Perhaps I'm being too logical, but if they're worried about a botted machine creating thousands of spam accounts per day, why not limit each IP to 3 to 5 new registrations ?
It's not like a normal user will be creating a thousand mailboxes for themselves. Those folks would spring for $5 mail hosting instead.
It seems to me, if there is knowledge of someone downplaying security risks/breaches, their job should be threatened IMMEDIATELY. It is their duty to analyze risk and report it, and they should be held responsible if they neglect those responsibilities.
Yeah, sometimes it's ugly. Some workplaces are a security nightmare, but that's precisely why we create security jobs in the first place. Identify the problems, build a game plan and implement it! A security advisor that finds no problems, is not doing their job right. There's no such thing as a 100% secure environment, it's all about evaluating risk vs benefit, and that is a moving target.
I had a friend recently learn the hard way about LCDs. Last year he finally replaced his aging CRT with a 22" LG display. I actually thought it was pretty decent for the price, but it was glossy and my buddy was getting constant headaches from it. At first he thought it was just the "shock" of a first-time LCD user, as I remember having to get used to them way back in the day.
A week passed and he was still very much in pain, he hated his display and wanted to go back to a CRT. We exchanged the LCD for a smaller model with a matte finish, which he found easier on the eyes but it still took a few months before he stopped whining about it. I personally think he's having issues with the fine flicker of scrolling/moving objects. No LCD can match the fluidity of a high-quality CRT.
Me, I hate the gloss, though I wish LCD manufacturers would build a matte display that can be washed as easily as the full-face glossy ones. It is hell trying to wipe a plastic surface without streaking it too much.
Funny you should mention that, as widescreen displays of any given measurement are smaller than a 4:3 display with the same diagonal.
That's why people are getting 20" widescreen LCDs with their eMachine, or MDG, or whatever hunk of junk they sell at Best Circuit. The client thinks he's getting a 20" screen, but it has the pixel spread and surface area of a traditional 17" LCD.
To give you an idea, I'm using a 22" wide main, and a 19" square side. They're the exact same height and almost the same dot pitch, so I'm really just getting an extra 3 inches width on the widescreen. The 19" cost about half as much as the 22", yet is within 25% of the total surface area.
For the past decade the/. community has kept me more informed about technology than any other source.
You must be new here, Mr 5-digit id.
Seriously though, kudos for helping your workplace run leaner. The impact of your efforts reaches far beyond the confines of your own four walls and benefits everyone who is even remotely involved with the company, its products/services and its clients.
Then why are we still here ?/. died the day it was sold off, just about when Zonk and Jon Katz showed up with their special brand of navel-gazing drivel.
No, but seriously, we don't have a cure, and anyone who tells you they can cure X, Y or Z-uncurable life-ruining disease is:
1. lying 2. greedy 3. unprovable
It's simple: pharmaceutical companies make money whether the cure works or not. They make more money if it doesn't work, because healthy people don't buy (prescription) drugs.
If the same corporations only got paid once their treatment had cured the patient, we'd see a whole lot of common diseases cured overnight. Instead of managing sickness, pharmas would focus on efficiency. This will never happen in the U.S.A., not without a violent revolution against hypercapitalism.
The day someone comes forth with a verified and dependable cure for Autism, I will spread the good word myself. Until then, I think it's all bullshit.
What CPU technology ? Their "native" quad core is slower than Intel's "bastard" double-double.
AMD had the lead for a brief while, and they pushed Intel to slash their prices at long last, but now AMD is back where it started, back where it belongs in the budget segment. It's not a bad place to be, now that the Ghz race is over and 99.44% of the world is completely sated with entry-level processors.
A combined CPU and GPU would allow cost savings, which is good for a large portion of the market who simply want a cheap piece of junk that can run Excel and surf porn.
On the reverse, having both items fused together means you can't upgrade one without tossing the other. You might be perfectly happy with the GPU, but want a faster CPU for the real work you do with that machine. I'd bet my 8800GTS that Intel/AMD will plan their product lines in such a way that you can't get exactly what you want - you'll either have to get more GPU than you need, to match the CPU side, or vice versa. No more lopsided configs.
Personally, I would much rather stick with the current solutions involving motherboard-integrated video. G31 and NF7050 are pretty decent for what they are, and there's nothing currently stopping me from slapping a Q6600 quad-core on a cheap G31 for a budget compute node. A combined CPU+GPU won't let me do that.
Having the GPU built into the CPU is primarily a cost-cutting measure. Take one low-end CPU, add one low-end GPU, and you have a single-chip solution that consumes a bit less power than separate components.
Nobody expects the CPU+GPU to yield gaming performance worth a damn, because the two big companies that are looking into this amalgam both have underperforming graphics technology. Do they both make excellent budget solutions ? Yes they certainly do, but for those who crave extreme speed, the only option is NVidia.
That said, not everyone plays shooters. Back in my retail days, I'd say I moved 50 times more bottom-end GPUs than top-end ones. Those Radeon 9250s were $29.99 piles of alien poop, but cheap poop is enough for the average norm. The only people who spent more than $100 on a video card were teenagers and comic book guys (and of course, my awesome self).
Intel is pushing raytracing, not because it's the right thing to do, but rather because it directly benefits Intel by increasing demand for fast multi-core processors.
Bankers push investments, not because it benefits you, but because it benefits them! Intel, as a corporation, is interested in your money, not your best interests.
Sure, they could hijack the DNS onto their own servers and forward requests on to yours. A whois lookup would expose the practice, but how often do you check your own whois record ?
Me, I've had a bad taste for NetSol since the 90's. They've always been up to sneaky shit, this latest story didn't surprise me at all. In fact I'd be more surprised if they suddenly stopped being skeevy.
That, combined with the fact that they charge 1994 prices in the GoDaddy era is all the reasons I need to completely ignore them.
I would like varying PC sizes, but that brings with it compatibility issues. Do "big" computers require big cards ? Will that big cards fit in a normal/small unit ?
As much as I'd love for Antec to make a bar-fridge sized chassis, conjugated with a monstrous Asus motherboard featuring a gazillion PCI-E channels, two dozen RAM slots and fifty SATA connectors, I don't expect to see any such orgiastic concoction, not ever.
The trend is to minify, which is great for the Average Joes and Janes, but is completely counter-intuitive to hardware nuts like myself. I now have to pay a premium for a larger chassis that was once considered standard. Full tower ? There's no such thing anymore, it is considered madness. People want Mac Minis or laptops, still hooked up to full-sized monitors and keyboards. Me, I'm irritated that I can only have four cores and 8gb ram... I'm annoyed that nobody makes a 5.25" hard drive with 2.5x the capacity of a 3.5" platter with equal density. Wouldn't you like to cram twice as much disk space into the same sized rack server ?
Small is great, and I'm all for the pursuit of miniaturization because it benefits everyone, but there are a lot of applications where big is better. It's no small coincidence that those applications are the ones with significant budgets.
I fail to see why they even bothered to build this thing. Anyone who's been paying attention would know that multi-GPU technology is a clusterfuck. Nobody has a stable, reliable implementation that actually yields respectable performance. A 20-30% increase for GPU-bound applications is simply pathetic... often times that increase is 0%, if a game is not SLI-enabled by its developer or by the graphics drivers.
When they come up with a multi-GPU system that appropriately virtualizes the whole thing, enabling ALL apps to benefit, I'll buy. Right now, it's just double the money for none of the fun.
In the last year alone, I've seen at least three distinct kernel exploits that have cost me some downtime, and this is on clustered web servers running behind a proxy/firewall.
Two of those exploits were based on weaknesses in vmsplice. For my own sanity, I don't poke my nose anywhere near kernel development, but I do have to question the logic of taking a perfectly good kernel, messing with its VM system and introducing bugs galore. How are we supposed to have a secure operating system if the kernel devs keep playing with untested features ?
In a perfect world, we'd set up network infrastructure that is both upgradeable and has tons of headroom (even gigabit's getting old). Sure, the cost would be substantial, but it is amortized over a very long time and has tangential benefits like merging all our communications over one multiplexed transport. Why bother with digital cable when you can have true IPTV for a fraction of the cost ?
What irritates me is how I can lease a server (overseas) with a fatter pipe and lower monthly bill, than what I pay for residential weak-ass cable. Yep, my servers get dedicated bandwidth, which means I can hold them at line speed, both ways, without anyone throwing a fit or threatening me with surcharges. How can bandwidth be so cheap over there, and so expensive over here ? It reaches the same internet, and quite frankly it's as fast as anything stateside, not to mention I don't have to worry about laws-du-jour landing me in court.
Here I am, living downtown in a medium-sized apartment building. Datacenters may cram a lot of PCs per rack, but I've got two dozen floors, and I'd guess about 80% of tenants have at least one computer (U students and office drones). How hard can it possibly be to run fiber to this one building and set up a few switches in the basement ? I mean, frig, there's a peering facility a half-block away!
Some countries "get it", not only do they have network infrastructure in place, they're not afraid to put it within reach of everyday people. I sure wouldn't mind splitting a few gigabits with my neighbors while halving my monthly bill.
GDP don't mean shit when all the money is being blown up in a fake war on foreign soil.
America has misleading numbers, because they have the most creative accountants. If only the government had a clue how to run its country, it could again be a superpower. Right now it's a joke, and you have those lovely republicans to blame for it all.
Yup. It seems every few months we hear about Microsoft snapping up some second-rate OSS poster child. They pay them to sit around doing nothing, Microsoft gets to throw the name around, and eventually the OSS guy leaves and writes about his boredom on Blogspot.
Daniel Robbins did it, then they made ESR laugh with us, and now this Sam dude. Why don't they just dress Ballmer in a BSD devil costume and call it a day ?
Maybe I'm special, but I find I work _better_ from home, for many reason:
1. Comfort 2. No disruptions 3. My PC's a screamin' demon 4. No more of those "longest day ever" days. I can take off mid-day, walk over to a terrace for lunch and a pint, and go back to work refreshed and satisfied 5. ??? 6. Profit!?
For me, it works great, but I'm a computer nut with no kids, and the wife stays out of my hair. I'm past the stage where games like World of Warcraft could devour my life, and even beyond my job I still do the same kind of work for myself, running a few web sites and servers. Home is as much a "work environment" for me as any other place with a terminal.
Meanwhile my coworkers are family men with bossy wives and 2.4 pre-teens running up the walls, they probably see the office as a sanctuary, an escape from their busy homes. Ironically, I live a few blocks away from the office, everyone else lives way out in the boonies. To be honest, if there weren't an unspoken awkwardness with my fellow coders, I'd forward my office number and work from home almost every day. I would definitely get more stuff done.
All this to say: travel time should not be the primary factor when considering telework.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm being too logical, but if they're worried about a botted machine creating thousands of spam accounts per day, why not limit each IP to 3 to 5 new registrations ?
It's not like a normal user will be creating a thousand mailboxes for themselves. Those folks would spring for $5 mail hosting instead.
It seems to me, if there is knowledge of someone downplaying security risks/breaches, their job should be threatened IMMEDIATELY. It is their duty to analyze risk and report it, and they should be held responsible if they neglect those responsibilities.
Yeah, sometimes it's ugly. Some workplaces are a security nightmare, but that's precisely why we create security jobs in the first place. Identify the problems, build a game plan and implement it! A security advisor that finds no problems, is not doing their job right. There's no such thing as a 100% secure environment, it's all about evaluating risk vs benefit, and that is a moving target.
Yep it's all about what looks pretty in-store.
I had a friend recently learn the hard way about LCDs. Last year he finally replaced his aging CRT with a 22" LG display. I actually thought it was pretty decent for the price, but it was glossy and my buddy was getting constant headaches from it. At first he thought it was just the "shock" of a first-time LCD user, as I remember having to get used to them way back in the day.
A week passed and he was still very much in pain, he hated his display and wanted to go back to a CRT. We exchanged the LCD for a smaller model with a matte finish, which he found easier on the eyes but it still took a few months before he stopped whining about it. I personally think he's having issues with the fine flicker of scrolling/moving objects. No LCD can match the fluidity of a high-quality CRT.
Me, I hate the gloss, though I wish LCD manufacturers would build a matte display that can be washed as easily as the full-face glossy ones. It is hell trying to wipe a plastic surface without streaking it too much.
Funny you should mention that, as widescreen displays of any given measurement are smaller than a 4:3 display with the same diagonal.
That's why people are getting 20" widescreen LCDs with their eMachine, or MDG, or whatever hunk of junk they sell at Best Circuit. The client thinks he's getting a 20" screen, but it has the pixel spread and surface area of a traditional 17" LCD.
To give you an idea, I'm using a 22" wide main, and a 19" square side. They're the exact same height and almost the same dot pitch, so I'm really just getting an extra 3 inches width on the widescreen. The 19" cost about half as much as the 22", yet is within 25% of the total surface area.
Widescreen is HELLA PROFITABLE!
You must be new here, Mr 5-digit id.
Seriously though, kudos for helping your workplace run leaner. The impact of your efforts reaches far beyond the confines of your own four walls and benefits everyone who is even remotely involved with the company, its products/services and its clients.
Then why are we still here ? /. died the day it was sold off, just about when Zonk and Jon Katz showed up with their special brand of navel-gazing drivel.
All that's left now is trolls and republicans.
Here's my take:
Drugs don't cure autism.
Guns cure autism.
Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
No, but seriously, we don't have a cure, and anyone who tells you they can cure X, Y or Z-uncurable life-ruining disease is:
1. lying
2. greedy
3. unprovable
It's simple: pharmaceutical companies make money whether the cure works or not. They make more money if it doesn't work, because healthy people don't buy (prescription) drugs.
If the same corporations only got paid once their treatment had cured the patient, we'd see a whole lot of common diseases cured overnight. Instead of managing sickness, pharmas would focus on efficiency. This will never happen in the U.S.A., not without a violent revolution against hypercapitalism.
The day someone comes forth with a verified and dependable cure for Autism, I will spread the good word myself. Until then, I think it's all bullshit.
What CPU technology ? Their "native" quad core is slower than Intel's "bastard" double-double.
AMD had the lead for a brief while, and they pushed Intel to slash their prices at long last, but now AMD is back where it started, back where it belongs in the budget segment. It's not a bad place to be, now that the Ghz race is over and 99.44% of the world is completely sated with entry-level processors.
Yes and no.
A combined CPU and GPU would allow cost savings, which is good for a large portion of the market who simply want a cheap piece of junk that can run Excel and surf porn.
On the reverse, having both items fused together means you can't upgrade one without tossing the other. You might be perfectly happy with the GPU, but want a faster CPU for the real work you do with that machine. I'd bet my 8800GTS that Intel/AMD will plan their product lines in such a way that you can't get exactly what you want - you'll either have to get more GPU than you need, to match the CPU side, or vice versa. No more lopsided configs.
Personally, I would much rather stick with the current solutions involving motherboard-integrated video. G31 and NF7050 are pretty decent for what they are, and there's nothing currently stopping me from slapping a Q6600 quad-core on a cheap G31 for a budget compute node. A combined CPU+GPU won't let me do that.
Having the GPU built into the CPU is primarily a cost-cutting measure. Take one low-end CPU, add one low-end GPU, and you have a single-chip solution that consumes a bit less power than separate components.
Nobody expects the CPU+GPU to yield gaming performance worth a damn, because the two big companies that are looking into this amalgam both have underperforming graphics technology. Do they both make excellent budget solutions ? Yes they certainly do, but for those who crave extreme speed, the only option is NVidia.
That said, not everyone plays shooters. Back in my retail days, I'd say I moved 50 times more bottom-end GPUs than top-end ones. Those Radeon 9250s were $29.99 piles of alien poop, but cheap poop is enough for the average norm. The only people who spent more than $100 on a video card were teenagers and comic book guys (and of course, my awesome self).
How about Quake with permadeath ? Kinda kills the fun, don't it ? Note I didn't say TF, just plain old deathmatch.
A permadeath MMO would be interesting, but WoW isn't it. They would have to:
1. seriously nerf the mobs
2. speed up the leveling and gathering twentyfold
3. restrict ganking to the extreme!
Then it's not really WoW anymore, innit ?
If I wanted a game that mimics real life, I'd get a gun and move to Detroit.
Intel is pushing raytracing, not because it's the right thing to do, but rather because it directly benefits Intel by increasing demand for fast multi-core processors.
Bankers push investments, not because it benefits you, but because it benefits them! Intel, as a corporation, is interested in your money, not your best interests.
Sure, they could hijack the DNS onto their own servers and forward requests on to yours. A whois lookup would expose the practice, but how often do you check your own whois record ?
Me, I've had a bad taste for NetSol since the 90's. They've always been up to sneaky shit, this latest story didn't surprise me at all. In fact I'd be more surprised if they suddenly stopped being skeevy.
That, combined with the fact that they charge 1994 prices in the GoDaddy era is all the reasons I need to completely ignore them.
Whoever wins, we lose.
I would like varying PC sizes, but that brings with it compatibility issues. Do "big" computers require big cards ? Will that big cards fit in a normal/small unit ?
As much as I'd love for Antec to make a bar-fridge sized chassis, conjugated with a monstrous Asus motherboard featuring a gazillion PCI-E channels, two dozen RAM slots and fifty SATA connectors, I don't expect to see any such orgiastic concoction, not ever.
The trend is to minify, which is great for the Average Joes and Janes, but is completely counter-intuitive to hardware nuts like myself. I now have to pay a premium for a larger chassis that was once considered standard. Full tower ? There's no such thing anymore, it is considered madness. People want Mac Minis or laptops, still hooked up to full-sized monitors and keyboards. Me, I'm irritated that I can only have four cores and 8gb ram... I'm annoyed that nobody makes a 5.25" hard drive with 2.5x the capacity of a 3.5" platter with equal density. Wouldn't you like to cram twice as much disk space into the same sized rack server ?
Small is great, and I'm all for the pursuit of miniaturization because it benefits everyone, but there are a lot of applications where big is better. It's no small coincidence that those applications are the ones with significant budgets.
I fail to see why they even bothered to build this thing. Anyone who's been paying attention would know that multi-GPU technology is a clusterfuck. Nobody has a stable, reliable implementation that actually yields respectable performance. A 20-30% increase for GPU-bound applications is simply pathetic... often times that increase is 0%, if a game is not SLI-enabled by its developer or by the graphics drivers.
When they come up with a multi-GPU system that appropriately virtualizes the whole thing, enabling ALL apps to benefit, I'll buy. Right now, it's just double the money for none of the fun.
Better than Linux too!
In the last year alone, I've seen at least three distinct kernel exploits that have cost me some downtime, and this is on clustered web servers running behind a proxy/firewall.
Two of those exploits were based on weaknesses in vmsplice. For my own sanity, I don't poke my nose anywhere near kernel development, but I do have to question the logic of taking a perfectly good kernel, messing with its VM system and introducing bugs galore. How are we supposed to have a secure operating system if the kernel devs keep playing with untested features ?
In a perfect world, we'd set up network infrastructure that is both upgradeable and has tons of headroom (even gigabit's getting old). Sure, the cost would be substantial, but it is amortized over a very long time and has tangential benefits like merging all our communications over one multiplexed transport. Why bother with digital cable when you can have true IPTV for a fraction of the cost ?
What irritates me is how I can lease a server (overseas) with a fatter pipe and lower monthly bill, than what I pay for residential weak-ass cable. Yep, my servers get dedicated bandwidth, which means I can hold them at line speed, both ways, without anyone throwing a fit or threatening me with surcharges. How can bandwidth be so cheap over there, and so expensive over here ? It reaches the same internet, and quite frankly it's as fast as anything stateside, not to mention I don't have to worry about laws-du-jour landing me in court.
Here I am, living downtown in a medium-sized apartment building. Datacenters may cram a lot of PCs per rack, but I've got two dozen floors, and I'd guess about 80% of tenants have at least one computer (U students and office drones). How hard can it possibly be to run fiber to this one building and set up a few switches in the basement ? I mean, frig, there's a peering facility a half-block away!
Some countries "get it", not only do they have network infrastructure in place, they're not afraid to put it within reach of everyday people. I sure wouldn't mind splitting a few gigabits with my neighbors while halving my monthly bill.
GDP don't mean shit when all the money is being blown up in a fake war on foreign soil.
America has misleading numbers, because they have the most creative accountants. If only the government had a clue how to run its country, it could again be a superpower. Right now it's a joke, and you have those lovely republicans to blame for it all.
Yup. It seems every few months we hear about Microsoft snapping up some second-rate OSS poster child. They pay them to sit around doing nothing, Microsoft gets to throw the name around, and eventually the OSS guy leaves and writes about his boredom on Blogspot.
Daniel Robbins did it, then they made ESR laugh with us, and now this Sam dude. Why don't they just dress Ballmer in a BSD devil costume and call it a day ?
Okay so I'm recording everything about my life.
/. I'm recording everything about my life.
/. that I'm telling /. I'm recording everything about my life.
/. that I just told /. that I'm telling /. I'm recording everything about my life.
/. how I told /. that I've been telling /. that I'm telling /. I'm recording *!&@$%^&@#*($&@(*#&$ .uY42/"
Now I'm telling
I just told
I was telling
I scrolled the comment box while telling
*!&@$%^&@#*($&@(*#&$
ÂÃSÃY©Segmentation Fault.
Maybe I'm special, but I find I work _better_ from home, for many reason:
1. Comfort
2. No disruptions
3. My PC's a screamin' demon
4. No more of those "longest day ever" days. I can take off mid-day, walk over to a terrace for lunch and a pint, and go back to work refreshed and satisfied
5. ???
6. Profit!?
For me, it works great, but I'm a computer nut with no kids, and the wife stays out of my hair. I'm past the stage where games like World of Warcraft could devour my life, and even beyond my job I still do the same kind of work for myself, running a few web sites and servers. Home is as much a "work environment" for me as any other place with a terminal.
Meanwhile my coworkers are family men with bossy wives and 2.4 pre-teens running up the walls, they probably see the office as a sanctuary, an escape from their busy homes. Ironically, I live a few blocks away from the office, everyone else lives way out in the boonies. To be honest, if there weren't an unspoken awkwardness with my fellow coders, I'd forward my office number and work from home almost every day. I would definitely get more stuff done.
All this to say: travel time should not be the primary factor when considering telework.
Wrong. Use POP3/SSL for all your email, or in my case IMAP/SSL.
It works, it's tight, and it looks great in a powerpoint presentation. Want to buy an account ?
Why is there no "+4 Saved this boring thread with a laugh" moderation ?
Yeah, that perked me up a tad on this gray depressing day.