That's an excellent point, and a metric I hadn't paid much attention to despite the fact that I run quite a few drives, including one storage pool of 28 drives and growing.
Catb is Eric S. Raymond's page. If you're not familiar with ESR yet, he's pretty awesome. I highly recommend two of his essays, "How to Ask Questions the Smart Way" and "the Cathedral and the Bazaar".
When I search, the first 15 Google results for Jargon file are correct. The third one is the entry for "hacker", which is interesting. In case your Google is broken, the primary copy is http://www.carb.org/jargon/
Have you seen the xkcd about diet Coke and Mentos? It kind of expresses how I feel right now, getting the honor of introducing you to a classic bit of geekdom. Sergey and Larry almost surely would have read the Jargon File when they were in college.
That's not too far off from where we are now. Modern combines already drive themselves more precisely than humans can drive them all day. When you're working a million dollars worth of crops, you don't want to be six inches off and run of $20,00 of seedlings. I'm sure some of my neighbors who work in the agriculture departments here at Texas A&M could give some great examples. I'm in security and safety engineering agency of A&M myself, so while ag isn't my field I know there's some amazing stuff around this town.
Google finds content, it doesn't create content. Google found that definition somewhere, and we don't know where. Therefore citing Google is precisely the same thing as saying "some random web site says..."
Additionally, jargon file is maybe 20-25 years older than Google, so for the _original_ meaning of a term jargon file trumps Google by a long shot.
> treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
That makes a great sound bite. It's also a terrible idea that fails spectacularly when it's tried. Keep in mind stock dividends are what's left after taxes. The company makes money and pays their taxes. Whatever is left after taxes goes to the owners of the business in the form of dividends. Taxing the same income twice, at more than 25% each time, is how you destroy domestic industry and send all the jobs to China. This isn't theory, it's been done and the results are instructive. While it's a great sound bite, but we don't want to be like Greece, so nobody seriously proposes such a thing.
Not that you're wrong, but I think you may be carrying it to far. Most APsand routers use one of two operating systems. The firmware on various models of Linksys routers , for example, is extremely similar and not that different from many Netgear models. So it's entirely likely that a single exploit works on about 25% of the units in a given city. In fact, we KNOW of several exploits that each work on 25% - the factory default passwords, telnetenable, etc. If the malware package looked for four or five different exploits, it could very well be effective against half of the APs in the city.
> I do like Jon Stewart, but only watch occasionally.
Sometimes he's funny. Please keep in mind that he's an entertainer with a political twist who gets ratings by "trolling", exactly like Rush Limbaugh. They both do the same thing, they both do it well, and they both put a low priority on accuracy. Please, listen to him the same way you'd listen to Rush, or any political cartoonist, and don't slip off into believing the silliness. You seem like you're smart enough to recognize that for what it is.
I don't suppose you have any early text using the term? The jargon file itself is pretty old now. If you have a clear use of the term much earlier it could be of historical interest to many people.
Ozoner, would you say "I knew the original hacker. The original hacker was a friend of mine. Dan, you're no original hacker"?:)
I mistyped that last sentence. That should of course be earn $50, spend $100, and borrow $50. That's government's version of a "balanced budget", at least under Clinton.
In the last six years, we've overspent more than the combined total of the previous 200 years. I guess you're a fan of Jon Stewart because you talk about "Bush blew it out of the water". EVERY YEAR Obama racks up more debt than Bush did in all eight years combined. Bush sucked, don't misunderstand. When it comes to fiscal irresponsiblity, Obama sucks over eight times as bad.
$17 trillion dollars of debt incurs interest every year. Even if we cut spending in half to get back to actual balanced budgets like we had 50 years ago*, the existing debt would grow by $200 billion in interest every year. We aren't gradually paying it off. We were gradually increasing it until Obama doubled it, and now due to interest it grows itself. There simply aren't anywhere near enough rich people to make a dent in $17 TRILLION.
* In case you fell for Jon Stewart's joke, look at the national debt chart. You'll see it grew during the Clinton years too. Clinton claimed a "balanced budget" when one year the spending was equal to the BORROWING plus the revenue. By that logic, if you earn $50K, spend $50K, and borrow $50K that's a balanced budget.
Ah, that DOES make more sense. I'm not sure why I read it the other way. From what I've read, that would really keep, though it wouldn't quite get us there.
Right now, the amount paid out at retirement is partially related to the amount the person paid in. Payments would have to be adjusted so that if someone pays in a LOT, they get back a medium amount - nobody gets back a lot, even if they paid in a LOT. By increasing the tax and reducing the maximum benefit ratio, it could be brought into balance.
Also, the "rough draft" of the math that says it might cover the shortfall misses an important factor. People adapt. I'm going to use some rough numbers that are easy to follow to illustrate one way they do rather than precise numbers. Assume a company budgets $200,000 in payroll expenses for an engineer. They pay 6.5% of the first $100K for FICA ($6,500). That leaves $193,500 as his gross pay. If you take FICA on the entire $200K budgeted, he grosses $187. Either way, he then pays his side of the FICA, but the higher employer FICA means he's now paying tax on a smaller income ($187 versus $193). That makes a small difference.
He then pays his side of the FICA and is left with either $187 or $180. He isn't stupid, so he sees that the new law is going to take $7,000 from him. Knowing that, he talks to his boss about trading that raise he was promised for some more vacation time instead. Maybe instead of that $5,000 bonus ($3,300 after taxes), the company will pay for his family to join him at the conference in Hawaii. There are all sorts of ways people will adapt, but adapt they will. The sum total of all of those people responding to the new taxes, attempting to reduce how much it effects them, will in fact do just that - it will reduce the amount the government takes. Millions of people will be motivated to find ways to reduce the tax burden and many will do so.
Still, it would get pretty close to fixing the problem, assuming it were done IMMEDIATELY, while some baby boomers are still working, and assuming the employment situation improves. With so many people having left the workforce in the last six years, there are relatively fewer people to tax than there were ten years ago.
According the the Jargon File, the definitive dictionary of hacker terminology, the word "hacker" ORIGINALLY referred to radio experimenters who did things like make or modify radar units. Later, it was used to describe people doing similar hacks with computer systems.
True, if you reduce the limit to $0, nobody gets their money paid back and it doesn't go broke. Of course, you've also just screwed everybody. You took their money from their paycheck, promising to give it back when they are old, them just said "screw you, we're keeping you're money". That would work.
What the hell are you talking about "poor rich people"? Are you illiterate, or just really, really bad at arithmetic? Let's me try saying it Dr. Seus style for you:
Not enough rich. We're really in the ditch. Trillion is more than billion. Billion is more than million.
There are 20 billionaires in the US. The US is $17 TRILLION in the hole. You could take 100% of everything that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Waltons, and all of the other billionaires own and you'd still not cover 1% of the hole we're in.
To get out of the shithole, we'd need a 100% tax on 17,000 billionaires. We have 20 billionaires, not 17,000. See the problem with your idea now? We'd need a thousand times as many rich people.
I know, I know, how about MILLIONAIRES!? A lot of people want to have about $40,000 / year for 25 years of retirement, so they've saved. Some people who are getting ready to retire have a million or so. Since they've got the million they'll need to last 25 years, they must be greedy rich people too, right? What happens if we take all of their money too? If we go ahead and take all of the retirement funds from all of those rich millionaires (and let granny starve), that would all add up to....
$12 trillion.
We're STILL $5 trillion short even if we count everybody who saved for retirement as "greedy rich people".
There just isn't $17 trillion to take from anyone. There's not NEARLY enough "rich people" to cover the massive fuck up that washington has created. A hundred times as many rich people still wouldn't have enough money to cover this. We'd need a THOUSAND times as many rich people as we have.
So if defining "rich" as "anyone who saved for retirement" still isn't enough money, how can we define "rich" so as to gather enough money from rich people to fix the problem? Well, to have enough money to cover Washington's stupidity, we end having to define "rich" as $30,000 - $40,000. Unfortunately, there's just one Oprah, one Bill Gates, and neither of them have even one trillion dollars, much less seventeen trillion.
When you have a local cache as opposed to a distributed cache, you invalidate entries (or entire pages) when the underlying data changes. All cpus made in the last 25 years manage their on-die caches this way, so this is something I'd think you'd be familiar with if you have any knowledge of computer systems.
On the other hand, the DNS protocol anticipates, and generally uses, distributed caches at the ISP and the client. Those cache entries are valid for TTL, typically about an hour. Therefore it wouldn't matter if the server DID serve up cached replies for several seconds - the client and their ISP already be using data from 30 minutes ago anyway.
Humans are radioactive too. The question is, how much? What are the numbers? Without that information, the article is 100% completely useless.
The state of California once proposed standards for formaldehyde levels that would have categorized human beings as dangerous carcinogens, because our bodies produce formaldehyde needed for certain body processes. With no numbers and no sense of scale, anything, even your own body van be made to sound scary.
Btw if you were thinking MySQL would be suboptimal for performance, there are three levels of caching between the socket and the tables, so busy domains are no problem. Pdns caches packets, so identical queries are answered immediately with no database query. That's over 99% of queries in most cases. (Almost everybody asks for the IP of Wikipedia.org or www.Wikipedia.org, so those are instantly answered from the packet cache.)
If www is a cname or something, the packet will be different but it'll end up running the same query. That's what the Pdns query cache is for.
If neither the Pdns packet cache nor Pdns query cache already has the answer, there's the MySQL query cache. In summary, for a busy site, it might do one database read for ten thousand DNS queries.
MySQL query caching, PDNS query caching, PDNS packet cache.
Because the customer table links to the account table, to the server table, to domains, to host records.
MySQL / MariaDB is a good choice for running a hosting service, especially one with a PHP front-end for customers to manage domains, etc. Why put one table in a separate database system when Pdns, which is very much a "real DNS server", supports MySQL / Maria.
That's what we do for Clonebox, which has a database that looks like a hosting company, the difference being all the servers are hot spares for servers normally hosted elsewhere.
That's a face palm. He mentioned he wrote his own half-ass DNS server so that he could use MySQL as storage too. Apparently he didn't take five minutes on Google to discover PowerDNS. Pdns is used by major sites like Wikipedia, has a MySQL backend, and takes security seriously. I found and reported a security flaw in Pdns once and their response was textbook perfect.
There aren't NEARLY enough wealthy people to tax to get us out of this hole. Not unless you use the worldwide definition of wealthy, in which case practically everyone on Slashdot is the 1%. Wealthy people have millions. We've overspent by TRILLIONS. Notice the six decimal place difference. You'd need a million dollars from 10 million people get out of the hole. We don't HAVE 10 million uberwealthy people to take a million dollars from.
You may recall last year Obama proposed a "tax the rich" plan that would have categorized a public school teacher and a firefighter as "rich". That's why. There are only 50 people on the Forbes 50.
That's not even considering the fact that rich people don't have their money in cash, they own companies. To take their wealth, you need to take their company. Guess what happens to employees when you take the company away? Removing resources from the very people who grow those resources has very real and very damaging effects.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an excellent point, and a metric I hadn't paid much attention to despite the fact that I run quite a few drives, including one storage pool of 28 drives and growing.
My post has a typo. That should be http://www.catb.org/jargon/
Catb is Eric S. Raymond's page. If you're not familiar with ESR yet, he's pretty awesome. I highly recommend two of his essays, "How to Ask Questions the Smart Way" and "the Cathedral and the Bazaar".
When I search, the first 15 Google results for Jargon file are correct. The third one is the entry for "hacker", which is interesting. In case your Google is broken, the primary copy is http://www.carb.org/jargon/
Have you seen the xkcd about diet Coke and Mentos? It kind of expresses how I feel right now, getting the honor of introducing you to a classic bit of geekdom. Sergey and Larry almost surely would have read the Jargon File when they were in college.
That's not too far off from where we are now. Modern combines already drive themselves more precisely than humans can drive them all day. When you're working a million dollars worth of crops, you don't want to be six inches off and run of $20,00 of seedlings. I'm sure some of my neighbors who work in the agriculture departments here at Texas A&M could give some great examples. I'm in security and safety engineering agency of A&M myself, so while ag isn't my field I know there's some amazing stuff around this town.
> Same goes for CEOs that take millions and millions in stock bonuses to avoid income taxes.
Those should be taxed as earned income - and they ARE. See section 63 for details.
Google finds content, it doesn't create content. Google found that definition somewhere, and we don't know where. Therefore citing Google is precisely the same thing as saying "some random web site says ..."
Additionally, jargon file is maybe 20-25 years older than Google, so for the _original_ meaning of a term jargon file trumps Google by a long shot.
> treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
That makes a great sound bite. It's also a terrible idea that fails spectacularly when it's tried. Keep in mind stock dividends are what's left after taxes. The company makes money and pays their taxes. Whatever is left after taxes goes to the owners of the business in the form of dividends. Taxing the same income twice, at more than 25% each time, is how you destroy domestic industry and send all the jobs to China. This isn't theory, it's been done and the results are instructive. While it's a great sound bite, but we don't want to be like Greece, so nobody seriously proposes such a thing.
As the subject says, there's no message here. Just a thumbs up to khasim's post.
Not that you're wrong, but I think you may be carrying it to far. Most APsand routers use one of two operating systems. The firmware on various models of Linksys routers , for example, is extremely similar and not that different from many Netgear models. So it's entirely likely that a single exploit works on about 25% of the units in a given city. In fact, we KNOW of several exploits that each work on 25% - the factory default passwords, telnetenable, etc. If the malware package looked for four or five different exploits, it could very well be effective against half of the APs in the city.
It's been an interesting discussion, thanks.
> I do like Jon Stewart, but only watch occasionally.
Sometimes he's funny. Please keep in mind that he's an entertainer with a political twist who gets ratings by "trolling", exactly like Rush Limbaugh. They both do the same thing, they both do it well, and they both put a low priority on accuracy. Please, listen to him the same way you'd listen to Rush, or any political cartoonist, and don't slip off into believing the silliness. You seem like you're smart enough to recognize that for what it is.
I don't suppose you have any early text using the term? The jargon file itself is pretty old now. If you have a clear use of the term much earlier it could be of historical interest to many people.
Ozoner, would you say "I knew the original hacker. The original hacker was a friend of mine. Dan, you're no original hacker"? :)
I mistyped that last sentence. That should of course be earn $50, spend $100, and borrow $50. That's government's version of a "balanced budget", at least under Clinton.
You still seem to be having trouble grasping the concept of "trillion", but that's okay - most people have trouble reasoning about such large numbers.
2007 budget deficit: $163 billion
2012 budget deficit: $1.1 trillion
In the last six years, we've overspent more than the combined total of the previous 200 years. I guess you're a fan of Jon Stewart because you talk about "Bush blew it out of the water". EVERY YEAR Obama racks up more debt than Bush did in all eight years combined. Bush sucked, don't misunderstand. When it comes to fiscal irresponsiblity, Obama sucks over eight times as bad.
$17 trillion dollars of debt incurs interest every year. Even if we cut spending in half to get back to actual balanced budgets like we had 50 years ago*, the existing debt would grow by $200 billion in interest every year. We aren't gradually paying it off. We were gradually increasing it until Obama doubled it, and now due to interest it grows itself. There simply aren't anywhere near enough rich people to make a dent in $17 TRILLION.
* In case you fell for Jon Stewart's joke, look at the national debt chart. You'll see it grew during the Clinton years too. Clinton claimed a "balanced budget" when one year the spending was equal to the BORROWING plus the revenue. By that logic, if you earn $50K, spend $50K, and borrow $50K that's a balanced budget.
Ah, that DOES make more sense. I'm not sure why I read it the other way. From what I've read, that would really keep, though it wouldn't quite get us there.
Right now, the amount paid out at retirement is partially related to the amount the person paid in. Payments would have to be adjusted so that if someone pays in a LOT, they get back a medium amount - nobody gets back a lot, even if they paid in a LOT. By increasing the tax and reducing the maximum benefit ratio, it could be brought into balance.
Also, the "rough draft" of the math that says it might cover the shortfall misses an important factor. People adapt. I'm going to use some rough numbers that are easy to follow to illustrate one way they do rather than precise numbers. Assume a company budgets $200,000 in payroll expenses for an engineer. They pay 6.5% of the first $100K for FICA ($6,500). That leaves $193,500 as his gross pay. If you take FICA on the entire $200K budgeted, he grosses $187. Either way, he then pays his side of the FICA, but the higher employer FICA means he's now paying tax on a smaller income ($187 versus $193). That makes a small difference.
He then pays his side of the FICA and is left with either $187 or $180. He isn't stupid, so he sees that the new law is going to take $7,000 from him. Knowing that, he talks to his boss about trading that raise he was promised for some more vacation time instead. Maybe instead of that $5,000 bonus ($3,300 after taxes), the company will pay for his family to join him at the conference in Hawaii. There are all sorts of ways people will adapt, but adapt they will. The sum total of all of those people responding to the new taxes, attempting to reduce how much it effects them, will in fact do just that - it will reduce the amount the government takes. Millions of people will be motivated to find ways to reduce the tax burden and many will do so.
Still, it would get pretty close to fixing the problem, assuming it were done IMMEDIATELY, while some baby boomers are still working, and assuming the employment situation improves. With so many people having left the workforce in the last six years, there are relatively fewer people to tax than there were ten years ago.
According the the Jargon File, the definitive dictionary of hacker terminology, the word "hacker" ORIGINALLY referred to radio experimenters who did things like make or modify radar units. Later, it was used to describe people doing similar hacks with computer systems.
Those are probably ultrasound. Ultrasound distance sensors are available at Radio Shack and included in Lego Mindstorm kits.
True, if you reduce the limit to $0, nobody gets their money paid back and it doesn't go broke. Of course, you've also just screwed everybody. You took their money from their paycheck, promising to give it back when they are old, them just said "screw you, we're keeping you're money". That would work.
What the hell are you talking about "poor rich people"? Are you illiterate, or just really, really bad at arithmetic?
Let's me try saying it Dr. Seus style for you:
Not enough rich.
We're really in the ditch.
Trillion is more than billion.
Billion is more than million.
There are 20 billionaires in the US. The US is $17 TRILLION in the hole. You could take 100% of everything that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Waltons, and all of the other billionaires own and you'd still not cover 1% of the hole we're in.
To get out of the shithole, we'd need a 100% tax on 17,000 billionaires. We have 20 billionaires, not 17,000. See the problem with your idea now? We'd need a thousand times as many rich people.
I know, I know, how about MILLIONAIRES!? A lot of people want to have about $40,000 / year for 25 years of retirement, so they've saved. Some people who are getting ready to retire have a million or so. Since they've got the million they'll need to last 25 years, they must be greedy rich people too, right? What happens if we take all of their money too? If we go ahead and take all of the retirement funds from all of those rich millionaires (and let granny starve), that would all add up to ....
$12 trillion.
We're STILL $5 trillion short even if we count everybody who saved for retirement as "greedy rich people".
There just isn't $17 trillion to take from anyone. There's not NEARLY enough "rich people" to cover the massive fuck up that washington has created. A hundred times as many rich people still wouldn't have enough money to cover this. We'd need a THOUSAND times as many rich people as we have.
So if defining "rich" as "anyone who saved for retirement" still isn't enough money, how can we define "rich" so as to gather enough money from rich people to fix the problem? Well, to have enough money to cover Washington's stupidity, we end having to define "rich" as $30,000 - $40,000. Unfortunately, there's just one Oprah, one Bill Gates, and neither of them have even one trillion dollars, much less seventeen trillion.
When you have a local cache as opposed to a distributed cache, you invalidate entries (or entire pages) when the underlying data changes. All cpus made in the last 25 years manage their on-die caches this way, so this is something I'd think you'd be familiar with if you have any knowledge of computer systems.
On the other hand, the DNS protocol anticipates, and generally uses, distributed caches at the ISP and the client. Those cache entries are valid for TTL, typically about an hour. Therefore it wouldn't matter if the server DID serve up cached replies for several seconds - the client and their ISP already be using data from 30 minutes ago anyway.
Humans are radioactive too. The question is, how much? What are the numbers? Without that information, the article is 100% completely useless.
The state of California once proposed standards for formaldehyde levels that would have categorized human beings as dangerous carcinogens, because our bodies produce formaldehyde needed for certain body processes. With no numbers and no sense of scale, anything, even your own body van be made to sound scary.
"preferably blighted ones". Yeah that's exactly where I want to work.
Btw if you were thinking MySQL would be suboptimal for performance, there are three levels of caching between the socket and the tables, so busy domains are no problem. Pdns caches packets, so identical queries are answered immediately with no database query. That's over 99% of queries in most cases. (Almost everybody asks for the IP of Wikipedia.org or www.Wikipedia.org, so those are instantly answered from the packet cache.)
If www is a cname or something, the packet will be different but it'll end up running the same query. That's what the Pdns query cache is for.
If neither the Pdns packet cache nor Pdns query cache already has the answer, there's the MySQL query cache. In summary, for a busy site, it might do one database read for ten thousand DNS queries.
MySQL query caching, PDNS query caching, PDNS packet cache.
> why ... much less want to run it on MySQL
Because the customer table links to the account table, to the server table, to domains, to host records.
MySQL / MariaDB is a good choice for running a hosting service, especially one with a PHP front-end for customers to manage domains, etc. Why put one table in a separate database system when Pdns, which is very much a "real DNS server", supports MySQL / Maria.
That's what we do for Clonebox, which has a database that looks like a hosting company, the difference being all the servers are hot spares for servers normally hosted elsewhere.
That's a face palm. He mentioned he wrote his own half-ass DNS server so that he could use MySQL as storage too. Apparently he didn't take five minutes on Google to discover PowerDNS. Pdns is used by major sites like Wikipedia, has a MySQL backend, and takes security seriously. I found and reported a security flaw in Pdns once and their response was textbook perfect.
There aren't NEARLY enough wealthy people to tax to get us out of this hole. Not unless you use the worldwide definition of wealthy, in which case practically everyone on Slashdot is the 1%. Wealthy people have millions. We've overspent by TRILLIONS. Notice the six decimal place difference. You'd need a million dollars from 10 million people get out of the hole. We don't HAVE 10 million uberwealthy people to take a million dollars from.
You may recall last year Obama proposed a "tax the rich" plan that would have categorized a public school teacher and a firefighter as "rich". That's why. There are only 50 people on the Forbes 50.
That's not even considering the fact that rich people don't have their money in cash, they own companies. To take their wealth, you need to take their company. Guess what happens to employees when you take the company away? Removing resources from the very people who grow those resources has very real and very damaging effects.