Better check any patent numbers in those.C files and.H files for expiration.
I know i've seen patent numbers mentioned in source code before.
I'm not quite sure how the courts would deal with "possibly unlimited numbers" (of copies distributed),
uncounted free downloads.
Perhaps it could be the first time a patent troll gets an unlimited damage award?
"The court finds in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant is hereby order to hand over all their money, worldly possessions, and all money and worldly possessions they obtain for the rest of their natural live(s)?"
That's cool... I think i'm going to go to a few stores and see if I can find any products made by BP that have ancient expired patent numbers stamped on them.
If an expired patent is stamped on a gas pump that pertains to a patent on the fuel formulation, does that count as a separate violation for every gallon of fuel sold? (Evil Grin)
you can rephrase the law: "No one has to talk to the police or judges at any circumstances".
Excellent... for criminals..... just quietly bribe all the "witnesses" to refuse to talk to police or judges.
With no method of forced disclosure, how exactly do authorities investigate a case?
It's a far cry from what we have today where police routinely threaten suspects with obstruction-of-justice charges, if they don't "admit what they did"
However, we really need to obtain some balance between noone has to say anything and everyone has to say everything at the drop of a hat.
Perhaps the boundary should be something like... you only have to discuss what you actually witnessed yourself or other people do, or what you actually wrote, but not personal experiences that caused you to write something.
If you publish or release something nobody can force you to reveal the name or physical likeness of the person who infoemd you of X
Good only if you are not told about a planned crime, any crime has already happened, and you are not told something that would indicate a future crime is planned.
If someone confides in you under obligation of secrecy, or you promised to keep it secret, you should be freed from having to report who it was told that to you or what information was told or shown to you with that agreement required for you to see it.
You know? keep your promises?
What ever happened to the legal concept that the government can't arbitrarily invalidate contracts, just because someone think it's convenient for their own processes, or that the information obtained under secrecy was so interesting that government somehow deserves to know?
So we got the worst of both worlds? Corporations are protected. States cannot revoke or change an established contract or corporate charter. Individuals are not so protected?
I used to support it extremely strongly; however, this new "amendment" to the bill, has opened my eyes very widely.
I thought the shield law was a great improvement, until they decided to start making exceptions, such as Wikileaks.
The problem is, that as an ordinary law, instead of being part of the constitution, it can easily be amended with a simple majority, and presidential signature.
It is now clear that, whenever the media does something that popular opinion is against, or that the government is against,
they'll just amend the shield law again to carve out a new exception, until nobody is covered.
By having no 'shield law', implicit constitutional protections apply, due to fundamental rights expressed by the constitution and not weakened or regulated down by act of congress.
With explicit laws in place, with carved out exceptions that remove some journalists from protection, the courts may interpret the intent of congress to not protect some freedom of the press.
And somehow find it acceptable under the 1st amendment, even though with no 'shield law', the press would still be protected thanks to the 1st amendment
and understood intent of congress stemming from the constitutional protection of the press and free speech.
The courts have long held that congress can carve out certain exceptions to the 1st amendment.
It would not be too surprising for them to uphold the exceptions, even against what would be otherwise protected by the constitution.
Even where they might have determined they have protection (otherwise), due to the 1st amendment.
There is a huge risk, that having this law in place with exceptions to not protect Wikileaks does sites that would fall into that exception a lot of harm --- more harm than if the law did not exist.
And depending on how they do this: the exception, of course, will not apply just to Wikileaks.
But to other bloggers/sites that reveal leaked information as well.
Meanwhile, once passed into law, the govenrment, and the courts, will press judges to interpret those exceptions as broadly as possible,
maybe even causing the newspapers themselves to fall into this exception they are trying to carve out to exclude Wikileaks from protection.
With enough money poured into it, and new implementations, ACID can scale.
They solved some problems with scaling out, not necessarily the problems with it scaling up.
Scaling does not necessarily just mean replicas and quick failover -- it means good performance without millions spent on hardware too,
in terms of overhead, storage requirements, storage performance, server performance.
NoSQL scales in certain cases less expensively, with less work, and doesn't require complicated DBM algorithms.
The representation of data is also simpler, and requires less work to maintain than tables.
It's just a result of major existing SQL implementations being so expensive with large datasets, that sometimes it costs more in terms of performance and required hardware,
than simply using NoSQL.
I also love this gem from the article:
If the system is also stripped of the right to arbitrarily abort transactions (system aborts typically occur for reasons such as node failure and deadlock), then problem (b) is also eliminated.... given an initial database state and a sequence of transaction requests, there exists only one valid final state. In other words, determinism.
I suppose the authors are from a land where hard drive space is infinite, database server resources are always guaranteed ahead of time...
I/Os never have unrecoverable errors, syscalls never return error codes, RAM is infinite, programs never crash.
The conclusion that ACID alone is the bottleneck is not necessarily true.
The SQL language itself requires a complex implementation just to parse and implement queries, that can add latency.
It doesn't matter what DiffServ marks you put on your packets, by default only the source and the destination care about them.
This can effect how packets are processed on the host machines, depending on their configuration.
It is of interest to be able to prioritize your latency-sensitive packets when you send them to a remote server, so (if the remote server chooses to honor the markings), the remote server's IP stack will provide better performance characteristics to the most important connections.
This deals with prioritization over the endpoints, but not over the communications network between hosts.
For packets to be prioritized end-to-end over a computer network, routers between the source and the destination have to be configured to prioritize some traffic.
The routers Don't have to use DiffServ or IP Precedence fields to make prioritization decisions.
Routers can classify packets by source/destination IP, port number, or protocol recognition (such as NBAR) instead
Network providers can also prioritize packets by using 'label switching'.
They can exchange metadata about packets between their own routers.
But their metadata is not part of the packet when it enters or leaves their network, so the packet is never modified.
There is really no excuse for an ISP to mess with these fields on anyone's packets; they don't need to, they are primarily of concern between the end hosts.
On your own network, you can of course choose to honor DiffServ on your routers, and munge your own packets, just like end users can do NAT if they wish.
It would probably not be very smart for an ISP to have routers configured to honor DiffServ.
Since, as you said, users can configure their software to send packets with inappropriate prioritization.
And DiffServ itself doesn't provide a mechanism for an ISP to "sort prioritized packets by user",
and in case of congestion, avoid preferring one user's prioritized packets over another user's non-prioritized packets.
All users are paying for service, and all users have a right to service.
The desired arrangement would be, when there is congestion: allocate a priority queue for each user, and when each user has filled their queue, that user's highest priority packets will be processed before that user's less important packets.
Note in this manner, DiffServ can both do what it's intended to do, and it doesn't matter if people configure their software to use the highest priority... it just hurts that user, but not other users.
Instead of 'asking if they really want to do it' make it harder to do accidentally in the first place.
For example, require them to specifically select it, and check a box in the same dialog to confirm it.
Instead of every program getting to ask the user if they really want to exit... demand every program save a 'crash copy' of every open file in a special temporary directory,
and exit with no user interaction.
Instead of giving every program an opportunity to cancel a shutdown, send a WM_YOUARESHUTTINGDOWNIN5SECONDS
They have two options... either save everything they need to save in 5 seconds, or have the OS "hibernate" them by dumping their user memory area to crashfile, so they can be re-launched at boot
And no program or system driver has the ability to cancel or delay shutdown for any reason.
They only have the ability to advertise ahead of time that they're doing something critical and don't want to be shutdown.
The 'advertisements' appear in the dialog when the user clicks 'shutdown'.
If the user is running a defrag, special programs running as administrator might have the ability to gray out the shutdown 'Ok' box, or rather cause windows to prompt the user "XXX program is executing a critical task", requiring the user to 'OK' a manual override --- in this case, the software tells the system in advance that shutdown should not be done right now, but letting software delay the decision to block shutdown until a shutdown's actually attempted, is braindead.
A shutdown should be either "OK" or not. The system should now at all times when a shutdown would not be OK, so it can be performed immediately, and software running on a machine should not be allowed to change its mind and block a shutdown once it has been initiated.
After shutdown's started, some "Begin Critical Task" API should be disabled/blocked.
AT&T says that the protocol specification "in no way limits the use of DiffServ to packets marked by 'end users,' as opposed to content providers or network operators."
The IP protocol specification does. IP routers are required to forward packets without modifying them, except as specified.
DiffServ markings are part of the packet, and a network provider changing them or any header item means tampering with the packet.
If you want your equipment to administratively to ignore the markings, and not prioritize packets with a higher IP precedence in the header,
or drop packets with certain markings, fine.
As for the network provider changing IP Prec/Diffserv in the packet header, however, that's a big no-no not allowed.
Much in the same way that tampering with the port numbers, source/destination addresses, or inserting options is not allowed by the spec;
that's modifying someone else's packet.
The only header items of a packet expected to be changed by carriers are TTL
It looks like there were several attempts to put up a spoiler alert, and collapse text revealing the identity of the murderer, or there was one originally, but the spoiler alert was repeatedly removed by other editors.
Why is it news that one particular play has a key fact about the plot published?
Maybe it was cruel of WP editors to remove the spoiler warning/spoiler box, and expand that into the article.
But that's just the sort of stuff that happens on WP, you can't rely on having a warning.
If you are thinking of watching a play or reading a book, you should watch the play or read the book before you read a plot summary about it.
People research works of literature without reading them or watching the play, imagine that.
100 years from now, when the play is no longer running, the public and researchers will still want to know all about the plot of the story, even if they never actually can go to a play or read the book.
They are in the "embrace" stage, regarding most open source projects.
Possibly still working out plans for the extinguish phase, probably something involving patents and trying to steal away the open source product's credibility, by releasing their own equivalent version, and throwing the open source devs into a quagmire of litigation.
I doubt think this is to protect the servers against military/police action by legitimate authorities.
This is probably the DR site they forgot to build.
They need to bolster security, because Wikileaks might have information that bad actors would love to get their hands on in uncensored form.
If the military wanted to blow up servers, they could simply secure cooperation from the operators of the datacenter,
and force their way in, less collataral damage that way.
If it was really war... a nuke would deny access to the servers from the surface,
and might be combined with bunker busters
The difference is an open records request is answered voluntarily, they get to "review" the request, and censor things they don't want to give out that the statute allows them to suppress.
Their compliance officer can redact, strike out, or censor sections they deem "sensitivie" or that they deem not currently covered by required disclosure.
They can also quietly destroy things they might happen to have that are requested, making them not part of the record in the first place (with a subpoena, that action is contempt of court).
Subpoena is disclosure being compelled by a court, open records request is disclosure being required by law, but not under any real penalties (but that the requestor might sue if you never answer their open records request)
Two reasons to subpoena are: (1) You think something illegal has been done that harms, you and you are suing about it, and
(2) You think the information provided is inadequate for your case, either the open records request was not answered faithfully and completely, information was hidden,
or information you need to fully prosecute your case is not forthcoming through the open record process.
Other than federal/state attorneys, I don't know of individuals being able to get subpoenas "just to look at something", or investigate something,
when evidence of a crime or actionable violation has not yet been found.
My impression of subpoenas, are that they are provided for discovery, gathering additional documentation to complete the plaintiff's case.
Sensible... but the public should not suffer for the prosecutor's laziness.
If that's his or her duty,
the prosecutor should be personally punished for wasting the court's time, and ordered to go find the authoritative source, or withdraw the statement, at even greater penalty.
If that's right, then why did the court throw it out, without examining the citation, and then examining the source, seeing it came from the DSM, and then checking the DSM?
A hyperlink citation is easier for a reader to click and follow than a citation to some page of the DSM, which requires pulling the old book out..
Is the court so er, dumb, its officers can't follow a citation chain, to establish the ultimate authority and ultimate source of every questionable assertion?
It could probably reasonably be cited, with support from other sources, for non-contentious info.
However... to use an under-construction Wiki-based encyclopedia to try to impeach an expert is insane.
Wikipedia is not an authority. If the expert is really an expert on the subject, then what they say is more likely to be correct than what Wikipedia says,
because they are an expert in the subject they discuss.
And not only is Wikipedia not created by experts... Wikipedia derides expertise, and scorns authority.
It also sometimes includes blatantly false, crackpot info, sometimes even vandalism.
Due to the wide range of people who edit it.
Errors will eventually be corrected; however, it's not like a court can reverse its verdict next week because someone corrected the cited WP article.
Not until courts reach the point where the opposition can look at the Wikipedia article, edit it to their liking, and have the witness "citation" automatically changed
and taken into account, before trial ends.
In that case, there could be a fun edit war between prosecutor and defendant over the definitions of certain things.
If you change the definition of legal terms on WP, do courts automatically change their rules to match?:)
Facebook MySpace Facebook Youtube Facebook Twitter Facebook
But some other things to think about...
Characteristics of computers in the 21st century... Hardware, Software, Firmware; Desktops, Laptops, Netbooks, Pads, popular eBook readers
Characteristics of displays and monitors, what is "Standard definition TV" what is HDTV, 720p? 1080p? HDMI HDCP?
Keyboard and mice, touch screens, voice.. capacitive VS resistive, how do these work
Human audible range; what is a sound card, microphone, how do those work
What is binary? What is digital, analog?
What are the characteristics of VGA cables, DVI cables, HDMI cables, USB cables, Parallel cables, IDE Ribbon, RS232 Serial, eSata, Firewire, EIC Power cables and receptacles
What are the basic electrical components in a computer\
Discussion of devices that store data... hard disk drives; internal, external, USB flash drives; Interface technologies, USB, IDE, SATA, SCSI/SAS,...
Computer sound card inputs and outputs, digital VS analog
What is a WAV file what is a MIDI file... what are codecs and encoded files; MP3, M4A/AAC, ALAC, FLAC
How to create MIDI and WAV files
Exercise using recording and sound playback software to record and keep some sound clips for later use.
Demonstration of loss of quality when recording analog sources
Explanation of compression; lossy VS lossless compression.
What are image files... BMP files.. pixel maps VS compressed files. What are GIFs, PNGs, JPEGs. Which use are each best for?
How to acquire images using a Scanner or Digital Camera
Converting between image formats.
Explanation of scanner DPI and required DPI to display an image on a computer screen or printer, screen resolution.
Scanner input VS output DPI, and how output DPI effects image size on a computer screen. e.g. What is the maximum DPI that should be used for scanning various types of prints or film, in order to achieve the best observable quality, what is the maximum scanning DPI that provides useful information for various types of sources, rather than a mere increase in image size without additional detail.
Stretching and skewing, how they effect human perception of image quality.
How inkjet and laser printers work... how much do they cost, how much do they cost to operate (use examples), what special "features" do models have that might increase cost, what consumables or periodic maintenance will be required other than paper and ink cartridge replacement; exercise involving calculating the cost of ownership of a certain printer model
What are parallel, USB, and network printers?
How computer video cards work... what is video memory
What are computer networks, clients, and servers; What are dedicated servers
What are hackers; whitehats, blackhats, grayhats?
What is DRM, what are some popular technologies that use DRM. What are the advantages and disadvantages (for you) of DRM?
Online safety and privacy concepts... overview the dangers and risks
Online safety and privacy + social networking websites what you should put in your profile.. how to keep secrets secret
Risks and longevity of things posted online
How to maintain security of your usernames, passwords, use a password manager, password practices, etc
What a virtual machine is, and how to use it
The principal of least privilege. How to setup and use a non-administrator account on your computer, and use that for your day to day activities.
How to control administrator access to your equipment, and avoid giving friends/visitors/intruders access to your computer. (Use private Virtual Machine for an exercise regarding access control)
How to use an e-commerce website and fill out web forms
How to get a free e-mail account, send an e-mail, receive an e-mail
Unfortunately, the rumors were greatly exagerated. The nukes didn't find their targets, because the folks who identified the servers were so unkind that they didn't publish the IP addresses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H coordinates
So I could switch to those providers, and know they wouldn't be messing with my server without talking to me just because some er "researcher" decided they thought the server might be some sort of C&C
I imagine there could be some legal concerns of the researchers were to publish such a list... it might seem like extortion "Take down that server, or we'll publish your name!"
Or it might attract more business to those providers.. the, er, bad guys, would also know some go-to providers
[not that they don't already]
I'm waiting for medical nanobots that covertly plant little sequence's in the patient's DNA during product activation, in order to ensure you can't share your anti-cancer nanonites with anyone else.
The 23rd pair of chromosomes is the perfect place to stash things where the user will never notice, right? and who cares if random things get corrupted there, not like anyone puts anything useful in chromosome 46, anyways, right?
Yes, but I was suggesting a more passive method that many people could take on with minimal risk of putting lives in danger.
Most people are not willing to take a shot gun and go at a van, which could potentially lead to criminal prosecution for vandalizing the vehicle.
Trying to 'get fancy' to negate their stealth advantage, 'blind their fancy sensors', stop their privacy invasion, or make it as difficult as possible, without anyone getting hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
Better check any patent numbers in those .C files and .H files for expiration.
I know i've seen patent numbers mentioned in source code before.
I'm not quite sure how the courts would deal with "possibly unlimited numbers" (of copies distributed), uncounted free downloads.
Perhaps it could be the first time a patent troll gets an unlimited damage award? "The court finds in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant is hereby order to hand over all their money, worldly possessions, and all money and worldly possessions they obtain for the rest of their natural live(s)?"
That's cool... I think i'm going to go to a few stores and see if I can find any products made by BP that have ancient expired patent numbers stamped on them.
If an expired patent is stamped on a gas pump that pertains to a patent on the fuel formulation, does that count as a separate violation for every gallon of fuel sold? (Evil Grin)
you can rephrase the law: "No one has to talk to the police or judges at any circumstances".
Excellent... for criminals..... just quietly bribe all the "witnesses" to refuse to talk to police or judges.
With no method of forced disclosure, how exactly do authorities investigate a case?
It's a far cry from what we have today where police routinely threaten suspects with obstruction-of-justice charges, if they don't "admit what they did"
However, we really need to obtain some balance between noone has to say anything and everyone has to say everything at the drop of a hat.
Perhaps the boundary should be something like... you only have to discuss what you actually witnessed yourself or other people do, or what you actually wrote, but not personal experiences that caused you to write something.
If you publish or release something nobody can force you to reveal the name or physical likeness of the person who infoemd you of X Good only if you are not told about a planned crime, any crime has already happened, and you are not told something that would indicate a future crime is planned.
If someone confides in you under obligation of secrecy, or you promised to keep it secret, you should be freed from having to report who it was told that to you or what information was told or shown to you with that agreement required for you to see it.
You know? keep your promises?
What ever happened to the legal concept that the government can't arbitrarily invalidate contracts, just because someone think it's convenient for their own processes, or that the information obtained under secrecy was so interesting that government somehow deserves to know?
So we got the worst of both worlds? Corporations are protected. States cannot revoke or change an established contract or corporate charter. Individuals are not so protected?
I used to support it extremely strongly; however, this new "amendment" to the bill, has opened my eyes very widely.
I thought the shield law was a great improvement, until they decided to start making exceptions, such as Wikileaks.
The problem is, that as an ordinary law, instead of being part of the constitution, it can easily be amended with a simple majority, and presidential signature.
It is now clear that, whenever the media does something that popular opinion is against, or that the government is against, they'll just amend the shield law again to carve out a new exception, until nobody is covered.
By having no 'shield law', implicit constitutional protections apply, due to fundamental rights expressed by the constitution and not weakened or regulated down by act of congress.
With explicit laws in place, with carved out exceptions that remove some journalists from protection, the courts may interpret the intent of congress to not protect some freedom of the press.
And somehow find it acceptable under the 1st amendment, even though with no 'shield law', the press would still be protected thanks to the 1st amendment and understood intent of congress stemming from the constitutional protection of the press and free speech.
The courts have long held that congress can carve out certain exceptions to the 1st amendment. It would not be too surprising for them to uphold the exceptions, even against what would be otherwise protected by the constitution. Even where they might have determined they have protection (otherwise), due to the 1st amendment.
There is a huge risk, that having this law in place with exceptions to not protect Wikileaks does sites that would fall into that exception a lot of harm --- more harm than if the law did not exist.
And depending on how they do this: the exception, of course, will not apply just to Wikileaks. But to other bloggers/sites that reveal leaked information as well.
Meanwhile, once passed into law, the govenrment, and the courts, will press judges to interpret those exceptions as broadly as possible, maybe even causing the newspapers themselves to fall into this exception they are trying to carve out to exclude Wikileaks from protection.
Hm... time to create an article on Wikipedia named List of Approved Wikipedia Committee Members, article text: "This page intentionally left blank"
No, they redefined it.
Under newspeak "journalism" is repeating only what the corporate overlords want the public to hear.
Reporting something that conflicts with the corporate overlords' message is called "lying".
Reporting something the overlords don't want you to know about is called "conspiring with the enemy" or "threatening public security".
We knew ACID can scale already.
With enough money poured into it, and new implementations, ACID can scale.
They solved some problems with scaling out, not necessarily the problems with it scaling up. Scaling does not necessarily just mean replicas and quick failover -- it means good performance without millions spent on hardware too, in terms of overhead, storage requirements, storage performance, server performance.
NoSQL scales in certain cases less expensively, with less work, and doesn't require complicated DBM algorithms. The representation of data is also simpler, and requires less work to maintain than tables.
It's just a result of major existing SQL implementations being so expensive with large datasets, that sometimes it costs more in terms of performance and required hardware, than simply using NoSQL.
I also love this gem from the article:
If the system is also stripped of the right to arbitrarily abort transactions (system aborts typically occur for reasons such as node failure and deadlock), then problem (b) is also eliminated. ... given an initial database state and a sequence of transaction requests, there exists only one valid final state. In other words, determinism.
I suppose the authors are from a land where hard drive space is infinite, database server resources are always guaranteed ahead of time... I/Os never have unrecoverable errors, syscalls never return error codes, RAM is infinite, programs never crash.
The conclusion that ACID alone is the bottleneck is not necessarily true. The SQL language itself requires a complex implementation just to parse and implement queries, that can add latency.
It doesn't matter what DiffServ marks you put on your packets, by default only the source and the destination care about them.
This can effect how packets are processed on the host machines, depending on their configuration. It is of interest to be able to prioritize your latency-sensitive packets when you send them to a remote server, so (if the remote server chooses to honor the markings), the remote server's IP stack will provide better performance characteristics to the most important connections.
This deals with prioritization over the endpoints, but not over the communications network between hosts.
For packets to be prioritized end-to-end over a computer network, routers between the source and the destination have to be configured to prioritize some traffic.
The routers Don't have to use DiffServ or IP Precedence fields to make prioritization decisions.
Routers can classify packets by source/destination IP, port number, or protocol recognition (such as NBAR) instead
Network providers can also prioritize packets by using 'label switching'. They can exchange metadata about packets between their own routers. But their metadata is not part of the packet when it enters or leaves their network, so the packet is never modified.
There is really no excuse for an ISP to mess with these fields on anyone's packets; they don't need to, they are primarily of concern between the end hosts.
On your own network, you can of course choose to honor DiffServ on your routers, and munge your own packets, just like end users can do NAT if they wish.
It would probably not be very smart for an ISP to have routers configured to honor DiffServ. Since, as you said, users can configure their software to send packets with inappropriate prioritization.
And DiffServ itself doesn't provide a mechanism for an ISP to "sort prioritized packets by user", and in case of congestion, avoid preferring one user's prioritized packets over another user's non-prioritized packets.
All users are paying for service, and all users have a right to service. The desired arrangement would be, when there is congestion: allocate a priority queue for each user, and when each user has filled their queue, that user's highest priority packets will be processed before that user's less important packets.
Note in this manner, DiffServ can both do what it's intended to do, and it doesn't matter if people configure their software to use the highest priority... it just hurts that user, but not other users.
Instead of 'asking if they really want to do it' make it harder to do accidentally in the first place.
For example, require them to specifically select it, and check a box in the same dialog to confirm it.
Instead of every program getting to ask the user if they really want to exit... demand every program save a 'crash copy' of every open file in a special temporary directory, and exit with no user interaction.
Instead of giving every program an opportunity to cancel a shutdown, send a WM_YOUARESHUTTINGDOWNIN5SECONDS
They have two options... either save everything they need to save in 5 seconds, or have the OS "hibernate" them by dumping their user memory area to crashfile, so they can be re-launched at boot
And no program or system driver has the ability to cancel or delay shutdown for any reason.
They only have the ability to advertise ahead of time that they're doing something critical and don't want to be shutdown. The 'advertisements' appear in the dialog when the user clicks 'shutdown'.
If the user is running a defrag, special programs running as administrator might have the ability to gray out the shutdown 'Ok' box, or rather cause windows to prompt the user "XXX program is executing a critical task", requiring the user to 'OK' a manual override --- in this case, the software tells the system in advance that shutdown should not be done right now, but letting software delay the decision to block shutdown until a shutdown's actually attempted, is braindead.
A shutdown should be either "OK" or not. The system should now at all times when a shutdown would not be OK, so it can be performed immediately, and software running on a machine should not be allowed to change its mind and block a shutdown once it has been initiated.
After shutdown's started, some "Begin Critical Task" API should be disabled/blocked.
AT&T says that the protocol specification "in no way limits the use of DiffServ to packets marked by 'end users,' as opposed to content providers or network operators."
The IP protocol specification does. IP routers are required to forward packets without modifying them, except as specified.
DiffServ markings are part of the packet, and a network provider changing them or any header item means tampering with the packet.
If you want your equipment to administratively to ignore the markings, and not prioritize packets with a higher IP precedence in the header, or drop packets with certain markings, fine.
As for the network provider changing IP Prec/Diffserv in the packet header, however, that's a big no-no not allowed. Much in the same way that tampering with the port numbers, source/destination addresses, or inserting options is not allowed by the spec; that's modifying someone else's packet.
The only header items of a packet expected to be changed by carriers are TTL
It looks like there were several attempts to put up a spoiler alert, and collapse text revealing the identity of the murderer, or there was one originally, but the spoiler alert was repeatedly removed by other editors.
Why is it news that one particular play has a key fact about the plot published?
Maybe it was cruel of WP editors to remove the spoiler warning/spoiler box, and expand that into the article. But that's just the sort of stuff that happens on WP, you can't rely on having a warning.
If you are thinking of watching a play or reading a book, you should watch the play or read the book before you read a plot summary about it.
People research works of literature without reading them or watching the play, imagine that. 100 years from now, when the play is no longer running, the public and researchers will still want to know all about the plot of the story, even if they never actually can go to a play or read the book.
They are in the "embrace" stage, regarding most open source projects.
Possibly still working out plans for the extinguish phase, probably something involving patents and trying to steal away the open source product's credibility, by releasing their own equivalent version, and throwing the open source devs into a quagmire of litigation.
Ok, so what did the other 57% think that misconfigured networks are the result of?
Incorrect / erroneous / misapplied example configurations ranking high in Google search results?
For $10
So I can start a small litigious company to aggressively defend Linux and pursue proprietary "Windows" OS vendor(s) whose names start with "M".
Down the rabbit hole and back again.
I doubt think this is to protect the servers against military/police action by legitimate authorities. This is probably the DR site they forgot to build.
They need to bolster security, because Wikileaks might have information that bad actors would love to get their hands on in uncensored form.
If the military wanted to blow up servers, they could simply secure cooperation from the operators of the datacenter, and force their way in, less collataral damage that way.
If it was really war... a nuke would deny access to the servers from the surface, and might be combined with bunker busters
The difference is an open records request is answered voluntarily, they get to "review" the request, and censor things they don't want to give out that the statute allows them to suppress. Their compliance officer can redact, strike out, or censor sections they deem "sensitivie" or that they deem not currently covered by required disclosure.
They can also quietly destroy things they might happen to have that are requested, making them not part of the record in the first place (with a subpoena, that action is contempt of court).
Subpoena is disclosure being compelled by a court, open records request is disclosure being required by law, but not under any real penalties (but that the requestor might sue if you never answer their open records request)
Two reasons to subpoena are: (1) You think something illegal has been done that harms, you and you are suing about it, and (2) You think the information provided is inadequate for your case, either the open records request was not answered faithfully and completely, information was hidden, or information you need to fully prosecute your case is not forthcoming through the open record process.
Other than federal/state attorneys, I don't know of individuals being able to get subpoenas "just to look at something", or investigate something, when evidence of a crime or actionable violation has not yet been found.
My impression of subpoenas, are that they are provided for discovery, gathering additional documentation to complete the plaintiff's case.
Sensible... but the public should not suffer for the prosecutor's laziness.
If that's his or her duty, the prosecutor should be personally punished for wasting the court's time, and ordered to go find the authoritative source, or withdraw the statement, at even greater penalty.
If that's right, then why did the court throw it out, without examining the citation, and then examining the source, seeing it came from the DSM, and then checking the DSM?
A hyperlink citation is easier for a reader to click and follow than a citation to some page of the DSM, which requires pulling the old book out..
Is the court so er, dumb, its officers can't follow a citation chain, to establish the ultimate authority and ultimate source of every questionable assertion?
It could probably reasonably be cited, with support from other sources, for non-contentious info.
However... to use an under-construction Wiki-based encyclopedia to try to impeach an expert is insane.
Wikipedia is not an authority. If the expert is really an expert on the subject, then what they say is more likely to be correct than what Wikipedia says, because they are an expert in the subject they discuss.
And not only is Wikipedia not created by experts... Wikipedia derides expertise, and scorns authority. It also sometimes includes blatantly false, crackpot info, sometimes even vandalism.
Due to the wide range of people who edit it.
Errors will eventually be corrected; however, it's not like a court can reverse its verdict next week because someone corrected the cited WP article.
Not until courts reach the point where the opposition can look at the Wikipedia article, edit it to their liking, and have the witness "citation" automatically changed and taken into account, before trial ends.
In that case, there could be a fun edit war between prosecutor and defendant over the definitions of certain things.
If you change the definition of legal terms on WP, do courts automatically change their rules to match? :)
Facebook MySpace Facebook Youtube Facebook Twitter Facebook But some other things to think about...
Scanner input VS output DPI, and how output DPI effects image size on a computer screen. e.g. What is the maximum DPI that should be used for scanning various types of prints or film, in order to achieve the best observable quality, what is the maximum scanning DPI that provides useful information for various types of sources, rather than a mere increase in image size without additional detail.
Unfortunately, the rumors were greatly exagerated. The nukes didn't find their targets, because the folks who identified the servers were so unkind that they didn't publish the IP addresses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H coordinates
So would I like to see that.
So I could switch to those providers, and know they wouldn't be messing with my server without talking to me just because some er "researcher" decided they thought the server might be some sort of C&C
I imagine there could be some legal concerns of the researchers were to publish such a list... it might seem like extortion "Take down that server, or we'll publish your name!"
Or it might attract more business to those providers.. the, er, bad guys, would also know some go-to providers [not that they don't already]
I'm waiting for medical nanobots that covertly plant little sequence's in the patient's DNA during product activation, in order to ensure you can't share your anti-cancer nanonites with anyone else.
The 23rd pair of chromosomes is the perfect place to stash things where the user will never notice, right? and who cares if random things get corrupted there, not like anyone puts anything useful in chromosome 46, anyways, right?
Yes, but I was suggesting a more passive method that many people could take on with minimal risk of putting lives in danger.
Most people are not willing to take a shot gun and go at a van, which could potentially lead to criminal prosecution for vandalizing the vehicle.
Trying to 'get fancy' to negate their stealth advantage, 'blind their fancy sensors', stop their privacy invasion, or make it as difficult as possible, without anyone getting hurt.