Actually, most of the machines attacking me recently have been compromised static-ip servers at various hosting providers.
It depends on what kind of 'attack' we're talking about, of course. If it's just an automated attack which scans large ranges of IP-addresses for common vulnerabilities which you've patched against, there really isn't any need to add them to your firewall ruleset, unless they're pretty invasive.
By invasive I mean that they grope and poke, and grope and poke. If it's just a couple of packets - why care at all? You can always fire off an email to the hosting provider, but adding them to your firewall is just.. not necessary.
Take the recent increase in SSH scans for the 'test' and 'guest' accounts without password, or whatever it was one came into agreement that it was.. if you've got a patched SSH daemon, why care? Let them scan - and get rejected. Why bog down the firewall with hundreds, if not thousands, of extra matching rules?
If it's likely that you've got vulnerabile machines on that port, block it entirely - or just allow it from specific IPs. Playing whack-a-mole against scanners are just a waste of time.
Patch the system, have a good general firewall ruleset that covers what needs to be covered - and let the scanners that isn't actually continously filling your log files just scan on.
I've had to block _one_ abusive scanner during the last year. It was someone scanning for open http-proxies from Israel. They were hitting my machines several times per seconds, filling my apache logs with relay-attempts to mailservers. Which was quite frankly annoying.
Those scans were from four IP's within the same subnet, and their ISP didn't care. I got the ISP null routed due to their customers filling my logs (and my company doesn't do business in Israel at the moment, so it wasn't a loss anyways).
A few packets now and then on the other hand.. playing whack-a-mole with such is just a waste of time.
If they are just sending of SYN-requests, then who cares? They'll get a few RST-responses. Having your firewall bogged down by rules just to ignore some dialup user that'll probably have switched IPs the next day will just decrease others chances of contacting you.
Secure your network. Have a nice firewall with okay rules, but there should be no need to add individual IPs to your ruleset all the time -- that just increases complexity and maintainability.
Personally I tend to ignore the scans for ssh and so forth, as they're just SYN-packets and doesn't consume too much of my resources. Call me a lazy/non-caring bastard. However, it would surely be nice to send off a message to the ISP, as the machines the scans are originating from are probably cracked too.
I tend to report viruses. I grep my logs daily for viruses from various norwegian ISPs, to the mailserver I admin for my company. During the last five months I've sent daily virus reports to the largest ISP in norway, and they tend to reply within one business day - having notified their customer about the infection. If the customer gets several 'heads up' messages from the ISP without removing the virus, they get their port 25 access filtered until they've confirmed that they've removed the virus.
I tend to send emails such as this.
" Hi there.
I've got several viruses from your customers today, and would appreciate it if you could notify your customers about the virus infections they probably have.
Here are the relevant snippets from my logs:
Virus: Netsky.B Received: from at
Virus: Bagle.C Received: from at
All timestamps on the server are NTP-sync'ed against.
Thanks for your time "
Recently I've also included a more personalized
"Oh, and I have to commend your ISPs efficiency, as since march - you've managed to reduce the number of virus sending users to us from about per day, to this.. it's days since the last virus from you! Keep up the good work!"
You could probably just adapt what I'm writing to something saying that a customer of theirs probably has been cracked, and that they are currently scanning for.. and so forth.
If it's the actual cracker that's stupid enough to use his own computer, he'll get scared enough if they contact him telling him that his computers has been abused by others to scan people -- and will probably quit doing it.:)
Last time I spoke to Per (Jon's father), he told me that Jon has moved to France. Still no DMCA, but maybe the EUCD will come in play quite a bit faster down there than here in Norway.
It will require one to reconfigure the gateway, which isn't something his mom could do - thus not interesting in this case.
The problem is that he is asking for the impossible, given that both ends use NAT, and neither end is technical enough to reconfigure their NAT-devide/gateway.
Typing in indeed an essencial skill, but it's quickly learned through computer use. Personally I type at an estimated 100-120wpm (Last test showed 109wpm, but it varies daily, and with the language typed).
I learned touch-typing on my Amstrad in 1990-1991, without any external help (not even a touch-type program). In school I got an A (or at least, the norwegian equivalent which then was "S") - and learned to use the proper fingers at the proper keys, which I didn't know before - even though knowing the keyboard pretty good.
Since then the speed has, of course, only increased. I no longer use any programs to estimate my touch speed. I've sometimes just timed the speed with a simple "date ; cat | wc ; date" , and then used bc to calculate the speed.
Just did a quick test where I wrote out of the top of my head, and came out with a nice 616 characters/minute, or 118 wpm as it was. Not too bad, but on the other hand, I had to find something to write, and did a lot of manual corrections/rewriting of sentences.
Ahwell, enough bragging.:) The point is that I think that touch is an essiential skill, but that it's quickly learned thorugh intensive computer usage.
a simple little box, that I buy, perhaps two, configure, and send one to my mom.. she plugs it into her router..
I have to reply twice, as I forgot to say how I manage to communicate securely with my parrents computers.
Both use SuSE Linux, I just SSH into my account, which works perfectly. I've also got the root passwords, so that I can do remote maintainance of both machines. Really nice.
It's not as if they're on the same LAN, but that could be fixed with the VPN-over-SSH howto, if I really wanted.:)
I know it seems crazy, but it's not just the current batch of games that want you to have big, power-hungry cpu's
Except for a very few specialist areas - yes, those are the only applications - and not even the current batch of games seem to rely mostly on CPU power, but on GPU power.
As the days move on, EVERYTHING will get bigger and smarter, until we reach a point where AI is king
We'll need a breakthrough in AI first. I doubt it will come very soon.
The drive for greater computing power far exceeds the limited requirements of the current moment in time.
I hear some people (like you) claim that. I don't agree. My computer (Duron 1300) is currently fast enough for me to have xmms in the background, several downloads going on, a mail client with tens of thousands of emails accessible, a web browser, a compilation of KDE 3.2beta2 in the background, and a gazillion of xterms lying around.
Oh, and I've got a good old Matrox G450, so I actually run a dual-monitor configuration.
The point is that most of the time, the AMD Duron 1300Mhz is more than fast enough for me. There is days where I could really use a little bit power, say, 20% more or so.. but considering that this i a pretty old system, and that the top of the line models these days are at least 3-5 times as fast as my current machine.. heh.:-)
There are of course CPU intensive tasks that will enter into every day use. Tasks like video editing, which currently is quite acceptable on top-of-the-line CPUs. Also, video encoding could probably be done quite a lot faster.
However, we're now talking very, VERY cpu intensive tasks. We're talking about tasks which really isn't interesting for everyone. Tasks that regular home computers now are able to fullfill.
The point is that regular people don't NEED much more power. Earlier on, we had to sit and wait for the computer to complete various tasks. These days, the tasks are just done 'whammo'.
Of course, I wish the compile time of KDE 3.2beta2 would be a bit quicker. It's not important for me to have it finish in less than a second though.. and it sure as hell isn't important for my mum, my dad, or 99% of the computer-using people that such specialist tasks finish quickly.
Computers are approaching the needed speed. The NEED to get them faster isn't there any more. They're actually getting _fast enough_.
If only specialists need faster CPUs, what's the justification for pushing SMP machines into home machines? I can't see the average home user needing multi-processor systems any more than they need 3MHz CPUs...
Doing many tasks at the same time. One music player, one movie player shoveling a movie to the TV in another room, some CPU intensive work for the guy sitting at the computer, some this and some that, while the system still being responsive.
With a single CPU, this takes a lot of timing, prioritizing for interactive applications and a lot of _crap_. With several CPUs the CPU intensive tasks gets their own CPU, while the less intensive tasks just sits on a mostly idle CPU.
Curious that you see no requirement for a single CPU to get faster yet desire to see multi-CPU configurations become the norm. That doesn't make any sense. Two half speed CPU's are a liablity compare to a single full speed one though a system designed in that manner may be much easier to build.
It makes lots of sense.
With one CPU, one task typically occupies the entire CPU for an an entire timeslice, however that is defined by the kernel at hand.
With two CPU's, two different tasks may occupie the different CPU's, running in parallell.
If only one of the two tasks is CPU intensive, the entire system is still extremely responsive, as they've got an idle cpu there ready for use.
Some people here doesn't seem to realize that what I'm stating as my personal wishlist isn't what I want _today_, it's where I really wish companies put their research and development.
More people than me seem to have noticed that clock speeds seems to have stalled. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing - as computers has grown fast enough for me lately. I'm still content with my 1.3Ghz Duron.
What I personally really, really want to see is cooler CPU's. CPU's that doesn't require a huge fucking fan. CPU's that are content with a heatsink would be nice.
Furthermore, I would love it if Dual configuration became more widespread (and thus cheaper). Personally I would love a multi-CPU machine far more than single-CPU ones.
My personal wishlist:
- 64bit CPUs to become the norm (seems to be happening).
- Cooler CPUs, not requiring fans (seems to be happening, look at the VIA EDEN CPU's)
- Dual/Quad/Multi -CPU configurations becoming the norm in home computers.
I don't care much whether single CPU's grow much faster at the moment, as there doesn't seem to be applications requiering it for regular use. There are of course specialist tasks that require more horsepower, but those are.. specialist tasks.
ICANN's SSAC came up with the right answer with respect to Verisign's "Sitefinder" but they did so using a method that contains the seeds of an even greater danger to the net: unprincipled and subjective condemnation of change on the net.
While I certainly think it is good that people are sceptical to ICANN, I think this issue is the wrong time to voice those concerns. As you yourself state in your blog - "Sitefinder is so bad that the fact that ICANN is using vigilante methods to combat Sitefinder might be overlooked in our emotional reactions to the situation."
Sitefinder was incredibly bad. I had scripts failing all over the place due to not being able to rely on DNS providing proper "host not found" answers any more. I'm sure I was not the only one.
While I agree that the report could've been better - the important thing in this case is to support ICANN. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least temporarily - and at least about this issue.
There is a proper time and place for criticism. This is not the proper time to criticise ICANN, in my opinion.
Personally I've got no problem pedaling up to 30mph on a flat road, and reaching 40mph is a breeze downhill.
On the other hand, I've got 53/12 teeth on my bike.
Also note, I'm just bicycling to/from work every day, but after cycling both summer and winter the last two and a half year, the speed has picked up quite a bit.
I'm quite amazed that this isn't already demanded for broadcasters. I would think they should be required to provide full recordings of every program they make (but drop the advertisement), and submit to the national library.
I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, that this is already done in Norway - and everything is archived in the national library. I'll have to say I would be terribly disappointed if this isn't done.
Remember that great scifi-series has been lost for all time, due to not beeing archived. Great shows has gone down the drain forever.
In an ideal future, all such materiell would also, after a time, be made available for the general public through the Internet.
I seem to remember that BBC had some plans about making all their stuff available. Not sure what came out of that though, but it would be truly wonderfull.
Fedora works fine - why dont you actually try it instead of super-imposing your impressions of RedHat 6 onto a wondeful distro...
I admit it, I've not tried Fedora. However, I was forced to use Redhat 7.X, Redhat 8 and Redhat 9. To be quite honest, RedHat 6 was the last version of RedHat I used and was satisified with.
In the fall, I'll be forced to use RHEL 3. I don't look forward to it. It _may_ be that I'll be surprised, but I wouldn't expect so.
Anyways, compare that to SuSE, and I hated the guts of the distro when it was version 5.1 or something, started to like it around 7.3, and has loved it since 8.0:-)
I'm not sure whether to rant or just refute you. WINE is a commercial product, offered to make it easy to get games running under Linux. If you think 'gamers' under linux automatically is far superior technically to 'gamers' under Windows, I think you're mistaken.
Linux is an easy to use desktop product, for everyone. You make it sound like it more difficult to use than windows.
In this case, it was no doubt more difficult to use, and I can understand it - as we're talking about software that implements a closed source system of libraries, to get programs using those libraries to run under linux.
However, when offered commercially it should be a bit easier to use. It should not pose newbies a great deal of stress to get it working.
I'm not a driver (well, I've got a driving licence, but no car). I'm a cyclist. There is nothing more annoying than a slow moving car snailing along at 20mph when I'm in a training session - treading along at 30mph. It invariably causes me to be pissed of and just pass the slow driving sucker.
Who far to often doesn't like being passed by a fast moving cyclist.
Yeah, I know, I'm a dangerous asshole cyclist in the traffic, but eyh, it's my health - and I've never had a traffic accident yet.:-D
Java is indeed heavily used - in some areas. It's in extreme usage "server-side", and many people develop applications in Java - for servers.
On the client, however, you'll find it far less often. I use a java client when no other alternatives exist. Java has always been an incredible memory hog for me. I don't like using java on the client. It's mostly slow and unresponsive.
Personally I vastly prefer to use C or C++ programs, as they tend to be much nicer to use. In addition, they tend to have the same interface as the rest of the programs in my desktop environments.;)
> The underlying issue is quite simple - Access to > the Internet is the equivalent of allowing your > kids to leave the yard without permission, not > bothering to know where they are, who they're > contacting or being contacted by and generally > leaving them at the mercy of the big, bad world.
I think this may be the core of the problem, and why I disagree so vehemently against filtering.
When I grew up, I could go wherever I wanted after the age of.. 6 or 7 or something. No restrictions, except on 'time'. My parents wanted me to call home if I were going to be "late" - "late" being defined as "not home by 16:00" or something similiar.
A few years later, say when I was 8-9, I could just say that I would be playing in the woods with friends, and would be home by 19:00 or something, and that was okay with them. We did crazy dangerous things - but nobody got more seriously hurt than a few broken bones.
The freedom to explore was very important to me as a kid. I had a pretty strict curfew (is that the right word? Time you had to be home by) - and my parents asked who I was going to be with, but they never knew where we actually were going - except "in the woods".. woods they didn't know, by the way;D
Oh how I would love that application of it in Norway. Unfortunately it's not allowed. The "problem" with this solution is that if there happens an accident - one "should" be able to call the norwegian equivalent of 911.
I'll be quite blunt. I'm not reading slashdot to read "funny" commentaries by anonymous trolls in stories. And then this kind of idiotic troll story comes along.
Who the fuck cares if it is "funny"? It's ridiculous to interview a fraud about how (s)he predicts the games will turn out.
Anyone could do the same guesswork. Even the anonymous GNAA-trolls here at slashdot could do this. Why the fuck this is a slashdot-worthy story at all is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, most of the machines attacking me recently have been compromised static-ip servers at various hosting providers.
.. not necessary.
It depends on what kind of 'attack' we're talking about, of course. If it's just an automated attack which scans large ranges of IP-addresses for common vulnerabilities which you've patched against, there really isn't any need to add them to your firewall ruleset, unless they're pretty invasive.
By invasive I mean that they grope and poke, and grope and poke. If it's just a couple of packets - why care at all? You can always fire off an email to the hosting provider, but adding them to your firewall is just
Take the recent increase in SSH scans for the 'test' and 'guest' accounts without password, or whatever it was one came into agreement that it was.. if you've got a patched SSH daemon, why care? Let them scan - and get rejected. Why bog down the firewall with hundreds, if not thousands, of extra matching rules?
If it's likely that you've got vulnerabile machines on that port, block it entirely - or just allow it from specific IPs. Playing whack-a-mole against scanners are just a waste of time.
Patch the system, have a good general firewall ruleset that covers what needs to be covered - and let the scanners that isn't actually continously filling your log files just scan on.
I've had to block _one_ abusive scanner during the last year. It was someone scanning for open http-proxies from Israel. They were hitting my machines several times per seconds, filling my apache logs with relay-attempts to mailservers. Which was quite frankly annoying.
Those scans were from four IP's within the same subnet, and their ISP didn't care. I got the ISP null routed due to their customers filling my logs (and my company doesn't do business in Israel at the moment, so it wasn't a loss anyways).
A few packets now and then on the other hand.. playing whack-a-mole with such is just a waste of time.
Why?
If they are just sending of SYN-requests, then who cares? They'll get a few RST-responses. Having your firewall bogged down by rules just to ignore some dialup user that'll probably have switched IPs the next day will just decrease others chances of contacting you.
Secure your network. Have a nice firewall with okay rules, but there should be no need to add individual IPs to your ruleset all the time -- that just increases complexity and maintainability.
Personally I tend to ignore the scans for ssh and so forth, as they're just SYN-packets and doesn't consume too much of my resources. Call me a lazy/non-caring bastard. However, it would surely be nice to send off a message to the ISP, as the machines the scans are originating from are probably cracked too.
.
.. it's days since the last virus from you! Keep up the good work!"
.. and so forth.
:)
I tend to report viruses. I grep my logs daily for viruses from various norwegian ISPs, to the mailserver I admin for my company. During the last five months I've sent daily virus reports to the largest ISP in norway, and they tend to reply within one business day - having notified their customer about the infection. If the customer gets several 'heads up' messages from the ISP without removing the virus, they get their port 25 access filtered until they've confirmed that they've removed the virus.
I tend to send emails such as this.
"
Hi there.
I've got several viruses from your customers today, and would appreciate it if you could notify your customers about the virus infections they probably have.
Here are the relevant snippets from my logs:
Virus: Netsky.B
Received: from at
Virus: Bagle.C
Received: from at
All timestamps on the server are NTP-sync'ed against
Thanks for your time
"
Recently I've also included a more personalized
"Oh, and I have to commend your ISPs efficiency, as since march - you've managed to reduce the number of virus sending users to us from about per day, to this
You could probably just adapt what I'm writing to something saying that a customer of theirs probably has been cracked, and that they are currently scanning for
If it's the actual cracker that's stupid enough to use his own computer, he'll get scared enough if they contact him telling him that his computers has been abused by others to scan people -- and will probably quit doing it.
Last time I spoke to Per (Jon's father), he told me that Jon has moved to France. Still no DMCA, but maybe the EUCD will come in play quite a bit faster down there than here in Norway.
It will require one to reconfigure the gateway, which isn't something his mom could do - thus not interesting in this case.
The problem is that he is asking for the impossible, given that both ends use NAT, and neither end is technical enough to reconfigure their NAT-devide/gateway.
Typing in indeed an essencial skill, but it's quickly learned through computer use. Personally I type at an estimated 100-120wpm (Last test showed 109wpm, but it varies daily, and with the language typed).
:) The point is that I think that touch is an essiential skill, but that it's quickly learned thorugh intensive computer usage.
I learned touch-typing on my Amstrad in 1990-1991, without any external help (not even a touch-type program). In school I got an A (or at least, the norwegian equivalent which then was "S") - and learned to use the proper fingers at the proper keys, which I didn't know before - even though knowing the keyboard pretty good.
Since then the speed has, of course, only increased. I no longer use any programs to estimate my touch speed. I've sometimes just timed the speed with a simple "date ; cat | wc ; date" , and then used bc to calculate the speed.
Just did a quick test where I wrote out of the top of my head, and came out with a nice 616 characters/minute, or 118 wpm as it was. Not too bad, but on the other hand, I had to find something to write, and did a lot of manual corrections/rewriting of sentences.
Ahwell, enough bragging.
a simple little box, that I buy, perhaps two, configure, and send one to my mom.. she plugs it into her router..
:)
I have to reply twice, as I forgot to say how I manage to communicate securely with my parrents computers.
Both use SuSE Linux, I just SSH into my account, which works perfectly. I've also got the root passwords, so that I can do remote maintainance of both machines. Really nice.
It's not as if they're on the same LAN, but that could be fixed with the VPN-over-SSH howto, if I really wanted.
Because most home users seem to be behind NATs these days, and thus it's not very easy to make a "behind the router"-box.
I know it seems crazy, but it's not just the current batch of games that want you to have big, power-hungry cpu's
.. but considering that this i a pretty old system, and that the top of the line models these days are at least 3-5 times as fast as my current machine.. heh. :-)
.. and it sure as hell isn't important for my mum, my dad, or 99% of the computer-using people that such specialist tasks finish quickly.
Except for a very few specialist areas - yes, those are the only applications - and not even the current batch of games seem to rely mostly on CPU power, but on GPU power.
As the days move on, EVERYTHING will get bigger and smarter, until we reach a point where AI is king
We'll need a breakthrough in AI first. I doubt it will come very soon.
The drive for greater computing power far exceeds the limited requirements of the current moment in time.
I hear some people (like you) claim that. I don't agree. My computer (Duron 1300) is currently fast enough for me to have xmms in the background, several downloads going on, a mail client with tens of thousands of emails accessible, a web browser, a compilation of KDE 3.2beta2 in the background, and a gazillion of xterms lying around.
Oh, and I've got a good old Matrox G450, so I actually run a dual-monitor configuration.
The point is that most of the time, the AMD Duron 1300Mhz is more than fast enough for me. There is days where I could really use a little bit power, say, 20% more or so
There are of course CPU intensive tasks that will enter into every day use. Tasks like video editing, which currently is quite acceptable on top-of-the-line CPUs. Also, video encoding could probably be done quite a lot faster.
However, we're now talking very, VERY cpu intensive tasks. We're talking about tasks which really isn't interesting for everyone. Tasks that regular home computers now are able to fullfill.
The point is that regular people don't NEED much more power. Earlier on, we had to sit and wait for the computer to complete various tasks. These days, the tasks are just done 'whammo'.
Of course, I wish the compile time of KDE 3.2beta2 would be a bit quicker. It's not important for me to have it finish in less than a second though
Computers are approaching the needed speed. The NEED to get them faster isn't there any more. They're actually getting _fast enough_.
If only specialists need faster CPUs, what's the justification for pushing SMP machines into home machines? I can't see the average home user needing multi-processor systems any more than they need 3MHz CPUs...
Doing many tasks at the same time. One music player, one movie player shoveling a movie to the TV in another room, some CPU intensive work for the guy sitting at the computer, some this and some that, while the system still being responsive.
With a single CPU, this takes a lot of timing, prioritizing for interactive applications and a lot of _crap_. With several CPUs the CPU intensive tasks gets their own CPU, while the less intensive tasks just sits on a mostly idle CPU.
Curious that you see no requirement for a single CPU to get faster yet desire to see multi-CPU configurations become the norm. That doesn't make any sense. Two half speed CPU's are a liablity compare to a single full speed one though a system designed in that manner may be much easier to build.
It makes lots of sense.
With one CPU, one task typically occupies the entire CPU for an an entire timeslice, however that is defined by the kernel at hand.
With two CPU's, two different tasks may occupie the different CPU's, running in parallell.
If only one of the two tasks is CPU intensive, the entire system is still extremely responsive, as they've got an idle cpu there ready for use.
on an off-topic notem, anyone remembers the day when a passive heat sink does the job without the fan on your CPU?
:)
I, then guy you're answering too, remember. I also remember when I didn't even need a heat sink.
What I really want is for computing to return to the days of the heat sink. No movable parts for cooling is a good thing. Less maintainance.
I don't see any reason to return to the pre-heatsink days though, as a heatsink isn't a moveable part.
Some people here doesn't seem to realize that what I'm stating as my personal wishlist isn't what I want _today_, it's where I really wish companies put their research and development.
More people than me seem to have noticed that clock speeds seems to have stalled. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing - as computers has grown fast enough for me lately. I'm still content with my 1.3Ghz Duron.
.. specialist tasks.
What I personally really, really want to see is cooler CPU's. CPU's that doesn't require a huge fucking fan. CPU's that are content with a heatsink would be nice.
Furthermore, I would love it if Dual configuration became more widespread (and thus cheaper). Personally I would love a multi-CPU machine far more than single-CPU ones.
My personal wishlist:
- 64bit CPUs to become the norm (seems to be happening).
- Cooler CPUs, not requiring fans (seems to be happening, look at the VIA EDEN CPU's)
- Dual/Quad/Multi -CPU configurations becoming the norm in home computers.
I don't care much whether single CPU's grow much faster at the moment, as there doesn't seem to be applications requiering it for regular use. There are of course specialist tasks that require more horsepower, but those are
ICANN's SSAC came up with the right answer with respect to Verisign's "Sitefinder" but they did so using a method that contains the seeds of an even greater danger to the net: unprincipled and subjective condemnation of change on the net.
While I certainly think it is good that people are sceptical to ICANN, I think this issue is the wrong time to voice those concerns. As you yourself state in your blog - "Sitefinder is so bad that the fact that ICANN is using vigilante methods to combat Sitefinder might be overlooked in our emotional reactions to the situation."
Sitefinder was incredibly bad. I had scripts failing all over the place due to not being able to rely on DNS providing proper "host not found" answers any more. I'm sure I was not the only one.
While I agree that the report could've been better - the important thing in this case is to support ICANN. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least temporarily - and at least about this issue.
There is a proper time and place for criticism. This is not the proper time to criticise ICANN, in my opinion.
Personally I've got no problem pedaling up to 30mph on a flat road, and reaching 40mph is a breeze downhill.
On the other hand, I've got 53/12 teeth on my bike.
Also note, I'm just bicycling to/from work every day, but after cycling both summer and winter the last two and a half year, the speed has picked up quite a bit.
I'm quite amazed that this isn't already demanded for broadcasters. I would think they should be required to provide full recordings of every program they make (but drop the advertisement), and submit to the national library.
I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, that this is already done in Norway - and everything is archived in the national library. I'll have to say I would be terribly disappointed if this isn't done.
Remember that great scifi-series has been lost for all time, due to not beeing archived. Great shows has gone down the drain forever.
In an ideal future, all such materiell would also, after a time, be made available for the general public through the Internet.
I seem to remember that BBC had some plans about making all their stuff available. Not sure what came out of that though, but it would be truly wonderfull.
Fedora works fine - why dont you actually try it instead of super-imposing your impressions of RedHat 6 onto a wondeful distro...
:-)
I admit it, I've not tried Fedora. However, I was forced to use Redhat 7.X, Redhat 8 and Redhat 9. To be quite honest, RedHat 6 was the last version of RedHat I used and was satisified with.
In the fall, I'll be forced to use RHEL 3. I don't look forward to it. It _may_ be that I'll be surprised, but I wouldn't expect so.
Anyways, compare that to SuSE, and I hated the guts of the distro when it was version 5.1 or something, started to like it around 7.3, and has loved it since 8.0
What a load of bullshit.
I'm not sure whether to rant or just refute you. WINE is a commercial product, offered to make it easy to get games running under Linux. If you think 'gamers' under linux automatically is far superior technically to 'gamers' under Windows, I think you're mistaken.
Linux is an easy to use desktop product, for everyone. You make it sound like it more difficult to use than windows.
In this case, it was no doubt more difficult to use, and I can understand it - as we're talking about software that implements a closed source system of libraries, to get programs using those libraries to run under linux.
However, when offered commercially it should be a bit easier to use. It should not pose newbies a great deal of stress to get it working.
Oh how I hate people with that attitude. :-)
:-D
I'm not a driver (well, I've got a driving licence, but no car). I'm a cyclist. There is nothing more annoying than a slow moving car snailing along at 20mph when I'm in a training session - treading along at 30mph. It invariably causes me to be pissed of and just pass the slow driving sucker.
Who far to often doesn't like being passed by a fast moving cyclist.
Yeah, I know, I'm a dangerous asshole cyclist in the traffic, but eyh, it's my health - and I've never had a traffic accident yet.
Java is indeed heavily used - in some areas. It's in extreme usage "server-side", and many people develop applications in Java - for servers.
;)
On the client, however, you'll find it far less often. I use a java client when no other alternatives exist. Java has always been an incredible memory hog for me. I don't like using java on the client. It's mostly slow and unresponsive.
Personally I vastly prefer to use C or C++ programs, as they tend to be much nicer to use. In addition, they tend to have the same interface as the rest of the programs in my desktop environments.
Well, it was published on bugtraq 'late last month'.
> The underlying issue is quite simple - Access to
.. 6 or 7 or something. No restrictions, except on 'time'. My parents wanted me to call home if I were going to be "late" - "late" being defined as "not home by 16:00" or something similiar.
.. woods they didn't know, by the way ;D
> the Internet is the equivalent of allowing your
> kids to leave the yard without permission, not
> bothering to know where they are, who they're
> contacting or being contacted by and generally
> leaving them at the mercy of the big, bad world.
I think this may be the core of the problem, and why I disagree so vehemently against filtering.
When I grew up, I could go wherever I wanted after the age of
A few years later, say when I was 8-9, I could just say that I would be playing in the woods with friends, and would be home by 19:00 or something, and that was okay with them. We did crazy dangerous things - but nobody got more seriously hurt than a few broken bones.
The freedom to explore was very important to me as a kid. I had a pretty strict curfew (is that the right word? Time you had to be home by) - and my parents asked who I was going to be with, but they never knew where we actually were going - except "in the woods"
Oh how I would love that application of it in Norway. Unfortunately it's not allowed. The "problem" with this solution is that if there happens an accident - one "should" be able to call the norwegian equivalent of 911.
I think it sucks too.
I'll be quite blunt. I'm not reading slashdot to read "funny" commentaries by anonymous trolls in stories. And then this kind of idiotic troll story comes along.
Who the fuck cares if it is "funny"? It's ridiculous to interview a fraud about how (s)he predicts the games will turn out.
Anyone could do the same guesswork. Even the anonymous GNAA-trolls here at slashdot could do this. Why the fuck this is a slashdot-worthy story at all is beyond me.
*blargh!*