and that's why they're soooooooo big on everything being exactly the same in every restaurant (food-wise, anyway). You go there and you know what you're gonna get, no surprises. It's one of their keys to success.
But, you're wrong.
If you've been to McDonalds in the US and compare it to say McDonalds in the Philippines - you should notice a major difference in the food.
First of all, the US version will be flat, horrible and not look like the pictures at all. It's to damp buns with a meatpatty in the middle. Or three damp buns with two meatpatties for a Big Mac. With some salad. And it looks horrible.
Now, if you order the same thing in the Philippines, or any other country where a McDonalds job is a GOOD job and not just what poor people and students do - and you'll see the burgers being beautiful and look like in the *pictures* in the resto. The texture and taste is better too.
The leap from LP -> Cassette -> CD -> Music DVD -> Music BlueRay/whatever are much smaller than the leap from [Physical media] -> [small convenient files]
You can argue that the CD was digital and didn't require special ripping, you could just read the bits of'em and then play them from a computer. Except most computers didn't have 600MB drives in the 80s when the CDs started appearing. Those weren't common until around the mid 90s. And who would want to use their entire hard drive to rip a CD?
The amazing jump was when we went from having a handful of music, an album or so, per physical unit.. to having a physical unit containing more music than you're probably ever gonna bother listening to. That was the huge leap.
The same with VHS->DVD->Blueray. Whatever. It's a movie per physical unit. Now, if we just use a good codec for compression we can rip this into a nice mkv file with tons of subtitles and audio tracks for various languages - and store an amazing number of them on a simple USB stick. If we're not afraid of carrying around a little external usb drive, we can have *thousands* of them with us. Compared to one per unit with the 'old' style.
The implementation we have at Google is obviously just 'yet another hack'. It's not lossy in the same way as unix time is lossy - but we're using unix time, but with a "hack" to avoid having a repeat-second.
Thanks for the pointer! I've just had a skim through it.
Initial thoughts: code is king. If it gets adopted, then that's what we have to deal with.
Personal opinion; the standard is.. not the way I'd like it to be. Neither for TZ nor leapsecond information. I dislike the idea of stashing this in a SRV record in DNS. I dislike the lack of authority on where the information comes from. A laptop moving from one network to another could be in contact with systems that provide TZ data from different sources, but legitimate from the standard, instead of a single source of internet-wide truth.
I furthermore dislike the complexity of the standard. The TZ data really doesn't need localization. This can be provided client side. Imagine a laptop talking to one TZ server not understanding the replies from a different one, due to localization [not entirely sure if this is correct, I might have skimmed too quickly].
Then we have the 'version' string in the replies that is sloppily defined. Why have it so general, instead of a simple.. timestamp in seconds since epoch?
There are lots of other nits and pieces I rather dislike - but also the entire idea that we should base it on HTTP and JSON. It also seems a bit too closely integrated with iCal from the get go.
To sum it up: I'm not a fan of the standard. But as I didn't put my money where my mouth is and created my own when I started becoming interested in this problem some ~10 years ago, I'll go "mergh. ok then" if it's adopted in general.
First off, the problem with leap seconds and unix is that unix time isn't UTC. Unix time is defined as seconds since epoch, ignoring leapseconds. Unix time is 'lossy' in that a the moment a leapsecond occurs can't be differentiated from the second before it. More information about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem is that POSIX.1 is plain stupid when it comes to leapsecond.
The correct solution to this problem would be as follows: 1. Fix POSIX.1 to define unix time as TAI. 2. Implement conversion routines i gettimeofday and other relevant functions. 3. Use a handy store for leapseconds.
Now, number 3 here is a bit tricky. Purists would probably want this in the TZ database or somesuch. This is well and good, but has the problem that the TZ files need to be packaged and updated on all the servers. If I remember correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) Java is shipped with its own TZ files, and might also need them updated separately. Due to this, I think the most maintainable and portable way to do this across unixes would be to simply have an/etc/leapseconds file which lists the leapseconds since epoch. It does, however, depend on unix time being defined as TAI first.
No, the most annoying thing in IT is the person you're responding to, who doesn't understand how TLS for email works in the first place, but pretends to do so, and participates in discussions as if he knows the subject matter at hand.
The error being that there is no encryption applied by the person who writes the email, but opportunistically by the email servers if both sending and receiving email servers supports TLS. This is done transparantly to the end users (ie the people who write the email).
It's always hilarious when people pretending to be techies on slashdot discuss technical matters without understanding the matter at hand.
There is no encryption being removed here. What is being removed is the negotiation of encryption. There's a huge difference.
What happens here is that modern MTAs that are configured to use TLS will issue a STARTTLS command to the receiving email server. If the receiving email server is configured to accept TLS connection, it will respond in kind. If it rejects the command, the conversation continues unencrypted.
Most email servers are still not configured to use TLS.
What happens in this case is removal of ngeotiation of opportunistic encryption. It's of course very very wrong to do this, but it does not remove existing encryption - it prevents it from happening in the first place. It makes the parties believe that neither side supports it.
Given your description, you're the sole sysadmin. This means you're the person who should take these decision - nobody else. If the company disagrees with this, then either you've done a poor job previously, or they don't trust you to do your job for some strange reason.
Now, if it's you that have fscked up on previous occasions, then it's understandable that they want the red tape.
If you haven't, then it's time to put down the foot and say "Nope, that's my job". If they disagree with that - linkedin should be a relatively short distance away, and after you find yourself a new job - simply hand in your resignation pointing out that you have no interest in having babysitters.
Taxes & import duty are very tiny. You've got some of the most beautiful nature you can imagine. There's lots of researchers connected with universities etc. - making for lots of interesting people to talk with.
A lot of the turnover is actually students wrapping up their studies.
This is quite an interesting idea. DYI drones are getting more and more common - and there are plenty of people with electronics background who can make the control interface.
Make the commands sent to the drone be sent encrypted/signed - allowing automatic handoffs between controlling terminals.
It would be pretty easy to make drones do the 'chore' of crossing international borders for you. Just put out a couple of 'base stations' that are quiet unless the drone is coming by.. and which directs the drone when it is close.
I'm wondering how well prepared border control / custom agents are for taking down fast moving drones that sweep in pretty low.
I'm sorry, but first off - Magnus Carlsen has been an extremely well known chess player since 2004. Justin Bieber was discovered when? 2008?
Secondly, while Bieber is famous for being famous.. Carlsen is famous for using his brain and becoming the world champion of chess. He built his career around his brain. Yes, some fashion agency also discovered his good looks and started sponsoring him and using him as a model - but that's not his main work. It's a hobby thing on the side. Good for him.
For those slightly interested in chess, but not interested enough to normally follow ratings and such - take a look at: http://2700chess.com/ for the up to date live ratings.
Aronian is doing a massive jump these days due to Tata Steel. I'm guessing the next WCC match will be between Carlsen and Aronian. They're typically rather evenly matched.
Uhm. Easy to fake? So, how will they fake out the huge amount of telescopes that will be pointed at the moon when they approach? How do they fake the large amount of listening posts that will listen for the chinese signals from the moon?
Not to mention, flybys by other nations, later, will look for the equipment. It would be kind of embarrassing when nobody can find it.;)
The computer would not need a history of games of the opponents.
Computer chess has moved so far ahead of human players that Carlsen would have been utterly destroyed. These days, spectators watch the game with chess computers on the side, since the chess computers can tell properly which player is ahead, while spectators wouldn't be able to tell properly.
Chess engines such as Houdini, Stockfish and a variety of others have ratings well above 3100. Carlsen has a rating of 2872. He would be crushed.
I really do hate overloading acronyms. SSH / SSHD is pretty well known already. It's what most unix folks (and I really do hope that that is the majority of slashdot readership) use to log on to servers every single day.
I hear people claiming that about the command line, but this has never rang true to me. We probably use computers in very different ways.
I have two 'defaults'. Either I'm using various terminal based programs, or I use a webbrowser.
email? Check. Using mutt. IRC? Check. Using irssi. Web? Chrome.
I need to edit something / write something down? I've never come across anything better than vim (emacs would've been just as useful if it was my editor of choice). I'll write my stuff there, and store it in text files. Calculations? bc is usually all I need. What if I need to manipulate some data files of some random human readable format? I usually just grab for perl.
Almost everything I do, is done either done in the shell, or is done in the webbrowser. Now, my use case is obviously different than yours.
I've been using computers since '86. Was a huge fan of DOS back in the day. Didn't like Windows 95 much, but eventually installed it in '98. That didn't last too long - around April or March '09 I figured I should try out Linux. First I went with slack, which didn't work out for me. I seem to remember that I first went for Debian, and then later on for SuSE for some years. Then it was a series of SuSE->Mandrake->SuSE->Ubuntu.
I had to fiddle a bit with Win2000 as a window desktop, and then later fiddle a bit with I think it was Win2000 or was it 2003(?) on a few servers. The main bulk of the servers were Linux and Solaris.
I very seldomly had to help out some XP users. I've barely touched Vista, and I don't think I've seen more than one computer w/Win7 ever. Anything newer than that and I haven't seen it at all.
Now; why won't I touch Windows? Quite simple - I have no clue how to do stuff with them. Family has been converted to Linux (and some Mac) years ago. I wouldn't know a thing about how to get stuff done. I've heard rumors that powershell is kind of cool - but I'm familiar with bash that I guess my only option for windows would've been cygwin - but that feels kind of bastardized instead of just having a desktop I immediately feel familiar with.
I'm pretty sure windows is quite cool for those who knows how to use it, but it ain't me.
Slashdot Mirror
and that's why they're soooooooo big on everything being exactly the same in every restaurant (food-wise, anyway). You go there and you know what you're gonna get, no surprises. It's one of their keys to success.
But, you're wrong.
If you've been to McDonalds in the US and compare it to say McDonalds in the Philippines - you should notice a major difference in the food.
First of all, the US version will be flat, horrible and not look like the pictures at all. It's to damp buns with a meatpatty in the middle. Or three damp buns with two meatpatties for a Big Mac. With some salad. And it looks horrible.
Now, if you order the same thing in the Philippines, or any other country where a McDonalds job is a GOOD job and not just what poor people and students do - and you'll see the burgers being beautiful and look like in the *pictures* in the resto. The texture and taste is better too.
Oh Kjella, how I disagree with you!
The leap from LP -> Cassette -> CD -> Music DVD -> Music BlueRay/whatever are much smaller than the leap from [Physical media] -> [small convenient files]
You can argue that the CD was digital and didn't require special ripping, you could just read the bits of'em and then play them from a computer. Except most computers didn't have 600MB drives in the 80s when the CDs started appearing. Those weren't common until around the mid 90s. And who would want to use their entire hard drive to rip a CD?
The amazing jump was when we went from having a handful of music, an album or so, per physical unit .. to having a physical unit containing more music than you're probably ever gonna bother listening to. That was the huge leap.
The same with VHS->DVD->Blueray. Whatever. It's a movie per physical unit. Now, if we just use a good codec for compression we can rip this into a nice mkv file with tons of subtitles and audio tracks for various languages - and store an amazing number of them on a simple USB stick. If we're not afraid of carrying around a little external usb drive, we can have *thousands* of them with us. Compared to one per unit with the 'old' style.
It was big for quite a bit more than a week. Several years in fact. But then it just .. died. Which was sad.
I seem to remember it basically died and nobody cared for it anymore around 2002-2004 or thereabouts.
There was a lot of deaths in concentration camps, but they weren't designed as extermination camps.
Wikipedia, as always, is rather useful for a definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Let me pile on as another Googler.
The feeling of outrage within the organization was palpable.
The feeling of betrayal, fury and pure anger towards the NSA.
Hello there cpt obvious. :-)
The implementation we have at Google is obviously just 'yet another hack'. It's not lossy in the same way as unix time is lossy - but we're using unix time, but with a "hack" to avoid having a repeat-second.
It's a nasty hack. It works, but it's nasty.
Thanks for the pointer! I've just had a skim through it.
Initial thoughts: code is king. If it gets adopted, then that's what we have to deal with.
Personal opinion; the standard is .. not the way I'd like it to be. Neither for TZ nor leapsecond information. I dislike the idea of stashing this in a SRV record in DNS. I dislike the lack of authority on where the information comes from. A laptop moving from one network to another could be in contact with systems that provide TZ data from different sources, but legitimate from the standard, instead of a single source of internet-wide truth.
I furthermore dislike the complexity of the standard. The TZ data really doesn't need localization. This can be provided client side. Imagine a laptop talking to one TZ server not understanding the replies from a different one, due to localization [not entirely sure if this is correct, I might have skimmed too quickly].
Then we have the 'version' string in the replies that is sloppily defined. Why have it so general, instead of a simple .. timestamp in seconds since epoch?
There are lots of other nits and pieces I rather dislike - but also the entire idea that we should base it on HTTP and JSON. It also seems a bit too closely integrated with iCal from the get go.
To sum it up: I'm not a fan of the standard. But as I didn't put my money where my mouth is and created my own when I started becoming interested in this problem some ~10 years ago, I'll go "mergh. ok then" if it's adopted in general.
Leapseconds aren't due to the time it takes to orbit around the sun, but due to the time it takes for the earth to spin around its own axis.
The earths is spinning sliiiightly slower over time.
David Mills approach is a hack around a broken standard, namely POSIX.1. It's a good hack.
Your solution is obvious and correct, but isn't possible to implement while being POSIX compliant.
We all suffer from a broken standard. It's not possible to be both posix compliant and doing this correctly.
First off, the problem with leap seconds and unix is that unix time isn't UTC. Unix time is defined as seconds since epoch, ignoring leapseconds. Unix time is 'lossy' in that a the moment a leapsecond occurs can't be differentiated from the second before it. More information about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem is that POSIX.1 is plain stupid when it comes to leapsecond.
The correct solution to this problem would be as follows:
1. Fix POSIX.1 to define unix time as TAI.
2. Implement conversion routines i gettimeofday and other relevant functions.
3. Use a handy store for leapseconds.
Now, number 3 here is a bit tricky. Purists would probably want this in the TZ database or somesuch. This is well and good, but has the problem that the TZ files need to be packaged and updated on all the servers. If I remember correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) Java is shipped with its own TZ files, and might also need them updated separately. Due to this, I think the most maintainable and portable way to do this across unixes would be to simply have an /etc/leapseconds file which lists the leapseconds since epoch. It does, however, depend on unix time being defined as TAI first.
Sometimes I wonder whether the US has a similar troll-farm like Russia has. Where people get paid to post inane comments instead rational thought.
If you actually aren't such a troll, it might be a good idea to read up on who the person is, and read up on the issue at hand.
Norway would have no problems paying of it's debts immediately.
I'm rather annoyed that you think I'll be dead before I'm 95. I was planning to live until at least 100.
Rephrased: There'll be plenty of current google and nasa employees still alive in 60 years.
No, the most annoying thing in IT is the person you're responding to, who doesn't understand how TLS for email works in the first place, but pretends to do so, and participates in discussions as if he knows the subject matter at hand.
The error being that there is no encryption applied by the person who writes the email, but opportunistically by the email servers if both sending and receiving email servers supports TLS. This is done transparantly to the end users (ie the people who write the email).
Oh come on.
It's always hilarious when people pretending to be techies on slashdot discuss technical matters without understanding the matter at hand.
There is no encryption being removed here. What is being removed is the negotiation of encryption. There's a huge difference.
What happens here is that modern MTAs that are configured to use TLS will issue a STARTTLS command to the receiving email server. If the receiving email server is configured to accept TLS connection, it will respond in kind. If it rejects the command, the conversation continues unencrypted.
Most email servers are still not configured to use TLS.
What happens in this case is removal of ngeotiation of opportunistic encryption. It's of course very very wrong to do this, but it does not remove existing encryption - it prevents it from happening in the first place. It makes the parties believe that neither side supports it.
If that was a serious question, and not trolling:
The in-addr.arpa DNS zone is used for reverse DNS.
Basically, you forward-map hostnames to IP addresses. At the same time, you can reverse-map IP-addresses to hostnames.
The forward mapping is done via 'A' records.
The reverse mapping is done via 'PTR' records, and it's done in the in-addr.arpa hiearchy.
Given your description, you're the sole sysadmin. This means you're the person who should take these decision - nobody else. If the company disagrees with this, then either you've done a poor job previously, or they don't trust you to do your job for some strange reason.
Now, if it's you that have fscked up on previous occasions, then it's understandable that they want the red tape.
If you haven't, then it's time to put down the foot and say "Nope, that's my job". If they disagree with that - linkedin should be a relatively short distance away, and after you find yourself a new job - simply hand in your resignation pointing out that you have no interest in having babysitters.
What repopulates the area? Easy.
Taxes & import duty are very tiny. You've got some of the most beautiful nature you can imagine. There's lots of researchers connected with universities etc. - making for lots of interesting people to talk with.
A lot of the turnover is actually students wrapping up their studies.
This is quite an interesting idea. DYI drones are getting more and more common - and there are plenty of people with electronics background who can make the control interface.
Make the commands sent to the drone be sent encrypted/signed - allowing automatic handoffs between controlling terminals.
It would be pretty easy to make drones do the 'chore' of crossing international borders for you. Just put out a couple of 'base stations' that are quiet unless the drone is coming by .. and which directs the drone when it is close.
I'm wondering how well prepared border control / custom agents are for taking down fast moving drones that sweep in pretty low.
I'm sorry, but first off - Magnus Carlsen has been an extremely well known chess player since 2004. Justin Bieber was discovered when? 2008?
Secondly, while Bieber is famous for being famous.. Carlsen is famous for using his brain and becoming the world champion of chess. He built his career around his brain. Yes, some fashion agency also discovered his good looks and started sponsoring him and using him as a model - but that's not his main work. It's a hobby thing on the side. Good for him.
For those slightly interested in chess, but not interested enough to normally follow ratings and such - take a look at: http://2700chess.com/ for the up to date live ratings.
Aronian is doing a massive jump these days due to Tata Steel. I'm guessing the next WCC match will be between Carlsen and Aronian. They're typically rather evenly matched.
Uhm. Easy to fake? So, how will they fake out the huge amount of telescopes that will be pointed at the moon when they approach? How do they fake the large amount of listening posts that will listen for the chinese signals from the moon?
Not to mention, flybys by other nations, later, will look for the equipment. It would be kind of embarrassing when nobody can find it. ;)
The computer would not need a history of games of the opponents.
Computer chess has moved so far ahead of human players that Carlsen would have been utterly destroyed. These days, spectators watch the game with chess computers on the side, since the chess computers can tell properly which player is ahead, while spectators wouldn't be able to tell properly.
Chess engines such as Houdini, Stockfish and a variety of others have ratings well above 3100. Carlsen has a rating of 2872. He would be crushed.
I really do hate overloading acronyms. SSH / SSHD is pretty well known already. It's what most unix folks (and I really do hope that that is the majority of slashdot readership) use to log on to servers every single day.
C'mon.
I hear people claiming that about the command line, but this has never rang true to me. We probably use computers in very different ways.
I have two 'defaults'. Either I'm using various terminal based programs, or I use a webbrowser.
email? Check. Using mutt.
IRC? Check. Using irssi.
Web? Chrome.
I need to edit something / write something down? I've never come across anything better than vim (emacs would've been just as useful if it was my editor of choice). I'll write my stuff there, and store it in text files. Calculations? bc is usually all I need. What if I need to manipulate some data files of some random human readable format? I usually just grab for perl.
Almost everything I do, is done either done in the shell, or is done in the webbrowser. Now, my use case is obviously different than yours.
I've been using computers since '86. Was a huge fan of DOS back in the day. Didn't like Windows 95 much, but eventually installed it in '98. That didn't last too long - around April or March '09 I figured I should try out Linux. First I went with slack, which didn't work out for me. I seem to remember that I first went for Debian, and then later on for SuSE for some years. Then it was a series of SuSE->Mandrake->SuSE->Ubuntu.
I had to fiddle a bit with Win2000 as a window desktop, and then later fiddle a bit with I think it was Win2000 or was it 2003(?) on a few servers. The main bulk of the servers were Linux and Solaris.
I very seldomly had to help out some XP users. I've barely touched Vista, and I don't think I've seen more than one computer w/Win7 ever. Anything newer than that and I haven't seen it at all.
Now; why won't I touch Windows? Quite simple - I have no clue how to do stuff with them. Family has been converted to Linux (and some Mac) years ago. I wouldn't know a thing about how to get stuff done. I've heard rumors that powershell is kind of cool - but I'm familiar with bash that I guess my only option for windows would've been cygwin - but that feels kind of bastardized instead of just having a desktop I immediately feel familiar with.
I'm pretty sure windows is quite cool for those who knows how to use it, but it ain't me.