Because the hard drives (and SSDs) throughput is already dwarfed by current wire speeds. The best hard drive you can get can push 1 Gbps (that's bits per second) while SATA and SAS can deliver 3 Gbps. Parallel SCSI can deliver 3.6 Gbps. And when you really need a SAN, there are already iSCSI and fibre channel.
If Seagate pushes hard enough, they may find this out the hard way. They may be an 800lb gorilla in the storage market. But, even a large ape does not like getting stung by a thousand bees, and Seagate is waving a stick around a number of bee hives, in my view of things.
What if, faced with a potential lawsuit from Seagate, we were to see Intel, Samsung, TI, etc., get together and develop a new standard that bypasses Seagate's IP. They could license it to each other for next to nothing... except to Seagate... no soup for you. Sure, they'd like to be safe from a backlash in the spinning media world. But, given the rapid price drops on SSD storage, at some point the SSD media will be "cheap enough" for primary storage and spinning media would be relegated to 2nd tier, archival storage. Intel certainly has the smarts and the fabrication facilities to develop a competitor to anything Seagate might come up with.
Here's an honest question I've been wondering about for a while. Why don't we use GigE or 10GigE to communicate with storage?
I imagine there's more overhead than with the currently used protocols, but how much are we talking about here? I'm more of a software than
hardware guy, though I know a little about the different layers in the ISO model. *waves hands*. Build in a router on the motherboard, have a port for talking to the outside world and a few ports for talking to storage. Economy of scale and the hardware would be dirt cheap... right? Since it seems like an obvious idea, I'm sure I'm missing something. Would someone who knows these things care to elaborate? Tnx!
I'd suggest running the code through a pretty printer to get consistent layout throughout the whole project.
Umm... running it through a pretty printer wipes out the very details that printing out is supposed to bring out. After pretty printing, you are no longer seeing the 'native' code - but rather you are seeing the patterns hard coded into the pretty printer.
I respectfully disagree. Consider a piece of code that has 8 levels of nesting. With a judicious use of short variable
names, parentheses, and curly braces, it is possible to make it *look* not so bad in the original code. It might look like there's only
a half dozen levels. With a pretty printer, nesting LOOKS exactly as nesting IS. At a *GLANCE* I can see where things are getting hairy.
That does NOT mean that it must be refactored. Only that it is an area that may be worthy of additional consideration.
On second thought, nothing says this is a black-or-white choice. If it works for you to print out code as is, great! My experience has been that a pretty printer can be helpful. YMMV.
... A better solution would be to print a class per page. At the start of the project, the application had about 150 classes, and the refactoring effort is focussed on about 80 of those. Initially, gigantic classes would be an incomprehensible smudge of grey, but as the refactoring process starts tidying the code and factoring out into other classes, the weekly printout would start to literally come into focus, hopefully ending up with many pages actually containing readable code (which happens roughly when the class is small enough to fit on no more than 3 pages at normal size).
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! "Smell test?" Yah, right. But then I got to thinking, "Why are code formatting standards
such a hot topic?" The computer doesn't care if indentation is expressed with 2 spaces, 3 spaces, or a tab. But, I do!
Over time, I've learned how to see coding errors just from the slight aberrations in the LOOK of code. Couldn't tell you WHAT it was,
at first, it just felt (or smelled) wrong. So call it what you will, but I could now see how "smell test" has some basis behind it.
Then, I got to thinking of an age-old question:
How do you find a needle in a haystack?
Make the haystack smaller, and/or
Make the needle(s) bigger
The technique in the article accomplishes BOTH of these. I'd suggest running the code through a
pretty printer to get consistent layout throughout the
whole project. The more the semantics of the project can be represented by syntax, the more visible the troublesome code becomes.
It's not because they're luddites but rather, they are comfortable with what they know. (emphasis added)
Actually, I suspect it may be more that "they are UNcomfortable with what they DO NOT know." People have a certain range of stimulation with which they feel comfortable. Below that, they feel bored. Above that, they feel overwhelmed. (Shut the *%&^* up!) And, that range of stimulus with which one person feels comfortable can be quite different from someone else's comfort zone.
I prefer a lower level stimulation than average. If I go shopping at a mall, I can last an hour, maybe two. Then all of the music, bright lights, shiny ads, conversations, and general din get to be too much. If everyone perceived it that way, then it would scare away shoppers, and they'd "fix" it. So, I accept that and make it a point to take a break for a few minutes of quiet time and then I'm good to go for another hour or two. I don't really mind, I've come to realize that this same sensitivity has benefits, too... I've had a great career in software quality assurance.
My point is that these "late adopters" may be already close to saturation on stimulus, and as much better as the new stuff may be, accepting and adopting that change could be the straw that [at least in their perception] breaks the camel's back. It's easier to deal with the incremental challenges of an old technology, than it is to take a chance on a big change. Or so it seems to them.
Here's a question that's been gnawing at me for a while... why is the "black box" just a recorder? I'd think of this question every time I heard that there's been an accident and the black box had not been found. OR, that they found the box but it was too badly damaged to make out all the data. Is this still a problem?
If a black box (BB) senses an anomalous event, why couldn't it transmit a [compressed] copy of the recorded data? Or, even better, besides recording it all, transmit all the data all the time. Maybe not to the airline, but to you at L3 Aviation Recorders, perhaps? With the recent talk about providing in-flight internet access, I could see this happening sooner or later.
Without internet access, just have a reserved frequency to transmit on. If transmit time becomes an issue, use multiple frequencies and transmit on each one of them in parallel.
I can't imagine I'm the first to think of this, so what am I missing here? Could it be it is only now that we could conceivably do this?
Open source is an adjective that describes a piece of software as having the original source code publicly available. "Open Source" is also the name of a marketing campaign and licensing lobbying movement. So this release is open source as the code is being made available. It does not comply with the desires of the "Open Source" movement though. The two are entirely different.
Agreed. Here's another way of stating it:
closed source == "object code only"
open source == !(closed source)
Open Source !== (open source)
Early in my career, I remember when hardware was EXPENSIVE(*) and it was hard to justify to the bean counters that such a significant purchase was worthwhile. Software was given away by the manufacturer, and freely extensible, as a means to help justify the expense of the hardware. Manufacturers were keen on building demand so they could sell more computers. The more the community could help in the development of software, the more marketable the systems became. (cf SHARE and
DECUS.) Over time, the cost of hardware went down, and the capabilities of the associated software increased.
Along this continuum, others discovered that as more and more computers were sold, there was a growing market for the software itself. They made investments, produced software, and sold it at a profit. But, if they gave away the source with the software, some people would just make copies for free.
Hence, software started being shipped as "closed source", in contrast to the common "open source" distribution. Later still, the "Open Source" movement (F/LOSS) started.
(*) IIRC my high school paid $25K for a PDP/8 back in the early 1970's.
Preface: I got called away after I started this, this is quick and dirty, and I'm pressed for time, but it's my hope that it will act as a starting point for discussion. I'm sure there's many opportunities for optimizations and there are shortcomings.
How to come up with process documentation? For starters: have the processes document themselves; i.e., add a wrapper program around invocations of common applications which captures:
username
start date and time
application name (and the path to it)
application arguments (filenames and switches)
completion date and time
I'll assume you are working in a Microsoft Windows/XP shop. If you haven't already, get a copy of the
GNU CoreUtils for Windows.
Set some global environment variables for each user and then code a simple batch program, logger.bat:
Now, wherever a user ordinarily runs "foo", replace it with a call to "logger.bat foo %*"
e.g. Update items in the start menu to invoke logger.bat with what you'd ordinarily run.
Crude? Yup! Sufficient? Nope! Maybe you have a better way to do it... Good! Maybe you'd prefer to do it in perl. Fine!
What about phone calls? Well, can you extract logs from your PBX? Gather that data and merge it in, too!
Here's the important thing: It does not require any change in what the user does in the course of their day, it is easily extensible in that you can instrument other apps to log as you find them, and most importantly, you now have some data to start from! As you find gaps in the day's activities, instrument those, too. The good part is that it does not "cost" much in your time or the users and it will go a long way to getting started. Don't believe me? Try instrumenting what YOU do and see if you can find any patterns. Refactor it. Lather. Rinse. Repeat!
Now, using the data you've gathered, you can write filters to extract who touches a given file as it works its way through the system. Or, get a look at what applications somebody uses each day. Dependencies will reveal themselves.
Thanks to google and its archive of usenet posts:
this query on google groups of: "FTP SMTP virus proxy server group:comp.*" for the time period of 01-Jan-95 through 26-Sep-95 (the patent was filed on 26-Sep-95)
returned
this link .
It appeared in the comp.security.misc newsgroup and the first few paragraphs (emphasis added) suggests to me this might be prior art:
FOSE '95, WASHINGTON, March 21/PRNewswire/ -- Norman Data Defense Systems,
Inc. today introduced the Norman Firewall, a firewall providing a single,
highly secured route for data traveling between networks and the Internet.
"We are proud to deliver a new level of data defense for networks that are
currently vulnerable to attack from a variety of global data security threats,
including hackers and viruses," said Norman Data Defense Systems, Inc.
President and CEO David J. Stang, Ph.D.
Like a sentry positioned to identify visitors and then authorize or deny
entry, the Norman Firewall combines an integrated front-end server, proxy
server, and virus detector to defend systems and information. The Norman
Firewall essentially opens incoming and outgoing data packets, and inspects,
virus-checks (against more than 6,500 known viruses), and repackages the data
packets, before delivery to their destination. No packets ever need to
directly enter or leave internal networks.
I don't have time right now to search further, but wanted to put this out
there for others to follow up on. Any takers?
P.S. As a point of comparison, consider that the Morris Worm was released onto the internet on 02-Nov-88 (more details here: A Tour of the Worm) and THAT was nearly SEVEN YEARS before this patent was filed!
First off, and on-topic, I've used several of the referenced computers: Commodore PET AND c64, TI 99/4A, Atari 400, and PC-Jr. They were all pretty bad for typing, except I don't recall having much trouble with the C64 (shrug). I actually got the Atari 400 for my parents and sibs as a gaming machine and it did just fine for that (I got an 800 and that had a real keyboard - enjoyed it greatly).
<graybeard_mode=ON>
My _first_ access to a computer was with an ASR-33 teletype (TTY). I was in middle school and we'd DIAL the phone and place its handset into the acoustical coupler. That gave us 110 baud access to the high school's DEC PDP-8. The TTY had a manual action which moved various levers and the like so it was hard work typing. That was, until I discovered there was an interconnection between the keys which allowed the currently pressed key to be pushed back UP when I pressed DOWN on the next key. (Like a see-saw.) At one point, I could finish typing and wait 10 seconds for the TTY to catch up. Anyone else experience the "joys" of using the paper tape punch and reader for program storage? Where you could physically SEE each and every bit of storage on the tape.;)
Another approach is to just block it in your HOSTS file:
127.0.0.1 uc8010.com Just FYI, doing my own quick Google search, it appears that the hosts used by the bulk of these attacks is actually c.uc8010.com and n.uc8010.com. Indeed, it looks like all one-letter hostnames are used for this domain. So modification of your HOSTS should be made accordingly to ensure all hosts from this domain are indeed re-routed.
Yaz. Yup. You're right. I took a look at the latest HOSTS file I downloaded and it does the right thing:
Another approach is to just block it in your HOSTS file:
127.0.0.1 uc8010.com
Or, even better, use an updated HOSTS file which has entries to block malicious sites: (on last check, this blocked over 16,000 addresses!):
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip
This one helped me a lot: "The Windows Interface Guidelines for Software Design" by Microsoft Press. (ISBN 1-55615-679-0)
I'm sure it's out of date now (it targets Win95 & NT), but I got it so I could help test some Windows applications back in the day. It was a great help in learning how to lay things out on the screen, in dialog boxes, menus, etc. Even more importantly, I learned the rules for keyboard navigation -- it's amazing how much can be done without having to take hands off the keyboard. Things are quicker, too, because I can key my way through drop-down menus without having to wait for each one to paint before I could click on the next selection I wanted.
I'm interested in what its follow-ons are and what people's experience have been with it.
"The probability of asteroid 2007 WD5 impacting Mars has been revised [CC] following further observations. The chance of impact has increased from 1.3% to 3.9%"
But what about 2007 WD40? My bet is that one WILL slip past us!
<grin>
I did some googling and found David Wiltshire's
home page which had links to his
recent publications. That brought me to
this full article which I am guessing is the one that corresponds to what was discussed in the original/. article here.
I had a couple courses in astronomy and cosmology way back in my college days. That said, I can't begin to understand the details. I'm hoping someone with more knowledge and experience could elaborate. Is he really onto something that can dispense with the need for dark energy? And, if he is, am I correct in thinking this would be Nobel-Prize-Candidate-Worthy?
You might not hear it at home, on computer speakers or certainly not your earbuds, but the bigger the stereo, the more it is obvious.
And actually what is the most disturbing is that what is very, very wrong about lossy encoding formats is that it doesn't necessarily affect so
much the frequency response, as it does the 'punch', transients and other intangibles which when played on those large-format systems become
quickly apparent. (emphasis added)
Thank you for your well-reasoned and clear comment. I RTFA and I agree with you. I'd like to elaborate a bit on the part of your comment I quoted. It seems to me that they used the term "MP3" rather flippantly: to mean BOTH the compressed audio format AND listening to music on an iPod's tiny ear buds. If I'm listening to music on a portable player with ear buds, then it's an almost certainty that I'm listening to an MP3 (Ogg, etc. notwithstanding). But it is NOT the case that all MP3's are listened to with just ear buds!
So, in their efforts to overcome the ear bud's limitations, they compress the audio on the CD, so that when it is converted to an MP3 ***AND*** then listened to on ear buds, it sounds "okay". Unfortunately, those with a hi-fidelity capable system have no way to access that which was compressed out.
Given the increasing shift from RIAA dominated distribution of music (3 out of 4 major labels now permit sale of non-DRM music), I think it would be great if there were TWO releases of any given song:
Release #1 - Clean: - wide dynamic range, with all the nuances, loud and soft passages and the like retained in their entirety.
Release #2 - Loud: - compressed, suitable for ear buds, loud, etc. as they are currently released.
It would be a simple matter of mixing the track to where it sounds good for full fidelity, saving that as "Release 1 - Clean", and THEN running it through the finalizing and compression for the currently-targeted market: "Release 2 - Loud". No real extra cost for the artist or studio.
Besides, the clean version could always be compressed subsequently. How long before there is a cheap, reasonably-effective, real-time, dynamic range compressor built into every portable music player? Depending on how much ambient noise there is, I could just set it to a higher level of compression on playback...
Just make sure both the volume and the compression settings range from zero to eleven! <grin>
For more information on proton beam therapy, albeit from a provider's point of view, here is a link to
Loma Linda's Proton therapy page. (They were the first to set up a proton therapy center.)
In addition to static informational and historical pages, there are also some
videos explaining what they have to offer and how it works.
I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm all for ways to help spread information and help make things safer.
OTOH, I'm fortunate to now be living in one of 4 states in the USA which
ban billboards. (The four states are: Maine, Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii.)
It was hard to fathom just how "noisy" every place else was until I experienced it first hand.
I've lived and traveled in other places where billboards were seemingly everywhere. (e.g. NYC, Boston, San Jose) A trip down any major road, especially near a large city, felt like an assault of advertisements screaming for my attention. (Hmmm. I wonder if that has anything to do with the prevalence of road rage?)
Send them out over radio and TV (ala National Weather Service weather alerts) or cell phones or ultra-mobile PCs or mobile GPS units. I'm sure you can think of others approaches.
BTW, I'm curious to see how long it'll take for MIT or Caltech to implement one of their infamous hacks on these?
What I couldn't decipher is how long will the probe be in close proximity to the comet? On opposing vectors? Or will the slingshot
put it alongside the same trajectory as the comet coming up from behind? If the latter, now that's a pretty cool set of
calculations, and should make for a nice long study of the comet.
A little googling and some luck turned up this
EPOXI Trajectory on NASA's web site.
As far as I can tell, the craft will be traveling at right angles to the comet. Probe's final orbit in the image heads
from top to bottom; the comet comes in from the right, loops around clockwise, and heads back out to the right.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks! Much appreciated.
The enemy of my enemy ... is my friend.
If Seagate pushes hard enough, they may find this out the hard way. They may be an 800lb gorilla in the storage market. But, even a large ape does not like getting stung by a thousand bees, and Seagate is waving a stick around a number of bee hives, in my view of things.
What if, faced with a potential lawsuit from Seagate, we were to see Intel, Samsung, TI, etc., get together and develop a new standard that bypasses Seagate's IP. They could license it to each other for next to nothing... except to Seagate... no soup for you. Sure, they'd like to be safe from a backlash in the spinning media world. But, given the rapid price drops on SSD storage, at some point the SSD media will be "cheap enough" for primary storage and spinning media would be relegated to 2nd tier, archival storage. Intel certainly has the smarts and the fabrication facilities to develop a competitor to anything Seagate might come up with.
Here's an honest question I've been wondering about for a while. Why don't we use GigE or 10GigE to communicate with storage? I imagine there's more overhead than with the currently used protocols, but how much are we talking about here? I'm more of a software than hardware guy, though I know a little about the different layers in the ISO model. *waves hands*. Build in a router on the motherboard, have a port for talking to the outside world and a few ports for talking to storage. Economy of scale and the hardware would be dirt cheap... right? Since it seems like an obvious idea, I'm sure I'm missing something. Would someone who knows these things care to elaborate? Tnx!
I respectfully disagree. Consider a piece of code that has 8 levels of nesting. With a judicious use of short variable names, parentheses, and curly braces, it is possible to make it *look* not so bad in the original code. It might look like there's only a half dozen levels. With a pretty printer, nesting LOOKS exactly as nesting IS. At a *GLANCE* I can see where things are getting hairy.
That does NOT mean that it must be refactored. Only that it is an area that may be worthy of additional consideration.
On second thought, nothing says this is a black-or-white choice. If it works for you to print out code as is, great! My experience has been that a pretty printer can be helpful. YMMV.
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! "Smell test?" Yah, right. But then I got to thinking, "Why are code formatting standards such a hot topic?" The computer doesn't care if indentation is expressed with 2 spaces, 3 spaces, or a tab. But, I do! Over time, I've learned how to see coding errors just from the slight aberrations in the LOOK of code. Couldn't tell you WHAT it was, at first, it just felt (or smelled) wrong. So call it what you will, but I could now see how "smell test" has some basis behind it. Then, I got to thinking of an age-old question:
How do you find a needle in a haystack?
The technique in the article accomplishes BOTH of these. I'd suggest running the code through a pretty printer to get consistent layout throughout the whole project. The more the semantics of the project can be represented by syntax, the more visible the troublesome code becomes.
First test: could a 4-year-old rascal recognize a dupe?
From the fine article:
Actually, I suspect it may be more that "they are UNcomfortable with what they DO NOT know." People have a certain range of stimulation with which they feel comfortable. Below that, they feel bored. Above that, they feel overwhelmed. (Shut the *%&^* up!) And, that range of stimulus with which one person feels comfortable can be quite different from someone else's comfort zone.
I prefer a lower level stimulation than average. If I go shopping at a mall, I can last an hour, maybe two. Then all of the music, bright lights, shiny ads, conversations, and general din get to be too much. If everyone perceived it that way, then it would scare away shoppers, and they'd "fix" it. So, I accept that and make it a point to take a break for a few minutes of quiet time and then I'm good to go for another hour or two. I don't really mind, I've come to realize that this same sensitivity has benefits, too... I've had a great career in software quality assurance.
My point is that these "late adopters" may be already close to saturation on stimulus, and as much better as the new stuff may be, accepting and adopting that change could be the straw that [at least in their perception] breaks the camel's back. It's easier to deal with the incremental challenges of an old technology, than it is to take a chance on a big change. Or so it seems to them.
Here's a question that's been gnawing at me for a while... why is the "black box" just a recorder? I'd think of this question every time I heard that there's been an accident and the black box had not been found. OR, that they found the box but it was too badly damaged to make out all the data. Is this still a problem?
If a black box (BB) senses an anomalous event, why couldn't it transmit a [compressed] copy of the recorded data? Or, even better, besides recording it all, transmit all the data all the time. Maybe not to the airline, but to you at L3 Aviation Recorders, perhaps? With the recent talk about providing in-flight internet access, I could see this happening sooner or later.
Without internet access, just have a reserved frequency to transmit on. If transmit time becomes an issue, use multiple frequencies and transmit on each one of them in parallel.
I can't imagine I'm the first to think of this, so what am I missing here? Could it be it is only now that we could conceivably do this?
Great line from the article:
Hmmm. Hey! Maybe they should ask Frank Sinatra? :)
Agreed. Here's another way of stating it:
Early in my career, I remember when hardware was EXPENSIVE(*) and it was hard to justify to the bean counters that such a significant purchase was worthwhile. Software was given away by the manufacturer, and freely extensible, as a means to help justify the expense of the hardware. Manufacturers were keen on building demand so they could sell more computers. The more the community could help in the development of software, the more marketable the systems became. (cf SHARE and DECUS.) Over time, the cost of hardware went down, and the capabilities of the associated software increased.
Along this continuum, others discovered that as more and more computers were sold, there was a growing market for the software itself. They made investments, produced software, and sold it at a profit. But, if they gave away the source with the software, some people would just make copies for free.
Hence, software started being shipped as "closed source", in contrast to the common "open source" distribution. Later still, the "Open Source" movement (F/LOSS) started.
(*) IIRC my high school paid $25K for a PDP/8 back in the early 1970's.
Preface: I got called away after I started this, this is quick and dirty, and I'm pressed for time, but it's my hope that it will act as a starting point for discussion. I'm sure there's many opportunities for optimizations and there are shortcomings.
How to come up with process documentation? For starters: have the processes document themselves; i.e., add a wrapper program around invocations of common applications which captures:
I'll assume you are working in a Microsoft Windows/XP shop. If you haven't already, get a copy of the GNU CoreUtils for Windows.
Set some global environment variables for each user and then code a simple batch program, logger.bat:
That would produce data like:
Now, wherever a user ordinarily runs "foo", replace it with a call to "logger.bat foo %*" e.g. Update items in the start menu to invoke logger.bat with what you'd ordinarily run.
Crude? Yup! Sufficient? Nope! Maybe you have a better way to do it... Good! Maybe you'd prefer to do it in perl. Fine! What about phone calls? Well, can you extract logs from your PBX? Gather that data and merge it in, too!
Here's the important thing: It does not require any change in what the user does in the course of their day, it is easily extensible in that you can instrument other apps to log as you find them, and most importantly, you now have some data to start from! As you find gaps in the day's activities, instrument those, too. The good part is that it does not "cost" much in your time or the users and it will go a long way to getting started. Don't believe me? Try instrumenting what YOU do and see if you can find any patterns. Refactor it. Lather. Rinse. Repeat!
Now, using the data you've gathered, you can write filters to extract who touches a given file as it works its way through the system. Or, get a look at what applications somebody uses each day. Dependencies will reveal themselves.
Thanks to google and its archive of usenet posts: this query on google groups of: "FTP SMTP virus proxy server group:comp.*" for the time period of 01-Jan-95 through 26-Sep-95 (the patent was filed on 26-Sep-95) returned this link .
It appeared in the comp.security.misc newsgroup and the first few paragraphs (emphasis added) suggests to me this might be prior art:
I don't have time right now to search further, but wanted to put this out there for others to follow up on. Any takers?
P.S. As a point of comparison, consider that the Morris Worm was released onto the internet on 02-Nov-88 (more details here: A Tour of the Worm) and THAT was nearly SEVEN YEARS before this patent was filed!
First off, and on-topic, I've used several of the referenced computers: Commodore PET AND c64, TI 99/4A, Atari 400, and PC-Jr. They were all pretty bad for typing, except I don't recall having much trouble with the C64 (shrug). I actually got the Atari 400 for my parents and sibs as a gaming machine and it did just fine for that (I got an 800 and that had a real keyboard - enjoyed it greatly).
<graybeard_mode=ON>
My _first_ access to a computer was with an ASR-33 teletype (TTY). I was in middle school and we'd DIAL the phone and place its handset into the acoustical coupler. That gave us 110 baud access to the high school's DEC PDP-8. The TTY had a manual action which moved various levers and the like so it was hard work typing. That was, until I discovered there was an interconnection between the keys which allowed the currently pressed key to be pushed back UP when I pressed DOWN on the next key. (Like a see-saw.) At one point, I could finish typing and wait 10 seconds for the TTY to catch up. Anyone else experience the "joys" of using the paper tape punch and reader for program storage? Where you could physically SEE each and every bit of storage on the tape. ;)
<graybeard_mode=OFF>
127.0.0.1 c.uc8010.com #[Javascript.Exploit]
127.0.0.1 n.uc8010.com
Another approach is to just block it in your HOSTS file:
127.0.0.1 uc8010.com
Or, even better, use an updated HOSTS file which has entries to block malicious sites: (on last check, this blocked over 16,000 addresses!): http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip
Description and explanation is here.
Here are links to the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) home page and its layout and construction.
This one helped me a lot: "The Windows Interface Guidelines for Software Design" by Microsoft Press. (ISBN 1-55615-679-0)
I'm sure it's out of date now (it targets Win95 & NT), but I got it so I could help test some Windows applications back in the day. It was a great help in learning how to lay things out on the screen, in dialog boxes, menus, etc. Even more importantly, I learned the rules for keyboard navigation -- it's amazing how much can be done without having to take hands off the keyboard. Things are quicker, too, because I can key my way through drop-down menus without having to wait for each one to paint before I could click on the next selection I wanted.
I'm interested in what its follow-ons are and what people's experience have been with it.
But what about 2007 WD40? My bet is that one WILL slip past us! <grin>
I did some googling and found David Wiltshire's home page which had links to his recent publications. That brought me to this full article which I am guessing is the one that corresponds to what was discussed in the original /. article here.
I had a couple courses in astronomy and cosmology way back in my college days. That said, I can't begin to understand the details. I'm hoping someone with more knowledge and experience could elaborate. Is he really onto something that can dispense with the need for dark energy? And, if he is, am I correct in thinking this would be Nobel-Prize-Candidate-Worthy?
Thank you for your well-reasoned and clear comment. I RTFA and I agree with you. I'd like to elaborate a bit on the part of your comment I quoted. It seems to me that they used the term "MP3" rather flippantly: to mean BOTH the compressed audio format AND listening to music on an iPod's tiny ear buds. If I'm listening to music on a portable player with ear buds, then it's an almost certainty that I'm listening to an MP3 (Ogg, etc. notwithstanding). But it is NOT the case that all MP3's are listened to with just ear buds!
So, in their efforts to overcome the ear bud's limitations, they compress the audio on the CD, so that when it is converted to an MP3 ***AND*** then listened to on ear buds, it sounds "okay". Unfortunately, those with a hi-fidelity capable system have no way to access that which was compressed out.
Given the increasing shift from RIAA dominated distribution of music (3 out of 4 major labels now permit sale of non-DRM music), I think it would be great if there were TWO releases of any given song:
It would be a simple matter of mixing the track to where it sounds good for full fidelity, saving that as "Release 1 - Clean", and THEN running it through the finalizing and compression for the currently-targeted market: "Release 2 - Loud". No real extra cost for the artist or studio.
Besides, the clean version could always be compressed subsequently. How long before there is a cheap, reasonably-effective, real-time, dynamic range compressor built into every portable music player? Depending on how much ambient noise there is, I could just set it to a higher level of compression on playback...
Just make sure both the volume and the compression settings range from zero to eleven! <grin>
For more information on proton beam therapy, albeit from a provider's point of view, here is a link to Loma Linda's Proton therapy page. (They were the first to set up a proton therapy center.) In addition to static informational and historical pages, there are also some videos explaining what they have to offer and how it works.
I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm all for ways to help spread information and help make things safer. OTOH, I'm fortunate to now be living in one of 4 states in the USA which ban billboards. (The four states are: Maine, Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii.)
It was hard to fathom just how "noisy" every place else was until I experienced it first hand. I've lived and traveled in other places where billboards were seemingly everywhere. (e.g. NYC, Boston, San Jose) A trip down any major road, especially near a large city, felt like an assault of advertisements screaming for my attention. (Hmmm. I wonder if that has anything to do with the prevalence of road rage?)
Send them out over radio and TV (ala National Weather Service weather alerts) or cell phones or ultra-mobile PCs or mobile GPS units. I'm sure you can think of others approaches.
BTW, I'm curious to see how long it'll take for MIT or Caltech to implement one of their infamous hacks on these?
A little googling and some luck turned up this EPOXI Trajectory on NASA's web site. As far as I can tell, the craft will be traveling at right angles to the comet. Probe's final orbit in the image heads from top to bottom; the comet comes in from the right, loops around clockwise, and heads back out to the right.
Hope that helps!
I knew the 700MHz spectrum has much improved range compared to WiFi, but Vulcan? WOW!!! ;)
The students' special power supply and cooling, OTOH, came from beer! (Free, of course!)
I don't think so... Vesna Vulovic was female. ;)