Does anyone want to do this for each and every SDRAM SIMM? There's a much easer way to cut EMI and heat; Get a small metal box that covers _all_ SIMMs, tape or paint the inside to prevent shorts, drop a heat sink & fan on the top.
I can't see all the extra work involved in the original except to brag "Look I Made My SDRAM look like a RIMM". Why not change your sports car to look like an old VW Bug?
Plug for VMware: If you haven't even wanted to try VMware, you're not a geek! If you are boycotting it because it's closed source, get a grip! The licence is free (as in beer), lasts 30 days, so taking a look won't hurt you. There's very little that it won't run, and it's well worth the $100/$300 fee (non-commercial/commercial).
Can anyone comment on how well the Utah-GLX drivers work?
There's scant little that I could find searching deja.com and google, only one note that it is "getting better" but not "stable" and that ATI still has to fork up some better specs.
As much as we're all excited about the rising of Linux and the falling of Microsoft, for some reason these factors are being completely ignored in many cases. People are still switching to windows in hoards, unfortunately. I hear about UNIX->NT more often than NT->UNIX.
That's distressing, but my experience differs. I won't try to one-up your annecdotes with my own. I was originally interested in a diferent focus;
Operating systems are commodities, and the base design of most operating systems (not counting MS' Windows) is a Unix design.
Additional point...
Consider the benifits of open source on many Unix style operating systems. The BSDs and OSX come to mind, not just Linux. There's power in that, and to mangle a phrase it really is becoming "Unix everywhere" -- and not just as a marketing slogan.
Old Unix is like the tszar in Russia and was destined to get run over by the populus Windows.
Microsoft, though, can't keep pouring a smaller group of Windows developers against a dynamic, unaligned, and highly self-interested group of Unix hackers. Nobody can. MS will continue to come up short and out flanked, but they have some powerful tools to enforce the monopoly on a practical level; file formats and Office.
The trial is about the monopoly force MS exerts keeping many companies less healthy then they would be -- let alone the loss by the consumer. If the monoploy is broken -- and I'm assuming it will be -- the market will take care of the rest.
If the unsettled Union of Microsoft Aligned Companies has no core -- no USSR -- they will go thier own way and get stronger or die. This goes for the 'baby Bills' and other companies who now sel Microsoft Windows software. References: Nietzsche, Darwin, yadda yadda yadda....
However, (fortunately or unfortuantely, depending on your perspective), this ability of the States to demand good corporate behavior from their corporate "citizens" has been pretty much a dead letter. Politicians need (advertising) dollars to get elected, and corporations have those dollars. And if enough politicians did have the collective cohones to stand up to that, corporations can always punish the local constituents by moving jobs over a state line, which tends to make politicians unpopular with the voters, and thus ex-politicians.
I agree, but you missed the most important aspect of a corporation; if it makes money, it pays taxes. If it pays taxes, there's usually no reason to revoke it's charter on the state level.
With the fees and the largely ignored hidden tax on employees named euphemistically 'Social Security Emplopyer Matching', there's no reason for either the local or federal government to attempt to close most businesses. When the money no longer comes in after a few years, idle businesses do get closed -- with little fan fare -- just to clear the books.
After reading the ABC/Reuters report, it got me to thinking. [takes puff off of virtual ce-gar]
Ya see, not counting the myth and inerta around Microsoft, what do we know about the rest of the industry?
Operating systems are commodities.
Services dominate, not shelfware.
90% of all software is custom.
UNIX = lingua franca; All major and most minor operating systems -- including embeded ones -- are based on some variant of Unix or are moving to it.
Application vendors like Corel, and IBM's Lotus division aren't raking in money hand over fist.
Most software companies have one-product or have a very limited focus.
Most software companies have competitors, in the real sense of the word.
Now, back to Microsoft...let's take it as a given that they will be split up. How much is are the parts of Microsoft actually worth?
OS: Windows OS -- including W2K -- has a necessary limited lifespan as a profit center.
Service: The poor service and arrogance -- second only to IBM of the 70s & 80s -- will have to improve, or the services will have to be charged for in inventive ways.
Custom development: The language division becomes more important, as it will switch to reselling the unbundled GUI, API, and specialized modules.
UNIX: If you can't beat them, join them. Watch those unbundled modules from the Windows client and server move to other operating systems.
Applications: The application division will spin off many of the different parts to boost share value. I doubt that Office will be broken up, but FoxPro and other programs built in-house or bought along the way might pop up again as mini-Bills.
Limited focus: With little to bind the "baby Bills" together, and stockholders demanding increased returns, MS's parts will disintegrate into the general computer software market to the point where it won't make any difference that it is or isn't a Microsoft product.
The Mormons have helped contribute to geneology research, mostly motivated by religous ideas.
I could make some rude, sarcastic, and accurate statement about these motivations, but I have to give them the nod. While the means are questionable, the ends have benifited genetic research and has helped cure some diseases.
The research at Oxford, though, looks to be much more advanced. In the long run, it should yeild some very benificial results.
CPU speeds accelerated faster than anyone planned (a year ago, 600 MHz was state of the art!)
A little while ago, I did a quick and dirty calcualtion using Moore's law vs. my first computer, an 8088 @ 4.77mhz. I didn't look at any computers that I purchased since 1984, only the original. I did account for the speed benifits from improvements in 286, 386, 486, PI, and PII systems, not just raw Mhz.
The results? Damn close to what I'm using now.
So, if I can predict 15 years of CPU speeds from by using Moore's law and an old 8088 as input data, why can't manufacturers?
BTW: In about 5 years -- 2004 -- the same calculations show that I'll be using the equivelent of a 2.8 Ghz PII system...and that's behind the curve. Top of the line systems will be about as fast as a PII running at 7.5 Ghz.
But seriously, I've actually tried it, and invariably the telemarketer offers some deflecting answer beginning with 'No' ("No, I just want to let you know about an opprtunity...") You can spend a long time trying to get them to admit they're selling something (they are given deflecting scripts to use against this checklist!) and I doubt you'd have any luck suing on the basis that they denied trying to sell you something.
Agreed. The tactic I've settled on is this;
Them: Hi! Is Mr. Spoing there?
Me: Are you a friend or associate of Mr. Spoing?
Them: Are you Mr. Spoing?
Me: Please remove us from you list. *CLICK*
If the person on the other end evades a direct question, they don't deserve the benifit of the doubt. They've already lost credability.
Tie that in with caller ID; if the number is a friend, put them through. If not, give them the "No solicitors" message.
Also, if the caller ID comes up with nothing or garbage, give them a stronger version of the "No solicitors" message. Many telemarketers block caller ID so that you can't trace them. Use that tid bit to your advantage!
If you want to learn more about brainwashing...check out some of the Usenet newsgroups on either recovery, support, or religion.
Here are the tips that I remember off hand on how to be resistant to brainwashing; 1. In general, be neutral and passive toward the cult/group's doctrine (special words in odd contexts). 2. Do not allow others to dictate your time and who you associate with. 3. Get a normal diet - don't let others decide when/where/what you eat. 4. Get sleep. 5. Keep in mind that smart people are more likely to be dragged into cults -- and you are not special in how well you can avoid this. 6. Leave when you've had enough.
There are other tips, but in general, avoiding stress, personal involvement, and repeated listening to the cult/group's message will help. (An aside: The stresses involved in being a parent are similar to what cults force upon people.)
One set of groups to pay special attention to is alt.atheism.*, because the locals are no-bs, logical folks, who tend to deal with the mess left over by former cult members. A few were in cults, but most are just run-of-the-mill atheists.
Ask for references on cult behavior and brainwashing, or just do a search on deja.com.
Battlefield Earth book -- a waste of time
on
Battlefield Earth
·
· Score: 1
I read the book when it came out in the early/mid 80s in paperback and had a bold "Soon to be a major motion picture" notice on it.
Like Dianetics, both were long and dragged on, repeating the same information over and over as if the author was getting paid by the word.
The bottom line? The book could have been a novella and had more impact. It did teach me a valid lesson, though, and that is if a book is getting nowhere, don't feel obliged to finish it.
Now, what I can't understand is with such long and content-free books as these, why did a religion start from the Dianetics book? The whole thing could be detailed in 50 pages at the most, and really didn't say anything. Comparing it to any other pop-psyc. or philosophy books, it comes up short. Comparing it to more serious texts, is not even worth it.
Imagine being able to run all your daemons in protected spaces. So -what- if Sendmail gets cracked? It can't -touch- anything outside of it's private universe.
Mostly, I agree. What you mention already exists in FreeBSD v.4.0; the jail() process command. Jail() sets up a seperate isolated area of the operating system that is accessed by IP address, not through the normal local methods. Because of that, breaking into a jail()ed process won't get you much.
(I really want this under Linux. So much so, I'm installing FreeBSD just to try it out!)
If you add integrity checks to the jail()ed process, when it does get exploited -- and you should always plan that your daemons will get exploited -- you'll know it.
To clean the system, you can swap in a waiting jail()ed process by changing IP addresses. If you want to monitor the intruder, you can...and they won't know you are tracking thier movements!
Great post...I'd only add one thing to it; Rambus memory.
With all the $$$ Intel is dumping into it, they seem to have forgotten what you've outlined. So, what do we see? DDR memory that can match and pass Rambus throughput for about 1/2 or less of the cost.
I'm confused -- isn't this just Capabilities + ACL
on
TrustedBSD Announced
·
· Score: 1
I'm a little confused. While I've looked for details on how to verify that a system is B1 compliant, I only seem to find vauge references.
I don't see the practical difference between a system that's B1 compliant and one where ACLs are added (1)(2) and all accounts including root are severly restricted -- and both of these security measures avaiable under Linux.
I realize that verification testing is done on a per-installation basis, so many of the details will be specific to that installation....yet, all security is specific to the tasks and installation, so this doesn't clear up anything.
The general goals including many specific "the system shall" type directives, should be readily available...but where?
Tools like LIDS under Linux and other kernel patches to handle ACLs seem to do the job...so what's missing?
Slashdot Mirror
GPL may or may not be applicable in Taiwan; I have no idea.
Good point. Even if it isn't, didn't they ship to other countries where the GPL is legal & enforcible?
Humor. Really. Just humor.
Does anyone want to do this for each and every SDRAM SIMM? There's a much easer way to cut EMI and heat; Get a small metal box that covers _all_ SIMMs, tape or paint the inside to prevent shorts, drop a heat sink & fan on the top.
I can't see all the extra work involved in the original except to brag "Look I Made My SDRAM look like a RIMM". Why not change your sports car to look like an old VW Bug?
Can someone post the link so that I can know what I am supposed to posting about?
View page source. You are a geek, aren't you?
Tried QNX4 with VMWare. Doesn't work. Won't boot the install/boot disk.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Tried Win98 on VMWare Linux. Slow like a dog on my PIII 500 with 128M ram.
I only have a PII 465 (guess!) with the same RAM, and it's fine for me. Admitedly, I only use Quickbooks.
ObLink: www.vmware.com
Plug for VMware: If you haven't even wanted to try VMware, you're not a geek! If you are boycotting it because it's closed source, get a grip! The licence is free (as in beer), lasts 30 days, so taking a look won't hurt you. There's very little that it won't run, and it's well worth the $100/$300 fee (non-commercial/commercial).
Looking into how to upgrade an ATI Rage Pro 64 (all-in-wonder), I bumped into the Utah-GLX site;
http://utah-glx.sourceforge.net
Can anyone comment on how well the Utah-GLX drivers work?
There's scant little that I could find searching deja.com and google, only one note that it is "getting better" but not "stable" and that ATI still has to fork up some better specs.
As much as we're all excited about the rising of Linux and the falling of Microsoft, for some reason these factors are being completely ignored in many cases. People are still switching to windows in hoards, unfortunately. I hear about UNIX->NT more often than NT->UNIX.
That's distressing, but my experience differs. I won't try to one-up your annecdotes with my own. I was originally interested in a diferent focus;
Additional point...
Consider the benifits of open source on many Unix style operating systems. The BSDs and OSX come to mind, not just Linux. There's power in that, and to mangle a phrase it really is becoming "Unix everywhere" -- and not just as a marketing slogan.
Old Unix is like the tszar in Russia and was destined to get run over by the populus Windows.
Microsoft, though, can't keep pouring a smaller group of Windows developers against a dynamic, unaligned, and highly self-interested group of Unix hackers. Nobody can. MS will continue to come up short and out flanked, but they have some powerful tools to enforce the monopoly on a practical level; file formats and Office.
The trial is about the monopoly force MS exerts keeping many companies less healthy then they would be -- let alone the loss by the consumer. If the monoploy is broken -- and I'm assuming it will be -- the market will take care of the rest.
If the unsettled Union of Microsoft Aligned Companies has no core -- no USSR -- they will go thier own way and get stronger or die. This goes for the 'baby Bills' and other companies who now sel Microsoft Windows software. References: Nietzsche, Darwin, yadda yadda yadda....
However, (fortunately or unfortuantely, depending on your perspective), this ability of the States to demand good corporate behavior from their corporate "citizens" has been pretty much a dead letter. Politicians need (advertising) dollars to get elected, and corporations have those dollars. And if enough politicians did have the collective cohones to stand up to that, corporations can always punish the local constituents by moving jobs over a state line, which tends to make politicians unpopular with the voters, and thus ex-politicians.
I agree, but you missed the most important aspect of a corporation; if it makes money, it pays taxes. If it pays taxes, there's usually no reason to revoke it's charter on the state level.
With the fees and the largely ignored hidden tax on employees named euphemistically 'Social Security Emplopyer Matching', there's no reason for either the local or federal government to attempt to close most businesses. When the money no longer comes in after a few years, idle businesses do get closed -- with little fan fare -- just to clear the books.
After reading the ABC/Reuters report, it got me to thinking. [takes puff off of virtual ce-gar]
Ya see, not counting the myth and inerta around Microsoft, what do we know about the rest of the industry?
Operating systems are commodities.
Services dominate, not shelfware.
90% of all software is custom.
UNIX = lingua franca; All major and most minor operating systems -- including embeded ones -- are based on some variant of Unix or are moving to it.
Application vendors like Corel, and IBM's Lotus division aren't raking in money hand over fist.
Most software companies have one-product or have a very limited focus.
Most software companies have competitors, in the real sense of the word.
Now, back to Microsoft...let's take it as a given that they will be split up. How much is are the parts of Microsoft actually worth?
OS: Windows OS -- including W2K -- has a necessary limited lifespan as a profit center.
Service: The poor service and arrogance -- second only to IBM of the 70s & 80s -- will have to improve, or the services will have to be charged for in inventive ways.
Custom development: The language division becomes more important, as it will switch to reselling the unbundled GUI, API, and specialized modules.
UNIX: If you can't beat them, join them. Watch those unbundled modules from the Windows client and server move to other operating systems.
Applications: The application division will spin off many of the different parts to boost share value. I doubt that Office will be broken up, but FoxPro and other programs built in-house or bought along the way might pop up again as mini-Bills.
Limited focus: With little to bind the "baby Bills" together, and stockholders demanding increased returns, MS's parts will disintegrate into the general computer software market to the point where it won't make any difference that it is or isn't a Microsoft product.
The Mormons have helped contribute to geneology research, mostly motivated by religous ideas.
I could make some rude, sarcastic, and accurate statement about these motivations, but I have to give them the nod. While the means are questionable, the ends have benifited genetic research and has helped cure some diseases.
The research at Oxford, though, looks to be much more advanced. In the long run, it should yeild some very benificial results.
Others may flame me -- sure it's not as good as it used to be -- but it's still not a bad resource;
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey
Why would you want to turn off you computer?
CPU speeds accelerated faster than anyone planned (a year ago, 600 MHz was state of the art!)
A little while ago, I did a quick and dirty calcualtion using Moore's law vs. my first computer, an 8088 @ 4.77mhz. I didn't look at any computers that I purchased since 1984, only the original. I did account for the speed benifits from improvements in 286, 386, 486, PI, and PII systems, not just raw Mhz.
The results? Damn close to what I'm using now.
So, if I can predict 15 years of CPU speeds from by using Moore's law and an old 8088 as input data, why can't manufacturers?
BTW: In about 5 years -- 2004 -- the same calculations show that I'll be using the equivelent of a 2.8 Ghz PII system...and that's behind the curve. Top of the line systems will be about as fast as a PII running at 7.5 Ghz.
But seriously, I've actually tried it, and invariably the telemarketer offers some deflecting answer beginning with 'No' ("No, I just want to let you know about an opprtunity...") You can spend a long time trying to get them to admit they're selling something (they are given deflecting scripts to use against this checklist!) and I doubt you'd have any luck suing on the basis that they denied trying to sell you something.
Agreed. The tactic I've settled on is this;
Them: Hi! Is Mr. Spoing there?
Me: Are you a friend or associate of Mr. Spoing?
Them: Are you Mr. Spoing?
Me: Please remove us from you list. *CLICK*
If the person on the other end evades a direct question, they don't deserve the benifit of the doubt. They've already lost credability.
I'm not talking about a Turing prize winner, but something that speaks in a mumble or with an accent that sounds almost like a real person.
That alone should keep them on the phone for a while...and stop them from annoying the next person.
Tie that in with caller ID; if the number is a friend, put them through. If not, give them the "No solicitors" message.
Also, if the caller ID comes up with nothing or garbage, give them a stronger version of the "No solicitors" message. Many telemarketers block caller ID so that you can't trace them. Use that tid bit to your advantage!
If you want to learn more about brainwashing...check out some of the Usenet newsgroups on either recovery, support, or religion.
Here are the tips that I remember off hand on how to be resistant to brainwashing; 1. In general, be neutral and passive toward the cult/group's doctrine (special words in odd contexts). 2. Do not allow others to dictate your time and who you associate with. 3. Get a normal diet - don't let others decide when/where/what you eat. 4. Get sleep. 5. Keep in mind that smart people are more likely to be dragged into cults -- and you are not special in how well you can avoid this. 6. Leave when you've had enough.
There are other tips, but in general, avoiding stress, personal involvement, and repeated listening to the cult/group's message will help. (An aside: The stresses involved in being a parent are similar to what cults force upon people.)
One set of groups to pay special attention to is alt.atheism.*, because the locals are no-bs, logical folks, who tend to deal with the mess left over by former cult members. A few were in cults, but most are just run-of-the-mill atheists.
Ask for references on cult behavior and brainwashing, or just do a search on deja.com.
I read the book when it came out in the early/mid 80s in paperback and had a bold "Soon to be a major motion picture" notice on it.
Like Dianetics, both were long and dragged on, repeating the same information over and over as if the author was getting paid by the word.
The bottom line? The book could have been a novella and had more impact. It did teach me a valid lesson, though, and that is if a book is getting nowhere, don't feel obliged to finish it.
Now, what I can't understand is with such long and content-free books as these, why did a religion start from the Dianetics book? The whole thing could be detailed in 50 pages at the most, and really didn't say anything. Comparing it to any other pop-psyc. or philosophy books, it comes up short. Comparing it to more serious texts, is not even worth it.
Imagine being able to run all your daemons in protected spaces. So -what- if Sendmail gets cracked? It can't -touch- anything outside of it's private universe.
Mostly, I agree. What you mention already exists in FreeBSD v.4.0; the jail() process command. Jail() sets up a seperate isolated area of the operating system that is accessed by IP address, not through the normal local methods. Because of that, breaking into a jail()ed process won't get you much.
(I really want this under Linux. So much so, I'm installing FreeBSD just to try it out!)
If you add integrity checks to the jail()ed process, when it does get exploited -- and you should always plan that your daemons will get exploited -- you'll know it.
To clean the system, you can swap in a waiting jail()ed process by changing IP addresses. If you want to monitor the intruder, you can...and they won't know you are tracking thier movements!
...I've gone weeks without them. Many animals also live quite well without them; preditors, scavengers,....
Great post...I'd only add one thing to it; Rambus memory.
With all the $$$ Intel is dumping into it, they seem to have forgotten what you've outlined. So, what do we see? DDR memory that can match and pass Rambus throughput for about 1/2 or less of the cost.
I'm a little confused. While I've looked for details on how to verify that a system is B1 compliant, I only seem to find vauge references.
I don't see the practical difference between a system that's B1 compliant and one where ACLs are added (1) (2) and all accounts including root are severly restricted -- and both of these security measures avaiable under Linux.
I realize that verification testing is done on a per-installation basis, so many of the details will be specific to that installation. ...yet, all security is specific to the tasks and installation, so this doesn't clear up anything.
The general goals including many specific "the system shall" type directives, should be readily available...but where?
Tools like LIDS under Linux and other kernel patches to handle ACLs seem to do the job...so what's missing?
The SEC has an extensive database of public documents they have recieved.
I'm not saying AOL's list is incomplete -- intentionally or by mistake -- but it is a PR site and as such can't be as reliable as the SEC itself.
FreeBSD 4.0 has a nifty security feature called jail(). Does OpenBSD have this feature too?