Incremental and/or differential backups are the only way to go.
$ man find
FIND(1L) [...]
-newer file
File was modified more recently than file. -newer is affected by -follow only if -follow comes before -newer on the command line.
Works great for providing the list of files to do an incremental backup of with tar or cpio.
Dump? Use of dump was discouraged when I started using Unix back in the mid-1980s.
For home/small systems, 'find' and 'tar' or 'cpio' are fine ('find' so you can do incrementals). For serious stuff, use one of the professional packages.
Of course it also depends on how much you want to back up and what your budget is like. A 100 GB removable drive and 'dd' could be all you need...
".NET is finding a sweet spot for programmed user interfaces,"
On a single platform, perhaps. It's true enough that early editions of Java's Swing weren't the swiftest UIs on the block, Swing has to contend with being platform independant. How well does a.NET UI run on a Solaris workstation?
The UI for most server-side applications is probably HTML, anyway, so I'm not sure what his point was. I suspect BEA is just making nice noises toward.NET to gain a foot in the door of MS-only shops, although it is certainly true that at the SOAP level.NET and J2EE could interact.
We'll see how long that lasts when/if.NET market share catches up with J2EE. (Embrace and extend, anyone?)
When SMTP was designed, the Internet (or was it still ARPAnet in those days?) was decidedly, and by law, non-commercial. It is therefor fair to say that the mail protocols were designed to a default of "no spammers", and that any extension to the protocol would be something like an "unsolicted commercial email okay" response from the mail server at first connection.
There we have it: the technological solution is a "spam okay" response from the server. In the absence of that, the user does not want spam, and any such email is trespassing. We probably want some legislation to punish those who go ahead and spam without getting that "spam okay" response.
Funny, that's just what the current legislation does...
So, how do I do the equivalent of putting up a "No Spammers" sign on my mail server? That's not the same as a filter -- a filter is equivalent to hiring someone to answer the door for you to chase away the JW's.
(Maybe SMTP could be extended with a response to connection code that means "no spammers", but I doubt they'd pay attention to it, and changing all the mail software out there to conform would take years.)
If somebody wants to talk, they can put up a web site or use conventional advertising routes.
Simply sue the provider of the good or service offered in the spam (ie, whoever is paying the spammer to spam.) He'll probably be happy to tell you who he hired to send it.
The problem is what is the default in the law regarding warranties.
To be more precise, the problem is the default with regard to a product you can examine before use in the law regarding warranties.
If you're buying a pig in a poke, or propietary binary-only software (but I repeat myself), the law should default to at least a warranty of merchantability or fitness for use.
However, where the customer is free to examine the product (e.g. read the source) before use, then that default need not apply because the user has every opportunity to exercise due diligence that the product will do what he wants it to.
(Of course, the problem with software warranties in general is that there are so many variables (library versions, hardware characteristics, version of the OS, configuration, etc.) which might affect the behaviour of a program but are beyond the control of the developer or distributor.)
Why would it be any better to try such a thing now?
Well, here are a few reasons for starters:
Processors are an order or magnitude or two faster now than they were then.
"Hotspot" and similiar JIT compiler technology means JVMs run orders of magnitude faster even on the same processors.
Java itself has improved greatly from the, what, 1.0 or 1.1 days of Corel's venture?
And Java programmers are a lot more familiar with the technology these days -- I imagine Corel's Java coders probably weren't very far up the experience curve.
Then there's the whole J2EE web services thing, which might make a lot of sense for an organization that wants to maintain some sort of central control over its office documents, but that's a whole other issue.
I'm not saying it necessarily makes sense even now to do a cross-language as well as a cross-platform port, just answering your question.
There are only a dozen or so AM stations allowed to broadcast at full power overnight as a result.
I suspect Denver's KOA (850 kHz) is one such. They certainly pump out 50 kW, and brag about reaching a 38 state (plus Canada and Mexico) area.
OTOH, one reason for the huge range is that the radio signal is reflected back to Earth by the Heaviside layer, reducing the amount of it detectable beyond the ionosphere.
I think part of that problem is the rate at which such information changes in this field, compared with the time it takes for a publishing cycle. I still find O'Reilly to hold to a much higher quality standard than many of the others.
Meanwhile, as your links show, you can always check the book's web page on the O'Reilly site for errata. Just print that page out and keep it with the book (or even go through and make the corrections by hand). Beats paying for a new edition.
Hah! Your microsoft-speak gives you away. Only microsofties seem to use "rich" as a euphemism for "loaded with bells'n'whistles". They seem to love that word, must be the images of money it conjures up.
Yeah, but violating that sort of license ought to result in a civil suit and penalties, not criminal charges and jail/probation. And your comparison with band T-shirts is bogus -- he wasn't selling counterfeit Playstations, more like offering to customize a band T-shirt you'd already legally bought.
I'm curious as to the specific criminal act (ie, what section of the Criminal Code) he was charged with when he pled guilty to the "sale of unauthorized computer equipment".
The Soviets made some use of RTGs, but they also used nuclear reactors in some of their spy satellites, as a very heavy duty power source. Way beyond RTGs.
Cosmos 954 was one such. The normal end-of-life manouever for those things was to eject the reactor core to a much higher orbit while the rest disintegrated on reentry. 954 didn't separate, and pieces of satellite and reactor core were strewn across northwest Canada. The cleanup operation (Operation Morning Light) took a while, and we learned some interesting things about Soviet space reactor design from the pieces.
It's the end result that is illegal, not the means.
You wish. The BATF has taken people to court, and won, over merely possessing the equipment with which to manufacture certain weapons. In there eyes, and in the eyes of at least one federal judge, possession of a shotgun and a hacksaw is the same thing as owning a sawed-off shotgun.
If BATF believed you could make a fully-automatic weapon with Play-Doh, and found you in the possession of a quantity of Play-Doh, they'd bust your butt.
You're confusing "power" and "right". Yes, the state has this power, even duty. It is based, however, on the rights of its citizens, and as such, the state ought not exercise such power at the expense of other rights of the citizens.
BTW, are you in a militia?
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but no.
BTW, let me clarify on "actually (vs hypothetically) endanger others".
If I were to build myself a machine gun, that might be a hypothetical danger because you can come up with all kinds of "what if" scenarios (what if somebody broke in and stole it, etc) where it might be dangerous, but it isn't an actual danger because I'm no more likely to use it against anyone than I would a regular gun, an axe, or even a baseball bat. And the odds of a machine gun accidentally loading, aiming and firing itself are pretty slim.
On the other hand, if I were to build a bomb in my basement, that would be an actual danger to both the life and limb and property rights of my family and my neighbors, because bombs (particularly the home-made sort - I'd be less concerned about military munitions designed for safe storage) are much more likely to accidentally detonate than is a machine gun to load and fire itself.
Mod-chipping a Playstation is a hypothetical danger to the property rights of game developers, and may even (though I doubt it) be an actual danger to the people's rights to interference-free use of the airwaves.
Whether a hypothetical danger becomes an actual danger is entirely up to the person controlling the object in question.
Oh, but indeed they are. The FCC has a whole set of regulations covering consumer electronic devices and their possible RF emissions. You better believe that Sony has to file some serious paperwork with the FCC to get permission to sell the things. (Also with Underwriters Labs and the CSA regarding shock and fire hazards, but that's more of an insurance thing.)
Although I still believe you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want to with your own property, so long as it doesn't actually (vs hypothetically) endanger others or trample on their rights.
The property you are modified [sic] is already a controlled substance
Despite what some states (California comes to mind) and some congresscritters would have you believe, shotguns are not a "controlled substance". Even the paperwork involved in sale of same only applies to firearms dealers -- private sales are perfectly legal and require no background check. (Recall that BATF is a Treasury bureau, hence the love of paperwork. Even owning a machine gun isn't illegal, just requires a $200 tax certificate. At least, that used to be the case.)
And it really isn't at all clear what "the right of the state to protect its citizens" has to do with the difference between a shotgun barrel that's 18.1 inches long vs one that's 17.9 inches. (BTW, a state has no such rights. The citizens have rights of self protection, and may collectively authorize the state to act on their behalf.)
I don't have the right to smash somebody's skull in with a modified Playstation, either, but I do have the right to bolt a twenty pound steel plate to my Playstation, if I so choose.
If you OWN something, it's YOURS. Not only do you NOT have the right to take away people's freedom, but you also have no right to even KNOW what people do with their property.
Not that I disagree with your point at all, indeed I heartily agree. But try telling that to the BATF if, for example, you make a minor mechanical modification to a legally owned semi-automatic rifle that converts it to fully-automatic (ie a machine gun), or cut the barrel of your legally owned shotgun down to less than 18 inches.
The article says "two counts of copyright infringement", which is pretty self-explanatory given the "413 pirated video games".
Of more concern -- and perhaps why you're scratching your head -- is the "four counts of selling unauthorized computer equipment". What the hell does that mean?
Who "authorizes" computer equipment? Do the charges stem from something like violating FCC-equivalent (DOC? CRTC?) RF regulations, or something equivalent to "possesion of burglary tools", or something more ominous, considering the free speech aspects of computers?
The ALSEPs (Apollo Lunar Scientific Experiment Packages) deployed on the Moon by the Apollo 12 and 14-17 missions were also RTG powered.
They might be operating yet if they hadn't all been remotely switched off (including the receivers, so no way to turn them back on) by NASA back in 1977 because they didn't want to fund the ground support team any longer.
(Sigh. At least the passive laser reflectors -- used for precise range measurements from Earth -- still work.)
Slashdot Mirror
Dump? Use of dump was discouraged when I started using Unix back in the mid-1980s.
For home/small systems, 'find' and 'tar' or 'cpio' are fine ('find' so you can do incrementals). For serious stuff, use one of the professional packages.
Of course it also depends on how much you want to back up and what your budget is like. A 100 GB removable drive and 'dd' could be all you need...
".NET is finding a sweet spot for programmed user interfaces,"
.NET UI run on a Solaris workstation?
.NET to gain a foot in the door of MS-only shops, although it is certainly true that at the SOAP level .NET and J2EE could interact.
.NET market share catches up with J2EE. (Embrace and extend, anyone?)
On a single platform, perhaps. It's true enough that early editions of Java's Swing weren't the swiftest UIs on the block, Swing has to contend with being platform independant. How well does a
The UI for most server-side applications is probably HTML, anyway, so I'm not sure what his point was. I suspect BEA is just making nice noises toward
We'll see how long that lasts when/if
Okay, since you favor technological solutions...
When SMTP was designed, the Internet (or was it still ARPAnet in those days?) was decidedly, and by law, non-commercial. It is therefor fair to say that the mail protocols were designed to a default of "no spammers", and that any extension to the protocol would be something like an "unsolicted commercial email okay" response from the mail server at first connection.
There we have it: the technological solution is a "spam okay" response from the server. In the absence of that, the user does not want spam, and any such email is trespassing. We probably want some legislation to punish those who go ahead and spam without getting that "spam okay" response.
Funny, that's just what the current legislation does...
Hear, hear!
That's exactly right. (Although you left out "MY time" to deal with it.)
So, how do I do the equivalent of putting up a "No Spammers" sign on my mail server? That's not the same as a filter -- a filter is equivalent to hiring someone to answer the door for you to chase away the JW's.
(Maybe SMTP could be extended with a response to connection code that means "no spammers", but I doubt they'd pay attention to it, and changing all the mail software out there to conform would take years.)
If somebody wants to talk, they can put up a web site or use conventional advertising routes.
You make it far more complicated than necessary.
Simply sue the provider of the good or service offered in the spam (ie, whoever is paying the spammer to spam.) He'll probably be happy to tell you who he hired to send it.
The problem is what is the default in the law regarding warranties.
To be more precise, the problem is the default with regard to a product you can examine before use in the law regarding warranties.
If you're buying a pig in a poke, or propietary binary-only software (but I repeat myself), the law should default to at least a warranty of merchantability or fitness for use.
However, where the customer is free to examine the product (e.g. read the source) before use, then that default need not apply because the user has every opportunity to exercise due diligence that the product will do what he wants it to.
(Of course, the problem with software warranties in general is that there are so many variables (library versions, hardware characteristics, version of the OS, configuration, etc.) which might affect the behaviour of a program but are beyond the control of the developer or distributor.)
Troll? Troll!?
Somebody's ass is grass in metamod.
Well, here are a few reasons for starters:
I'm not saying it necessarily makes sense even now to do a cross-language as well as a cross-platform port, just answering your question.
There are only a dozen or so AM stations allowed to broadcast at full power overnight as a result.
I suspect Denver's KOA (850 kHz) is one such. They certainly pump out 50 kW, and brag about reaching a 38 state (plus Canada and Mexico) area.
OTOH, one reason for the huge range is that the radio signal is reflected back to Earth by the Heaviside layer, reducing the amount of it detectable beyond the ionosphere.
I think part of that problem is the rate at which such information changes in this field, compared with the time it takes for a publishing cycle. I still find O'Reilly to hold to a much higher quality standard than many of the others.
Meanwhile, as your links show, you can always check the book's web page on the O'Reilly site for errata. Just print that page out and keep it with the book (or even go through and make the corrections by hand). Beats paying for a new edition.
Watch out for rich clients,
Hah! Your microsoft-speak gives you away. Only microsofties seem to use "rich" as a euphemism for "loaded with bells'n'whistles". They seem to love that word, must be the images of money it conjures up.
Yeah, but violating that sort of license ought to result in a civil suit and penalties, not criminal charges and jail/probation. And your comparison with band T-shirts is bogus -- he wasn't selling counterfeit Playstations, more like offering to customize a band T-shirt you'd already legally bought.
I'm curious as to the specific criminal act (ie, what section of the Criminal Code) he was charged with when he pled guilty to the "sale of unauthorized computer equipment".
The Soviets made some use of RTGs, but they also used nuclear reactors in some of their spy satellites, as a very heavy duty power source. Way beyond RTGs.
Cosmos 954 was one such. The normal end-of-life manouever for those things was to eject the reactor core to a much higher orbit while the rest disintegrated on reentry. 954 didn't separate, and pieces of satellite and reactor core were strewn across northwest Canada. The cleanup operation (Operation Morning Light) took a while, and we learned some interesting things about Soviet space reactor design from the pieces.
It's the end result that is illegal, not the means.
You wish. The BATF has taken people to court, and won, over merely possessing the equipment with which to manufacture certain weapons. In there eyes, and in the eyes of at least one federal judge, possession of a shotgun and a hacksaw is the same thing as owning a sawed-off shotgun.
If BATF believed you could make a fully-automatic weapon with Play-Doh, and found you in the possession of a quantity of Play-Doh, they'd bust your butt.
You're confusing "power" and "right". Yes, the state has this power, even duty. It is based, however, on the rights of its citizens, and as such, the state ought not exercise such power at the expense of other rights of the citizens.
BTW, are you in a militia?
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but no.
Do you believe that might makes right?
BTW, let me clarify on "actually (vs hypothetically) endanger others".
If I were to build myself a machine gun, that might be a hypothetical danger because you can come up with all kinds of "what if" scenarios (what if somebody broke in and stole it, etc) where it might be dangerous, but it isn't an actual danger because I'm no more likely to use it against anyone than I would a regular gun, an axe, or even a baseball bat. And the odds of a machine gun accidentally loading, aiming and firing itself are pretty slim.
On the other hand, if I were to build a bomb in my basement, that would be an actual danger to both the life and limb and property rights of my family and my neighbors, because bombs (particularly the home-made sort - I'd be less concerned about military munitions designed for safe storage) are much more likely to accidentally detonate than is a machine gun to load and fire itself.
Mod-chipping a Playstation is a hypothetical danger to the property rights of game developers, and may even (though I doubt it) be an actual danger to the people's rights to interference-free use of the airwaves.
Whether a hypothetical danger becomes an actual danger is entirely up to the person controlling the object in question.
Playstations are not [regulated]
Oh, but indeed they are. The FCC has a whole set of regulations covering consumer electronic devices and their possible RF emissions. You better believe that Sony has to file some serious paperwork with the FCC to get permission to sell the things. (Also with Underwriters Labs and the CSA regarding shock and fire hazards, but that's more of an insurance thing.)
Although I still believe you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want to with your own property, so long as it doesn't actually (vs hypothetically) endanger others or trample on their rights.
The property you are modified [sic] is already a controlled substance
Despite what some states (California comes to mind) and some congresscritters would have you believe, shotguns are not a "controlled substance". Even the paperwork involved in sale of same only applies to firearms dealers -- private sales are perfectly legal and require no background check. (Recall that BATF is a Treasury bureau, hence the love of paperwork. Even owning a machine gun isn't illegal, just requires a $200 tax certificate. At least, that used to be the case.)
And it really isn't at all clear what "the right of the state to protect its citizens" has to do with the difference between a shotgun barrel that's 18.1 inches long vs one that's 17.9 inches. (BTW, a state has no such rights. The citizens have rights of self protection, and may collectively authorize the state to act on their behalf.)
I don't have the right to smash somebody's skull in with a modified Playstation, either, but I do have the right to bolt a twenty pound steel plate to my Playstation, if I so choose.
If you OWN something, it's YOURS. Not only do you NOT have the right to take away people's freedom, but you also have no right to even KNOW what people do with their property.
Not that I disagree with your point at all, indeed I heartily agree. But try telling that to the BATF if, for example, you make a minor mechanical modification to a legally owned semi-automatic rifle that converts it to fully-automatic (ie a machine gun), or cut the barrel of your legally owned shotgun down to less than 18 inches.
If you thought DMCA enforcement was tough...
The article says "two counts of copyright infringement", which is pretty self-explanatory given the "413 pirated video games".
Of more concern -- and perhaps why you're scratching your head -- is the "four counts of selling unauthorized computer equipment". What the hell does that mean?
Who "authorizes" computer equipment? Do the charges stem from something like violating FCC-equivalent (DOC? CRTC?) RF regulations, or something equivalent to "possesion of burglary tools", or something more ominous, considering the free speech aspects of computers?
Anyone know? ("Know", not speculate.)
Probably wouldn't work on the trolls.
There has to be some measurable brain activity to determine where it's concentrated.
The ALSEPs (Apollo Lunar Scientific Experiment Packages) deployed on the Moon by the Apollo 12 and 14-17 missions were also RTG powered.
They might be operating yet if they hadn't all been remotely switched off (including the receivers, so no way to turn them back on) by NASA back in 1977 because they didn't want to fund the ground support team any longer.
(Sigh. At least the passive laser reflectors -- used for precise range measurements from Earth -- still work.)
And underneath the picture, the words:
"Missing. Have you seen this spacecraft?"