I had an old Dodge Caravan some time ago. I had the carburetor rebuilt by a local shop. Worked great for a few months, and then one day, in traffic, the gas pedal got stuck.
The car was uncontrollably accellerating! It was a stick shift, so I forced it into 4th gear (so the motor was spinning slowly and thus didn't have much power) and then braked my way to a safe stop.
Scared the living hell out of me!
Needless to say, the guys who rebuilt the carburetor fixed it free of charge. (it was a single screw that came loose)
Put the blame where you want to, but don't single out electronic technology - anytime we depend on *anything*, there's a failure rate.
Look at the benefits vs costs to get a look at the *real* cost...
If electronic braking saved 1,000 lives due to improved handling, but failed every so often to the detriment of 20 people, that's a pretty good bargain. (And you'd be sure to bet that the 20 failures would be examined mightly closely to get rid of that, too!)
Furthermore, 600k home computers users with broadband is a lot. It can take over 24 hours to nmap 700 computers on a LAN, and you'd have to cast a truly enormous net: to infect 600k computers you'd probably need to scan twice that many; and to get that many actual computers, you'd have to scan - being somewhat optimistic - twice that many IPs.
Do you think that somebody actually sat down in front of nmap, and started scanning addresses to get these X00,000 zombies?
It's done automatically by worms and viruses, dude. Automated scanning. The computer, once compromised, "phones home" by various means to establish its role as a zombie.
17 GB/s? That's seventeen gigabytes of traffic every second. By my math, that's 90,666 T1 lines! (17,000,000,000*8/1,500,000) If you were to assume ALL the aggregated bandwidth at your hosting facility, you might get there. But, that's not counting normal, everyday traffic. That bandwidth usage will NOT be spread evenly to "spread the load".
Remember the recent article from England where people would be willing to trade their login/pw for a box of cookies?
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more effective to crack Amazon, but I think a DDOS is awfully effective if delivered at the right moment, and it's more easy to crack most sites than you'd think, if you're willing to think outside the "do an nmap" box.
While the kneejerk reactionaries in our legislative branch may have been able to pass the PATRIOT act, we are seeing the cool headed philosophers in the judicial branch nudering the PATRIOT act.
/BEGIN GRAMMAR NAZI
"nudering"? Some derivative of "nude"? I get this funny picture of a fat, middle-aged senator being stripped of his clothing in a very public forum....
Your idealistic picture of 100,000 years ago is by no means a good one. 100,000 years ago, your ancestors were busy murdering anything that was not part of their tribe. Racism is deeply embedded into the human psyche, which partly explains why it's been so difficult to find the human "missing link".
Bones found from early man almost always have crushed skulls!
And, you mention treaties... who would sign the treaty for your anarchistic country? Why would the foreign government even recognized whoever signed it as a bona fide representative of a country withhout representatives?
Paint me a picture. Tell me how your perfect form of government would work in these scenarios:
1) So, you have a town of 10,000 people. A small community by today's standards. 5 of those people are black, and the rest are light skinned.
Tell me how your anarchism will make life for the 5 black people, and tell me how this is going to be in any way desirable.
2) A large, well-connected gang of criminals has begun plundering the southern half of your state/country. This is a large group, comprising at least 1,000 members. They are well organized, and well experienced. They can hotwire your $40,000 truck in less than 2 minutes.
How do you stop them?
3) Germany, France, and England have all decided that your form of government is unacceptable.
Notice that if your anarchistic body forms a military to combat a foreign threat, you either have A) A standing army, with generals, majors, and infantry that obey orders, or B) an ineffective force of untrained, incapable civilians armed with weapons they don't know how to use effectively.
"A" sounds suspiciously like government as we know it today, doesn't it? Or, should I say it: "Anarchism evolves towards organized government"?
See, what I have not yet seen is that anarchism is an inherently stable or secure form of government. It does not have the protection mechanisms necessary to guarantee its own survival, let alone the survival of its population.
I am, therefore, still one of your harshest critics.
But then again, who profits on the general stupidity of the unwashed masses? Yes, exactly: the government.
So... Where did you go to school?
Yeah, I thought so. The profiteering govt sent me to school, too. It pays for the schooling of my own children through a Charter School no less, allowing me as a parent to choose what priorities I put on my child's education.
So, I don't buy that the government is "profiteering" from being lousy in educating children. There's plenty of evidence to show that improving education enhances the power of the respective government, not the other way!
Also, show me one example of a government that could actually exist in this world, and you might have a convert here. The example you named (Spain) only underscores my point - whatever method chosen must be able to resist external attack as well as work with the local population.
Great, so there's a possibility of an anarchist government, but only if all nations convert at once and never invade each other... Sorry pal. That's not pragmatic reason speaking, it's dreaming. That's OK, you have to dream of a goal before you can work towards it, but I demand some pragmatic reasons for yours before I'll advocate it.
Your biggest single error in judgement is considering government to be a single entity. It's a common mistake. The city police that were busy protecting me while I protested were part of a vastly different political entity than the federal entity I was protesting.
Show me a plan that would actually work, would have the rigidity necessary to withstand the realities of this screwed-up world, and you'll get my undying enthusiasm. Give me hopeful optimism with glossed-over weaknesses, and I'll be one of your harshest critics.
See, the idea that we can do entirely without a govt is ludicrous. Government that allows for opposition is healthy, but the government itself is crucial.
Prior to the Iraq war, I demonstrated with my wife and children. We made up signs with words like "Peace is Patriotic" and "Loving troops does not mean killing them". We stood downtown with a group of perhaps two hundred other people. On one side of the street were the "Pro-War" advocates, and on the other side were the "Anti-War" advocates. The tension was thick enough to cut with a knife. Insults were hurled, and both sides honestly considered the other side idiotic.
There were numerous police officers there. I was very, very glad to see them there, and I let them know such. They never said anything political, and when asked why they were there, simply stated that they were there to "keep things under control".
I knew that so long as I obeyed laws based on reasonable behavior, my right to communicate my message was unhindered. I never before experienced such respect for my nation and its laws, and that respect will last my lifetime.
Just remember that your right to advocate anarchism is protected by the government of your country - give respect where it's due.
There can never be "a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals" because people are not free. People live under the slaveries of economics, of insecurity, the demons of their childhood, stupidity, uneducation, and too many others to name.
Solve all these first, and then your utopian "free society of non-coersion" might possibly exist. Until then, the bullies and the greedy will reign.
Thanks for adding one more reason why Wal-Mart is on my "no" list for employers - ever.
Ok, you don't want to work there. The people who work there don't want to work there. But the real question is... DO YOU SHOP THERE?
See, if you're paying into the system, you become more a part of it. Avoid shopping there, and you increase the chances that somebody can get a job without food stamps, that somebody can get a job with benefits.
Wal-Mart is evil in ways that Startbucks can still only dream of.
Shop there == dead end job at a place you detest for wages that don't sustain. No shop == hope.
And as a bonified nerd, I say that with all the disdain possible....
I'm being terribly unfair - especially since your response is really quite nice and all...
But, "bonified" would be the result of taking the root word "bone", and converting it to "bonify", meaning "to make into or resemble bone", and then make it past tense.
As in: "He was bonified when he drank too much of that calcium powder".
So, I get this weird picture of a nerd with big, nasty bones sticking out all over his face!
Yeah, grammar nazi, blah blah. It's quite funny when you think about it!
He's wrong. Really wrong. I, and others, were able to see through the hype and stupidity during the bubble, and see what companies had real value, which didn't, which were over-valued, and in some cases, which were under-valued.
Unfortunately unlike Ross Perot I don't have spare billions of dollars.
Nobody has spare billions of dollars!"Oh, yeah, I think there's a billion or so in that coffee can over there... "
You think that fund raising isn't a core piece of building a political campaign? Perhaps you didn't notice that I mentioned this as a goal of running a political campaign?
Get a coherent message together. Broadcast it as broadly as possible. (I gave you a hint on how I'd do it) Raise the funding needed to pay expenses, give small thank yous to volunteers, pay for ads, mailings, etc.
Or, find somebody you agree with and do same for them. Help them get funding, help broadcast their message, etc.
I've said it many times... we have got to get a strong third party in place and soon to push the political mountain or we are going to watch these two parties merge into one uncontrollable monster.
Words are cheap. You can say it many times, and you can be right. What's the difference between somebody who can't read, and somebody who doesn't read? Nothing. Your wisdom doesn't matter if it's not translated into action.
Why don't YOU start such a party? You say "we" which implies you and at least one other person. Start this party you speak of - get funding, find a candidate if not yourself!
See, the USA is politically "open source". Anybody can make their dent, and the rules are reasonably simple and apply to everybody.
Just as we have Microsoft ruling the computer technology scene as a Monopoly, the Right/Left wings grapple in a Machiavelian struggle, swinging us "right" and "left" while moving us forward towards....?
Ross Perot almost did it. For a while, there, it actually looked as though he was going to win the presidency!
You could, too. We need an impassioned, trusted, charismatic, reasonable-sounding candidate who's willing to go the mile, and it would be a LONG mile.
I've considered joining the fray a few times, myself. Whether or not I'm "impassioned" enough or "charismatic" is an determination best left to listeners.
You have tremendous power in cable-access media. You can produce a broadcast quality show with a budget of under $50/week. (I know, I've done it!) FCC rules require this community-access television to be funded - it's just that few people actually stand up and produce the programming. Once a show is produced, it only requires a local sponsor to air the show in each community.
I've been very annoyed by this. I really expected BSD and Linux to take off. But corporates lack sufficient geekpower, on average, to use Linux. And that is the reality that too few geeks are willing to cater to. And I say this as someone who has, in the last year, done hardcore commercial development on all three platforms.
So, BECOME the reason they switch! For what I've seen, rather than convince XYZ corp that they need to buy Linux, convince them that they need what YOU provide. Don't even make something like the O/S part of the transaction. O/S is largely irrelevant to the PHB anyway.
I've been a consultant for years, and this formula works rather well... I used it long before I knew what Linux was!
Listen. Carefully. Let them know that you can solve problems X, Y, and Z, where X, Y, and Z are costing them time/headache/hassle/money. Then produce it, deliver it, and be VERY responsive when it doesn't work. If you are any good, that won't be very often, and nobody will complain.
Make DAMN SURE you have a long-term support contract in there. One of my first "Linux" contracts was for a mere $80/mo - and now more than half a decade later, (installed early 1999) I still get that, as $240 4 times a year.
The business has been sold in the meantime, and the software just works, so the contract went along with it, and the new owner uses the software, too.
I provide backups off-site as part of the contract - automated long, long ago.
The customer is of the type to write down notes of instructions on how to turn the computer on/off. The Linux computer in the closet sits on a 1-hour UPS obtained at the local BestBuy, and the only tech support calls have been due to the DSL connection occasionally being flakey.
Once they thought it was "down" and I had to restore data from the off-site backup in a hurry to satisfy an urgent customer request. Although we later diagnosed the problem as unrelated to the system, I'm sure they were very happy to know that the data is safe and secure, available at a moment's notice even if their system does go down.
This is one of my smallest and oldest examples - bigger ones include entire school districts, none of whom have ever been sold on "Linux". I use terms like "Commercial Grade Unix-based Server" and then go on with the rest of the features detailing how it solves problem X, Y, and especially Z.
So, make it work! Make it simple, and don't bother with telling them that YOUR O/S is so much superior, just provide a superior product and service, and let that speak for itself.
Linux is nice, but in case you hadn't noticed, the operating system is a commodity! The user doesn't friggin' care what it runs or how it works, so long as it does. So, provide solutions that work and do what the customer needs, and they'll love you.
And, it doesn't matter if Linux is involved, so long as the customers needs are.
A few iptable rules to limit who can login via SSH and you can forget about rebooting....
until somebody discovers a vuln in qmail, or mime-defang, or qmail-scanner, or whatever, that can be used to provide a low-priv remote shell. And, it's not like you'll always be able to predict it.
Good security is like an onion - you layer it. You start with a good, stiff firewall. You use secure software, run with the least priveledge possible. File permissions are carefully attended to. You remove un-needed software, maybe de-install the compiler. You make sure your kernel is up to date and PATCHED. You have numerous backups going back in time at least a few weeks, off-site if it's important.
When you run a kernel with known vulnerabilities, you effectively remove one layer of the onion, making it that much easier to be compromised.
It has an uptime of over 400 days and handles over 20,000 messages a day.
I have issues with your 400 day uptime. What about security patches? Are you running a kernel without known exploits?
Most 'sploits are "local" and require a shell account, but is your computer set up such that this could *never* happen?
I've come to conclude that uptimes much greater than 100-200 days represent an admin who's really not doing his/her job. Far, far better to exclude downtime where the reboot/power cycle was planned as a result of an upgrade.
Yep. I made a mistake. I mean to say that there was one of Ruby/Python/Perl/PHP - and it turns out, I was wrong there, too, as both Ruby and Python have multiple implementations. I don't know if they are derivative of each other.
I don't follow Python/Ruby as close to Perl or PHP, (my favorite) so I was unaware that there was more than one implementation of either Python or Ruby.
I never said there was only ONE implementation of Java, my point was that nobody complains about PHP being "hostage" by Zend because it's open source - it cannot be taken away by Zend even if they wanted to.
I then contrast that with SQL and its numerous headaches due to differing and conflicting implementations.
If Sun releases Java under an "open" license with the restrictions proposed, it would (IMHO) have the effect of providing more reason(s) for companies to invest in Java-based technologies with confidence!
How many implementations are there of Java? Perl? PHP? Python? Ruby?
Yep. Just one, each. That hasn't stopped each from growing to enterprise-grade capacity. (Yahoo has bet the farm on PHP, etc)
If Sun Opens up Java, but requires that forks retain a baseline compatability, what is wrong with that?
There are numerous implementation of Structured Query Language (SQL) and the fact that they are all "mostly" compatable is a developer's nightmare. You either don't bother with all the fancy foreign keys/rules/triggers stuff, or you choose AN implementation of SQL (Say, PostgreSQL, or Oracle, etc) and develop for it alone (or you have lots off time/money to burn). You can only develop cross platform appliccations in a fairly simple way, because of all the potential gotchas between SQL implementations. Anytime you need true ACID compliance, and true data integrity guaranteed at the database level, you're stuck.
How different this would be if ANSI SQL came not just with a specification (does this, that, etc) but also came with an extensive set of statements and results that could be compared so that there was a strong, capable baseline that would be cross platform.
Then, establish a non-profit agency that could enforce the standard, providing three degrees of certification: ANSI SQL based, ANSI SQL compliant and ANSI SQL certified.
"Based" would refer to an incomplete implementation of the spec. The only difference between "compliant" and "certified" being that "compliant" could execute the statements to get the desired result, and "certified" has been independently tested by the enforcement agency to ensure that the test runs right. (and a fee has been paid)
This would be a total BOON to developers who could write ANSI-compliant statements and be confident that their stuff would work everywhere.
There are DOZENS of gotchas in SQL. For example, if you define a UNIQUE constraint across two fields where one of the fields could be null, does the UNIQUE constraint apply to rows where one of the fields is null? According to the spec, no. But numerous database engines will enforce the uniqueness despite NULL being one of the values.
OOPS! NULL is not a value, it's a non value. It's an "I don't know". How can that be considered in an evaluation of unique?
Usually not important if you're running a BLOG. Can be critically important if you're keeping track of financial transactions!
I would *LOVE* it if ANSI treated SQL like Sun proposes dealing with JAVA....
Only on slashdot is an article that encourages business professionals to get the right equipment to do their job well and professionally modded as "flamebait"...
Well, honestly, that changes things. Notice that in my comments, I made repeated references to business....
The bottom line is that when you are running a business, you either get the parts and materials you need to do a job, or you go out of business. From that perspective, it's mighty stupid not to get the equipment you need.
However, in any kind of govornment setting, the situation is often bass-ackwards. Efficiency is strangely decoupled from expense. This results in scenarios where some areas of Govt are funded in proportion to their INefficiency, while other areas, starved for money, have to be extremely efficient, and are then rewarded by reductions in funding because it's obviously "not needed"...
It's still stupid, but in this case, it's not YOU that's being stupid. I've many times wondered if perhaps the Libertarians aren't right after all, and we should just privatize our govornment, too?
Oh well. Philosophy is best served after a couple rounds of drinks...
eMachines have a bad rap - their earlier stuff was insanely cheap hardware that was overpriced.
Their stuff of recent has been pretty decent, if you are looking for value in a functional computer, and certainly a step up from something that's been in production since WinNT/1996!
If you are looking for a nutbuster, go elsewhere. Don't buy a Ford Escort for racing on the strip, and don't buy an eMachine for performance computing.
I keep hearing about this "linux virus" that's just around the corner...
There are security issues with Linux, but viruses just really aren't on the list, and the need for a "virus scanner" is just lost. Don't look for the virus, fix the problem that allowed the virus in the first place!
We need hardware protection too. We've got a number of old machines that were originally running NT 4, which are now running (slowly) windows 2000.
From a corporate perspective, this is just stupid, and dead wrong. Expenses on computer hardware are amortized over 3 years to the IRS, as a standard accounting practice. Thus, after 3 years, there's no compelling reason (and certainly no tax advantage) for keeping the old thing around.
Also, notice that the newer computers will be faster, so maintenance costs are lower since your admin will be spending less time waiting for patches to install, and will also have improved patch management tools to manage their installation.
So, my guess is that you are either (1) running a very small business and cash is extremely (as in, barely "profitable") tight, or (2) clueless.
If your computers are really important, and their performance significantly impacts production, and you DON'T upgrade to at least a reasonably modern level, you're being stupid. Buy the equipment you need to run your business competently and efficiently, or at least admit to yourself that your business is really a hobby.
Someday, I'd love to be a senator, or something. Just to have a legal staff to make heads/tails out of what the bills are, and to database the insanity!
I'd personally love to see a law where a bill can be questioned by any lawmaker, and if so questioned, the law must be reviewed by a random selection of at least 20 of the lawmakers in the house/senate, wherever it was questioned to see if the proposed law "conforms to a single area of law".
This bullshit of passing a gun rights ammendment on a bill titled "US car emissions reformation act" is disgusting.
Remember the line-item veto? I'd like to effectively give that power to every single senator and legislator.
Slashdot Mirror
I had an old Dodge Caravan some time ago. I had the carburetor rebuilt by a local shop. Worked great for a few months, and then one day, in traffic, the gas pedal got stuck.
The car was uncontrollably accellerating! It was a stick shift, so I forced it into 4th gear (so the motor was spinning slowly and thus didn't have much power) and then braked my way to a safe stop.
Scared the living hell out of me!
Needless to say, the guys who rebuilt the carburetor fixed it free of charge. (it was a single screw that came loose)
Put the blame where you want to, but don't single out electronic technology - anytime we depend on *anything*, there's a failure rate.
Look at the benefits vs costs to get a look at the *real* cost...
If electronic braking saved 1,000 lives due to improved handling, but failed every so often to the detriment of 20 people, that's a pretty good bargain. (And you'd be sure to bet that the 20 failures would be examined mightly closely to get rid of that, too!)
Relax.
Furthermore, 600k home computers users with broadband is a lot. It can take over 24 hours to nmap 700 computers on a LAN, and you'd have to cast a truly enormous net: to infect 600k computers you'd probably need to scan twice that many; and to get that many actual computers, you'd have to scan - being somewhat optimistic - twice that many IPs.
Do you think that somebody actually sat down in front of nmap, and started scanning addresses to get these X00,000 zombies?
It's done automatically by worms and viruses, dude. Automated scanning. The computer, once compromised, "phones home" by various means to establish its role as a zombie.
17 GB/s? That's seventeen gigabytes of traffic every second. By my math, that's 90,666 T1 lines! (17,000,000,000*8/1,500,000) If you were to assume ALL the aggregated bandwidth at your hosting facility, you might get there. But, that's not counting normal, everyday traffic. That bandwidth usage will NOT be spread evenly to "spread the load".
Remember the recent article from England where people would be willing to trade their login/pw for a box of cookies?
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more effective to crack Amazon, but I think a DDOS is awfully effective if delivered at the right moment, and it's more easy to crack most sites than you'd think, if you're willing to think outside the "do an nmap" box.
/BEGIN GRAMMAR NAZI
"nudering"? Some derivative of "nude"? I get this funny picture of a fat, middle-aged senator being stripped of his clothing in a very public forum....
I think you meant "neutering?
Oh, and yeah, this is Grammar Nazi stuff, but I only bring it up because it's funny....
I have to admit, this has been a fun thread.
Your idealistic picture of 100,000 years ago is by no means a good one. 100,000 years ago, your ancestors were busy murdering anything that was not part of their tribe. Racism is deeply embedded into the human psyche, which partly explains why it's been so difficult to find the human "missing link".
Bones found from early man almost always have crushed skulls!
And, you mention treaties... who would sign the treaty for your anarchistic country? Why would the foreign government even recognized whoever signed it as a bona fide representative of a country withhout representatives?
Paint me a picture. Tell me how your perfect form of government would work in these scenarios:
1) So, you have a town of 10,000 people. A small community by today's standards. 5 of those people are black, and the rest are light skinned.
Tell me how your anarchism will make life for the 5 black people, and tell me how this is going to be in any way desirable.
2) A large, well-connected gang of criminals has begun plundering the southern half of your state/country. This is a large group, comprising at least 1,000 members. They are well organized, and well experienced. They can hotwire your $40,000 truck in less than 2 minutes.
How do you stop them?
3) Germany, France, and England have all decided that your form of government is unacceptable.
Notice that if your anarchistic body forms a military to combat a foreign threat, you either have A) A standing army, with generals, majors, and infantry that obey orders, or B) an ineffective force of untrained, incapable civilians armed with weapons they don't know how to use effectively.
"A" sounds suspiciously like government as we know it today, doesn't it? Or, should I say it: "Anarchism evolves towards organized government"?
See, what I have not yet seen is that anarchism is an inherently stable or secure form of government. It does not have the protection mechanisms necessary to guarantee its own survival, let alone the survival of its population.
I am, therefore, still one of your harshest critics.
But then again, who profits on the general stupidity of the unwashed masses? Yes, exactly: the government.
So... Where did you go to school?
Yeah, I thought so. The profiteering govt sent me to school, too. It pays for the schooling of my own children through a Charter School no less, allowing me as a parent to choose what priorities I put on my child's education.
So, I don't buy that the government is "profiteering" from being lousy in educating children. There's plenty of evidence to show that improving education enhances the power of the respective government, not the other way!
Also, show me one example of a government that could actually exist in this world, and you might have a convert here. The example you named (Spain) only underscores my point - whatever method chosen must be able to resist external attack as well as work with the local population.
Great, so there's a possibility of an anarchist government, but only if all nations convert at once and never invade each other... Sorry pal. That's not pragmatic reason speaking, it's dreaming. That's OK, you have to dream of a goal before you can work towards it, but I demand some pragmatic reasons for yours before I'll advocate it.
Your biggest single error in judgement is considering government to be a single entity. It's a common mistake. The city police that were busy protecting me while I protested were part of a vastly different political entity than the federal entity I was protesting.
Show me a plan that would actually work, would have the rigidity necessary to withstand the realities of this screwed-up world, and you'll get my undying enthusiasm. Give me hopeful optimism with glossed-over weaknesses, and I'll be one of your harshest critics.
Not that most people have the slightest idea of what Anarchism is. And no I've never thrown a bomb or broken a window.
So, perhaps you can enlighten us? A link? More information? I'm looking for a reasonably reliable source of information.
See, the idea that we can do entirely without a govt is ludicrous. Government that allows for opposition is healthy, but the government itself is crucial.
Prior to the Iraq war, I demonstrated with my wife and children. We made up signs with words like "Peace is Patriotic" and "Loving troops does not mean killing them". We stood downtown with a group of perhaps two hundred other people. On one side of the street were the "Pro-War" advocates, and on the other side were the "Anti-War" advocates. The tension was thick enough to cut with a knife. Insults were hurled, and both sides honestly considered the other side idiotic.
There were numerous police officers there. I was very, very glad to see them there, and I let them know such. They never said anything political, and when asked why they were there, simply stated that they were there to "keep things under control".
I knew that so long as I obeyed laws based on reasonable behavior, my right to communicate my message was unhindered. I never before experienced such respect for my nation and its laws, and that respect will last my lifetime.
Just remember that your right to advocate anarchism is protected by the government of your country - give respect where it's due.
There can never be "a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals" because people are not free. People live under the slaveries of economics, of insecurity, the demons of their childhood, stupidity, uneducation, and too many others to name.
Solve all these first, and then your utopian "free society of non-coersion" might possibly exist. Until then, the bullies and the greedy will reign.
Thanks for adding one more reason why Wal-Mart is on my "no" list for employers - ever.
Ok, you don't want to work there. The people who work there don't want to work there. But the real question is... DO YOU SHOP THERE?
See, if you're paying into the system, you become more a part of it. Avoid shopping there, and you increase the chances that somebody can get a job without food stamps, that somebody can get a job with benefits.
Wal-Mart is evil in ways that Startbucks can still only dream of.
Shop there == dead end job at a place you detest for wages that don't sustain. No shop == hope.
-Ben
And as a bonified nerd, I say that with all the disdain possible....
...
I'm being terribly unfair - especially since your response is really quite nice and all
But, "bonified" would be the result of taking the root word "bone", and converting it to "bonify", meaning "to make into or resemble bone", and then make it past tense.
As in: "He was bonified when he drank too much of that calcium powder".
So, I get this weird picture of a nerd with big, nasty bones sticking out all over his face!
Yeah, grammar nazi, blah blah. It's quite funny when you think about it!
I'm pretty sure you meant "bona fide"!
I was just reading about how nerds will rule the world because "A nerd, ...is someone who concentrates on substance.".
And then I read this. And I think to myself... is there more than one definition for "nerd"?
He's wrong. Really wrong. I, and others, were able to see through the hype and stupidity during the bubble, and see what companies had real value, which didn't, which were over-valued, and in some cases, which were under-valued.
And, your net worth is... ?
(I didn't think so)
Unfortunately unlike Ross Perot I don't have spare billions of dollars.
Nobody has spare billions of dollars! "Oh, yeah, I think there's a billion or so in that coffee can over there... "
You think that fund raising isn't a core piece of building a political campaign? Perhaps you didn't notice that I mentioned this as a goal of running a political campaign?
Get a coherent message together. Broadcast it as broadly as possible. (I gave you a hint on how I'd do it) Raise the funding needed to pay expenses, give small thank yous to volunteers, pay for ads, mailings, etc.
Or, find somebody you agree with and do same for them. Help them get funding, help broadcast their message, etc.
Or, shut up and pick a candidate!
I've said it many times ... we have got to get a strong third party in place and soon to push the political mountain or we are going to watch these two parties merge into one uncontrollable monster.
Words are cheap. You can say it many times, and you can be right. What's the difference between somebody who can't read, and somebody who doesn't read? Nothing. Your wisdom doesn't matter if it's not translated into action.
Why don't YOU start such a party? You say "we" which implies you and at least one other person. Start this party you speak of - get funding, find a candidate if not yourself!
See, the USA is politically "open source". Anybody can make their dent, and the rules are reasonably simple and apply to everybody.
Just as we have Microsoft ruling the computer technology scene as a Monopoly, the Right/Left wings grapple in
a Machiavelian struggle, swinging us "right" and "left" while moving us forward towards....?
Ross Perot almost did it. For a while, there, it actually looked as though he was going to win the presidency!
You could, too. We need an impassioned, trusted, charismatic, reasonable-sounding candidate who's willing to go the mile, and it would be a LONG mile.
I've considered joining the fray a few times, myself. Whether or not I'm "impassioned" enough or "charismatic" is an determination best left to listeners.
You have tremendous power in cable-access media. You can produce a broadcast quality show with a budget of under $50/week. (I know, I've done it!) FCC rules require this community-access television to be funded - it's just that few people actually stand up and produce the programming. Once a show is produced, it only requires a local sponsor to air the show in each community.
So, who's going to actually do it? You?
I've been very annoyed by this. I really expected BSD and Linux to take off. But corporates lack sufficient geekpower, on average, to use Linux. And that is the reality that too few geeks are willing to cater to. And I say this as someone who has, in the last year, done hardcore commercial development on all three platforms.
So, BECOME the reason they switch! For what I've seen, rather than convince XYZ corp that they need to buy Linux, convince them that they need what YOU provide. Don't even make something like the O/S part of the transaction. O/S is largely irrelevant to the PHB anyway.
I've been a consultant for years, and this formula works rather well... I used it long before I knew what Linux was!
Listen. Carefully. Let them know that you can solve problems X, Y, and Z, where X, Y, and Z are costing them time/headache/hassle/money. Then produce it, deliver it, and be VERY responsive when it doesn't work. If you are any good, that won't be very often, and nobody will complain.
Make DAMN SURE you have a long-term support contract in there. One of my first "Linux" contracts was for a mere $80/mo - and now more than half a decade later, (installed early 1999) I still get that, as $240 4 times a year.
The business has been sold in the meantime, and the software just works, so the contract went along with it, and the new owner uses the software, too.
I provide backups off-site as part of the contract - automated long, long ago.
The customer is of the type to write down notes of instructions on how to turn the computer on/off. The Linux computer in the closet sits on a 1-hour UPS obtained at the local BestBuy, and the only tech support calls have been due to the DSL connection occasionally being flakey.
Once they thought it was "down" and I had to restore data from the off-site backup in a hurry to satisfy an urgent customer request. Although we later diagnosed the problem as unrelated to the system, I'm sure they were very happy to know that the data is safe and secure, available at a moment's notice even if their system does go down.
This is one of my smallest and oldest examples - bigger ones include entire school districts, none of whom have ever been sold on "Linux". I use terms like "Commercial Grade Unix-based Server" and then go on with the rest of the features detailing how it solves problem X, Y, and especially Z.
So, make it work! Make it simple, and don't bother with telling them that YOUR O/S is so much superior, just provide a superior product and service, and let that speak for itself.
Linux is nice, but in case you hadn't noticed, the operating system is a commodity! The user doesn't friggin' care what it runs or how it works, so long as it does. So, provide solutions that work and do what the customer needs, and they'll love you.
And, it doesn't matter if Linux is involved, so long as the customers needs are.
A few iptable rules to limit who can login via SSH and you can forget about rebooting....
until somebody discovers a vuln in qmail, or mime-defang, or qmail-scanner, or whatever, that can be used to provide a low-priv remote shell. And, it's not like you'll always be able to predict it.
Good security is like an onion - you layer it. You start with a good, stiff firewall. You use secure software, run with the least priveledge possible. File permissions are carefully attended to. You remove un-needed software, maybe de-install the compiler. You make sure your kernel is up to date and PATCHED. You have numerous backups going back in time at least a few weeks, off-site if it's important.
When you run a kernel with known vulnerabilities, you effectively remove one layer of the onion, making it that much easier to be compromised.
True, if there are NO kernel updates, you don't need to reboot. But, there has been at least one kernel issue within the last 400 days...
It has an uptime of over 400 days and handles over 20,000 messages a day.
I have issues with your 400 day uptime. What about security patches? Are you running a kernel without known exploits?
Most 'sploits are "local" and require a shell account, but is your computer set up such that this could *never* happen?
I've come to conclude that uptimes much greater than 100-200 days represent an admin who's really not doing his/her job. Far, far better to exclude downtime where the reboot/power cycle was planned as a result of an upgrade.
Otherwise, you're just waiting to be 0wn3d!
Yep. I made a mistake. I mean to say that there was one of Ruby/Python/Perl/PHP - and it turns out, I was wrong there, too, as both Ruby and Python have multiple implementations. I don't know if they are derivative of each other.
Oops.
I don't follow Python/Ruby as close to Perl or PHP, (my favorite) so I was unaware that there was more than one implementation of either Python or Ruby.
I never said there was only ONE implementation of Java, my point was that nobody complains about PHP being "hostage" by Zend because it's open source - it cannot be taken away by Zend even if they wanted to.
I then contrast that with SQL and its numerous headaches due to differing and conflicting implementations.
If Sun releases Java under an "open" license with the restrictions proposed, it would (IMHO) have the effect of providing more reason(s) for companies to invest in Java-based technologies with confidence!
What is the big deal?
How many implementations are there of Java? Perl? PHP? Python? Ruby?
Yep. Just one, each. That hasn't stopped each from growing to enterprise-grade capacity. (Yahoo has bet the farm on PHP, etc)
If Sun Opens up Java, but requires that forks retain a baseline compatability, what is wrong with that?
There are numerous implementation of Structured Query Language (SQL) and the fact that they are all "mostly" compatable is a developer's nightmare. You either don't bother with all the fancy foreign keys/rules/triggers stuff, or you choose AN implementation of SQL (Say, PostgreSQL, or Oracle, etc) and develop for it alone (or you have lots off time/money to burn). You can only develop cross platform appliccations in a fairly simple way, because of all the potential gotchas between SQL implementations. Anytime you need true ACID compliance, and true data integrity guaranteed at the database level, you're stuck.
How different this would be if ANSI SQL came not just with a specification (does this, that, etc) but also came with an extensive set of statements and results that could be compared so that there was a strong, capable baseline that would be cross platform.
Then, establish a non-profit agency that could enforce the standard, providing three degrees of certification: ANSI SQL based, ANSI SQL compliant and ANSI SQL certified.
"Based" would refer to an incomplete implementation of the spec. The only difference between "compliant" and "certified" being that "compliant" could execute the statements to get the desired result, and "certified" has been independently tested by the enforcement agency to ensure that the test runs right. (and a fee has been paid)
This would be a total BOON to developers who could write ANSI-compliant statements and be confident that their stuff would work everywhere.
There are DOZENS of gotchas in SQL. For example, if you define a UNIQUE constraint across two fields where one of the fields could be null, does the UNIQUE constraint apply to rows where one of the fields is null? According to the spec, no. But numerous database engines will enforce the uniqueness despite NULL being one of the values.
OOPS! NULL is not a value, it's a non value. It's an "I don't know". How can that be considered in an evaluation of unique?
Usually not important if you're running a BLOG. Can be critically important if you're keeping track of financial transactions!
I would *LOVE* it if ANSI treated SQL like Sun proposes dealing with JAVA....
I mean, what could you watch on something that small?
Perhaps midget pr0n?
Only on slashdot is an article that encourages business professionals to get the right equipment to do their job well and professionally modded as "flamebait"...
we are in an academic setting
Well, honestly, that changes things. Notice that in my comments, I made repeated references to business....
The bottom line is that when you are running a business, you either get the parts and materials you need to do a job, or you go out of business. From that perspective, it's mighty stupid not to get the equipment you need.
However, in any kind of govornment setting, the situation is often bass-ackwards. Efficiency is strangely decoupled from expense. This results in scenarios where some areas of Govt are funded in proportion to their INefficiency, while other areas, starved for money, have to be extremely efficient, and are then rewarded by reductions in funding because it's obviously "not needed"...
It's still stupid, but in this case, it's not YOU that's being stupid. I've many times wondered if perhaps the Libertarians aren't right after all, and we should just privatize our govornment, too?
Oh well. Philosophy is best served after a couple rounds of drinks...
eMachines have a bad rap - their earlier stuff was insanely cheap hardware that was overpriced.
Their stuff of recent has been pretty decent, if you are looking for value in a functional computer, and certainly a step up from something that's been in production since WinNT/1996!
If you are looking for a nutbuster, go elsewhere. Don't buy a Ford Escort for racing on the strip, and don't buy an eMachine for performance computing.
I keep hearing about this "linux virus" that's just around the corner...
There are security issues with Linux, but viruses just really aren't on the list, and the need for a "virus scanner" is just lost. Don't look for the virus, fix the problem that allowed the virus in the first place!
There are many articles on why this is so so 20 minutes with google and you'll begin to see the difference.
Again, it's not as though *nix is perfectly secure, it's just that automated viruses are really not in the mix.
And there HAVE been a number of Linux viruses, one good enough to cause me to update outside my usual update cycle.
It's just rare, and it will most likely stay that way.
We need hardware protection too. We've got a number of old machines that were originally running NT 4, which are now running (slowly) windows 2000.
From a corporate perspective, this is just stupid, and dead wrong. Expenses on computer hardware are amortized over 3 years to the IRS, as a standard accounting practice. Thus, after 3 years, there's no compelling reason (and certainly no tax advantage) for keeping the old thing around.
This fits quite nicely with Microsoft's 5-ish year support time for an O/S. Upgrade your computer, already. It generally costs more to have an employee at the desk for one week than the computer at the desk is worth.
Also, notice that the newer computers will be faster, so maintenance costs are lower since your admin will be spending less time waiting for patches to install, and will also have improved patch management tools to manage their installation.
So, my guess is that you are either (1) running a very small business and cash is extremely (as in, barely "profitable") tight, or (2) clueless.
If your computers are really important, and their performance significantly impacts production, and you DON'T upgrade to at least a reasonably modern level, you're being stupid. Buy the equipment you need to run your business competently and efficiently, or at least admit to yourself that your business is really a hobby.
Amen, brother. I hear your words and I agree!
Someday, I'd love to be a senator, or something. Just to have a legal staff to make heads/tails out of what the bills are, and to database the insanity!
I'd personally love to see a law where a bill can be questioned by any lawmaker, and if so questioned, the law must be reviewed by a random selection of at least 20 of the lawmakers in the house/senate, wherever it was questioned to see if the proposed law "conforms to a single area of law".
This bullshit of passing a gun rights ammendment on a bill titled "US car emissions reformation act" is disgusting.
Remember the line-item veto? I'd like to effectively give that power to every single senator and legislator.