I leave my access point open. It's on a different network segment, and I figure if someone has an 802.11 card I'll help out with their bandwidth. If it ever becomes a problem on my bandwidth, I'll just regulate that segment.
A classic case of altruism meets real-world. Contributing your bandwidth is all fine and dandy until some jerk uses it to send bomb threats to the president. Or send all kinds of incriminating pseudo-spam that makes you look very bad.
Perhaps a picture of some guy's backside with the wording "A little love from us at nerd farm!" in big, yellow letters.
And, looking at the email headers shows that it did, in fact, come from YOUR network segment...
I'd suggest a bit of security-consciousness goes a *long* way...
How many times would you multiply 2 with itself to end up with an odd number (which 65,535 is)?
Notice that "2" is beyond the digits in use when counting binary. "Odd" and "even" only make sense in the decimal system and are actually flipped if you start at "0" instead of "1".
65,535 is an even number if you start at 0....
I'm not saying that 100% of $3 calculators are wrong... I'm suggesting that the base 10 number system (aka "decimal" system) is based on a presumption that most people change as soon as you change the base.
Base 16 starts at 0 (0-F, not 1-G) base 2 starts at 0-1) but for some reaon, base 10 is goofy (1-10) Why is base 10 so special?
It's pretty fucking obvious that using a kick-ass amount of fucking foul-ass fucktard language is a sure-ass way to sound like a fucking retard.
Perhaps if you were to moderate your wording slightly, somebody might take you more seriously? Even when you rant, you limit the impact of your expression by using excessively foul language.
The "F" word should be used (by you) once a month, tops. When you use that word, those who know you should be shaking in their boots - 'cause they know you are seriosly PISSED.
I've found that using foreign or archaic foul words works quite well. Examples? Bloody. (Bloody might not work in England) Piffle, There are plenty.
I have prooved to myself so many times how very worth it it is to have activation in my product.
I find your post quite interesting and if I had mod points, you'd get one of them.
For our product, we chose Internet-based activation, but rather than hide it and try make it as "convenient" as possible, we chose instead to make it blatant, and try to sell it as a feature.
Yes, it sounds crazy - but it's actually working quite well! We sell a product that lets teachers fill out and turn in official education forms in compliance with numerous CA state leglated standards. Our product can save a teacher 20 hours a month or more in time filling out forms and meeting various legislated requirements.
School districts pay us by how many students are managed with our ReportWriter product. At first, we used keys (much like you describe) that were called in. But, when we decided to put it on the web, we decided (based on my past history with web-based products) to integrate everything together into a "synch protocol" that also distributes updates to the program, new information, their student data, as well as the certificates needed to activate the product.
So, once a month, the teachers "synch" their ReportWriter installs, and all their information is backed up on our servers in an encrypted format. If their computer crashes or is stolen, we have a backup of all their information which we can restore in minutes.
And, when we come out with updates to either the program or to the data, we publish it on our server and the teachers get it next time they synch.
It's typical for teachers to synch daily. It takes just a few minutes even by modem - think rsync - and gives them *alot* of peace of mind.
My $0.02 - hope you find this as interesting as I found your post!
Ok, assume I have a 128 bit key. How long to crack with a supercomputer this size? Anybody have a reference to mips->cracking time for something like this?
Well, there are 65536 digits spanned in 16 bits. Monitor 0 would be the first physical monitor, 65535 would be the 65536th monitor.
Who taught you to program?
So, where's the 0th monitor fit in here? Or, did you start at 1?
It's a blithe assumption by people that we start counting at 1. Ever wonder why it takes two digits to render just the first 10 counting in base 10, but only one digit to max out when counting in base binary?
If you count in base 2, you start at 0, as in
0, 1
not
1, 10.
It should then follow that
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
really should be
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10 should start the next sequence since now we're an order of 10 higher than where we started, and we're using the extra place (the "1") to demonstrate this.
This is all standard number theory. The question is, where should we truly begin? For historical reasons, we start at 1, but for mathematical reasons, we really should start at 0.
Starting at 0, we'd have 65,535 monitors, which is the maximum value rendered by 16 places in base 2.
We're not talking about compiling the kernel here, just Internet, Office, mail and IM (which covers 99% of usage).
I don't think the poster actually meant 99%, or does he really think that gaming only constitutes 1% of computer usage? So, I'll parse this as 80%, as in the 80/20 rule.
This 80/20 rule is one of the great myths of computer usage.
See this article for a fascinating breakdown of this gilded golden rule.
Even if you figure the 80/20 rule is accurate, the question is... WHICH 20% are you going to implement? To satisfy which 80% of the users?
It just doesn't work that way. 99% of users are NOT going to use just a browser, office, email, and IM. Plenty will want to do HTML Editing, or use TurboTax, or play GTA Vice City, or any of a zillion things that Linux isn't quite up to.
Now, before you lught up the torch, realize that I'm typing this on Moz 1.2.1 on RH 9. But, in sincerity, as an independent software developer, I use VMWare to boot Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP on this computer system - often 2 or 3 at a time. I also use one of these VM sessions to run DreamWeaver to edit HTML templates for client sites. I'm still using DW 4.0, if they come out with a newer version for Linux, I'll buy. (anybody listening over there?) I have 10 of my 160 GB of HD space set aside to run Win98 so that I can play games on the weekend. (Try getting GTA working under Wine....)
In short, even while I'm a big Linux fan, and maintain dozens of Linux systems, I claim that while Linux is (almost) ready, the world is not. Here's what I'd like to see done to your standard GNU/Linux distro to accellerate the inevitable switchover:
1) Binary API for hardware drivers in the kernel, and good, complete documentation of this API should be open and public. NVidia and Creative should be able to distribute binary drivers for their hardware without causing people to age prematurely. This binary API should be as similar to WinXX's PnP driver API as possible to minimize the cost and expense of maintenance.
2) The OEM contracts that MS has with the various vendors should be outlawed, or at least forcibly modified so that there are no penalties for including competitors' software.
3) Something OPEN that will interface with MS Exchange Server, and/or something OPEN that will provide the same functionality of MS Exchange Server. There are some projects that have *some* of the functionality, but nothing has yet jumped out and ahead that really covers either base.
4) X11 is about to be obviated. Quartz/Aqua on the Mac, and Longhorn both provide a much better UI experience. X11 is based on 1970's technology. Unfortunately, I'm not the guy to provide this in *any* way. But we need a good, 3D capable UI/API that can communicate with the X11 protocol. Probably based on OpenGL.
I'm not worried. I deploy on Open Source platforms all the time. I've seen enough improvements in the last 4 years (RedHat 5.2 is my starting point in the OSS world) to give me extreme amounts of confidence. I would've s--t my pants 4 years ago at the RH 9 desktop in front of me, and I'm well aware that it's not even the best desktop!
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
What a crock.
If it was more productive to voice than to moderate, there would be no need for moderation!
The purpose of moderation is to improve the s/n ratio. (Signal/Noise - an engineering term from radio commonly translated to posts on Internet forums)
While there needs to be a minimum amount of feedback, as soon as that minimum is reached, it's just as important to moderate the posts to ensure a reasonable, high quality of material.
I don't view one as more important than the other, I view them both as fairly equivalent.
Did any other Fark readers read this as "NSFW" as in "Sun Gets Open Source Into Not Safe For Work Government" ?????
Just me, perhaps?
Should stay AWAY from them boobies links....
when cell phones know no limits
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 1
... how much longer will it be before the radio, and the RIAA, will be an obsolete means to promote artists?
As long as it takes for cell phones to provide unlimited minutes. Really. When we have cheap cell phones capable of reliably transferring around 100-150 Kbps of bandwidth (fast enough to deliver near CD quality MP3/OGG data) without any limit in minutes, radio will be RIP.
Why listen to the radio (limited formats, crappy song selections) when you can listen to exactly whatever you like, anywhere?
Funny enough, they're both radio. It's just that one is personal, one is not.
If you ask me where Fred lives and I tell you he lives next door, that's fine. If you ask where you can hire a hitman and I tell you that Fred can do it for you and he lives next door, I could be an accomplice to murder.
One of the elements of crime is intent. That's the part that requires a jury - both the greatest strength and (as with most things) the greatest weakness of the English-derived legal system at use in the US.
In order to commit a crime, you must knowingly commit an act which deprives another of rights with the intent of so depriving the other party.
(BTW, IANAL)
That's not to say that there aren't statutory crimes, like running a red light, but in cases where an act could have multiple constructions (such as "Where is Bill" -> "Next door" vs. "Where is Bill, I need a good hitman" -> "Next door") the concept of intent must be introduced as a judicial guide.
It's this principle that provides most of the insanity and complexity that comes out of our court system - McDonald's didn't pay a kazillion because some lady burned her lap on coffee, they payed because they it was proven in court that McDonalds corporation was knowingly distributing coffee at dangerously high temperatures - and that proven (in court) intent is what cost the case.
The solution is simple: stop buying what spammers are offering and they will go under soon after.
This is one of those simple-sounding, and utterly worthless "solutions".
You see, you can stop buying what the spammers are offering, but will everybody else? You see, this world is chock-full of people who just don't get it when it comes to spam. They don't realize the mechanical nature of SPAM, many think the message was sent by somebody to them personally.
Scams were common in the 20th, 19th, 18th, 15th, and 11th century, why would they stop now?
So, really, what you in fact just said was "The solution is simple: change human nature for every person on the earth to a very cynical nature and then spend billions of dollars in education so that people know what SPAM is and how best to treat it, and they will go under soon after.".
Utopia doesn't exist, and won't as long as there are people to pollute it. In the meantime, we have to deal with the fact that this world has both unscrupulous people and suckers.
The solution is to change the protocol of Email to introduce enough resistance to communication to thwart SPAM. Until that happens, SPAM will be a problem.
This is total insanity... such a blatant violation of one's privacy.
Really? How? Oh, you mean, the teachers will know if you are in class? Like, if they had a list of kids in the class and at the beginning of the class they checked to make sure what students are there?
OMG! They're going to KNOW what students are in class that day! EVERYBODY RUN AND GET YOUR TIN FOIL HATS!!!
For some real eye-openers, read some of the opinions of people in the early 20th century when the telephone was first invading the average living room - you'd be amazed at how many people felt this was an intolerable invasion of their privacy!
Can you imagine how they'd feel about caller id? Being able to go to google, type in that phone number and get immediate driving directions to their house? Don't believe me? Here are driving directions to my bank.
When given the choice between power and privacy, people will almost always choose power.
You're phone service and credit card examples have nothing to do with the sale of a good.
You can't own a service, you can own a product.
It is not common practice to change the contract post sale for any product, ever.
There is a world of difference here.
And, on the surface, it would seem that you are right. However, there's this little thing called "copyright" which makes software (and other media, like movies and books) quite different than other products. (like automobiles and plastic forks)
I can take a plastic fork, glue felt to it, and sell plastic fork-turkeys, if I so desire. I can use the fork as a mold to make other forks. In short, unless there's a patent on that plastic fork, I can do pretty much anything I fancy with it.
However, that's not true with soft media like software and books. I can't take a book, change some words, and publish the derivative work except under very specific, legally sanctioned circumstances.
The EULA that you click through establishes the terms of the sale. Where this is a problem is when you cannot return the software. When you can't return the software, you have the impossible situation of being forced to pay for a contract you did not agree to. That's what the hubbub is all about.
How is this legally questionable?
Seriously, you claim that because he's not a lawyer he's an idiot, but even though you aren't one either, you know how it all works.
Yes, I think the original poster was off, just as I think you are. Yes, I am NOT a lawyer. But what bothered me about the original post is that incorrect information was being given with confidence.
Which is better - being confidently inaccurate in what you say, or being less confident but accurate in what you say? (I choose the latter!)
I think he's an idiot, but not because he's not a lawyer. (I even conceded that he might be a lawyer, and even if he was, I think he's still an idiot) I just think that people who spout professional-sounding idiocy with confidence should disclose their credentials when doing so.
If I'm spouting idiocy, at least people know that IANAL....
In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)
Let me guess.... you forgot to mention the whole "IANAL" thing...
Explain your legal theories in a context where it's clear that they are just theories. Posts like this one make it real clear why you actually need a license to practice law - because of people like you. (BTW, IANAL)
According to my understanding, the only thing questionably legal about software is the fact that in many cases, you can't return it. It's very normal for contracts and agreements to be changed after an initial contract has been signed.
For example, last week I received a notice from the local phone company notifying me of changes in the billing terms. Nothing major, and nothing I'm worrried about - but contained therein was a phrase like "continued use of our services constitutes agreement to these terms". It's perfectly legal - the next time you make a payment, you're legally binding yourself to those terms.
Another example - your credit card company changes the interest rate, up or down. They have similar language which means, in effect, "If you don't like it, pay off the balance on the card and don't use it anymore.".
How is this substantially different than a EULA? "If you don't like these terms, don't use the software!". Where this starts to break down is when you can't take the software back when you don't agree to the terms...
Of course, it's possible you might actually have legitimate legal credentials, but I sure pity the sorry schmuck who retains your services for Intellectual Property matters.
The answer is, of course, very simple. If it's a feature that somebody actually NEEDS, it will be implemented. If not, it won't get implemented.
I don't need it, so I certainly won't do it myself.
That's perhaps the greatest feature of the open source development model - features that scratch an itch are the ones that get implemented, and those that aren't all that needed get dropped fairly quickly.
I don't want to have the birds-and-the-bees conversation with my kids any earlier than I have to (and explaining some midgets-in-leather porno spam is NOT on my preferred activities list).
While I agree that such a response is not a desirable place to start a "bird-and-bees" discussion, I'd suggest you start this discussion as soon as they can talk.
You don't have to begin using rough language, but you can (and as a father, I feel you should) discuss the meaning of sex with your child very VERY early.
Small children just don't have the inhibitions and uncomfortable feelings that a "raging hormones pubescent" has to deal with. This takes out most of the discomfort of the whole discussion, and allows you to communicate the true amazement and wonder that is the reproductive process.
At 5 or earlier, tell them why girls look so different "down there" than boys, and explain to them in plain, scientific, mechanical terms how these parts work together to make a child.
It's also a good idea to get (or check out at your local library) "The Miracle of Life" by Time/Life books. It has tons of fascinating pictures of the various reproductive organs under microscope - the uterus, sperms, eggs, the baby at 1,2,3,6,10,30 days, etc. There's also a PBS video by the same name that's a fascinating backup.
Feel free to indicate that as an adult, they will have desires to have sex, that it's not just mechanical, and that it's an expression of closeness and love two consentual, loving adults.
I've done this with my five children, and this makes it SOOO much easier when dealing with the inevitable contortionistic porn! And, now that my oldest are 14 and the hormones are in full force, it gives me great peace that I long ago brought up and dealt with this difficult subject...
Geez - whodathunk you'd get parenting advice on/.?
This "Authentication Server" that MS is pushing on the corporate suits sounds kind of neat... but why couldn't this be implemented in a few afternoons for OO using LAMP?
It's a rather simple problem: A user with some kind of credentials opens a document, to find that it's encrypted.
Within the document is a reference to the authentication server that has the certificate needed to decrypt the file. The user's credentials are then passed to the server (a-la XML over SSL/HTTPS) and the credentials are either sufficient (and the server passed back the certificate) or they aren't and the file remains unreadable.
I see the problem as:
Open Office needs to require credentials.
Open Office needs a saving filter.
A rudimentary certificate manager in Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP needs to be written.
See that backups are done regularly, and periodically made available offsite.
Write bash/perl/php scripts to perform admin functions such as update DNS, or perform automated duties as required.
Write scripts to let tech support answer questions like: "Why can't I loggin?" or "why can't I get my email?" or "why can't I connect to the Internet?"
Figure out why the script that runs every Friday afternoon to scrub the quarantined viruses for the last week causes the webmail authentication daemon to quit.
Patch/upgrade the latest Qmail/Postfix/Sendmail with SpamAssassin/RBL/LDAP, and do so reliably.
Compare that to the duties of a Linux-desktop user:
Can configure and load X-Windows
Can run Evolution/Kmail/MozillaMail
Can use the Kdevelop IDE.
Familiar with the disk layout of/tmp,/usr,/home,/etc, etc....
Can use Open Office
Or perhaps the corporate sysadmin:
Expire passwords after NNN days.
Configure disk usage limits on the Samba Server.
Configure DHCPD with no default gateway so that there is no direct connection to the 'net - you have to use the web proxy and access mail via the local mail server.
Configure the DMZ firewall to specifically block port 1214 (KaZaA)
Configure a Squid Proxy Server to include Porn blocking (Dan's Guardian) and customize the rules so that other "unproductive" sites are blocked as well.
Configure Kerberos on LDAP for authentication.
Set up virus filtering for all email, inbound and outbound. Inbound mails get a warning message, outbound messages are never delivered.
The point I'm trying to make is that saying somebody is competent "at Linux" is like saying that somebody is competent "at cooking".
Your 5-star gourmet chinese-food chef is going to have very different expectations than your 5-star western barbecue cuisine chef is going to have very different expectations than your local McD's burger flipper, even though they may all qualify for "competent at cooking".
Slashdot Mirror
I leave my access point open. It's on a different network segment, and I figure if someone has an 802.11 card I'll help out with their bandwidth. If it ever becomes a problem on my bandwidth, I'll just regulate that segment.
A classic case of altruism meets real-world. Contributing your bandwidth is all fine and dandy until some jerk uses it to send bomb threats to the president. Or send all kinds of incriminating pseudo-spam that makes you look very bad.
Perhaps a picture of some guy's backside with the wording "A little love from us at nerd farm!" in big, yellow letters.
And, looking at the email headers shows that it did, in fact, come from YOUR network segment...
I'd suggest a bit of security-consciousness goes a *long* way...
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
Please, if you are going to quote people, REFERENCE THE QUOTE!
That quote came from Jeremy S. Anderson... (ref.)
How many times would you multiply 2 with itself to end up with an odd number (which 65,535 is)?
Notice that "2" is beyond the digits in use when counting binary. "Odd" and "even" only make sense in the decimal system and are actually flipped if you start at "0" instead of "1".
65,535 is an even number if you start at 0....
I'm not saying that 100% of $3 calculators are wrong... I'm suggesting that the base 10 number system (aka "decimal" system) is based on a presumption that most people change as soon as you change the base.
Base 16 starts at 0 (0-F, not 1-G) base 2 starts at 0-1) but for some reaon, base 10 is goofy (1-10) Why is base 10 so special?
So I have to call these fucktards
It's pretty fucking obvious that using a kick-ass amount of fucking foul-ass fucktard language is a sure-ass way to sound like a fucking retard.
Perhaps if you were to moderate your wording slightly, somebody might take you more seriously? Even when you rant, you limit the impact of your expression by using excessively foul language.
The "F" word should be used (by you) once a month, tops. When you use that word, those who know you should be shaking in their boots - 'cause they know you are seriosly PISSED.
I've found that using foreign or archaic foul words works quite well. Examples? Bloody. (Bloody might not work in England) Piffle, There are plenty.
I have prooved to myself so many times how very worth it it is to have activation in my product.
I find your post quite interesting and if I had mod points, you'd get one of them.
For our product, we chose Internet-based activation, but rather than hide it and try make it as "convenient" as possible, we chose instead to make it blatant, and try to sell it as a feature.
Yes, it sounds crazy - but it's actually working quite well! We sell a product that lets teachers fill out and turn in official education forms in compliance with numerous CA state leglated standards. Our product can save a teacher 20 hours a month or more in time filling out forms and meeting various legislated requirements.
School districts pay us by how many students are managed with our ReportWriter product. At first, we used keys (much like you describe) that were called in. But, when we decided to put it on the web, we decided (based on my past history with web-based products) to integrate everything together into a "synch protocol" that also distributes updates to the program, new information, their student data, as well as the certificates needed to activate the product.
So, once a month, the teachers "synch" their ReportWriter installs, and all their information is backed up on our servers in an encrypted format. If their computer crashes or is stolen, we have a backup of all their information which we can restore in minutes.
And, when we come out with updates to either the program or to the data, we publish it on our server and the teachers get it next time they synch.
It's typical for teachers to synch daily. It takes just a few minutes even by modem - think rsync - and gives them *alot* of peace of mind.
My $0.02 - hope you find this as interesting as I found your post!
Ok, assume I have a 128 bit key. How long to crack with a supercomputer this size? Anybody have a reference to mips->cracking time for something like this?
Just a thought...
Well, there are 65536 digits spanned in 16 bits. Monitor 0 would be the first physical monitor, 65535 would be the 65536th monitor.
Who taught you to program?
So, where's the 0th monitor fit in here? Or, did you start at 1?
It's a blithe assumption by people that we start counting at 1. Ever wonder why it takes two digits to render just the first 10 counting in base 10, but only one digit to max out when counting in base binary?
If you count in base 2, you start at 0, as in
0, 1
not
1, 10.
It should then follow that
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
really should be
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10 should start the next sequence since now we're an order of 10 higher than where we started, and we're using the extra place (the "1") to demonstrate this.
This is all standard number theory. The question is, where should we truly begin? For historical reasons, we start at 1, but for mathematical reasons, we really should start at 0.
Starting at 0, we'd have 65,535 monitors, which is the maximum value rendered by 16 places in base 2.
Who taught you to count?
-Ben
but what kind of video card does it have? will have 65,536 monitor support?
You mean 65,535 monitors. 65,536 would require 17 bits to render...
(remember, 0 is a number to us programmer types!)
From Dictionary.com:
whilst
conj. Chiefly British
While.
[Middle English whilest, alteration of whiles, whiles. See whiles.]
We're not talking about compiling the kernel here, just Internet, Office, mail and IM (which covers 99% of usage).
I don't think the poster actually meant 99%, or does he really think that gaming only constitutes 1% of computer usage? So, I'll parse this as 80%, as in the 80/20 rule.
This 80/20 rule is one of the great myths of computer usage.
See this article for a fascinating breakdown of this gilded golden rule.
Even if you figure the 80/20 rule is accurate, the question is... WHICH 20% are you going to implement? To satisfy which 80% of the users?
It just doesn't work that way. 99% of users are NOT going to use just a browser, office, email, and IM. Plenty will want to do HTML Editing, or use TurboTax, or play GTA Vice City, or any of a zillion things that Linux isn't quite up to.
Now, before you lught up the torch, realize that I'm typing this on Moz 1.2.1 on RH 9. But, in sincerity, as an independent software developer, I use VMWare to boot Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP on this computer system - often 2 or 3 at a time. I also use one of these VM sessions to run DreamWeaver
to edit HTML templates for client sites. I'm still using DW 4.0, if they come out with a newer version for Linux, I'll buy. (anybody listening over there?) I have 10 of my 160 GB of HD space set aside to run Win98 so that I can play games on the weekend. (Try getting GTA working under Wine....)
In short, even while I'm a big Linux fan, and maintain dozens of Linux systems, I claim that while Linux is (almost) ready, the world is not. Here's what I'd like to see done to your standard GNU/Linux distro to accellerate the inevitable switchover:
1) Binary API for hardware drivers in the kernel, and good, complete documentation of this API should be open and public. NVidia and Creative should be able to distribute binary drivers for their hardware without causing people to age prematurely. This binary API should be as similar to WinXX's PnP driver API as possible to minimize the cost and expense of maintenance.
2) The OEM contracts that MS has with the various vendors should be outlawed, or at least forcibly modified so that there are no penalties for including competitors' software.
3) Something OPEN that will interface with MS Exchange Server, and/or something OPEN that will provide the same functionality of MS Exchange Server. There are some projects that have *some* of the functionality, but nothing has yet jumped out and ahead that really covers either base.
4) X11 is about to be obviated. Quartz/Aqua on the Mac, and Longhorn both provide a much better UI experience. X11 is based on 1970's technology. Unfortunately, I'm not the guy to provide this in *any* way. But we need a good, 3D capable UI/API that can communicate with the X11 protocol. Probably based on OpenGL.
I'm not worried. I deploy on Open Source platforms all the time. I've seen enough improvements in the last 4 years (RedHat 5.2 is my starting point in the OSS world) to give me extreme amounts of confidence. I would've s--t my pants 4 years ago at the RH 9 desktop in front of me, and I'm well aware that it's not even the best desktop!
What you seek is the holy grail of high-availability environments.
So far, I've not seen anything that exists that does what you are asking for. Several technologies come somewhat close.
What I've been hopeful of is the recent donations by Oracle for database clustering, but I haven't seen any decent fallout from that... yet.
For now, on my home-based work network, I have two network drives (both IDE 120 GB) and do nightly rsynch from one to the other.
(sigh)
Are there other, genuine examples of MS community sites?
Well.... there's this one called slashdot! I mean, everytime a Microsoft employee belches, it makes front page there!
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
What a crock.
If it was more productive to voice than to moderate, there would be no need for moderation!
The purpose of moderation is to improve the s/n ratio. (Signal/Noise - an engineering term from radio commonly translated to posts on Internet forums)
While there needs to be a minimum amount of feedback, as soon as that minimum is reached, it's just as important to moderate the posts to ensure a reasonable, high quality of material.
I don't view one as more important than the other, I view them both as fairly equivalent.
Did any other Fark readers read this as "NSFW" as in "Sun Gets Open Source Into Not Safe For Work Government" ?????
Just me, perhaps?
Should stay AWAY from them boobies links....
... how much longer will it be before the radio, and the RIAA, will be an obsolete means to promote artists?
As long as it takes for cell phones to provide unlimited minutes. Really. When we have cheap cell phones capable of reliably transferring around 100-150 Kbps of bandwidth (fast enough to deliver near CD quality MP3/OGG data) without any limit in minutes, radio will be RIP.
Why listen to the radio (limited formats, crappy song selections) when you can listen to exactly whatever you like, anywhere?
Funny enough, they're both radio. It's just that one is personal, one is not.
If you ask me where Fred lives and I tell you he lives next door, that's fine. If you ask where you can hire a hitman and I tell you that Fred can do it for you and he lives next door, I could be an accomplice to murder.
One of the elements of crime is intent. That's the part that requires a jury - both the greatest strength and (as with most things) the greatest weakness of the English-derived legal system at use in the US.
In order to commit a crime, you must knowingly commit an act which deprives another of rights with the intent of so depriving the other party.
(BTW, IANAL)
That's not to say that there aren't statutory crimes, like running a red light, but in cases where an act could have multiple constructions (such as "Where is Bill" -> "Next door" vs. "Where is Bill, I need a good hitman" -> "Next door") the concept of intent must be introduced as a judicial guide.
It's this principle that provides most of the insanity and complexity that comes out of our court system - McDonald's didn't pay a kazillion because some lady burned her lap on coffee, they payed because they it was proven in court that McDonalds corporation was knowingly distributing coffee at dangerously high temperatures - and that proven (in court) intent is what cost the case.
-Ben
The solution is simple: stop buying what spammers are offering and they will go under soon after.
.
This is one of those simple-sounding, and utterly worthless "solutions".
You see, you can stop buying what the spammers are offering, but will everybody else? You see, this world is chock-full of people who just don't get it when it comes to spam. They don't realize the mechanical nature of SPAM, many think the message was sent by somebody to them personally.
Scams were common in the 20th, 19th, 18th, 15th, and 11th century, why would they stop now?
So, really, what you in fact just said was " The solution is simple: change human nature for every person on the earth to a very cynical nature and then spend billions of dollars in education so that people know what SPAM is and how best to treat it, and they will go under soon after."
Utopia doesn't exist, and won't as long as there are people to pollute it. In the meantime, we have to deal with the fact that this world has both unscrupulous people and suckers.
The solution is to change the protocol of Email to introduce enough resistance to communication to thwart SPAM. Until that happens, SPAM will be a problem.
This is total insanity ... such a blatant violation of one's privacy.
Really? How? Oh, you mean, the teachers will know if you are in class? Like, if they had a list of kids in the class and at the beginning of the class they checked to make sure what students are there?
OMG! They're going to KNOW what students are in class that day! EVERYBODY RUN AND GET YOUR TIN FOIL HATS!!!
For some real eye-openers, read some of the opinions of people in the early 20th century when the telephone was first invading the average living room - you'd be amazed at how many people felt this was an intolerable invasion of their privacy!
Can you imagine how they'd feel about caller id? Being able to go to google, type in that phone number and get immediate driving directions to their house? Don't believe me? Here are driving directions to my bank.
When given the choice between power and privacy, people will almost always choose power.
You're phone service and credit card examples have nothing to do with the sale of a good.
You can't own a service, you can own a product.
It is not common practice to change the contract post sale for any product, ever.
There is a world of difference here.
And, on the surface, it would seem that you are right. However, there's this little thing called "copyright" which makes software (and other media, like movies and books) quite different than other products. (like automobiles and plastic forks)
I can take a plastic fork, glue felt to it, and sell plastic fork-turkeys, if I so desire. I can use the fork as a mold to make other forks. In short, unless there's a patent on that plastic fork, I can do pretty much anything I fancy with it.
However, that's not true with soft media like software and books. I can't take a book, change some words, and publish the derivative work except under very specific, legally sanctioned circumstances.
The EULA that you click through establishes the terms of the sale. Where this is a problem is when you cannot return the software. When you can't return the software, you have the impossible situation of being forced to pay for a contract you did not agree to. That's what the hubbub is all about.
How is this legally questionable?
Seriously, you claim that because he's not a
lawyer he's an idiot, but even though you
aren't one either, you know how it all works.
Yes, I think the original poster was off, just as I think you are. Yes, I am NOT a lawyer. But what bothered me about the original post is that incorrect information was being given with confidence.
Which is better - being confidently inaccurate in what you say, or being less confident but accurate in what you say? (I choose the latter!)
I think he's an idiot, but not because he's not a lawyer. (I even conceded that he might be a lawyer, and even if he was, I think he's still an idiot) I just think that people who spout professional-sounding idiocy with confidence should disclose their credentials when doing so.
If I'm spouting idiocy, at least people know that IANAL....
Cheers!
In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)
Let me guess.... you forgot to mention the whole "IANAL" thing...
Explain your legal theories in a context where it's clear that they are just theories. Posts like this one make it real clear why you actually need a license to practice law - because of people like you. (BTW, IANAL)
According to my understanding, the only thing questionably legal about software is the fact that in many cases, you can't return it. It's very normal for contracts and agreements to be changed after an initial contract has been signed.
For example, last week I received a notice from the local phone company notifying me of changes in the billing terms. Nothing major, and nothing I'm worrried about - but contained therein was a phrase like "continued use of our services constitutes agreement to these terms". It's perfectly legal - the next time you make a payment, you're legally binding yourself to those terms.
Another example - your credit card company changes the interest rate, up or down. They have similar language which means, in effect, "If you don't like it, pay off the balance on the card and don't use it anymore.".
How is this substantially different than a EULA? "If you don't like these terms, don't use the software!". Where this starts to break down is when you can't take the software back when you don't agree to the terms...
Of course, it's possible you might actually have legitimate legal credentials, but I sure pity the sorry schmuck who retains your services for Intellectual Property matters.
>Really - what's the big deal here?
We don't know. Why don't you have a go?
The answer is, of course, very simple. If it's a feature that somebody actually NEEDS, it will be implemented. If not, it won't get implemented.
I don't need it, so I certainly won't do it myself.
That's perhaps the greatest feature of the open source development model - features that scratch an itch are the ones that get implemented, and those that aren't all that needed get dropped fairly quickly.
-Ben
I don't want to have the birds-and-the-bees conversation with my kids any earlier than I have to (and explaining some midgets-in-leather porno spam is NOT on my preferred activities list).
/.?
While I agree that such a response is not a desirable place to start a "bird-and-bees" discussion, I'd suggest you start this discussion as soon as they can talk.
You don't have to begin using rough language, but you can (and as a father, I feel you should) discuss the meaning of sex with your child very VERY early.
Small children just don't have the inhibitions and uncomfortable feelings that a "raging hormones pubescent" has to deal with. This takes out most of the discomfort of the whole discussion, and allows you to communicate the true amazement and wonder that is the reproductive process.
At 5 or earlier, tell them why girls look so different "down there" than boys, and explain to them in plain, scientific, mechanical terms how these parts work together to make a child.
It's also a good idea to get (or check out at your local library) "The Miracle of Life" by Time/Life books. It has tons of fascinating pictures of the various reproductive organs under microscope - the uterus, sperms, eggs, the baby at 1,2,3,6,10,30 days, etc. There's also a PBS video by the same name that's a fascinating backup.
Feel free to indicate that as an adult, they will have desires to have sex, that it's not just mechanical, and that it's an expression of closeness and love two consentual, loving adults.
I've done this with my five children, and this makes it SOOO much easier when dealing with the inevitable contortionistic porn! And, now that my oldest are 14 and the hormones are in full force, it gives me great peace that I long ago brought up and dealt with this difficult subject...
Geez - whodathunk you'd get parenting advice on
It's a rather simple problem: A user with some kind of credentials opens a document, to find that it's encrypted.
Within the document is a reference to the authentication server that has the certificate needed to decrypt the file. The user's credentials are then passed to the server (a-la XML over SSL/HTTPS) and the credentials are either sufficient (and the server passed back the certificate) or they aren't and the file remains unreadable.
I see the problem as:
Really - what's the big deal here?
What does that mean?
Some duties of a ISP/sysadmin:
Compare that to the duties of a Linux-desktop user:
Or perhaps the corporate sysadmin:
The point I'm trying to make is that saying somebody is competent "at Linux" is like saying that somebody is competent "at cooking".
Your 5-star gourmet chinese-food chef is going to have very different expectations than your 5-star western barbecue cuisine chef is going to have very different expectations than your local McD's burger flipper, even though they may all qualify for "competent at cooking".
I'm going to guess a few... any I miss?
How would that compare to the number of molecules...