If I recall, IMAX is 70mm film, but run sideways though the projector. Normal 70mm file runs vertically, so the width of the film corresponds to the width of the screen. With IMAX, the width of the film corresponds to the height of the screen, so each IMAX frame is a lot larger than a regular 70mm frame.
go to your bathroom and turn on the shower for about 10 minutes on hot, so there is lots of steam in there
then, take the box fan and blow the steam out of the bathroom, this will catch all the particles of dust that hang in the air
and blow them with the steam outside of the bathroom, you then take the top of the drive off and IMMEDIATELY
wrap it in the saran wrap.
When you blow the air and steam out of the bathroom, where does the air that comes in to replace that air come from? Unless you filter the air coming in, I'm not sure this will help you a lot. Wouldn't it be better just to wait for all the large droplets to settle out?
Our company is holding their annual picnic this afternoon. This is absolutely the best way to celebrate sysadmin day - remove all the users for an afternoon.
This bill requires they give 7 days notice of which systems they're going to DoS. I predict that peer-to-peer systems will evolve so that no file is served from the same machine for more than 7 days.
Societal problems usually can't be solved with technical solutions. The law is there to directly address societal conflicts - using the law to back a technical solution simply results in technical workarounds. This is just bad law.
NASA gives the probability of collision at 1 in 100,000. The average person in the west lives roughly 25,000 days, but your chance of dying on any particular day is strongly weighted towards old-age, so if you'll still be young on Feb 1st 2019, it's by far your most likely cause of death on that day.
But I don't think I'm going to lose sleep over it.
I expect the main reason to do this over IP was that they had IP links and equipment available. The great benefit of IP is in flexibility and versatility - IP is the swiss-army-knife of network protocols. Sure there are more efficient solutions, but they require dedicated (often application-specific) network hardware.
30km/h = ~8.3 m/s. The slope is 300m long (lets assume that's the length of half the circumference). If you fall in mid-slope and your ski comes off, you have 18 seconds to pick yourself up, put your ski on, and get skiing again. Not enough time for most people.
So pretty much every time you fall, you're going to end up at the top of the slope. They have two choices - let you continue through the cold chamber and get snowblasted and groomed, or pick you, your skis, poles, etc, off the slope in some safe way that copes with many people all ending up at the same part of the top in rapid succession. Neither option sounds to me like a fun way to learn skiing.
On FreeBSD you can get very similar security by going to runlevel 3. From the man page for init:
The kernel runs with four different levels of security. Any super-user
process can raise the security level, but no process can lower it. The
security levels are:
-1 Permanently insecure mode - always run the system in level 0 mode.
This is the default initial value.
0 Insecure mode - immutable and append-only flags may be turned off.
All devices may be read or written subject to their permissions.
1 Secure mode - the system immutable and system append-only flags may
not be turned off; disks for mounted filesystems,/dev/mem, and/dev/kmem may not be opened for writing; kernel modules (see
kld(4)) may not be loaded or unloaded.
2 Highly secure mode - same as secure mode, plus disks may not be
opened for writing (except by mount(2)) whether mounted or not.
This level precludes tampering with filesystems by unmounting them,
but also inhibits running newfs(8) while the system is multi-user.
In addition, kernel time changes are restricted to less than or
equal to one second. Attempts to change the time by more than this
will log the message ``Time adjustment clamped to +1 second''.
3 Network secure mode - same as highly secure mode, plus IP packet
filter rules (see ipfw(8) and ipfirewall(4)) cannot be changed and
dummynet(4) configuration cannot be adjusted.
Most of the so called Balanced people, arent very intelligent. Sure they are very balanced, but because of their extreme balance, while they may be normal, how many Balanced people are truely intelligent?
...
I agree with you, people are very specialized, just like good code, is very specialized. When you try to be a jack of all trades, you are always a master of none.
I'm sorry but I think you're being defeatist. If you don't even try, you'll never succeed.
I'm not autistic, but I was the ultimate shy kid. My mother pulled me out of kindergarten because I'd just cry in the corner waiting for her to return rather than play with the other kids. All through school I had perhaps two good friends who were similar to me, but we were always the outsiders. When I was 12, I got mumps, and went partially deaf. I was always the one who did just enough to get by in exams, but never so much that I'd really stand out, because then I'd get beaten up.
When I went to University, I didn't know what the expected level was, and accidentally got eight straight A grades (the next person in the year got two). But this was University, and I didn't get beaten up - instead everyone wanted me to help them with their classes. I went to parties, but mostly felt completely out of place, and drank way too much. Gradually I started to feel accepted, although I was never in the "in crowd". And slowly my confidence grew, and my social skills grew.
I went on to do a PhD (good escape from the real world), started to be involved in student societies, and meet non-computer people.
Still I was 24 before I really went out on a proper date. I ended up running the mountaineering society, which was a good way to meet people while pretending not to care.
For the last few years I've been working for one of the best Internet research labs in the world.
I've authored two books, many technical papers, presented at numerous conferences, written quite a number of internet standards, and even given a presentation in front of 2000 people at a conference plenary session. Not bad for someone who was terrified to be noticed. In the last 6 months I've written 25,000 lines of code (I think it all works too), and have a great team of people working for me.
I'm married to a beautiful woman (who happens to be a scientist, but isn't a geek at all), and have a small son.
But I'm still nervous to answer the phone or ask directions:-)
My point though, is that age and experience can really change you. If you put your mind to it, you probably can become sociable, although it's a long slow process. And you don't have to become stupid to do it. There's only yourself holding you back.
It turns out that it's not the IP ECN bits from the old ToS byte that cause the problem - it's the ECN bits in the TCP flags field that are used in the TCP connection setup negotiation to negotiate the use of ECN. Some firewalls mistakenly think that those bits signal some sort of attack. RFC 793 says these bits should be ignored on receipt by old TCP implementaions, so any firewall that resets such connections is simply broken and should be replaced.
Large ISPs like UUnet, AT&T, Sprint, etc have networks that contain significant alternate paths, and run internal routing protocols like OSPF that allow pretty good failover in the event of router or link failures. You still get problems when all the links are in the same fiber trunk and someone puts a backhoe through it, but it's really pretty hard to partition large ISPs backbones. That's the good part.
Between ISPs, everyone runs BGP4, and most ISPs impose policies that restrict the transit traffic they're willing to carry. Also because inter-domain traffic spans multiple companies, it's much harder to plan what happens in the event of a failure. So there's less redundancy than you might think from just looking at Internet maps.
Also BGP itself has some convergence problems, so whilst it should only take a minute or two to find a backup path, it can take a lot longer than that in practice.
In addition, it's not really hard to misconfigure BGP and screw up someone elses routing by advertising something you shouldn't. This isn't a lack of redundancy but a lack of robustness.
Finally, many internet problems that users might think are routing problems turn out to be issues with DNS, and whilst the network itself is fine, the hostname just can't be resolved to the IP address of the end system.
So, it depends where you look. There's definitely a lot of room for improvement, but most of the internet has a reasonable amount of redundancy. The trouble is that you often only find out that your redundant backup isn't working when the primary solution fails (this is especially true of DNS, less so of routing).
GPL doesn't hinder you here - you just have to structure your code appropriately. You write a closed-source daemon that talks to the hardware and exports the data via HTTP or RPC or whatever interface style you happen to like. Don't use any GPL'ed code in the daemon, and you've no problem keeping it closed source.
Then you write a graphing application that communicates with the variod - this program can use GPL'ed code, and gets released under a GPL.
This way the more useful and general purpose part is contributed back to the open-source community, and the closed source daemon can be released without violating the FAI's stupid regulations.
Also if you publish the interface spec, it's easy for other people to write variods for other varios without having to cope with change control for your vario client. And if people don't like your client, then they can write their own. This would be a reasonable way to write the code, even if it there wasn't a licensing issue.
All these sort of studies ignore routing policy. Just because there's a possible path from one side of the net to the other doesn't mean that any packets can actually take it. ISPs don't like to carry transit traffic, and set up BGP policies to try and prevent undesired transit from happening. Thus the net turns out to be much more fragile than it would seem from studies that ignore policy.
It's possible it's not the X-ray machine at all, but vibration on the plane. Planes suffer from really bad high-frequency vibration, and if you place something in a not-very--well-padded bag on the cabin floor, the vibration can cause problems. Typically it will cause very small screws to come unscrewed, and that sort of thing.
Everyone in our group has a Sony Vaio 505 and travels a lot - the case screws seem to vibrate loose on planes all the time. Also I had a Canon EOS camera stop working the same way.
So my guess is that it's just as likely that it's the plane that caused the problem as it is the X-ray machine.
And on what concerns monitors. For me and several people 60Hz is deadly painful! Seat on a 60Hz
monitor for the whole day and you surely get some serious headaches (specially on the temporas
and inside the eyes). It looks like someone furiously turns lights on and off. On a 72-75Hz it is still
visible the flickering. The minimal frequency for such aliens/mutants like me is no less than 85 Hz.
And sincerly one gets tired working on such monitor. My good level is 100Hz.
One thing to note is that this does depend on the ambient light level. If the room is bright, and the monitor is turned to maximum brightness, you notice flicker much more than if the room is more dimly lit, and the monitor brightness is turned down a little.
Personally I really like LCDs, especially when I'm working for long periods - no flicker at all!
My 1993 edition of the Shorter OED contains "email":
email: n. Also e-mail. [ABBREV] = electronic mail
I think if the OED thought that email was acceptable way back in 1993, then it definitely should have become acceptable today.
-Fzz
Re:A remark from Don Knuth on the subject..
on
"e-mail" vs "email"
·
· Score: 1
I started using email regularly in 1985 in England. Everyone always called it email, not e-mail, and only when talking to a non-techie might we say "electronic mail". I think we always regarded it as a noun (and verb and adjective) in its own right, not an abbreviation of anything.
On another note, I've started to notice people saying things like "send me an email". This always makes me cringe. "Send me email", or "send me an email message" are both fine, but "an email" is just plain wrong. Does this annoy anyone else, or shall I just crawl back under my rock?
Bind 9 supports both IPv6 and DNSSEC. But you don't have to use IPv6 to use DNSSEC, so I don't see how this helps IPv6 deployment.
Don't get me wrong - I want to see IPv6 deployed, and run an IPv6-enabled domain (running FreeBSD), but whilst having a IPv6 enabled DNS server is a necessity, DNSSEC isn't going to affect IPv6, either for or against.
If you want IPv6, you need to hope Microsoft don't delay Whistler again - that will make the biggest difference to getting ISPs to start thinking about deployment.
I had a lot of problems last year trying to get NSI to change my DNS servers, but in the last few months I've had to deal with them again quite a bit, and the process has worked much much better.
The stated apache limit of 20k-100k requests/day just doesn't make sense. That's a request every 5 seconds to a request every 1 second. There's no way any web server should be sweating until the request rate is at several tens of requests/second. Even assuming all the load is during an 8 hour period, you don't get close to the limits.
Back in 1994/5 I ran a popular server that got ~50k-80k hits/day. This was using the old Cern server on a box with four 30MHz Sparc processors, but it did lots of other stuff too. I would think more recent hardware would do somewhat better.
I was at the IETF meeting in March where Marshall presented BXXP, and I think there's some misunderstanding about what BXXP really is. It isn't a complete protocol in the same whay that complete HTTP is a protocol. It's more of a protocol framework, which you layer new protocols on top of.
HTTP was designed as a single-use protocol. Because it's understood by firewalls, etc, it gets used for just about everything, even if it's not really appropriate.
BXXP aims to provide a well thought out common building block for a whole class of new network protocols. If HTTP was being designed after BXXP, then the obvious thing would have been to layer HTTP on top of BXXP.
So, really BXXP isn't intended to replace anything. It's intended to make it easier to deploy new protocols in the future.
A SYN flooding attack consumes resources in the kernel of the TCP receiver holding state for the TCP connection that is (supposedly) trying to be set up. Eventually the kernel runs out of resources, and typically the machine crashes.
A firewall shouldn't be listening to TCP connections from outside at all - thus a SYN-flood against the firewall won't cause it any problems (other than consuming bandwidth). If the firewall can prevent the SYNs from the attacker from reaching the servers (which must be listening for TCP) while letting the valid ones through, then you've pretty much protected against the SYN-flood.
In this case, it looks like the source addresses were easily characterized, and so the firewall would easily be able to block them. In other cases, the firewall would have a much harder time telling good traffic from bad.
Slashdot Mirror
- Chord from MIT.
- CANfrom
ICSI.
- Pastry/Tapestry from UC Berkeley/Rice.
- Kademlia from NYU.
Now look who the NSF are funding for IRIS: MIT, ICSI, UC Berkeley, NYU, Rice. All the main DHT people in one project. That's got to be good.- Fzz
-Fzz
then, take the box fan and blow the steam out of the bathroom, this will catch all the particles of dust that hang in the air and blow them with the steam outside of the bathroom, you then take the top of the drive off and IMMEDIATELY wrap it in the saran wrap.
When you blow the air and steam out of the bathroom, where does the air that comes in to replace that air come from? Unless you filter the air coming in, I'm not sure this will help you a lot. Wouldn't it be better just to wait for all the large droplets to settle out?
-Fzz
- Fzz
Societal problems usually can't be solved with technical solutions. The law is there to directly address societal conflicts - using the law to back a technical solution simply results in technical workarounds. This is just bad law.
- Fzz
But I don't think I'm going to lose sleep over it.
- Fzz
- Fzz
-Fzz
So pretty much every time you fall, you're going to end up at the top of the slope. They have two choices - let you continue through the cold chamber and get snowblasted and groomed, or pick you, your skis, poles, etc, off the slope in some safe way that copes with many people all ending up at the same part of the top in rapid succession.
Neither option sounds to me like a fun way to learn skiing.
-Fzz
The kernel runs with four different levels of security. Any super-user process can raise the security level, but no process can lower it. The security levels are:
- -1 Permanently insecure mode - always run the system in level 0 mode.
This is the default initial value.
- 0 Insecure mode - immutable and append-only flags may be turned off.
All devices may be read or written subject to their permissions.
- 1 Secure mode - the system immutable and system append-only flags may
not be turned off; disks for mounted filesystems,
/dev/mem, and /dev/kmem may not be opened for writing; kernel modules (see
kld(4)) may not be loaded or unloaded.
- 2 Highly secure mode - same as secure mode, plus disks may not be
opened for writing (except by mount(2)) whether mounted or not.
This level precludes tampering with filesystems by unmounting them,
but also inhibits running newfs(8) while the system is multi-user.
In addition, kernel time changes are restricted to less than or
equal to one second. Attempts to change the time by more than this
will log the message ``Time adjustment clamped to +1 second''.
- 3 Network secure mode - same as highly secure mode, plus IP packet
filter rules (see ipfw(8) and ipfirewall(4)) cannot be changed and
dummynet(4) configuration cannot be adjusted.
-FzzI agree with you, people are very specialized, just like good code, is very specialized. When you try to be a jack of all trades, you are always a master of none.
I'm sorry but I think you're being defeatist. If you don't even try, you'll never succeed.
I'm not autistic, but I was the ultimate shy kid. My mother pulled me out of kindergarten because I'd just cry in the corner waiting for her to return rather than play with the other kids. All through school I had perhaps two good friends who were similar to me, but we were always the outsiders. When I was 12, I got mumps, and went partially deaf. I was always the one who did just enough to get by in exams, but never so much that I'd really stand out, because then I'd get beaten up.
When I went to University, I didn't know what the expected level was, and accidentally got eight straight A grades (the next person in the year got two). But this was University, and I didn't get beaten up - instead everyone wanted me to help them with their classes. I went to parties, but mostly felt completely out of place, and drank way too much. Gradually I started to feel accepted, although I was never in the "in crowd". And slowly my confidence grew, and my social skills grew.
I went on to do a PhD (good escape from the real world), started to be involved in student societies, and meet non-computer people. Still I was 24 before I really went out on a proper date. I ended up running the mountaineering society, which was a good way to meet people while pretending not to care.
For the last few years I've been working for one of the best Internet research labs in the world. I've authored two books, many technical papers, presented at numerous conferences, written quite a number of internet standards, and even given a presentation in front of 2000 people at a conference plenary session. Not bad for someone who was terrified to be noticed. In the last 6 months I've written 25,000 lines of code (I think it all works too), and have a great team of people working for me. I'm married to a beautiful woman (who happens to be a scientist, but isn't a geek at all), and have a small son.
But I'm still nervous to answer the phone or ask directions :-)
My point though, is that age and experience can really change you. If you put your mind to it, you probably can become sociable, although it's a long slow process. And you don't have to become stupid to do it. There's only yourself holding you back.
Good luck.
-Fzz
More more details on tests to verify what's happening, see http://www.aciri.org/tbit
- Fzz
Between ISPs, everyone runs BGP4, and most ISPs impose policies that restrict the transit traffic they're willing to carry. Also because inter-domain traffic spans multiple companies, it's much harder to plan what happens in the event of a failure. So there's less redundancy than you might think from just looking at Internet maps.
Also BGP itself has some convergence problems, so whilst it should only take a minute or two to find a backup path, it can take a lot longer than that in practice.
In addition, it's not really hard to misconfigure BGP and screw up someone elses routing by advertising something you shouldn't. This isn't a lack of redundancy but a lack of robustness.
Finally, many internet problems that users might think are routing problems turn out to be issues with DNS, and whilst the network itself is fine, the hostname just can't be resolved to the IP address of the end system.
So, it depends where you look. There's definitely a lot of room for improvement, but most of the internet has a reasonable amount of redundancy. The trouble is that you often only find out that your redundant backup isn't working when the primary solution fails (this is especially true of DNS, less so of routing).
-Fzz
Then you write a graphing application that communicates with the variod - this program can use GPL'ed code, and gets released under a GPL.
This way the more useful and general purpose part is contributed back to the open-source community, and the closed source daemon can be released without violating the FAI's stupid regulations. Also if you publish the interface spec, it's easy for other people to write variods for other varios without having to cope with change control for your vario client. And if people don't like your client, then they can write their own. This would be a reasonable way to write the code, even if it there wasn't a licensing issue.
-Fzz
-Fzz
Everyone in our group has a Sony Vaio 505 and travels a lot - the case screws seem to vibrate loose on planes all the time. Also I had a Canon EOS camera stop working the same way. So my guess is that it's just as likely that it's the plane that caused the problem as it is the X-ray machine.
-Fzz
One thing to note is that this does depend on the ambient light level. If the room is bright, and the monitor is turned to maximum brightness, you notice flicker much more than if the room is more dimly lit, and the monitor brightness is turned down a little.
Personally I really like LCDs, especially when I'm working for long periods - no flicker at all!
- Fzz
-Fzz
On another note, I've started to notice people saying things like "send me an email". This always makes me cringe. "Send me email", or "send me an email message" are both fine, but "an email" is just plain wrong. Does this annoy anyone else, or shall I just crawl back under my rock?
- Fzz
Don't get me wrong - I want to see IPv6 deployed, and run an IPv6-enabled domain (running FreeBSD), but whilst having a IPv6 enabled DNS server is a necessity, DNSSEC isn't going to affect IPv6, either for or against.
If you want IPv6, you need to hope Microsoft don't delay Whistler again - that will make the biggest difference to getting ISPs to start thinking about deployment.
Perhaps competition is actually working?
Back in 1994/5 I ran a popular server that got ~50k-80k hits/day. This was using the old Cern server on a box with four 30MHz Sparc processors, but it did lots of other stuff too. I would think more recent hardware would do somewhat better.
-Fzz
I think that should be here
HTTP was designed as a single-use protocol. Because it's understood by firewalls, etc, it gets used for just about everything, even if it's not really appropriate.
BXXP aims to provide a well thought out common building block for a whole class of new network protocols. If HTTP was being designed after BXXP, then the obvious thing would have been to layer HTTP on top of BXXP.
So, really BXXP isn't intended to replace anything. It's intended to make it easier to deploy new protocols in the future.
-Fzz
A firewall shouldn't be listening to TCP connections from outside at all - thus a SYN-flood against the firewall won't cause it any problems (other than consuming bandwidth). If the firewall can prevent the SYNs from the attacker from reaching the servers (which must be listening for TCP) while letting the valid ones through, then you've pretty much protected against the SYN-flood.
In this case, it looks like the source addresses were easily characterized, and so the firewall would easily be able to block them. In other cases, the firewall would have a much harder time telling good traffic from bad.
--Fzz