One of the machines we host websites on at work had a problem with SQLServer 6.5 filling up the application log - it was reporting that a connection could not be made (because the maximum number of simultaneous connections had been reached) 6 times a second.
Not very many services didn't crash, including IIS and SMTP (not good on a webserver!)
Only way to fix it was change the log settings and reboot....
No, conservation of energy must be obeed at the quantum level too, although you can "cheat" a little. Heisenberg's uncertaintity principle states that conservation of energy can be violated, but that the amount of time for which this surplus energy can exist is inversely proporional to the amount of energy (the exact relationship escapes me, but it's something like t=(hbar)/E, where t is time, E is energy and (hbar) is Planck's constant over 2*pi).
Therefore, 0 energy can exist forever (t goes to infinity), an infinite amount of energy can exist for zero time, and everything else falls somewhere inbetween.
On a related matter, I remember reading a couple of years ago that the total energy of the universe is, in fact, zero (counting potential energy as being negative, as always). So, there is no violation of conservation of energy, and the universe has every right to exist for as long as it wants....
The force that binds quarks together, the strong force, increases in strength as the distance between the quarks increases. (A bit like when you stretch a rubber band - the further you stretch it, the harder it becomes to stretch it further).
When the distance becomes great enough, the potential energy in the field between the quarks is such that it becomes "energetically favourable" to create two new quarks. (E=mc*c, remember, so mass and energy are entirely equivalent.) These quarks then immediaely bond to the two existing quarks, creating two new particles, and hence preventing us from ever seeing individual quarks.
So, yup, you were perfectly correct (just don't ask me to start quoting any formulae, it's been a couple of years:o) )
Personally, I "freak out" about spam because I pay for my online time at home - I live in the UK, where we pay per minute for local 'phone calls. Therefore, I pay to download this crap.
I also object to the printed variety, because it's a complete waste of the planet's limited resources...
Do you study the complex workings of your car engine before you drive it?
No, but you do have to learn how to drive; you couldn't just throw someone in the driving seat of a car and expect to get very far (or at least, to get there in one piece:o) )
My experience of Linux is that it works straight out of the box. Now, if you want it to work just so, that will take a little effort on your part...
Tim
Re:http://home.cnet.com/category/0-3721-7-290058.h
on
Apache Incorporates
·
· Score: 1
From the very brief look I had, it looks like it could be a usefull link. Thanks.
Possibly not, but the information is right there on AMD's website (admittedly for batches of 1000, but that's the best you ever get out of chip manufacturers....)
Heh, the Unreal AI is almost annoyingly good at times - the number of times I've wasted precious ammo missing a Skaarj warrior because it's dived out of the way of my shot...:o)
Oh, and 2 Skaarj warriors were enough to overwhelm me occasionally, if they caughgt me by surprise
I think the point is not that your email can't be read along the way (of course it can, and anyone who thinks differently is going to get a serious wake-up call one day!), but that it *shouldn't* be.
Therefore, government agencies should not have the right to perform wholesale monitoring of communications, just because they have the ability to.
I just believe that we shouldn't have to use encryption to protect ourselves from anyone but criminals (and, possibly, the boss:o) )
If you yell to someone across a field, you are broadcasting, even if your intention is that it should be a private conversation.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.:o)
I accept your arguement, but do not agree with it. When I shout to someone, I am forcing all those within ear shot to listen. When you transmit something on a narrow frequency band, the excuse of "I couldn't help but overhear" looks a little shaky.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that if you have to take any action, make any effort to overhear me, then you are purposefully eavesdroping, and so are invading my privacy.
I should probably add that, on reflection, I realise that outlawing it probably wouldn't be enforceable. However, just because something isn't illegal, doesn't make it right.
(Conversely, there are pretty strong arguments for certain illegal acts to be legalised. The US crypto export rules strike me as moronic, as do the ones concerning the export of supercomputers. Large sections of the Criminal Justice Act here in Britain should also be ripped out and burned...:o) )
Several people have posted messages to the effect that once you transmit your conversation, it's in the public domain and fair game. Several other people have also pointed out that certain combinations of hardware and conditions make it possible to accidently receive these "private" communications. These have been used to argue that you should either encrypt your transmission, or accept the consequences.
I disagree.
I do believe that there is a difference between actively scanning the airwaves, looking for conversations to listen in on, and passively having them "thrust" upon you. However, I also believe that, no matter how you come by the information, you certainly shouldn't try to use it.
Of course it shouldn't be illegal to own a TV that, under the right conditions, picks up peoples's 'phone conversations. That's like overhearing a conversation down the pub, or on a train, etc. What should be illegal is recording that conversation, or using your knowledge of it for your own purposes.
Actively trying to intercept a transmission, however, is an invasion of privacy, and should be illegal. Just because I've transmitted the conversation, does not mean that I intend it to be for just anyone to listen to. As far as I am concerned, I have made a "point-to-point" transmission from my 'phone to his.
I see the situation as being akin to that of email - okay, so I know that it doesn't go directly from my computer to the addressee's, and that it can be intercepted on it's journey there, but it shouldn't be.
It saddens me to think that the day may well be fast approaching when we must all encrypt every communication we make, or risk it being somehow exploited and used against us, or even just held up for all the world to see.
I think the time has come for the vast majority of us who believe in that quaint, old fashioned concept known as "good manners" to stand up to the jerks, in a non threatening way, of course. Maybe a quick email here and there (don't take criticism public) saying something like 'I know you probably didn't mean to, but your tone was a bit rude..." and pointing out the fact that good manners are simply a more effiecient way of changing behaviors and beliefs than vitriolic rants.
A good idea in theory. Unfortunately, however, at least a small minority of these people would just flame you back and go on as before. Yes, some of them would get the message and stop it, but my guess is that a lot of people that go in for that sort of stuff couldn't care less if you or I or every other person in the world thinks that what they did was wrong.
By way of analogy, look at the idiots that make and spread virii and worms - everybody (else) condems them, the authorities actually hunt them down and prosecute them, and still they do it. Why? Because that's how they get their kicks, and they're not about to let anyone spoil their fun. The same applies to the lame-brain mail-bombers; that's how they try to get their point across, and no-one is going to stop them from being heard.
At best, you'll probably just be ignored; at worst, you'll be flamed/mail-bombed yourself.
We all use NT at work - some of us workstation, some of us server. I don't know of a single person who doesn't suffer the occasional, spontaneous crash.
(My most memorable one was the time I minimised a Netscape window and it Blue Screened on me...)
Worse still, though, I've had *two* mission-critical servers hang on shutdown *on the same day*. They both just sat there for roughly half an hour each, "writing unsaved data to the drive", until I hit the power switch...
Needless to say, I now think long and hard before rebooting them.
I'm not saying that I've never taken down a linux box (giving X the three finger salute while gdm is running on RH6 is a good way to do that - try it a few times and see!), but it seems to happen a lot less than with NT.
Tim
Win95 added crashability (a little off topic)
on
Linux 2.2 DoS Attack
·
· Score: 1
A reliable source[1] has informed me that Win95 crashes after about a month and a half of continous up-time.
It happened to a company he installed a dozen or so machines for; they all crashed about 49 days later, all within a couple of hours of each other...
Tim
[1] A friend whose job it is to build, configure and install PCs
Ooops... I hope the blank comment I just submitted by accident got caught before it made it out...
What I was trying to say, was that if this *is* a violation of the GPL, and we let it slide because it's non-commercial, that just makes it easier for future commercial violations to take place, as a precednet will have been set. Not only that, but what if the people behind this decide to make it commercial in the future? Surely it's easier to make everything comply with the GPL from the outset, and not have to try to impose modifications at a later date, when someone notices that it's become necessary...
Slashdot Mirror
One of the machines we host websites on at work had a problem with SQLServer 6.5 filling up the application log - it was reporting that a connection could not be made (because the maximum number of simultaneous connections had been reached) 6 times a second.
Not very many services didn't crash, including IIS and SMTP (not good on a webserver!)
Only way to fix it was change the log settings and reboot....
Tim
I'd go with the duration of the universe being undefined - mostly because it is :o)
Tim
No, conservation of energy must be obeed at the quantum level too, although you can "cheat" a little. Heisenberg's uncertaintity principle states that conservation of energy can be violated, but that the amount of time for which this surplus energy can exist is inversely proporional to the amount of energy (the exact relationship escapes me, but it's something like t=(hbar)/E, where t is time, E is energy and (hbar) is Planck's constant over 2*pi).
:o)
Therefore, 0 energy can exist forever (t goes to infinity), an infinite amount of energy can exist for zero time, and everything else falls somewhere inbetween.
On a related matter, I remember reading a couple of years ago that the total energy of the universe is, in fact, zero (counting potential energy as being negative, as always). So, there is no violation of conservation of energy, and the universe has every right to exist for as long as it wants....
Tim
Getting back into Physics mode
The force that binds quarks together, the strong force, increases in strength as the distance between the quarks increases. (A bit like when you stretch a rubber band - the further you stretch it, the harder it becomes to stretch it further).
When the distance becomes great enough, the potential energy in the field between the quarks is such that it becomes "energetically favourable" to create two new quarks. (E=mc*c, remember, so mass and energy are entirely equivalent.) These quarks then immediaely bond to the two existing quarks, creating two new particles, and hence preventing us from ever seeing individual quarks.
So, yup, you were perfectly correct (just don't ask me to start quoting any formulae, it's been a couple of years
Tim
Personally, I "freak out" about spam because I pay for my online time at home - I live in the UK, where we pay per minute for local 'phone calls. Therefore, I pay to download this crap.
I also object to the printed variety, because it's a complete waste of the planet's limited resources...
Tim
Do you study the complex workings of your car engine before you drive it?
:o) )
No, but you do have to learn how to drive; you couldn't just throw someone in the driving seat of a car and expect to get very far (or at least, to get there in one piece
My experience of Linux is that it works straight out of the box. Now, if you want it to work just so, that will take a little effort on your part...
Tim
From the very brief look I had, it looks like it could be a usefull link. Thanks.
Now, next time, just copy it once , will you?
Tim
Possibly not, but the information is right there on AMD's website (admittedly for batches of 1000, but that's the best you ever get out of chip manufacturers....)
Tim
Heh, the Unreal AI is almost annoyingly good at times - the number of times I've wasted precious ammo missing a Skaarj warrior because it's dived out of the way of my shot... :o)
Oh, and 2 Skaarj warriors were enough to overwhelm me occasionally, if they caughgt me by surprise
Tim
According to a whois query, aolsearch.com is indeed now registered to America Online, Inc.
Looks like maybe both AOL and NSI need a bit of a slap, and I for one hope they get it.
Stopping "cybersquatting" is one thing, but effectively stealing a domain name that is in use for a legitiamte site just isn't on.
Tim
I think the point is not that your email can't be read along the way (of course it can, and anyone who thinks differently is going to get a serious wake-up call one day!), but that it *shouldn't* be.
:o) )
Therefore, government agencies should not have the right to perform wholesale monitoring of communications, just because they have the ability to.
I just believe that we shouldn't have to use encryption to protect ourselves from anyone but criminals (and, possibly, the boss
Tim
If you yell to someone across a field, you are broadcasting, even if your intention is that it should be a private conversation.
:o)
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
I accept your arguement, but do not agree with it.
When I shout to someone, I am forcing all those within ear shot to listen. When you transmit something on a narrow frequency band, the excuse of "I couldn't help but overhear" looks a little shaky.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that if you have to take any action, make any effort to overhear me, then you are purposefully eavesdroping, and so are invading my privacy.
I should probably add that, on reflection, I realise that outlawing it probably wouldn't be enforceable. However, just because something isn't illegal, doesn't make it right.
(Conversely, there are pretty strong arguments for certain illegal acts to be legalised. The US crypto export rules strike me as moronic, as do the ones concerning the export of supercomputers. Large sections of the Criminal Justice Act here in Britain should also be ripped out and burned...:o) )
Tim
Several people have posted messages to the effect that once you transmit your conversation, it's in the public domain and fair game. Several other people have also pointed out that certain combinations of hardware and conditions make it possible to accidently receive these "private" communications. These have been used to argue that you should either encrypt your transmission, or accept the consequences.
I disagree.
I do believe that there is a difference between actively scanning the airwaves, looking for conversations to listen in on, and passively having them "thrust" upon you. However, I also believe that, no matter how you come by the information, you certainly shouldn't try to use it.
Of course it shouldn't be illegal to own a TV that, under the right conditions, picks up peoples's 'phone conversations. That's like overhearing a conversation down the pub, or on a train, etc. What should be illegal is recording that conversation, or using your knowledge of it for your own purposes.
Actively trying to intercept a transmission, however, is an invasion of privacy, and should be illegal. Just because I've transmitted the conversation, does not mean that I intend it to be for just anyone to listen to. As far as I am concerned, I have made a "point-to-point" transmission from my 'phone to his.
I see the situation as being akin to that of email - okay, so I know that it doesn't go directly from my computer to the addressee's, and that it can be intercepted on it's journey there, but it shouldn't be.
It saddens me to think that the day may well be fast approaching when we must all encrypt every communication we make, or risk it being somehow exploited and used against us, or even just held up for all the world to see.
Tim
I think the time has come for the vast majority of us who believe in that quaint, old fashioned concept known as "good manners" to stand up to the jerks, in a non threatening way, of course. Maybe a quick email here and there (don't take criticism public) saying something like 'I know you probably didn't mean to, but your tone was a bit rude..." and pointing out the fact that good manners are simply a more effiecient way of changing behaviors and beliefs than vitriolic rants.
A good idea in theory. Unfortunately, however, at least a small minority of these people would just flame you back and go on as before. Yes, some of them would get the message and stop it, but my guess is that a lot of people that go in for that sort of stuff couldn't care less if you or I or every other person in the world thinks that what they did was wrong.
By way of analogy, look at the idiots that make and spread virii and worms - everybody (else) condems them, the authorities actually hunt them down and prosecute them, and still they do it. Why? Because that's how they get their kicks, and they're not about to let anyone spoil their fun. The same applies to the lame-brain mail-bombers; that's how they try to get their point across, and no-one is going to stop them from being heard.
At best, you'll probably just be ignored; at worst, you'll be flamed/mail-bombed yourself.
Tim
We all use NT at work - some of us workstation, some of us server. I don't know of a single person who doesn't suffer the occasional, spontaneous crash.
(My most memorable one was the time I minimised a Netscape window and it Blue Screened on me...)
Worse still, though, I've had *two* mission-critical servers hang on shutdown *on the same day*. They both just sat there for roughly half an hour each, "writing unsaved data to the drive", until I hit the power switch...
Needless to say, I now think long and hard before rebooting them.
I'm not saying that I've never taken down a linux box (giving X the three finger salute while gdm is running on RH6 is a good way to do that - try it a few times and see!), but it seems to happen a lot less than with NT.
Tim
A reliable source[1] has informed me that Win95 crashes after about a month and a half of continous up-time.
It happened to a company he installed a dozen or so machines for; they all crashed about 49 days later, all within a couple of hours of each other...
Tim
[1] A friend whose job it is to build, configure and install PCs
Not to mention Word 6 for the Mac....
Ooops... I hope the blank comment I just submitted by accident got caught before it made it out...
What I was trying to say, was that if this *is* a violation of the GPL, and we let it slide because it's non-commercial, that just makes it easier for future commercial violations to take place, as a precednet will have been set. Not only that, but what if the people behind this decide to make it commercial in the future? Surely it's easier to make everything comply with the GPL from the outset, and not have to try to impose modifications at a later date, when someone notices that it's become necessary...