Orbiter is awesome for really understanding orbital dynamics. It is one thing to know about the theory, but it is something else entirely to actually put it in practice and feel how complex it can be. Once when flying the Shuttle and trying to rendez-vous with the Space Station, I was falling a bit behind, so I instinctively pointed the ship towards the station and fired up the thrusters a bit in order to catch up. That should get me back closer to the station, right? Well no: given our direction of travel, that burst of thrusters just raised my orbit, hence making me slower, so I fell behind even more and ended up totally screwing up that rendez-vous.
So in space, you don't just go eyeballing your flight like you would in VFR on Earth. You really do need a flight computer, and a lot of planning ahead of time. Try it out, it really is eye opening. Then, once you really get orbital dynamics, you can start imagining what space combat would be like (spoiler: as many have already said: slow and boring. Sorry, no Star Wars style space dogfight...).
There was a similar comment posted, but it lacked explanations and has not been modded up yet, so let me go into more details.
Your current task management solution does not work so well, and you are looking for a tool that, you hope, will automagically make everything work for you. Let me tell you from experience: this won't happen. You may get a small boost at first, when using a new shinny "todo list on steroids", but it does not come from the tool: it just comes from your increased motivation. And when the novelty wears off, you will find yourself facing the same problems as before, blame the tool again and start looking for a new one. Rinse, repeat...
So, rather than looking for a technical solution to your problem, you first need to find a better task management method. And as a previous poster wrote:
1) Read the book "Getting Things Done" (GTD) by David Allen.
2) There is no 2). The GTD method works very well with just pen and paper, and you can probably implement it with the tools you are currently using.
Once you are familiar with the GTD method, you may start looking for some GTD specific tool. In that case, I suggest OmniFocus. I reviewed many such tools, but I think OmniFocus is the one that is truest to the method. In particular, it is very important to be able to easily turn a task into a project when you process your inbox. And OmniFocus makes it the easiest: you just drag and drop the task to the project sidebar. All other software make you click extra buttons, input the project title again, and this extra clutter just gets in the way of a smooth inbox processing. OmniFocus is also an iPhone application, that can sync with its desktop counter-part, so you can have access to your GTD system anywhere. Only issue: the desktop version is unfortunately Mac only.
Linux-based imaging is good only if you are interested in recovery. On the legal side of things, it will not do:
- Please explain to the court how you made a copy of this piece of evidence... - I connected the drive to our forensic machine and... - You mean, you connected this hard disk... to your machine? - Yes of course, then I... - Did you use a hardware write block? - Er... I used Linux and mounted the... - Please, just answer the question. Did you or did you not use a hardware write blocker device to connect the disk to your machine? - I did not, but... - Thank you, no further question. I now call for the evidence to be declared tainted and inadmissible in court, since the forensic team failed to use the proper hardware to ensure that no changes would be made to the disk.
There is a whole range of forensic-specific hardware available: write blockers, hardware disk imagers... Use them, or loose your case.
That's assuming you'd have your arms up in the air the whole time you're using it.
Indeed, you are correct, that was the assumption, in order to match the current average computer usage, where you hands, even in the rest position, are ready for input.
And I pretty much agree with the rest of your post too: with a different man-machine interface, such a device may be more practical. However, I don't share your optimism regarding such an interface. The windows/icons/menus/cursor metaphore was developed in the 70's. What has changed since then? Not much, really. Check out this Xerox Star Desktop picture. Not that different from the desktop I am looking at right now as I type these lines. And the date on that picture is 1980!
The thing that causes me discomfort when using a computer for long periods is shoulder tension from suspending my arms and hands in place over my keyboard.
Ouch, sorry to hear that. Sounds like you need to lower your keyboard: in the rest position, there should be no strain in your arms or shoulders. If you feel you're raising your shoulders in the rest position, your keyboard/desk surface is too high.
Unfortunately, desk surface height is rarely adjustable. The trick then is to get a higher chair. Note that your legs shouldn't be hanging, so you may also need something under your feet to rest them on (for the correct height: your thighs should be horizontal).
IANAErgonomist, but I did suffer briefly from RSI symptoms and did my homework. Been paying close attention to ergonomics since then, and never had any more problem
Thank you for the sarcasm. But please, do try this test yourself: while using your mouse as usual, extend the other arm and point a finger to the screen, following the cursor around, and tapping on the screen every time you click. Now go ahead a browse the web like that for a while (it actually feels pretty cool at first, like in the movies, wooohooo:-) ). Note that when your hand rests on the mouse, it is ready for the next cursor movement, so that means you keep your finger up there, unless you do take your hand completely off the mouse. Please do report your findings here.
My guess is, unless you're an alien, you will find that the pointing arm becomes uncomfortable very soon. That's Ergonomics 101: it is not a matter of strength but a matter of of posture and leverage.
To counter your points directly: unless you're a masochist, you don't carry crates with your arms extended. And that counts also for the other comment in this thread about sign language.
Now, you may think you could reduce arm/shoulder strain by keeping your arms along your body, bent at the elbow. Then that puts the screen much closer to your face, way too close actually, leading to eye strain. And if you are thinking abou t putting this uber-touchscreen where your keyboard is, that is too low: you'd have to look down all the time, a source of neck pain. These eye and neck strains will take longer to set in than the arm/shoulder ones, but they will eventually.
Or, like in the video, you could be standing. Care to spend your whole day of work standing? I wonder why we bother with chairs in the office;-)
So again, cool tech to look at and play with at a Computer show, but still, not practical.
After the initial "Oooooh, shiny! I'll give a kidney for one!" impulse, this reminds me quite a bit of the spiffy user interface in Minority Report, probably because of the intense arms-waving involved. So, makes me think the same too: very cool to see, but highly impractical. Your arms and shoulders would get painfully tired after just a few minutes using this...
So, I'll be keeping my kidney this time, thank you very much. I'll just go grab a box of tissues and watch the video again...;-)
To be fair: don't blame the editors: TFA itself mentions terrorists... in the first, bold paragraph.
But yes, it looks like nowadays, anything must have value in its contribution in the "war against terror". I mean, "Among the rules is a set of guidelines to prevent terrorists from gaining access to the space ships in order to use them as weapons"... WTF?
Hence, I propose we update Godwin's law: s/Nazis/terrorists/g
And according to this new rule, the submitter, the BBC and the FAA have all lost.
3) The article claims that the android can dodge punches. I say that it can't. It takes a fist less than a quarter of a second to travel from the ready position to the opponent's face. The microprocessor needs to do image processing to realize that the fist is moving towards a specific area, which will require many image frames before it can actually determine the fist movements. And even if the microprocessor was able to act fast enough, I haven't seen any motors that can rotate fast enough.
It looks like you missed that story from June, about robotic hands catching fast flying stuff. The required image processing power and fast motors are indeed available.
I do agree with you though, and also call BS, but just had to point out that your 3rd point is flawed.
That is exactly why my prefered solution for on-the-fly hard disk encryption is TrueCrypt. Not only is it open source and cross platform (Windows/Linux), but it also happens to simply rock, surpassing many commercial products, with lots of nice features like the use of keyfiles, or for the true paranoid, cascade encryption (like AES-Blowfish-TripleDES) and plausible deniability (hidden volume).
In true Slashdot spirit, you should have mentioned the Open Source solution: TrueCrypt.
I have been burned before: I will never use a closed source software again for data encryption. The tinfoil hat crowd will worry about the possible NSA backdoor or weak implementation. More practically, I worry about the developer going out of business and the next windows update breaking my encryption software, leaving me high and dry with no other recourse but to downgrade or reinstall my system, get my data back, and start hunting for a new encryption solution. Save yourself the trouble and use TrueCrypt.
Now I was just going to write that the only problem with TrueCrypt was that it was Windows only (with Linux support on their roadmap, though...)... Well guess what: I just checked their site again, and here it is: "4.0, November 1, 2005 [...] TrueCrypt volumes can now be mounted on Linux." Perfect timing to prove again the superiority of Open Source:-)
Don't feed the trolls, I know, but can't help it now, since I was just looking at some LISP code last night... So, short LISP (Scheme) code sample from Gnucash I was looking at:
;; is leap year?
(define (gnc:leap-year? year)
(if (= (remainder year 4) 0)
(if (= (remainder year 100) 0)
(if (= (remainder year 400) 0) #t #f)
#t)
#f))
Now here is how I'd write this in Python:
def isLeapYear(year):
"""Return true if 'year' is a lear year, false otherwise."""
if (year % 400) == 0: return True
elif (year % 100) == 0: return False
elif (year % 4) == 0: return True
else: return False
I'll take the Python version over the LISP one any day, thank you very much. Now, I have been using Python a lot, I may be biased... Oh, and to feed the grandparent: setting up my editor correctly to deal with the indentation is something I did once and for all a long time ago. Fighting with n levels of imbricated parenthesis is a neverending chore in LISP. Guess which one I prefer...
Woah, really spooky... Just had a little deja-vu a few minutes ago, but never thought reality would have actually been altered. Obviously, I was wrong... What's next today, Hell freezes over or something?
This has the potential of finishing off SCO for good. The way things have been going with this case, I don't have so much hope that will be the end, but if it could be, what a grand finale that would be! Not only will we have the satisfaction to see the litigious bastards go down, but more importantly, beautiful irony, the money Microsoft and Sun had invested in hurting Linux will end up in the pockets of a Linux champion! Talk about karma...
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(This time the spammers will be doing the filtering, and that will be quite easy for them.) (x) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
As for 1 Gbps, let's not get too excited: I too was jumping up and down, until I realized it was a shared line, and all you get in the end anyway is 100 Mbps, as this little picture shows.
Indeed, I had Konqueror's JavaScript "Open new windows" set to "Allow". Changing that so "Smart" and the vulnerability could not be reproduced. Thanks for the info.
I did miss the vulnerability the first time due to their poor instructions. But I agree with the other reply: just tested with Konqueror 3.3.1, and it is definitely vulnerable.
A bit pricy, but does a great job. It is totally independant from the OS, since the motherboard just sees it as a normal disk, and does pretty much everything you may want from a hardware RAID 5 solution (hotswap, transparent rebuilds, array roaming, capacity expansion...).
Note: my first unit was faulty and I had to get it fixed a few times, until finally I got it exchanged. Since then, no more problems with it. But note that it did a great job even through its own hardware failures: all I had to do was put all the disks in the new unit, and my array was back up.
That's it! I'm fed up with the popular media misunderstanding linux and the free software movement. It is quite obvious if you've had the time to do any research that penguins swim and don't fly.
Indeed. So I guess the title of the story should be: Linux Spreads its... Fins? Hmmm....;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Please mod parent up.
Orbiter is awesome for really understanding orbital dynamics. It is one thing to know about the theory, but it is something else entirely to actually put it in practice and feel how complex it can be. Once when flying the Shuttle and trying to rendez-vous with the Space Station, I was falling a bit behind, so I instinctively pointed the ship towards the station and fired up the thrusters a bit in order to catch up. That should get me back closer to the station, right? Well no: given our direction of travel, that burst of thrusters just raised my orbit, hence making me slower, so I fell behind even more and ended up totally screwing up that rendez-vous.
So in space, you don't just go eyeballing your flight like you would in VFR on Earth. You really do need a flight computer, and a lot of planning ahead of time. Try it out, it really is eye opening. Then, once you really get orbital dynamics, you can start imagining what space combat would be like (spoiler: as many have already said: slow and boring. Sorry, no Star Wars style space dogfight...).
There was a similar comment posted, but it lacked explanations and has not been modded up yet, so let me go into more details.
Your current task management solution does not work so well, and you are looking for a tool that, you hope, will automagically make everything work for you. Let me tell you from experience: this won't happen. You may get a small boost at first, when using a new shinny "todo list on steroids", but it does not come from the tool: it just comes from your increased motivation. And when the novelty wears off, you will find yourself facing the same problems as before, blame the tool again and start looking for a new one. Rinse, repeat...
So, rather than looking for a technical solution to your problem, you first need to find a better task management method. And as a previous poster wrote:
1) Read the book "Getting Things Done" (GTD) by David Allen.
2) There is no 2). The GTD method works very well with just pen and paper, and you can probably implement it with the tools you are currently using.
Once you are familiar with the GTD method, you may start looking for some GTD specific tool. In that case, I suggest OmniFocus. I reviewed many such tools, but I think OmniFocus is the one that is truest to the method. In particular, it is very important to be able to easily turn a task into a project when you process your inbox. And OmniFocus makes it the easiest: you just drag and drop the task to the project sidebar. All other software make you click extra buttons, input the project title again, and this extra clutter just gets in the way of a smooth inbox processing. OmniFocus is also an iPhone application, that can sync with its desktop counter-part, so you can have access to your GTD system anywhere. Only issue: the desktop version is unfortunately Mac only.
Hehe, indeed, for a bit I was like "wtf?"... Then it hit me, and I had a good laugh (^_^)
Linux-based imaging is good only if you are interested in recovery. On the legal side of things, it will not do:
- Please explain to the court how you made a copy of this piece of evidence...
- I connected the drive to our forensic machine and...
- You mean, you connected this hard disk... to your machine?
- Yes of course, then I...
- Did you use a hardware write block?
- Er... I used Linux and mounted the...
- Please, just answer the question. Did you or did you not use a hardware write blocker device to connect the disk to your machine?
- I did not, but...
- Thank you, no further question. I now call for the evidence to be declared tainted and inadmissible in court, since the forensic team failed to use the proper hardware to ensure that no changes would be made to the disk.
There is a whole range of forensic-specific hardware available: write blockers, hardware disk imagers... Use them, or loose your case.
Just in case anyone else wondered that too: this Tsutomu Shimomura has nothing to do with Kevin Mitnick (http://www.takedown.com/bio/tsutomu.html).
Dynamic Object Model!?
Indeed, you are correct, that was the assumption, in order to match the current average computer usage, where you hands, even in the rest position, are ready for input.
And I pretty much agree with the rest of your post too: with a different man-machine interface, such a device may be more practical. However, I don't share your optimism regarding such an interface. The windows/icons/menus/cursor metaphore was developed in the 70's. What has changed since then? Not much, really. Check out this Xerox Star Desktop picture. Not that different from the desktop I am looking at right now as I type these lines. And the date on that picture is 1980!
The thing that causes me discomfort when using a computer for long periods is shoulder tension from suspending my arms and hands in place over my keyboard.
Ouch, sorry to hear that. Sounds like you need to lower your keyboard: in the rest position, there should be no strain in your arms or shoulders. If you feel you're raising your shoulders in the rest position, your keyboard/desk surface is too high.
Unfortunately, desk surface height is rarely adjustable. The trick then is to get a higher chair. Note that your legs shouldn't be hanging, so you may also need something under your feet to rest them on (for the correct height: your thighs should be horizontal).
IANAErgonomist, but I did suffer briefly from RSI symptoms and did my homework. Been paying close attention to ergonomics since then, and never had any more problem
:-) ). Note that when your hand rests on the mouse, it is ready for the next cursor movement, so that means you keep your finger up there, unless you do take your hand completely off the mouse. Please do report your findings here.
;-)
Thank you for the sarcasm. But please, do try this test yourself: while using your mouse as usual, extend the other arm and point a finger to the screen, following the cursor around, and tapping on the screen every time you click. Now go ahead a browse the web like that for a while (it actually feels pretty cool at first, like in the movies, wooohooo
My guess is, unless you're an alien, you will find that the pointing arm becomes uncomfortable very soon. That's Ergonomics 101: it is not a matter of strength but a matter of of posture and leverage.
To counter your points directly: unless you're a masochist, you don't carry crates with your arms extended. And that counts also for the other comment in this thread about sign language.
Now, you may think you could reduce arm/shoulder strain by keeping your arms along your body, bent at the elbow. Then that puts the screen much closer to your face, way too close actually, leading to eye strain. And if you are thinking abou t putting this uber-touchscreen where your keyboard is, that is too low: you'd have to look down all the time, a source of neck pain. These eye and neck strains will take longer to set in than the arm/shoulder ones, but they will eventually.
Or, like in the video, you could be standing. Care to spend your whole day of work standing? I wonder why we bother with chairs in the office
So again, cool tech to look at and play with at a Computer show, but still, not practical.
After the initial "Oooooh, shiny! I'll give a kidney for one!" impulse, this reminds me quite a bit of the spiffy user interface in Minority Report, probably because of the intense arms-waving involved. So, makes me think the same too: very cool to see, but highly impractical. Your arms and shoulders would get painfully tired after just a few minutes using this...
;-)
So, I'll be keeping my kidney this time, thank you very much. I'll just go grab a box of tissues and watch the video again...
To be fair: don't blame the editors: TFA itself mentions terrorists... in the first, bold paragraph.
But yes, it looks like nowadays, anything must have value in its contribution in the "war against terror". I mean, "Among the rules is a set of guidelines to prevent terrorists from gaining access to the space ships in order to use them as weapons"... WTF?
Hence, I propose we update Godwin's law: s/Nazis/terrorists/g
And according to this new rule, the submitter, the BBC and the FAA have all lost.
It looks like you missed that story from June, about robotic hands catching fast flying stuff. The required image processing power and fast motors are indeed available.
I do agree with you though, and also call BS, but just had to point out that your 3rd point is flawed.
That is exactly why my prefered solution for on-the-fly hard disk encryption is TrueCrypt. Not only is it open source and cross platform (Windows/Linux), but it also happens to simply rock, surpassing many commercial products, with lots of nice features like the use of keyfiles, or for the true paranoid, cascade encryption (like AES-Blowfish-TripleDES) and plausible deniability (hidden volume).
Well, more than just a PhD, Google has, like, an army of Ph.D.'s! So you damn bet it's "Doctor Google" for you!
In true Slashdot spirit, you should have mentioned the Open Source solution: TrueCrypt.
:-)
I have been burned before: I will never use a closed source software again for data encryption. The tinfoil hat crowd will worry about the possible NSA backdoor or weak implementation. More practically, I worry about the developer going out of business and the next windows update breaking my encryption software, leaving me high and dry with no other recourse but to downgrade or reinstall my system, get my data back, and start hunting for a new encryption solution. Save yourself the trouble and use TrueCrypt.
Now I was just going to write that the only problem with TrueCrypt was that it was Windows only (with Linux support on their roadmap, though...)... Well guess what: I just checked their site again, and here it is: "4.0, November 1, 2005 [...] TrueCrypt volumes can now be mounted on Linux." Perfect timing to prove again the superiority of Open Source
Now here is how I'd write this in Python:
I'll take the Python version over the LISP one any day, thank you very much. Now, I have been using Python a lot, I may be biased... Oh, and to feed the grandparent: setting up my editor correctly to deal with the indentation is something I did once and for all a long time ago. Fighting with n levels of imbricated parenthesis is a neverending chore in LISP. Guess which one I prefer...
Woah, really spooky... Just had a little deja-vu a few minutes ago, but never thought reality would have actually been altered. Obviously, I was wrong... What's next today, Hell freezes over or something?
All jokes aside, big congrats to EvilNTUser!
This has the potential of finishing off SCO for good. The way things have been going with this case, I don't have so much hope that will be the end, but if it could be, what a grand finale that would be! Not only will we have the satisfaction to see the litigious bastards go down, but more importantly, beautiful irony, the money Microsoft and Sun had invested in hurting Linux will end up in the pockets of a Linux champion! Talk about karma...
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (x) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(This time the spammers will be doing the filtering, and that will be quite easy for them.)
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Getting some facts right:
NTT's "B Flet's" service (100 Mbps FTTH) has been in trial phase since December 2000 and was launched in August 2001, so that's more like 4 years ago.
See this press release.
As for 1 Gbps, let's not get too excited: I too was jumping up and down, until I realized it was a shared line, and all you get in the end anyway is 100 Mbps, as this little picture shows.
Here is a reg free link to the NY Times article. Thank you New York Times Link Generator.
Indeed, I had Konqueror's JavaScript "Open new windows" set to "Allow". Changing that so "Smart" and the vulnerability could not be reproduced. Thanks for the info.
I did miss the vulnerability the first time due to their poor instructions. But I agree with the other reply: just tested with Konqueror 3.3.1, and it is definitely vulnerable.
A few months ago, I was looking for a hardware RAID 5 solution using IDE disks, with hotswap and the whole shebang, and OS independant. I found:
A bit pricy, but does a great job. It is totally independant from the OS, since the motherboard just sees it as a normal disk, and does pretty much everything you may want from a hardware RAID 5 solution (hotswap, transparent rebuilds, array roaming, capacity expansion...).
Note: my first unit was faulty and I had to get it fixed a few times, until finally I got it exchanged. Since then, no more problems with it. But note that it did a great job even through its own hardware failures: all I had to do was put all the disks in the new unit, and my array was back up.
Indeed. So I guess the title of the story should be: Linux Spreads its... Fins? Hmmm....