Does that include getting rid of our millitary which subsidizes the production of oil and the stability at least in respect to oil in those portions of the world where it is produced?
Just curious.
Oil and other business interests are subsidized in ways we never even think about at costs that are pretty staggering.
Any stinking 17" TFT ought to be able to do 1600 X 1200 minimum. 19" ought to be a lot higher.
I run my 19" CRT's at 1600 X 1200 regularly. The "cripser" TFT ought to do way better.
But they don't. Why? I expect price it the main factor. But since they're already around double the cost, I'm unlikely to spring for the even more cash real high resolution TFT's would cost. The only TFT's I've seen that go to 1600 X 1200 are the high end 20+" units. And they are decidedly not competitive against CRT's of any flavor.
Sad thing is, even with your mini lesson I still have absolutely no clue when to use whom, and when to use who. (Or comma's obviously...)
*grin*
But heck, "whom" nearly always sounds more high-brow. So, except for the odd pedantic like yourself, it's almost always worth the try.
Cheers, Greg
P.S. I never much understood what adjectives and pronouns were. Subjects I mostly understand. And I absolutely hated diagramming sentences I was completely and utterly lost.
Good point. So I guess you are against using DNA testing to identify rapists as well? Luckily enough, people have more common sense than that.
So, how about we just go and force every citizen to submit their DNA so we can go about tracing every crime in which we have DNA?
You're right, I find that offensive.
If you have substantial evidence that a specific individual is likely the culprit, then sure, go ahead and get a court order to get his/her DNA. If not, sod off.
Point is this. In a free society, there is no way to prevent all crime. No way to prevent all hostile action in the air. Progressively invasive and unequal treatment of people based on bogus measures, such as race and looks will capture some bad folks - it will also create more "bad" folks who are offended by their poor treatment, and capture a lot of people who are unjustly targeted.
The beauty of a "treat everyone equally badly" method is that it has to pass an effectiveness test. You can't piss off the whole population unless it's effective. If it's effective and the cost (in all aspects) is reasonable, the people will allow it. If it's not, like racial profiling isn't, and you subject the whole population to it, the people will force you to look elsewhere.
So, the end result is optimally that you'll have to find and demonstrate the most effective methods that are least offensive to everyone.
Win for everyone, IMHO.
I guess you'd rather live in a society where we treat people different based on bogus measures such as your race and social status etc.
Have fun - I can assure you it's a sucky way to live, but if you insist.
Ok, sure, I get to violate the rights of a lot of other people, and lock up lots of innocent people, but I can stop every rapist.
IMHO, Israel does the same thing, perhaps to a less extreme degree than my example.
Problem is, we have a society that predicates itself on treating people equally. We don't (or at least our ideals/constitution say we shouldn't) single out particular individuals for "special" treatment, good or bad - unless we have reliable information that this specific individual poses a significant risk.
Likewise, we'd rather let a few murderers go if getting every one of them requires locking up (or executing) innocent people too.
Look how many false "confessions" there are. You think airport screening is any different?
Issue is, that super invasive security measures at an airport will simply force those people to attack at another weak spot. You guys have done real well against the suicide bombers too huh? (Oh, I forgot, you are moving on and violating a whole lot of more people by putting up your "security" fence now...)
So, with enough loss of rights, privacy and drag-netting a lot of innocent people I can stop all crime too. However, I'd really rather not exist in such a society. It's only a matter of time till you yourself become one of the "suspects" and life really sucks then.
No thanks.
This is the real reason we have a government/republic that's designed with inefficiencies that are supposed to guarantee equal treatment of all individuals. (And yes, I know full well it's not actually that well done in practice - and it anguishes me on a regular basis...)
Holy shit, I can't believe you actually wrote this.
Your analogy, simply is inane.
Netscape is based on Mozilla code. The base Mozilla code had a vuln. in it. It had been fixed for some time. Netscape development, at worst, knew of the problem and ignored it. At best, they didn't know - which simply says little about the dev team for Netscape.
I presume that Mozilla didn't know of the vulns in 1.03 until they were found, at which point they fixed them and released 1.04.
It would be more like you making a kit car based on the Pinto, which was prone to burst into flame and kill it's occupants when rear-ended, and then when Ford fixed/discontinued the Pinto line, you go out and commission the factory to make you some since the company doesn't.
Sure, Ford should have avoided the mess in the first place, but it would be nearly unforgivable for you to keep producing such a monstrosity when warned of the problems.
The "quick" fix sounds pretty whacky, if they were already planning to fix it, why not simply delay release 20 hours and never release a version with vulns in the first place?
The conclusion I reach is this: Either A) The Netscape devs didn't care about security and shipped a product which had known vulnerabilites and known fixes to those volunerabilities.
OR
B) They are so totally clueless, that they somehow missed the whole notice about problems in 1.03 and cluelessly shipped the product.
A, shows lack of care about security - indifference. B shows pure stupidity and ignorance.
Lets see, would I rather be called "A reckless fool" or "Just plain stuipid?"
And if and when this happens, and the company is contacted about an apparent GPL violation, the solution, quick and easy would be to review the issue, find it WAS a code violation, explain how it happened, and remove the offending code.
Provided you are nice and polite while removing the code, I expect that virtually anyone enforcing the GPL would be reasonably decent in this case.
So, even if a violation occured, there are pretty easy and straight-forward ways to avoid a flame fest and legal entanglements
Sure, they'll be embarrassing and you'll have to tell all your clients and fix/replace the GPL'd code - but if you didn't do your due dilligence, it's kinda the way it goes.
Frankly, I have an incredibly hard time seeing where a *commercial* software dev shop could let this kind of thing happen - but I'll just assume as you say, it "is quite common."
I said..."This isn't a recurrsive root DNS search, but just a client request."
But as a auth DNS server for a zone, you're only going to see a request about this length.
An authoratative DNS server, what EasyDNS does, isn't going to need to do a recursive query to get records for a zone it's authoratative for.
If you're a caching name server in the middle at an ISP you'll have to do that for zones you're not authoratative for...
What I was getting at was the really large number of bytes that EasyDNS was estimating for serving a auth DNS zone request. It appears to me around four times larger than needed, and for sure at least two.
Your point is more valid in the context of the ISP ignoring TTL's, but not to this exchange.
I just captured some DNS traffic. This isn't a recurrsive root DNS search, but just a client request.
The Request for www.cnn.com was 71 bytes. The reply was 312 bytes.
I think EasyDNS's estimation of traffic required to fulfill a DNS query is massively over estimated. I can't see one taking even 1K bytes, much less the 2K bytes they're "estimating."
DNS queries are figgin tiny... So, what's it really save you, even if you're a massive ISP to not obey the TTL's?
The only thing it's going to save you is from having to go out to the root servers and pull it again when the TTL expires. And, I speculate that this really is a very, *very* small amount of traffic compared to the other traffic to those servers.
I'd expect the highest bandwidth/resource users, by a very large margin, to be standard "in-TTL" answers to DNS clients.
So, these cranks, for lack of a better term, simply bork the systems they manage for no appreciable gain from doing so. Reducing spam by 0.0001% would have vastly more impact on the servers they maintain than ignoring TTL's.
Has anyone done any measurement stats on DNS queries. How much of the total traffic is DNS. I can't imagine it's even 0.5% of an average ISP.
Last defcon w/ two directional (big ass) antenna they got around a 50 mile link. Non amplified. 30mw.
LOS, I suspect we're talking a fairly easy 5 miles with any decent antenna and a spectrum analyzer. (Heck, IIRC two omni's at defcon were at better than 5+ miles, but I'm not positive.)
I lean left, so I'm not exactly trying to bash Boxer, but my problem with it is this...
She isn't really interested in fixing anything, she (Boxes) would do the same if it went to furthering her interests. She's more interested in winning a political battle and scoring some points for "her side" than actually winning something for the people.
Fact is, most people think in terms of "us" and "them" so she'd be an idiot not to pay homage to that system. If she didn't she wouldn't get re-elected.
The fact that the people (us) are corrupt and morally bankrupt doesn't excuse her morally bankrupt behavior, though it does explain it.
And before anyone extends this, let me make clear that government can't make people better people, so the "moral values" that the right are push are just as useless. Govenment's and laws don't make better people - moral values from the "masses" don't make better people - only people making choices that transform their lives make better people. (I'll leave out the discussion of what choices and the venue for that transformation process...)
Until the people are "better" we'll pick politicians who "mirror" us. Those politicians will act no better than us, and though that's understandable, it's not honorable.
It's not milnet, but heck, a decoder ring would be more secure than emailing sensitive/secret documents as unencrypted/unsecured attachments to yourself and it appears as though they were stored on TMobile's servers.
The only reason this guy is getting a deal is that the SS would like to keep its dirty laundry under wraps. I suspect the document breach is even worse then we have been told.
Sheesh, dumb kid hacker - even dumber SS agent, in the "cyber crime" department no less. Cyber-crime - does that mean they commit the crimes or what?
Next, take the same paper clip and short from hot to neutral. Your paper clip will heat up and spark very nicely, at least until the breaker/fuse stops the current.
IIRC, a GFCI only detects that the circuit is getting ground from somewhere else other than the neutral. Thus, if you grab the hot leg and "real" ground, the GFCI will determine that current going "out" the hot isn't making a curcuit with the "neutral" and trip the circuit.
However, if you take the hot and jam it in your mouth and the neutral and hold it in your hands the GFCI won't do jack and you're going to cook. It does not limit current like a fuse or breaker. It detects ground loops outside the hot/neutral circuit and stops them.
A quick test I suppose would be this. Take a paper clip, and visit your nearest 3 prong GFCI outlet. Short the circut from hot to ground first. The GFCI will trip the circuit. (Do this test first, otherwise your hands will be to burned to complete this scientific experiement!)
Now reset the circuit.
Next, take the same paper clip and short from hot to ground. Your paper clip will heat up and spark very nicely, at least until the breaker/fuse stops the current.
Slashdot Mirror
Does that include getting rid of our millitary which subsidizes the production of oil and the stability at least in respect to oil in those portions of the world where it is produced?
Just curious.
Oil and other business interests are subsidized in ways we never even think about at costs that are pretty staggering.
Cheers,
Greg
1900X 1200 might be the case on notebooks, but not for any reasonable priced desktop TFT - at least not any I've been able to find.
Cheers,
Greg
Bingo.
Heck, my thinkpad 15" does 1400 X 1050.
Any stinking 17" TFT ought to be able to do 1600 X 1200 minimum. 19" ought to be a lot higher.
I run my 19" CRT's at 1600 X 1200 regularly. The "cripser" TFT ought to do way better.
But they don't. Why? I expect price it the main factor. But since they're already around double the cost, I'm unlikely to spring for the even more cash real high resolution TFT's would cost. The only TFT's I've seen that go to 1600 X 1200 are the high end 20+" units. And they are decidedly not competitive against CRT's of any flavor.
Cheers,
Greg
Freeking still blows my mind with ping time hovering in the seconds range.
Ugh.
Hey, my RTT time is less than three minutes - whoohoo!
Sheesh. VPN on even 1000ms times is like getting the hoover tangled up with vital body parts.
I'd hoped that TMobile had gotten better. Perhaps they're on par with everyone else, but it still seriously sucks on the latency side.
Anyone have any idea why?
Cheers,
Greg
Has tmobile gotten better.
Last time I had data on a laptop and checked pings we were talking around 3000 ms ping times, sometimes as high at 5000ms. Best was at least 1000ms.
For anything interactive it was absolutly horrible.
Cheers,
Greg
I think it burns, actually.
Cheers,
Greg
Sad thing is, even with your mini lesson I still have absolutely no clue when to use whom, and when to use who. (Or comma's obviously...)
*grin*
But heck, "whom" nearly always sounds more high-brow. So, except for the odd pedantic like yourself, it's almost always worth the try.
Cheers,
Greg
P.S.
I never much understood what adjectives and pronouns were. Subjects I mostly understand. And I absolutely hated diagramming sentences I was completely and utterly lost.
And don't even get me started on spelling. Ugh.
Good point. So I guess you are against using DNA testing to identify rapists as well? Luckily enough, people have more common sense than that.
So, how about we just go and force every citizen to submit their DNA so we can go about tracing every crime in which we have DNA?
You're right, I find that offensive.
If you have substantial evidence that a specific individual is likely the culprit, then sure, go ahead and get a court order to get his/her DNA. If not, sod off.
Point is this. In a free society, there is no way to prevent all crime. No way to prevent all hostile action in the air. Progressively invasive and unequal treatment of people based on bogus measures, such as race and looks will capture some bad folks - it will also create more "bad" folks who are offended by their poor treatment, and capture a lot of people who are unjustly targeted.
The beauty of a "treat everyone equally badly" method is that it has to pass an effectiveness test. You can't piss off the whole population unless it's effective. If it's effective and the cost (in all aspects) is reasonable, the people will allow it. If it's not, like racial profiling isn't, and you subject the whole population to it, the people will force you to look elsewhere.
So, the end result is optimally that you'll have to find and demonstrate the most effective methods that are least offensive to everyone.
Win for everyone, IMHO.
I guess you'd rather live in a society where we treat people different based on bogus measures such as your race and social status etc.
Have fun - I can assure you it's a sucky way to live, but if you insist.
Cheers,
Greg
Nice troll, BTW.
Sure, I can stop every rapist too.
Ok, sure, I get to violate the rights of a lot of other people, and lock up lots of innocent people, but I can stop every rapist.
IMHO, Israel does the same thing, perhaps to a less extreme degree than my example.
Problem is, we have a society that predicates itself on treating people equally. We don't (or at least our ideals/constitution say we shouldn't) single out particular individuals for "special" treatment, good or bad - unless we have reliable information that this specific individual poses a significant risk.
Likewise, we'd rather let a few murderers go if getting every one of them requires locking up (or executing) innocent people too.
Look how many false "confessions" there are. You think airport screening is any different?
Issue is, that super invasive security measures at an airport will simply force those people to attack at another weak spot. You guys have done real well against the suicide bombers too huh? (Oh, I forgot, you are moving on and violating a whole lot of more people by putting up your "security" fence now...)
So, with enough loss of rights, privacy and drag-netting a lot of innocent people I can stop all crime too. However, I'd really rather not exist in such a society. It's only a matter of time till you yourself become one of the "suspects" and life really sucks then.
No thanks.
This is the real reason we have a government/republic that's designed with inefficiencies that are supposed to guarantee equal treatment of all individuals. (And yes, I know full well it's not actually that well done in practice - and it anguishes me on a regular basis...)
Cheers,
Greg
Holy shit, I can't believe you actually wrote this.
Your analogy, simply is inane.
Netscape is based on Mozilla code. The base Mozilla code had a vuln. in it. It had been fixed for some time. Netscape development, at worst, knew of the problem and ignored it. At best, they didn't know - which simply says little about the dev team for Netscape.
I presume that Mozilla didn't know of the vulns in 1.03 until they were found, at which point they fixed them and released 1.04.
It would be more like you making a kit car based on the Pinto, which was prone to burst into flame and kill it's occupants when rear-ended, and then when Ford fixed/discontinued the Pinto line, you go out and commission the factory to make you some since the company doesn't.
Sure, Ford should have avoided the mess in the first place, but it would be nearly unforgivable for you to keep producing such a monstrosity when warned of the problems.
The "quick" fix sounds pretty whacky, if they were already planning to fix it, why not simply delay release 20 hours and never release a version with vulns in the first place?
The conclusion I reach is this:
Either
A) The Netscape devs didn't care about security and shipped a product which had known vulnerabilites and known fixes to those volunerabilities.
OR
B) They are so totally clueless, that they somehow missed the whole notice about problems in 1.03 and cluelessly shipped the product.
A, shows lack of care about security - indifference. B shows pure stupidity and ignorance.
Lets see, would I rather be called "A reckless fool" or "Just plain stuipid?"
Sheesh...
Cheers
And if and when this happens, and the company is contacted about an apparent GPL violation, the solution, quick and easy would be to review the issue, find it WAS a code violation, explain how it happened, and remove the offending code.
Provided you are nice and polite while removing the code, I expect that virtually anyone enforcing the GPL would be reasonably decent in this case.
So, even if a violation occured, there are pretty easy and straight-forward ways to avoid a flame fest and legal entanglements
Sure, they'll be embarrassing and you'll have to tell all your clients and fix/replace the GPL'd code - but if you didn't do your due dilligence, it's kinda the way it goes.
Frankly, I have an incredibly hard time seeing where a *commercial* software dev shop could let this kind of thing happen - but I'll just assume as you say, it "is quite common."
Cheers,
Greg
You're right. My math sucks. [Sarcasm] But hey, I was only off by an order of magnitude! [/Sarcasm]
Cheers,
Greg
Uh.... I think I already said that...
I said..."This isn't a recurrsive root DNS search, but just a client request."
But as a auth DNS server for a zone, you're only going to see a request about this length.
An authoratative DNS server, what EasyDNS does, isn't going to need to do a recursive query to get records for a zone it's authoratative for.
If you're a caching name server in the middle at an ISP you'll have to do that for zones you're not authoratative for...
What I was getting at was the really large number of bytes that EasyDNS was estimating for serving a auth DNS zone request. It appears to me around four times larger than needed, and for sure at least two.
Your point is more valid in the context of the ISP ignoring TTL's, but not to this exchange.
Cheers,
Greg
I just captured some DNS traffic. This isn't a recurrsive root DNS search, but just a client request.
The Request for www.cnn.com was 71 bytes.
The reply was 312 bytes.
I think EasyDNS's estimation of traffic required to fulfill a DNS query is massively over estimated. I can't see one taking even 1K bytes, much less the 2K bytes they're "estimating."
DNS queries are figgin tiny...
So, what's it really save you, even if you're a massive ISP to not obey the TTL's?
The only thing it's going to save you is from having to go out to the root servers and pull it again when the TTL expires. And, I speculate that this really is a very, *very* small amount of traffic compared to the other traffic to those servers.
I'd expect the highest bandwidth/resource users, by a very large margin, to be standard "in-TTL" answers to DNS clients.
So, these cranks, for lack of a better term, simply bork the systems they manage for no appreciable gain from doing so. Reducing spam by 0.0001% would have vastly more impact on the servers they maintain than ignoring TTL's.
Has anyone done any measurement stats on DNS queries. How much of the total traffic is DNS. I can't imagine it's even 0.5% of an average ISP.
Cheers,
Greg
I surely hope you're joking.
Last defcon w/ two directional (big ass) antenna they got around a 50 mile link. Non amplified. 30mw.
LOS, I suspect we're talking a fairly easy 5 miles with any decent antenna and a spectrum analyzer. (Heck, IIRC two omni's at defcon were at better than 5+ miles, but I'm not positive.)
Cheers,
Greg
Ok, it's like living in a country where it's legal to beat women.
"Hey, I don't like beating my ho, but since I'm a pimp, it's like, my job. So I beat my ho."
Sheesh!
"Because it's legal" is absolutely no defense against morally questionable behavior.
Cheers,
Greg
Sometimes even trolls speak the truth.
Cheers,
Greg
I lean left, so I'm not exactly trying to bash Boxer, but my problem with it is this...
She isn't really interested in fixing anything, she (Boxes) would do the same if it went to furthering her interests. She's more interested in winning a political battle and scoring some points for "her side" than actually winning something for the people.
Fact is, most people think in terms of "us" and "them" so she'd be an idiot not to pay homage to that system. If she didn't she wouldn't get re-elected.
The fact that the people (us) are corrupt and morally bankrupt doesn't excuse her morally bankrupt behavior, though it does explain it.
And before anyone extends this, let me make clear that government can't make people better people, so the "moral values" that the right are push are just as useless. Govenment's and laws don't make better people - moral values from the "masses" don't make better people - only people making choices that transform their lives make better people. (I'll leave out the discussion of what choices and the venue for that transformation process...)
Until the people are "better" we'll pick politicians who "mirror" us. Those politicians will act no better than us, and though that's understandable, it's not honorable.
Cheers,
Greg
What made you insert the 'CLEARLY'? ;)
Posted elsewhere, but Botox is rendered *harmless* with exposure to temps > 85C for 5 minutes or more.
Comparing PU to Botox is simply stupid, IMHO.
Totally different properties and risk profiles.
That said, this likely will not boost the "Pu is dangerous" argument, either.
Cheers,
Greg
A gram of butolinotoxin could kill more people than a truckload of plutonium.
Yet, expose that BTox to 100C temps for more than a few minutes, and it's rendered harmless to humans.
You can't say that for Pu.
Cheers,
Greg
But I'm pretty sure SSL works just fine.
It's not milnet, but heck, a decoder ring would be more secure than emailing sensitive/secret documents as unencrypted/unsecured attachments to yourself and it appears as though they were stored on TMobile's servers.
The only reason this guy is getting a deal is that the SS would like to keep its dirty laundry under wraps. I suspect the document breach is even worse then we have been told.
Sheesh, dumb kid hacker - even dumber SS agent, in the "cyber crime" department no less. Cyber-crime - does that mean they commit the crimes or what?
Cheers,
Greg
Should have been...
Next, take the same paper clip and short from hot to neutral. Your paper clip will heat up and spark very nicely, at least until the breaker/fuse stops the current.
IIRC, a GFCI only detects that the circuit is getting ground from somewhere else other than the neutral. Thus, if you grab the hot leg and "real" ground, the GFCI will determine that current going "out" the hot isn't making a curcuit with the "neutral" and trip the circuit.
However, if you take the hot and jam it in your mouth and the neutral and hold it in your hands the GFCI won't do jack and you're going to cook. It does not limit current like a fuse or breaker. It detects ground loops outside the hot/neutral circuit and stops them.
A quick test I suppose would be this. Take a paper clip, and visit your nearest 3 prong GFCI outlet. Short the circut from hot to ground first. The GFCI will trip the circuit. (Do this test first, otherwise your hands will be to burned to complete this scientific experiement!)
Now reset the circuit.
Next, take the same paper clip and short from hot to ground. Your paper clip will heat up and spark very nicely, at least until the breaker/fuse stops the current.
Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter. (yeah, it's probably misspelled too!)
Cheers,
Greg