Why does security matter? You just got way off topic. Yes i would only trust content off a low rent VPS if knew the guy but generally they are only good for static web pages. By the time security matters I would hope the system admin was more proficient at bash though ssh than with a laggy GUI.
If you are using tested server scripts* without trying to do anything tricky can be as secure as anyone else. For example if you just wanted a FTP server you could set up a anon chrooted vsftpd server, secure ssh and set up a firewall to drop all other connections (these are well tested FOSS "industry" standard software that take no time to set up if you have done it before).
Why would want windows on anything other than a desktop or a desktop server, let a lone an internet facing server? They exist because they work you don't need anything more.
Not to mention the internet cap and speed would cost at least 100 times the monthly fee where I live.
I know RAM is cheep but so is a "time-share" CPU. I am talking about 5 dollar or less a month VPS. I think they average about 20 VMs a box that are more than capable as web/file servers with infrequent access, you can split CPU and Network usage between everyone but you can't split RAM. Powering RAM is not an insignificant either when you are talking profit margins.
You can't get cheep windows VPSs probably due to the cost of windows license. I don't know why you would want to mount an ISO on a server with less than 256 MB of RAM but you could serve the content of an ISO from one if you somehow wanted to avoid extracting it.
You are right that any "machine" with the RAM to meet windows requirements probably can handle a GUI.
I am afraid, they would do the same, should they catch me jubilating;-).
Yes but you are implying that you will accept the legislation as the way politics are. You are saying that even though you don't like it if they do pass it you will do nothing meaningful about it. Knowing that (some) people have stated they will not protest against the legislation gives politicians more confidence to pass the bill.
No you just build it up a little more in some places i would think these would be custom built for perfect vision anyway. A contact lenses is just shaped plastic/glass. I guess it makes stocking lenses more difficult.
Easier solution: Wear glasses. Might have to get really rugged ones for military use.
Yeah glasses seem so much easier to make work for this.
I would assume its possible to shape them the same as normal contact and if they are not too thick it would be trivial to do so. It would be a replacement.
Re:Under actual news, IE 6 market share grows.
on
Firefox 10 Released
·
· Score: 1
Thats because people who use IE 6 used their browsers more. Unless its from XP priracy, I would check to see if it happends every Jan.
Seems like its targeted at the greedy who are unwilling to forego even one penny to help stem the tide of global warming.
No these people are quite content to carry on as usual believing that they will have the money to survive it. This piece is to confuse others trying to make their own judgments without learning the science. It tries to that the Scientists got it wrong and makes biased incorrect simplifications that try make people believe that climatology experts are not that intelligent and readers are just as capable of coming up with the correct answer. It then makes an attempt to supply them with information in a way to support a conformation bias (readers do not want to believe global warming).
Please don't give the opinion piece credibility by arguing with it. Its well written for its purpose but dissolves into FUD (targeted at the intelligent without scientific knowledge) by halfway though the summary.
We might have been sympathetic if he was making a small profit off file sharing but its a more than that and its little embarrassing hes in the country.
Sounds pretty bad to me although I think non-technical users might not care.
The less technical the users are the more they will care. To the people who just don't get computers not having a start button or desktop means they now know just a little more than before they started using windows. They will hate it because it they will have to figure out the crazy methods (see xkcd comic, cant find it) to do stuff all over again.
Looking at this from a very long perspective, one could say that the world wars (at least the second one) was a very catastrophic failure on the part of Germany/Japan due to their overly authoritarian government (I'm winging it here, I'm not a historian).
Neither lost because of an authoritarian government but i guess the non-authoritarian governments (and the USSR) ended up out numbering and isolating them.
The Media has said Counties have challenged the US their lead is still massive.
Have a look at what the authoritarian Communist government of China has archived since it got power they started with a pretty poor situation.
... the reason why the United States of America (may) remain the most powerful, prosperous country* in the world isn't because we aren't the best or most efficient or smartest.
.....
As I've gotten (much) older, I'm wondering if I see a personal corrolary to this; I've seen people do well not because they've had spectacular successes but because they've managed to avoided catastrophic failures. Sort of like the tortoise and the hare I guess.
Come on, the reason the US is prosperous is due to adequate leadership and coming out of both world wars far better off than any of the pre-war powers.
Since the Chinese government has power over the greatest amount of pollution, its participation in reduction treaties is essential, and its responsibility to the future the greatest.
Yes this i agree with but what should China's limit be relative to US. I am saying that the fair way to do this per capita which either means that the US needs to better than half its emissions or that China's limit would be set sufficiently high that it will not bother them until they are 4 times their current output.
You still are equating a right to pollute to a countries income/lifestyle
Just to clear up any ambiguities. I am not saying you think this is OK either, just that your justification requires it.
People in tents can't afford a lot of technologies used to pollute and therefore do not produce a lot of CO2. They will also not benefit from the car factory producing cars which will be bought mostly by "rich" or western people. Everyone suffers from global warming yet only the rich caused it.
We are producing more CO2 that can can be sustained (discuss the valididity of global warming elsewhere) you are saying that the rich can pollute more (take the tent dwellers share) because they are generating GDP, making money. The need for most luxury items that pollute is is a lifestyle thing and are not a right or necessity.
I guess you don't say it but i think you end up implying that the west can pollute more because we produce items needed for a western lifestyle. We could be using our excess money to lower our CO2 output to be closer to theirs and give up what can't be made sufficiently low carbon.
I see where you are coming from but GDP still a terribly unfair way to do it and i would expect make it very difficult for other countries to compete (your phone factory gets a heavy tax because we patented the efficient way), so they will never sign up.
Upping your GDP by selling luxury items that consume large amounts of energy such as a 6 litre Dodge Viper should not be a good reason for extra consumption of CO2.
I do agree that someone has to make efficient technology to replace the old though but this is not measured by GDP. Some kind of manufacturing metric could be factored in to the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does security matter? You just got way off topic. Yes i would only trust content off a low rent VPS if knew the guy but generally they are only good for static web pages.
By the time security matters I would hope the system admin was more proficient at bash though ssh than with a laggy GUI.
If you are using tested server scripts* without trying to do anything tricky can be as secure as anyone else. For example if you just wanted a FTP server you could set up a anon chrooted vsftpd server, secure ssh and set up a firewall to drop all other connections (these are well tested FOSS "industry" standard software that take no time to set up if you have done it before).
* don't know the fully inclusive word for these
Why would want windows on anything other than a desktop or a desktop server, let a lone an internet facing server?
They exist because they work you don't need anything more.
Not to mention the internet cap and speed would cost at least 100 times the monthly fee where I live.
I know RAM is cheep but so is a "time-share" CPU.
I am talking about 5 dollar or less a month VPS. I think they average about 20 VMs a box that are more than capable as web/file servers with infrequent access, you can split CPU and Network usage between everyone but you can't split RAM. Powering RAM is not an insignificant either when you are talking profit margins.
You can't get cheep windows VPSs probably due to the cost of windows license. I don't know why you would want to mount an ISO on a server with less than 256 MB of RAM but you could serve the content of an ISO from one if you somehow wanted to avoid extracting it.
You are right that any "machine" with the RAM to meet windows requirements probably can handle a GUI.
I am afraid, they would do the same, should they catch me jubilating ;-).
Yes but you are implying that you will accept the legislation as the way politics are.
You are saying that even though you don't like it if they do pass it you will do nothing meaningful about it. Knowing that (some) people have stated they will not protest against the legislation gives politicians more confidence to pass the bill.
Don't put your hopes to high. They are just waiting till the public's attention is elsewhere, e.g. occupied by a soccer cup.
Your open pessimism helps to make it acceptable for politicians to do this.
We as the users, want copyright laws that favour users and maybe hurt bad companies.
Both GPL and resonable copyright enforcement benifit users/consumers.
It'd raise the price hugely though.
No you just build it up a little more in some places i would think these would be custom built for perfect vision anyway. A contact lenses is just shaped plastic/glass. I guess it makes stocking lenses more difficult.
Easier solution: Wear glasses. Might have to get really rugged ones for military use.
Yeah glasses seem so much easier to make work for this.
I would assume its possible to shape them the same as normal contact and if they are not too thick it would be trivial to do so.
It would be a replacement.
Thats because people who use IE 6 used their browsers more. Unless its from XP priracy, I would check to see if it happends every Jan.
I thought they added 100 to the version numbers for the 6000 series.
You should compare to the HD5600s.
Seems like its targeted at the greedy who are unwilling to forego even one penny to help stem the tide of global warming.
No these people are quite content to carry on as usual believing that they will have the money to survive it. This piece is to confuse others trying to make their own judgments without learning the science.
It tries to that the Scientists got it wrong and makes biased incorrect simplifications that try make people believe that climatology experts are not that intelligent and readers are just as capable of coming up with the correct answer. It then makes an attempt to supply them with information in a way to support a conformation bias (readers do not want to believe global warming).
Please don't give the opinion piece credibility by arguing with it. Its well written for its purpose but dissolves into FUD (targeted at the intelligent without scientific knowledge) by halfway though the summary.
We have a three party system here in Canada (well, you could argue 4 prior to the previous election) and it's not much better.
Having multiple options is generally useless when they all kind of point in the same general direction.
Are you sure its not a problem with voters being too stupid or complacent? What voting system do you have?
This attitude is exactly why the two-party system in the U.S. is a total failure.
A two party system is failure because its only one step better than a one party system.
NZ won't have any problem extraditing them.
General piracy and making a profit of it are two very different things here.
Combined with the fact dotcom was let in despite his criminal convictions making the government look bad.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1201/S00059/peters-calls-for-dotcom-immigration-inquiry.htm
We might have been sympathetic if he was making a small profit off file sharing but its a more than that and its little embarrassing hes in the country.
Sounds pretty bad to me although I think non-technical users might not care.
The less technical the users are the more they will care. To the people who just don't get computers not having a start button or desktop means they now know just a little more than before they started using windows.
They will hate it because it they will have to figure out the crazy methods (see xkcd comic, cant find it) to do stuff all over again.
Looking at this from a very long perspective, one could say that the world wars (at least the second one) was a very catastrophic failure on the part of Germany/Japan due to their overly authoritarian government (I'm winging it here, I'm not a historian).
Neither lost because of an authoritarian government but i guess the non-authoritarian governments (and the USSR) ended up out numbering and isolating them.
The Media has said Counties have challenged the US their lead is still massive.
Have a look at what the authoritarian Communist government of China has archived since it got power they started with a pretty poor situation.
... the reason why the United States of America (may) remain the most powerful, prosperous country* in the world isn't because we aren't the best or most efficient or smartest.
.....
As I've gotten (much) older, I'm wondering if I see a personal corrolary to this; I've seen people do well not because they've had spectacular successes but because they've managed to avoided catastrophic failures. Sort of like the tortoise and the hare I guess.
Come on, the reason the US is prosperous is due to adequate leadership and coming out of both world wars far better off than any of the pre-war powers.
How about another linux distro arch, debian and openSUSE still run on 512 or less.
If you don't know it can be changed, chances are you have no need to change it.
The people who don't know, don't care and probably have nothing to hide and give them selves away in many other ways.
Unless you are paranoid the government its out everyone that is.
Your mac address is as easy to set as you IP on Linux and unlike IP address on wifi you can pick whatever you like (though most are obviously fake).
Take your pick:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Changing_Your_MAC_Address/Linux
Its also pretty easy on any other *NIX
Just windows does not come with a built in to do it.
Since the Chinese government has power over the greatest amount of pollution, its participation in reduction treaties is essential, and its responsibility to the future the greatest.
Yes this i agree with but what should China's limit be relative to US. I am saying that the fair way to do this per capita which either means that the US needs to better than half its emissions or that China's limit would be set sufficiently high that it will not bother them until they are 4 times their current output.
You still are equating a right to pollute to a countries income/lifestyle
Just to clear up any ambiguities. I am not saying you think this is OK either, just that your justification requires it.
People in tents can't afford a lot of technologies used to pollute and therefore do not produce a lot of CO2. They will also not benefit from the car factory producing cars which will be bought mostly by "rich" or western people. Everyone suffers from global warming yet only the rich caused it.
We are producing more CO2 that can can be sustained (discuss the valididity of global warming elsewhere) you are saying that the rich can pollute more (take the tent dwellers share) because they are generating GDP, making money. The need for most luxury items that pollute is is a lifestyle thing and are not a right or necessity.
I guess you don't say it but i think you end up implying that the west can pollute more because we produce items needed for a western lifestyle. We could be using our excess money to lower our CO2 output to be closer to theirs and give up what can't be made sufficiently low carbon.
I see where you are coming from but GDP still a terribly unfair way to do it and i would expect make it very difficult for other countries to compete (your phone factory gets a heavy tax because we patented the efficient way), so they will never sign up.
Upping your GDP by selling luxury items that consume large amounts of energy such as a 6 litre Dodge Viper should not be a good reason for extra consumption of CO2.
I do agree that someone has to make efficient technology to replace the old though but this is not measured by GDP. Some kind of manufacturing metric could be factored in to the system.