"Because due to the stupid firewalls that we have, we can't hit sites that are hosted on 8090."
But as you can see, without Coral, you can't hit the site anyway...
Use an anonymizer that redirects ports, or one of the hundreds of rewriting proxies on the net that can do this for you, and you should be able to get to the Coralized URL from work.
"That would be lovely if it weren't for the fact that your "coralized" page is still trying to load all the images from the original site."
That is precisely the point of the Coral network, and why I keep suggesting it.
If the original submitter's story was stored with the Coralized URL appended to the domain, before it hit the front page of Slashdot, ALL of the site, would be distributed, and everyone who reads the story from Slashdot, would be reading the story through the use of the Coralized URL instead, which retains the availability of the content.
But thank you for reinforcing the point for others.
Actually no, it isn't slashdotted.. the original site was never Coralized before it went down, so the resource you try to reach through the Coral network, is also unavailable. Makes perfect sense.
What I meant originally, was that the submitter's story, once posted, would be injected with the Coralized URL, so that when the thousands of Slashdot visitors hit the site (via the Coralized URL), the content would still be available.
I've been thinking.. and this is the 5th instance of this.. why can't Slashdot auto-Coralize the links that they use in the articles?
If $ARTICLE_SUMMARY has a URL in it, split the domain off, append.nyud.net:8090 to it, and then post it publically. Thats exactly what the NYU Distribution Network was designed for.
"Actually, Bush has been flexible on strategy and tactics, but has been firm on his goal; which is to rid us of the threat of terrorism. That's what a good leader is supposed to do."
Where is the international support? Where is the coalition? Where is the backing from the UN? Where are the other countries' troops on the ground helping us? Nowhere.
"Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm against the war, I'm shopping at Pottery Barn...)"
Kerry is for the war, and always has been. He supported a properly-executed solution to ridding the terrorists from their countries of origin. He supported the president's choice to make the right decision. He just didn't support the decision itself. Those are not the same thing.
"I remember watching T.V. on September 11th and seeing people faced with the decision to stay in the building and burn to death, or to leap from the building to their death."
The day it happened, hundreds of us were on irc, and I started collecting the photos from the event. There were people in dorms, offices, their apartments, all hanging out their windows with cameras, taking pictures of their TV sets, watching the news, etc. Hundreds of these pictures have never been seen in public before. There are even some closeups of those jumpers to push those nails deeper into your heart.
"I want a leader who will do everything in his power to make sure nobody on US soil will ever have to make a decision like that again. John Kerry is NOT that leader."
Bush isn't that leader either, so who do we have left? Nader, even if by a miracle, could win the election, would have no power, because he has no representation in the House or the Senate.
"Besides the palmone spec page says - full mac support"
We still support more platforms, Palm devices, and other things than Palm themselves supports. Sure, we can't afford to go out and buy every new device the day they're released, but we catch up fast.
We're already significantly faster (20% to 60% in most cases) than Palm's own implementation on OSX and Linux and Unix (three platforms they don't support at all!).
Contrary to what Palm states, they do not support Mac/OSX at all. Mark/Space (endorsed by Palm) does through their MissingSync product, but... Mark/Space's product relies on our code to function. How ironic is that;)
Sure, thats all well and good, but is the API to the hardware scanner components exposed in such a way that allows Linux developers such as myself to poke at it, and write a compatible AES encryption layer to interface with it?
Encrypting a Windows machine prior to login is nice, but in the rest of the world, the GUI is the last thing we run, not the first.
In Windows, you run the GUI, and execute the shell.
In Linux (and most Unixes), you run the shell, and execute the GUI. Its a very different paradigm.
You need to encrypt the data (AND swap!) at the bootloader level, otherwise the whole point of it is irrelevant.
"You probably weren't even born 25 years ago so I can understand your confusion, but the Shah and his family left Iran in 1979 when the mullahs and their millions of illiterate lemmings went apeshit."
You're right, I was actually born just over 33 years ago, so I wasn't around when he was put into power, but I was certainly around (albeit, 8 years old) when he was thrown out of power.
I was overzealous in my quick Google for the info, and got the point-of-exit, not the point-of-appointment. Thanks for the correction.
Regarding Michael Moore: I think he's far too biased in his "opinions" on lots of things, but taken with a grain, he is doing good by lifting the corner of the carpet where everything gets swept under... and letting the general population see some of those crumbs.
He may be a crackpot, but he's raising the awareness of issues that should be out in the open.
"The winds have changed in our world and we need a dynamic leader who is capable of adjusting the sails."
I totally agree. You can't fight a war, and remain rigid, because the constructs of war are constantly changing. You have to be flexible and be able to recalculate your plans at every step.
"I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has.
As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts."
This, in effect, proves that Bush thinks that by remaining firm, not changing his plans, we will "win" this war. That is outright ridiculous.
I also find it funny that the top 9 people who are leading us through this war, NEVER EVEN SERVED IN THE MILITARY. Just look at that list. Pathetic. These people don't even understand what war is, other than a board game they can play from 12,000 miles away.
"I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world."
That's an additional 44,900 men and women. How could this be possible when we are already having problems with retention and new enlistments?
What is even more amazing is that he speaks of "a backdoor draft taking place in America today..."
How is he suppose to add 50,000 active duty troops without a real draft?
If you had actually READ Kerry's documents and took some time to understand his issues, you would see that he wants to increase troops in the area, but not US troops. The goal is to empower and encourage the International Community to contribute themselves, to the goal of fighting terrorism. This means the troops would come from non-US countries, to replace the war-worn US troops already out there.
He's really not as bad as you think. Think bigger than the White House and the US, please, and see where he stands. If you had watched the Presidential Debates, you would have seen him clearly articulate this several times.
Does everyone forget that we did the same exact thing to a little country called Iran about 25 years ago?
We stepped in, overthrew their government, and deposed their leader. In doing so, we were able to put our own (US-chosen) leader, the "Shah of Iran" (yes, THAT shah) into power, with a very specific set of rules and policies that were to be followed by his people, dictated by... you guessed it.. the United States Government.
We've been screwing around with the Middle East for several decades, even long before radicals like Osama and Al Zawahiri were even born.
Also, lets not forget that the same Afghanistan rebels that the United States helped and funded with money and military arms to beat the Russians out of Afghanistan... were the the same Afghanistani rebels that became Al Queda, and attacked us on 9/11. Yes, the very same group.
There's a lot more to this than people are seeing at the surface.
"And manufacturers will continue to provide systems without trust chips. If you don't want to buy a "trust" computer, don't. There will continue to be plenty of computers without this feature."
And how do you know which systems have "trusted chipsets" in them from the start? How do you know your 1U rackmount server that you just bought from Acme Servers has (or has not) a trusted chipset in it? Can you trust the vendor?
It makes sense for them to standardize on ONE architecture; one with the chipset, than to standardize on two. You have a much wider market for the trusted chipset hardware than the one without.
That being said, I think it should be a toggle'able option, to use or not to use, based on settings in the BIOS or a jumper or some other verifiable entity.
Yes, that is correct. I have linked to coralized pages before, with the standard link syntax, and many users have refused to click them, because the [nyud.net] shows up as the url. Visions of goatse.cx roamed their heads, no-doubt, so I didn't link it.
Please please please, in the future when posting articles that link to innocent users' blogs, personal sites, sites hosted on DSL connections, and so on... do not link to them directly! Use the Coral'ized link syntax as below:
This link was purposely not left clickable, because the 'nyud.net' at the end, would cause Slashdot to add the [nyud.net] to the link text, which would stop people from clicking on it (thinking it was a pr0n site).
"Here's some advice, Bill. It's easier to prevent the stuff from being installed then it is to clean up all the millions of variations that will be out there."
The easiest analogy to use to explain this is "disease". It actually fits pretty well in the Windows environment, with "infections" from trojans, viruses, worms, and malware.
There are two approaches, depending on whether you are utopian-driven (Free Software and the likes) or profit-driven (large corporate pharmaceutical companies):
Do you spend your time, effort, and dollars trying to prevent disease from the start? This has the longer-lasting effect and fosters more good will in the rest of the community. Or..
Do you spend your time, effort, and dollars coming up with a "pill" that will reduce the symptoms you feel after you've been infected with the disease.
Most pharmaceutical companies choose the latter, because it keeps their revenue coming in strong, as long as the disease continues to exist and affect people.
Most Free Software people (and other utopians) have the opposite view. Cure the problem by treating the cause, and you won't have to worry about treating the symptoms.
I don't even have to remind you where Bill Gates and Microsoft stand on this issue. Any time they see some way to edge in a few more profit margin points, they go for it:
System diagnostics (edging out Norton years ago)
System defragmentation
File compression software (lost suit against Stac Electronics)
Firewall software
Anti-virus
Anti-spyware
...and so on
They will do whatever it takes, to keep people putting their dollars behind Microsoft products, even if it pisses off one of their own partners in the process.
"Don't be an imbecile. People were saying the same thing ten years ago, and Linux is still nowhere near ready for the desktop."
And exactly what code, dollars, or time have you contributed to that effort?
Linux is, and has been ready for the desktop for at least 5 years or more. I've been using it full-time on my desktops and workstations here for at least 7 years.
Don't blame the kernel for the lack of userland applications. The peripherals, ports, and external devices are all supported (and in fact, more devices and peripherals are supported under the current 2.6.8.1 Linux kernel than on Windows and OSX combined).
Linux was never "meant" for the desktop. That is the job of distribution manufacturers and userland application authors. Talk to them. The rest of us "desktop Linux users" are waiting for them to catch up.
This isn't a race against Microsoft. Linux solves my needs, and gives me much more flexibility and power and choice than the alternative OS that might run on my hardware.
Incidentally, Windows and OSX don't support 90% of the hardware out there that Linux has happily been running on for several years to over a decade. See my previous post for a more-complete list.
Intel IA32 family: i386, i486, Pentium, Pentium Pro,
Pentium II, Pentium III, Xeon, and Pentium IV processors,
as well as IA32 clones from AMD, Cyrix, VIA, IDT, Winchip,
NexGen, Transmeta, VIA C3 Ezra "CentaurHauls", and others.
"Are we going to assume that everytime something happens to someone, a terrorist is behind it? I for one am tired of our leaders trying to make us afraid."
Actually, by definition, this is called "Fascism" (emphasis mine):
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
You might laugh, but these already exist. In fact, US fighter pilots have a device in their helmet, which can drop a very opaque (but not 100% opaque) shield over their visor when there is a flash from a nuclear weapon detonation. The shield drops in about 1/10000th of a second, if I recall correctly.
But why not just have the windshield of the plane turn one-way, or opaque, or red (or whatever the proper diffracting/diffusing element is for lasers), when they're doing the approach.
Clearly they wouldn't need the map at that point, so seeing red out the windshield during the landing portion, shouldn't affect them THAT much. It'd certainly be a lot safer than having pilots blinded by lasers.
The solution to this, of course, is to flush WHILE you're on the toilet, as well as AFTER you're done with your duty there. Sure, it uses a bit more water, but a heck of a lot less than when you clog the toilet and have to flush 3, 4, 5 times to get that pile down the pipe.
Or just use a proper ircd that implemenets SSL from client->server, like our network does. In fact, we're the only public irc network that uses SSL in this way, and all clients support it, without modification (assuming they can support SSL; xchat, irssi, BitchX can).
Slashdot Mirror
But as you can see, without Coral, you can't hit the site anyway...
Use an anonymizer that redirects ports, or one of the hundreds of rewriting proxies on the net that can do this for you, and you should be able to get to the Coralized URL from work.
That is because the page was never Coralized to begin with, before it was Slashdotted off the net.
That is precisely the point of the Coral network, and why I keep suggesting it.
If the original submitter's story was stored with the Coralized URL appended to the domain, before it hit the front page of Slashdot, ALL of the site, would be distributed, and everyone who reads the story from Slashdot, would be reading the story through the use of the Coralized URL instead, which retains the availability of the content.
But thank you for reinforcing the point for others.
What I meant originally, was that the submitter's story, once posted, would be injected with the Coralized URL, so that when the thousands of Slashdot visitors hit the site (via the Coralized URL), the content would still be available.
I've been thinking.. and this is the 5th instance of this.. why can't Slashdot auto-Coralize the links that they use in the articles?
If $ARTICLE_SUMMARY has a URL in it, split the domain off, append .nyud.net:8090 to it, and then post it publically. Thats exactly what the NYU Distribution Network was designed for.
In this case, this would be:
http://www.dvdanswers.com.nyud.net:8090/index.php? r=0&s=8&c=28
Where is the international support? Where is the coalition? Where is the backing from the UN? Where are the other countries' troops on the ground helping us? Nowhere.
Kerry is for the war, and always has been. He supported a properly-executed solution to ridding the terrorists from their countries of origin. He supported the president's choice to make the right decision. He just didn't support the decision itself. Those are not the same thing.
The day it happened, hundreds of us were on irc, and I started collecting the photos from the event. There were people in dorms, offices, their apartments, all hanging out their windows with cameras, taking pictures of their TV sets, watching the news, etc. Hundreds of these pictures have never been seen in public before. There are even some closeups of those jumpers to push those nails deeper into your heart.
Bush isn't that leader either, so who do we have left? Nader, even if by a miracle, could win the election, would have no power, because he has no representation in the House or the Senate.
So who do you propose as an alternative?
We still support more platforms, Palm devices, and other things than Palm themselves supports. Sure, we can't afford to go out and buy every new device the day they're released, but we catch up fast.
We're already significantly faster (20% to 60% in most cases) than Palm's own implementation on OSX and Linux and Unix (three platforms they don't support at all!).
Contrary to what Palm states, they do not support Mac/OSX at all. Mark/Space (endorsed by Palm) does through their MissingSync product, but... Mark/Space's product relies on our code to function. How ironic is that ;)
Encrypting a Windows machine prior to login is nice, but in the rest of the world, the GUI is the last thing we run, not the first.
In Windows, you run the GUI, and execute the shell.
In Linux (and most Unixes), you run the shell, and execute the GUI. Its a very different paradigm.
You need to encrypt the data (AND swap!) at the bootloader level, otherwise the whole point of it is irrelevant.
You're right, I was actually born just over 33 years ago, so I wasn't around when he was put into power, but I was certainly around (albeit, 8 years old) when he was thrown out of power.
I was overzealous in my quick Google for the info, and got the point-of-exit, not the point-of-appointment. Thanks for the correction.
Regarding Michael Moore: I think he's far too biased in his "opinions" on lots of things, but taken with a grain, he is doing good by lifting the corner of the carpet where everything gets swept under... and letting the general population see some of those crumbs.
He may be a crackpot, but he's raising the awareness of issues that should be out in the open.
I totally agree. You can't fight a war, and remain rigid, because the constructs of war are constantly changing. You have to be flexible and be able to recalculate your plans at every step.
Bush isn't.
As a testament to that, here is an excerpt from the 2004 Presidential Debates, where Bush said:
This, in effect, proves that Bush thinks that by remaining firm, not changing his plans, we will "win" this war. That is outright ridiculous.
I also find it funny that the top 9 people who are leading us through this war, NEVER EVEN SERVED IN THE MILITARY. Just look at that list. Pathetic. These people don't even understand what war is, other than a board game they can play from 12,000 miles away.
If you had actually READ Kerry's documents and took some time to understand his issues, you would see that he wants to increase troops in the area, but not US troops. The goal is to empower and encourage the International Community to contribute themselves, to the goal of fighting terrorism. This means the troops would come from non-US countries, to replace the war-worn US troops already out there.
He's really not as bad as you think. Think bigger than the White House and the US, please, and see where he stands. If you had watched the Presidential Debates, you would have seen him clearly articulate this several times.
We stepped in, overthrew their government, and deposed their leader. In doing so, we were able to put our own (US-chosen) leader, the "Shah of Iran" (yes, THAT shah) into power, with a very specific set of rules and policies that were to be followed by his people, dictated by... you guessed it.. the United States Government.
We've been screwing around with the Middle East for several decades, even long before radicals like Osama and Al Zawahiri were even born.
Also, lets not forget that the same Afghanistan rebels that the United States helped and funded with money and military arms to beat the Russians out of Afghanistan... were the the same Afghanistani rebels that became Al Queda, and attacked us on 9/11. Yes, the very same group.
There's a lot more to this than people are seeing at the surface.
And how do you know which systems have "trusted chipsets" in them from the start? How do you know your 1U rackmount server that you just bought from Acme Servers has (or has not) a trusted chipset in it? Can you trust the vendor?
It makes sense for them to standardize on ONE architecture; one with the chipset, than to standardize on two. You have a much wider market for the trusted chipset hardware than the one without.
That being said, I think it should be a toggle'able option, to use or not to use, based on settings in the BIOS or a jumper or some other verifiable entity.
Though, I could have just done this:
http://www.desktopos.com.nyud.net:8090/reviews.php ?op=showcontent&id=19
But you see, Slashdot breaks the link anyway, by inserting a random space.
I'll take it under advisement for the future.
Please please please, in the future when posting articles that link to innocent users' blogs, personal sites, sites hosted on DSL connections, and so on... do not link to them directly! Use the Coral'ized link syntax as below:
http://www.desktopos.com.nyud.net:8090/reviews.p hp?op=showcontent&id=19
This link was purposely not left clickable, because the 'nyud.net' at the end, would cause Slashdot to add the [nyud.net] to the link text, which would stop people from clicking on it (thinking it was a pr0n site).
Here is some more information about the Coral Distribution Network.
Seriously, use it. It helps a LOT.
--
Have you Plucked the Web today?
The easiest analogy to use to explain this is "disease". It actually fits pretty well in the Windows environment, with "infections" from trojans, viruses, worms, and malware.
There are two approaches, depending on whether you are utopian-driven (Free Software and the likes) or profit-driven (large corporate pharmaceutical companies):
Most pharmaceutical companies choose the latter, because it keeps their revenue coming in strong, as long as the disease continues to exist and affect people.
Most Free Software people (and other utopians) have the opposite view. Cure the problem by treating the cause, and you won't have to worry about treating the symptoms.
I don't even have to remind you where Bill Gates and Microsoft stand on this issue. Any time they see some way to edge in a few more profit margin points, they go for it:
They will do whatever it takes, to keep people putting their dollars behind Microsoft products, even if it pisses off one of their own partners in the process.
Linux is, and has been ready for the desktop for at least 5 years or more. I've been using it full-time on my desktops and workstations here for at least 7 years.
Don't blame the kernel for the lack of userland applications. The peripherals, ports, and external devices are all supported (and in fact, more devices and peripherals are supported under the current 2.6.8.1 Linux kernel than on Windows and OSX combined).
Linux was never "meant" for the desktop. That is the job of distribution manufacturers and userland application authors. Talk to them. The rest of us "desktop Linux users" are waiting for them to catch up.
This isn't a race against Microsoft. Linux solves my needs, and gives me much more flexibility and power and choice than the alternative OS that might run on my hardware.
Incidentally, Windows and OSX don't support 90% of the hardware out there that Linux has happily been running on for several years to over a decade. See my previous post for a more-complete list.
In fact, Linux runs on about 23 additional architectures that Microsoft can't even remotely support with their most-flexible embedded target.
http://www.wiggy.net.nyud.net:8090/tmp/accident/
Actually, by definition, this is called "Fascism" (emphasis mine):
But why not just have the windshield of the plane turn one-way, or opaque, or red (or whatever the proper diffracting/diffusing element is for lasers), when they're doing the approach.
Clearly they wouldn't need the map at that point, so seeing red out the windshield during the landing portion, shouldn't affect them THAT much. It'd certainly be a lot safer than having pilots blinded by lasers.
He has 9, I have 19, and mine are spittin' images.
That's FireFox, not Mozilla. Mozilla's latest does not support this feature. It is only in FireFox.
Please try to understand the differences between the two.
The solution to this, of course, is to flush WHILE you're on the toilet, as well as AFTER you're done with your duty there. Sure, it uses a bit more water, but a heck of a lot less than when you clog the toilet and have to flush 3, 4, 5 times to get that pile down the pipe.
Or just use a proper ircd that implemenets SSL from client->server, like our network does. In fact, we're the only public irc network that uses SSL in this way, and all clients support it, without modification (assuming they can support SSL; xchat, irssi, BitchX can).