CAN solve for 80-90%, which is good enough for most people that want to retain obsolete software / hardware. At some point in time however, you need to upgrade.
NAT works for most people because they do simplistic things with their internet connection. They think that the internet is web browsing and email, protocols which do just fine over NAT. NAT falls down when you need to do more complicated things, such as VoIP, streaming, P2P, etc. So you end up needing special fixup handlers, proxies (STUN and friends), and other kludges to try and make things work in a NATed environment. Despite all these kludges, it can still be a nightmare to deal with.
Worse is when you are doing cooperative work with other businesses / networks that share the SAME private IP space... What a f*cking nightmare that is... Been there, done that. Double NAT nightmare.
NAT must die.
http://www.theboom.com/
Plantronics are great for the office, but suck in noisy environments. If you need to hear and be heard, there are alternatives.
You so easily fall into the FUD trap... The same trap that caused the Patriot Act to become law. You HAVE heard that the FBI has repeatedly used the Patriot Act inappropriately in violation of the law, right? Exactly as predicted BEFORE the law was enacted?
This new license plate system is perfectly designed to be exploited and abused, and it will be, EXACTLY like the Patriot Act.
All the 911 security crap has done VERY little for TRUE security, at a cost of damn near a trillion dollars and our basic rights.
Anti-terrorism is the new generation McCarthyism.
2.4Ghz WiFi, with 64bit WEP, and the key is 0xDEADBEEF.
You mean the 51% of the people who voted.
In my area, less than 50% of the population is registered to vote, and on average only 30% of the registered voters actually vote. So "The People" are a fairly small majority.
The Majority sit on the sidelines and bitch about what the Minority is doing.
The time to be up in arms is when the systems are abused.
Kind of like the Patriot Act being abused by the FBI... Of course the people that didn't have their heads firmly placed up their own asses KNEW that it WOULD be abused. How did they know this? Because law enforcement people are humans too. They frequently suffer the same lack of judgment as the rest of us, and are subject to personal prejudice's, power-trips, etc. Laws are tools, and tools can and will be abused. History has proven this over and over again. Not every law enforcement person will abuse the law, but enough will that a bad law that isn't *really* needed should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.
That's it? That's your only reason that my analogy fails? How about instead of a barcode we do RFID implants? Would that solve your vanity concerns? Then we just make the tinfoil-hat death penalty worthy...
"Sir, we aren't getting a reading on that pedestrian..."
"Book 'em Dano."
People are a afraid of a police state due to technology, but they so often forget one of the most terrible police states used simple tools. Jackboots and machine guns were much more effective at creating police states in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Were they really MUCH more effective? You are SURE that more subtle, invisible techniques and modern technologies are not equally as effective if not more so? Maybe people have just been so accustomed to "one more little thing" that they can't see how much their rights, freedoms, and privacy have eroded over the years. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. How quickly we forget.
You completely missed the point. See my other response in this thread.
No, I think the barcode analogy is spot on. It's just taking what we already have today one small step farther. We already identify the cars, why not identify the people? I mean, we DO have facial recognition software, THAT is OK with people, why not just make it more accurate / efficient?
Automatically scanning license plates and storing tracking info in an huge DB is one small step further than we have today too, but for some reason that is a small step that is OK with you, but the other one isn't. Why is that exactly?
Some people think that the government knowing everywhere you go is OK, even if you are not a criminal. After all, license plates are public. Why not track you? What can it hurt?
Several states are requiring mandatory DNA samples from all convicted felons, just in case they can be linked with other crimes... Why not take DNA samples from EVERYONE to enable the linking of MORE crimes? After all, there are criminals that haven't been caught out there with no records. Again, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
The bottom line here is that just because something is technically possible, doesn't mean we should be doing it as a society. Some people like to say "Privacy is dead, get over it." Lucky for the rest of us, that opinion is not universally shared. Some of us feel that lack of privacy in the modern technological age isn't such a good thing for society. It exposes the raw edges of humanity and all elements of your personal, private life to all. That is just not a good thing.
Maybe we should put a barcode on your forehead. Covering up the barcode would be punishable by death. After all, only criminals would cover up their barcode. If you were a store owner, wouldn't you want to know that the person who just walked in your door is a shoplifter? Or a school administrator, and a sex offender is on the sidewalk in front of the school?
If you are not a criminal, you have nothing to hide. Scanning the barcode doesn't stop new crimes, but it easily allows the government to identify you in case you DO commit a crime. The barcode simply protects the freedom of all Americans, and helps improve safety. True Americans would wear their barcode with pride.
The value of the forehead barcode on society is too great, and it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of non-criminals. It's just a barcode... It doesn't prevent you from traveling, practicing your religion, choosing which shoes you want to buy, etc. The barcode is fully compatible with your interpretation of Franklin's quote.
Funny, I thought the fact that I was looking for parts they didn't carry indicated "demand."
It's kind of hard to judge "demand" for something if you have no way to gauge the metric. Sales is such a way. No product, no sales, no demand.
I'm sure that there will be some specialty motherboard companies that will continue to service people who want to continue to use old, slow hard drives on their new fast system. Of course, I don't really under stand WHY you would want to do that... It's like putting in a 4" water pipe for a 5/8" hose. But again, sata/IDE adapters are only about $20...
We are not talking about OLD SLOW LEGACY systems here. We are talking NEW. NEW motherboards have VERY good USB keyboard support. There are NO performance issues with NEW equipment with USB keyboards.
Sorry you haven't been able to upgrade your systems since 1998... Must suck.
Guys:
I'm not talking about OLD systems. If you are putting together a NEW SYSTEM with a NEW MOTHERBOARD,
you are probably going to need a new power supply, disks, etc. ANYWAY.
It is bizarre to keep using a 15 year old keyboard / mouse on a brand new system - those things get disgusting!
You can't disable the legacy PS/2 keyboard interface on any motherboard I've seen. This also doesn't address my other (larger) concern that I don't want the back panel (or motherboard) real estate wasted. Did you even read my post or is your comment a knee-jerk response to one sentence? I even gave manufacturers an out - a motherboard header with PCI bracket connectors for legacy crap.
Does anyone use PS/2 keyboards / mice anymore? Why can't you use USB adapters? The old parallel printer port is WAY too slow for modern color printers. Too much info. Again, if you NEED a legacy parallel port for a legacy printer, get a USB adapter or better yet, an ethernet print server that has a parallel port.
There are Many common and cheap solutions for legacy devices. No need for the old physical legacy ports to waste the precious real estate on the back panel area.