You forgot to mention that your gas costs count only for yourself, and at that gas pricing rate, you may not have any passengers. To carry passengers, you'd have to multiply your gas prices by the appropriate number of people in the car, even though you will still be using the same amount of gas.
Trend Micro, who is one of the better Anti Virus vendors, if not the best, IMHO, has been providing Linux anti-virus software for as long as I have been aware of them:
I posted this the last time, but since it didn't get much notice (I posted it quite late), I'll repeat myself.
It seems there is still time to enter the Google Programming Contest and although I have neither the time nor the skill to do it, I do have an interesting idea if someone else wants to take a shot at it.
Years ago, The Hollywood Stock Exchange was a somewhat popular game (maybe it still is, but it doesn't really interest me). The general idea being that you could "Buy shares of your favorite actors, movies, and music artists and watch their values rise or fall based on the success of their careers and personal life."
It would be interesting to see a similar game based on the popularity of queries. It's clear from the Google Zeitgeist that certain search terms do gain and lose popularity on a regular basis, and for someone tapped in to mainstream culture, it may not be too hard to predict.
I suppose you could do the same thing with the other info there (Browsers, OSs, Current Events, etc.) but I don't think it would be as interesting. Although... Anime searches might be neat.
Anyhow, just an idea I'd love to see someone run with.
It seems there is still time to enter the Google Programming Contest and although I have neither the time nor the skill to do it, I do have an interesting idea if someone else wants to take a shot at it.
Years ago, The Hollywood Stock Exchange was a somewhat popular game (maybe it still is, but it doesn't really interest me). The general idea being that you could "Buy shares of your favorite actors, movies, and music artists and watch their values rise or fall based on the success of their careers and personal life."
It would be interesting to see a similar game based on the popularity of queries. It's clear from the Google Zeitgeist that certain search terms do gain and lose popularity on a regular basis, and for someone tapped in to mainstream culture, it may not be too hard to predict.
I suppose you could do the same thing with the other info there (Browsers, OSs, Current Events, etc.) but I don't think it would be as interesting. Although... Anime searches might be neat.
Anyhow, just an idea I'd love to see someone run with.
Sneakers was a little bit of a stretch, but pretty accurate, if you suspend disbelief long enough to assume a device could be created that would do the instant decryption thing.
Actually, one of the cooler things about Sneakers, is that (right now) there is no way to prove that such a device can't be built, assuming it's purpose is to be used against private/public key encryption, or anything that doesn't use a OTP.
Or am I wrong? I haven't seen the movie in a long time, and admit I may be missing a point somewhere.
  You obviously have no idea what you are talking about...
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
  What's the largest code base you've worked on? Ever deployed to 200 servers? 80,000 simultaneous users.... I'm guessing no... and since, traffic wise, Everquest is nearly 1/4 of Yahoo's traffic (and the game logic is much more complicated then a web server) its quite a feat...
Well, I don't see what the size of a code base has to do with piss-poor administration of servers. If the server crashes, figure out why (sometimes referred to as troubleshooting), and take steps to prevent it from happening again. Period.
  And there is no such thing as bugless code.
This is just wrong, and I don't think you that meant to make such an all encompassing statement. Surely, the more complex code gets, the harder it is to be certain that it is bug free, but to say it isn't possible is assinine. Regardless, if there are outright symptoms of bugs (servers constantly crashing) then you need to figure out why... simply using the excuse that all code is buggy, is lame.
  What there is though is the complexity of windows and the relative simplicity of a unix build built to match requirements.
I am not arguing with this, nor did I at anytime. I am a strong supporter of the right tool for the right job. This includes the right programmers and sysadmins for the job, which is my point.
  blatant MS loving is as pointless and uneducated as blatant MS bashing...
Please don't bother to put words in my mouth, I am quite capable of making an ass of myself without help. Not a single part of my post was in the slightest bit 'blatant MS loving', or even subtle MS loving. What I said holds true of any Server OS at all, which is why I never once mentioned MS, except to accuse you of slandering them without any evidence (other than the 'I'm not at liberty to say' bit, which if this is truly the case, you should have STFU to begin with).
"These servers are in two locations and they have two FULL TIME employees who walk around all day -- their sole job.... reseting crashed NT servers.... yes, that's right. full time server reset people... "
This sounds to me more like a management problem.
Instead of having two full-time employees walk around all day rebooting servers, why not just hire one competent sysadmin to read the fucking logs and find out why the servers are crashing? Or maybe hire a few competent programmers (that find the problem and fix it, instead of whining about the OS) if it's the EQ code that's at fault?
Oh wait, my bad, I forgot this is Slashdot, where we bitch about MS, without a link or anything else substantial to back up our slander.
When someone from Las Vegas goes to their site, they advertise hookers and casinos, (since they are legal in vegas, lets entise the natives to go boost the economy!). Someone sitting in California goes to the same site and gets a banner for suntan lotion. Wow.. we just geographically marketed our products!
Having lived in Las Vegas, I can assure you that you have that backwards. It's the Southern Californians that you advertise Hookers and Casinos to, enticing them to boost our economy. Thus, no state taxes in NV.
And as someone else pointed out, Hookers are not legal in Las Vegas, although you'd find that hard to believe after a short walk down the strip, being offered hundreds of flyers.
And if you've ever watched Exchange2K failover on a Win2K cluster, you'd know that it can take several minutes for everything to come up on the second node, if you've got a lot of users.
If you've ever watched Exchange2K failover on a Win2K cluster, I pity you, for you've surely suffered through the same hell (especially pre-sp1) that so few of us have.
And if you have a lot of users, it certainly takes a long time. The cluster that I currently manage (until tomorrow, as I resigned) has a mere 600 users, a large percentage of which check their mail only twice a day, and the failover can take just as long as it takes to reboot the server, depending on how it's being used at the time of failover. In fact, I'd bet that the SQL cluster, used much more intensively, could failover and back again, several times, in the same amount of time.
-Tommy (who doesn't understand what use a cluster is, if you need to have a single point of failure front-end server to access it (yes I know there are ways around this, please don't flame me))
Hell, I'll play. I haven't been in a good old-fashioned flamewar in a long, long time. You want to bicker point by meaningless point? I'm in.
your comment, in parentheses was this:
(The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)
That, as I mentioned before, was NOT my comment, merely a tangential fact, which I found interesting, and decided to include.
But to keep things pedantic, let's look up the definition of comment. I'll use Merriam-Webster as my source, so there will hopefully be no conflict.
2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing
3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly
Hopefully I won't need to explain why a simple digression does not fall into any of those categories, but I will if you push the issue. But we'll move on for now.
The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse.
Funny, I don't recall implying anything. Perhaps what you meant was that you inferred, and incorrectly so, as I have a tendency, when writing, to craft my sentences to read exactly as I intend to convey information, because so much is lost in the written word that is conveyed through tone and body language in normal conversation. What I meant was that the WTC towers were designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them, and that I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen.
If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.
I would have almost preferred your reading my comment, without reading the link, and not have made assumptions about what I mean when I write it out in plain english. And again, what you think is your problem not mine.
It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.
There you go again, laying blame on me for implying something that you inferred.
Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.
Maybe you should be less anxious to prove it.
And for the record, my actual comment was totally wrong anyhow, as will be realized soon when they lift the blackout on information about the 5th plane. Feel free to try again at that time.
I've read that they were designed to handle impact from a 707, not a signigicantly larger jet (like the 737, 757, 767, etc). Did you even read your own link?
Umm. Did you even read my post before you decided to flame me? I don't remember writing that it was designed to be hit by a significantly larger jet. And I don't believe that the jet bit was anything more than a side-note on my comment, thus the parentheses. It just happened to be the only technical article I've seen on the whole matter, which was of interest to me, and so I'd thought I'd pass it on.
But thanks for being an asshole. Slashdot could never exist as it is without pedantic twits such as yourself.
All anyone is going to be able to do is speculate about where the fourth plane was heading, but to me, the current theories are just absurd.
The first targets were clearly chosen to take out buildings that had as many people as possible in them, were world renowned, and were supposedly indestructable/impenatrable. (The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)
So why then would Camp David, or any of the other theorized targets make any sense at all?
It seems rather obvious to me, especially from a systems design view, that the 4th plane was headed for the Pentagon as well. Full redundancy. Two targets, two attacks on each. Something is bound to get through. Everything else about this was clearly well planned, and if in fact some courageous passenger on the downed plane was responsible for saving the day, the attack was still succesful.
But of course, that's just more speculation to throw on top of the dogpile.
I'd agree with you that people need to stop getting hysterical about this, as it hinders clear and intelligent thinking. But as for not escalating this into a war, I'm not sure that's a good idea.
If it is possible to _prove_ that a certain country is responsible for this, it will be practically necessary to put a hurting on them, or there could potentially be far worse problems down the line. Just like dealing with the bullies in High School.
First off, if nothing were done in retaliation, then you are sending a clear signal to the terrorists that they can get away with it, and they'll likely progress onto worse behavior. Secondly, other would-be terrorist groups would see that the first group got away with what happened, and would be encouraged to try it themselves.
No, there won't be any winners. But the goverment is going to be under a lot of pressure to be sure that there aren't anymore incidents like this, and serious retaliation is likely going to be the best answer. The most important thing is to be sure that we retaliate against the right people.
And as for protesting any movement toward restricting your personal freedoms, I couldn't agree more. However, it's too bad most people don't care enough to even vote.
BTW: The latest GAP ads are just a rip-off of the video for "Around the World" - directed by the great Michel Gondry.
Just curious, where are you coming up with this from? I saw nothing in the GAP commercial which would imply that it was a rip-off of anything, unless you count Juliette Lewis dancing to Daft Punk's music, with Daft Punk themselves. And since Juliette Lewis isn't in "Around the World", and the song is from a different CD entirely, that leaves only the group, which means you could claim it was a rip-off of any video they appeared in.
So why "Around the World"?
-Tommy
Re:Perhaps we should reconsider...
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
I know the reaction to a suggestion that someone create a worm that "fixes" the effects of the various CR worms provoked a highly negative response
I would have agreed with you, and there was a debate about it in one of the earlier articles, but it seems that @home has no problems with that type of behavior. I found this interesting gem in my server logs last night:
At first I thought it was just another leet script kiddie, tap, tapping at my ports, but the originating address struck me as interesting, so I did a quick nslookup:
Authorized Scan?!? By whom?!? I don't recall the TOS mentioning anything about my ISP being authorized should they want to try rooting me...
I calmed down, thinking maybe it was just a one time scan, to see who was infected, but it has since popped up a few more times. And what's more, they certainly don't seem to have been very effective in doing anything, as I'm still being flooded as much as before.
(And yes, I realize this is not the exact same thing described by the parent, but it was similar, and reminded me about it, getting me fired up again.)
I submitted this as an article this morning, but as it is still pending, and both my home and work servers are still under constant annoyance, I figured I'd pass it on here as well. If you are running a Windows NT server, kindly do us all a favor and just turn it off for a few months.
According to yesterday's Handler's Diary on www.incidents.org, "Microsoft has confirmed that if an IIS 4.0 webserver is using
URL redirection, it is still vulnerable to Code Red even if
the Microsoft patch is installed". The only known solution is to remove all URL redirections from NT servers running IIS 4.0.
Maybe somebody already said this, but there is something missing here..
If they used the driver's license database to identify him, and track him down, wouldn't that same information also have shown that he was NOT who the woman claimed he was?
One thing though, this bot dosn't seem to have much 'context', if you don't include the topic of conversation in each message, it'll probably forget.
I dunno about that. We were talking about dreams (which it claims to have) when it accused me of changing the subject, "We were talking about dreams". I think I ticked it off...
Also, when it begins to act nonsensical, you can ask what "it" is, and it will tell you what it believes "it" to be, usually whatever it thinks is the current topic of conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to mention that your gas costs count only for yourself, and at that gas pricing rate, you may not have any passengers. To carry passengers, you'd have to multiply your gas prices by the appropriate number of people in the car, even though you will still be using the same amount of gas.
-Tommy
http://www.antivirus.com/download/
I posted this the last time, but since it didn't get much notice (I posted it quite late), I'll repeat myself.
It seems there is still time to enter the Google Programming Contest and although I have neither the time nor the skill to do it, I do have an interesting idea if someone else wants to take a shot at it.
Years ago, The Hollywood Stock Exchange was a somewhat popular game (maybe it still is, but it doesn't really interest me). The general idea being that you could "Buy shares of your favorite actors, movies, and music artists and watch their values rise or fall based on the success of their careers and personal life."
It would be interesting to see a similar game based on the popularity of queries. It's clear from the Google Zeitgeist that certain search terms do gain and lose popularity on a regular basis, and for someone tapped in to mainstream culture, it may not be too hard to predict.
I suppose you could do the same thing with the other info there (Browsers, OSs, Current Events, etc.) but I don't think it would be as interesting. Although... Anime searches might be neat.
Anyhow, just an idea I'd love to see someone run with.
-Tommy
It seems there is still time to enter the Google Programming Contest and although I have neither the time nor the skill to do it, I do have an interesting idea if someone else wants to take a shot at it.
Years ago, The Hollywood Stock Exchange was a somewhat popular game (maybe it still is, but it doesn't really interest me). The general idea being that you could "Buy shares of your favorite actors, movies, and music artists and watch their values rise or fall based on the success of their careers and personal life."
It would be interesting to see a similar game based on the popularity of queries. It's clear from the Google Zeitgeist that certain search terms do gain and lose popularity on a regular basis, and for someone tapped in to mainstream culture, it may not be too hard to predict.
I suppose you could do the same thing with the other info there (Browsers, OSs, Current Events, etc.) but I don't think it would be as interesting. Although... Anime searches might be neat.
Anyhow, just an idea I'd love to see someone run with.
-Tommy
I've often thught it ironic that one of the main qualifications for consuming alcohol is proof of being able to get into a car and drive afterwards...
-Tommy
According to the MS timeline, they "announced" Windows in 1983, however, it did not ship until 1985.
So whether or not they thought of it on their own, they had in fact thought of it by then.
-Tommy
Actually, one of the cooler things about Sneakers, is that (right now) there is no way to prove that such a device can't be built, assuming it's purpose is to be used against private/public key encryption, or anything that doesn't use a OTP.
Or am I wrong? I haven't seen the movie in a long time, and admit I may be missing a point somewhere.
-Tommy
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
  What's the largest code base you've worked on? Ever deployed to 200 servers? 80,000 simultaneous users.... I'm guessing no... and since, traffic wise, Everquest is nearly 1/4 of Yahoo's traffic (and the game logic is much more complicated then a web server) its quite a feat...
Well, I don't see what the size of a code base has to do with piss-poor administration of servers. If the server crashes, figure out why (sometimes referred to as troubleshooting), and take steps to prevent it from happening again. Period.
  And there is no such thing as bugless code.
This is just wrong, and I don't think you that meant to make such an all encompassing statement. Surely, the more complex code gets, the harder it is to be certain that it is bug free, but to say it isn't possible is assinine. Regardless, if there are outright symptoms of bugs (servers constantly crashing) then you need to figure out why... simply using the excuse that all code is buggy, is lame.
  What there is though is the complexity of windows and the relative simplicity of a unix build built to match requirements.
I am not arguing with this, nor did I at anytime. I am a strong supporter of the right tool for the right job. This includes the right programmers and sysadmins for the job, which is my point.
  blatant MS loving is as pointless and uneducated as blatant MS bashing...
Please don't bother to put words in my mouth, I am quite capable of making an ass of myself without help. Not a single part of my post was in the slightest bit 'blatant MS loving', or even subtle MS loving. What I said holds true of any Server OS at all, which is why I never once mentioned MS, except to accuse you of slandering them without any evidence (other than the 'I'm not at liberty to say' bit, which if this is truly the case, you should have STFU to begin with).
-Tommy
"These servers are in two locations and they have two FULL TIME employees who walk around all day -- their sole job .... reseting crashed NT servers.... yes, that's right. full time server reset people... "
This sounds to me more like a management problem.
Instead of having two full-time employees walk around all day rebooting servers, why not just hire one competent sysadmin to read the fucking logs and find out why the servers are crashing? Or maybe hire a few competent programmers (that find the problem and fix it, instead of whining about the OS) if it's the EQ code that's at fault?
Oh wait, my bad, I forgot this is Slashdot, where we bitch about MS, without a link or anything else substantial to back up our slander.
-Tommy
http://forms.real.com/real/player/player.html?src
Scroll down and there is a Unix verion available as well. -Tommy
Having lived in Las Vegas, I can assure you that you have that backwards. It's the Southern Californians that you advertise Hookers and Casinos to, enticing them to boost our economy. Thus, no state taxes in NV.
And as someone else pointed out, Hookers are not legal in Las Vegas, although you'd find that hard to believe after a short walk down the strip, being offered hundreds of flyers.
-Tommy
Can I have a mountain Dew?
If you've ever watched Exchange2K failover on a Win2K cluster, I pity you, for you've surely suffered through the same hell (especially pre-sp1) that so few of us have.
And if you have a lot of users, it certainly takes a long time. The cluster that I currently manage (until tomorrow, as I resigned) has a mere 600 users, a large percentage of which check their mail only twice a day, and the failover can take just as long as it takes to reboot the server, depending on how it's being used at the time of failover. In fact, I'd bet that the SQL cluster, used much more intensively, could failover and back again, several times, in the same amount of time.
-Tommy (who doesn't understand what use a cluster is, if you need to have a single point of failure front-end server to access it (yes I know there are ways around this, please don't flame me))
your comment, in parentheses was this:
That, as I mentioned before, was NOT my comment, merely a tangential fact, which I found interesting, and decided to include.
But to keep things pedantic, let's look up the definition of comment. I'll use Merriam-Webster as my source, so there will hopefully be no conflict.
Hopefully I won't need to explain why a simple digression does not fall into any of those categories, but I will if you push the issue. But we'll move on for now.
The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse.
Funny, I don't recall implying anything. Perhaps what you meant was that you inferred, and incorrectly so, as I have a tendency, when writing, to craft my sentences to read exactly as I intend to convey information, because so much is lost in the written word that is conveyed through tone and body language in normal conversation. What I meant was that the WTC towers were designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them, and that I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen.
If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.
I would have almost preferred your reading my comment, without reading the link, and not have made assumptions about what I mean when I write it out in plain english. And again, what you think is your problem not mine.
It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.
There you go again, laying blame on me for implying something that you inferred.
Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.
Maybe you should be less anxious to prove it.
And for the record, my actual comment was totally wrong anyhow, as will be realized soon when they lift the blackout on information about the 5th plane. Feel free to try again at that time.
-Tommy
Umm. Did you even read my post before you decided to flame me? I don't remember writing that it was designed to be hit by a significantly larger jet. And I don't believe that the jet bit was anything more than a side-note on my comment, thus the parentheses. It just happened to be the only technical article I've seen on the whole matter, which was of interest to me, and so I'd thought I'd pass it on.
But thanks for being an asshole. Slashdot could never exist as it is without pedantic twits such as yourself.
-Tommy
The first targets were clearly chosen to take out buildings that had as many people as possible in them, were world renowned, and were supposedly indestructable/impenatrable. (The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)
So why then would Camp David, or any of the other theorized targets make any sense at all?
It seems rather obvious to me, especially from a systems design view, that the 4th plane was headed for the Pentagon as well. Full redundancy. Two targets, two attacks on each. Something is bound to get through. Everything else about this was clearly well planned, and if in fact some courageous passenger on the downed plane was responsible for saving the day, the attack was still succesful.
But of course, that's just more speculation to throw on top of the dogpile.
Well put.
If it is possible to _prove_ that a certain country is responsible for this, it will be practically necessary to put a hurting on them, or there could potentially be far worse problems down the line. Just like dealing with the bullies in High School.
First off, if nothing were done in retaliation, then you are sending a clear signal to the terrorists that they can get away with it, and they'll likely progress onto worse behavior. Secondly, other would-be terrorist groups would see that the first group got away with what happened, and would be encouraged to try it themselves.
No, there won't be any winners. But the goverment is going to be under a lot of pressure to be sure that there aren't anymore incidents like this, and serious retaliation is likely going to be the best answer. The most important thing is to be sure that we retaliate against the right people.
And as for protesting any movement toward restricting your personal freedoms, I couldn't agree more. However, it's too bad most people don't care enough to even vote.
-Tommy
Just curious, where are you coming up with this from? I saw nothing in the GAP commercial which would imply that it was a rip-off of anything, unless you count Juliette Lewis dancing to Daft Punk's music, with Daft Punk themselves. And since Juliette Lewis isn't in "Around the World", and the song is from a different CD entirely, that leaves only the group, which means you could claim it was a rip-off of any video they appeared in.
So why "Around the World"?
-Tommy
I know the reaction to a suggestion that someone create a worm that "fixes" the effects of the various CR worms provoked a highly negative response
I would have agreed with you, and there was a debate about it in one of the earlier articles, but it seems that @home has no problems with that type of behavior. I found this interesting gem in my server logs last night:
2001-08-09 04:08:11 24.0.0.203 - me.me.me.me 80 GET /c/winnt/system32/cmd.exe /c+VER 404 -
At first I thought it was just another leet script kiddie, tap, tapping at my ports, but the originating address struck me as interesting, so I did a quick nslookup:
Name: authorized-scan1.security.home.net
Address: 24.0.0.203
Authorized Scan?!? By whom?!? I don't recall the TOS mentioning anything about my ISP being authorized should they want to try rooting me...
I calmed down, thinking maybe it was just a one time scan, to see who was infected, but it has since popped up a few more times. And what's more, they certainly don't seem to have been very effective in doing anything, as I'm still being flooded as much as before.
(And yes, I realize this is not the exact same thing described by the parent, but it was similar, and reminded me about it, getting me fired up again.)
-Tommy
Not surprisingly...
2001-08-09 15:17:15 WindowsNT still vulnerable after Code Red patches (articles,bug) (rejected)
I'm sure it'll be accepted by someone else around next tuesday.
- Tommy
I submitted this as an article this morning, but as it is still pending, and both my home and work servers are still under constant annoyance, I figured I'd pass it on here as well. If you are running a Windows NT server, kindly do us all a favor and just turn it off for a few months.
According to yesterday's Handler's Diary on www.incidents.org, "Microsoft has confirmed that if an IIS 4.0 webserver is using URL redirection, it is still vulnerable to Code Red even if the Microsoft patch is installed". The only known solution is to remove all URL redirections from NT servers running IIS 4.0.
-Tommy
Maybe somebody already said this, but there is something missing here..
If they used the driver's license database to identify him, and track him down, wouldn't that same information also have shown that he was NOT who the woman claimed he was?
WTF? How did that conversation go?
Nah. You could probably do that with 2 or 3 domains using Network Solutions as your registrar...
  -Tommy
I dunno about that. We were talking about dreams (which it claims to have) when it accused me of changing the subject, "We were talking about dreams". I think I ticked it off...
Also, when it begins to act nonsensical, you can ask what "it" is, and it will tell you what it believes "it" to be, usually whatever it thinks is the current topic of conversation.
-Tommy