Western Digital World Edition drives and some other network capable external drives run Linux. Truecrypt runs on Linux, so there's no reason you can't run Truecrypt (or cryptsetup) in your external drive.
cryptsetup may well be included already in the default firmware.
If you're an uptime freak, you upgrade the Linux kernel without rebooting. I even had an employee swap out a CPU without a reboot once. I guess that CPU was completely idle at the time. (The machine had two CPUs.)
Theoretically, yes. Practically, it doesn't happen. You sell something. 40 days later, the customer calls their bank. The bank mails a form, which the customer receives 10 days later. They fill it in and mail it back. 14 days later, the bank deducts the amount from the merchant's receipts. Ten days after that, the merchant receives a letter saying they've been charged back for a transaction that occurred over two months ago. They money has already been taken from them, subtracted from recent sales.
IF the merchant digs up a signed receipt, they can start the process to dispute the chargeback. 90 days later they'll just get another letter saying the customer now says the product wasn't as advertised.
What HAS worked for me, in a small business, is to call the customer and start some friendly small talk. "Hi George, it's Ray from bettercgi.com. How was your vacation?...". After establishing that human contact so the customer sees me as an actual person, I mention the chargeback. "I wanted to see if there was a misunderstanding because the bank sent me a letter saying you filed a fraud report against me...". When they are reminded of what the charge is for, I used to ask them to call the bank and cancel the chargeback. That involves the bank mailing another form for them to fill out, so that never ended up working. Now, I just get them to repay the amount. I end up eating the chargeback fee of about $39, plus the double processing fees. I then CALL them 20 days later and REMIND them what the charge is for because people who forget and charge back once tend to forget and charge back again.
As a consumer, please keep in mind your credit card provides strong protection from FRAUD. When you call the bank and charge back, you are accusing someone of fraud.
> It would take a truly overwhelming number of bulbs to impact anything significantly.
Is a billion CFLs enough to be a problem? That would be the direct result of mandating that everyone use them.
On the other hand, that billion could be cut in half with no negative consequences if people choose to use fluorescent in kitchen, while the spare bedroom light that is on for minutes per year gets a cheap (and clean) incandescent.
> As for his point, it only stands if you can't do math or know anything about pollition.
You want MORE pollution? That's odd.
An incandescent bulb takes about 1 penny per hour of electricity to operate. If you use your attic light 5 minutes per month, that's 60 minutes per year, or 1 penny per year. One penny worth of power for the incandescent.
How much power do you think it takes to make a CFL, to refine the mercury and all of that? Let me give you a hint - more than a penny worth. Much more.
Then, you have the toxins in the CFL, the heavy metals and such.
Fluorescent is a really good idea for the main kitchen light that you use all the time. It's a stupendously bad idea for the attic, the hall closet, anywhere that's only used a few minutes per month. If it's not used enough for it's efficiency to matter, fluorescent uses more energy (to make the lamp), it pollutes more, and it costs a LOT more. That extra 900% cost is money that could feed millions of starving children, or even something that would actually reduce pollution. Screwed into our attic light fixtures, that's millions of ten dollar bills being completed wasted.
I replaced several CFLs, of two different brands, after they were in place for about a year and had been turned on for a total of maybe 20 minutes.
20 minutes of light for about $10-$15 is really, really wasteful.
"A wise investment that saves you money over a period of 10 years - even if you rarely used the bulb."
!?!? How much do you think several minutes of power costs? Apparently you think it costs thousands of dollars per hour to turn on a light? A 50 watt bulb costs less than one penny per hour to operate. So that bulb in your attic costs less than a dollar for your entire life. Spending $10-$15 on an "energy efficient" bulb in your attic is dumb, dumb, dumb. That WASTES energy because it takes a lot more energy to make that CFL than the incandescent would have ever used.
Halogen bulbs use a vapor cycle where the tungsten burns off the filament, collects on the quartz envelope, then vaporizes off of the hot envelope and recollects on the filament. Used with a dimmer, the temperature won't be high enough to vaporize it and the lifecycle becomes tens of hours rather than thousands of hours.
Let me repeat that last part - they WILL last for 10,20, maybe 50 hours with a dimmer. Then they die.
FYI that's false. The Obama administration said that for about 26 hours before they started walking back that claim. Within hours after they said it, someone did the math and it showed that conservative groups were referred about 80 times as often as liberal groups.
That's kind of like claiming there was no racial bias in 1940s West Virginia because while there were thousands of black people in prison, there were also three white guys.
That's good to hear. Each attic or rarely used closet doesn't need a $30 light bulb when a 30 cent light bulb will do just fine. Using CFLs in such roles wastes 95% of the resources used to make them. There's a reason CFLs are so much more expensive - that cost represents resources used in their manufacture, wasted resources for rarely used locations.
Also my ceiling fans have built in dimmers. Other than the one fan/light we use often, it would be stupid and wasteful to throw out all our ceiling fans and buy entire new ones just to have a CFL capable dimmer.
That's true, the regex is used with the non-case-sensitive flag. We use it with mod_rewrite, so it would be[NC] something like: RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} https?://([a-z0-9\-]+\.)*foo\.com(/|$) [NC]
In for example Perl the regex would be used within//i (or another delimiter for clarity).
Just because Nintendo's existing product didn't already infringe doesn't mean they are worthless. Perhaps Nintendo redesigned products specifically to avoid infringement. Perhaps they would like to make or license products that would infringe.
Suppose I invent a working time machine. Nintendo hasn't infringed that patent in the past. Does that make the time machine patent worthless?
IA labs made actual products similar to wii-fit and met with Nintendo to discuss making Wii accessories using their technology at about the time the 3DS was to be released. IA then found out that Nintendo made the accessories themselves, apparently "stealing the ideas" that IA presented to them. So that's not what we'd normally call a patent troll.
It turns out that Nintendo had been developing the products before meeting with IA, and the court ruled that Nintendo didn't infringe the IA patents, so IA lost. It appears to me that IA was a bit too aggressive in defending their patents, but they didn't engage in the pattern of behavior normally associated with a troll.
A credit card number in a decent database is 8 bytes. Therefore, 100 million CC numbers is 800 million bytes. That's 800 MB, which is the amount of data a gigabit Ethernet can transfer in 10 seconds.
With the name on the card, and such, it's a few GBs. Maybe one minute of data transfer or thereabouts.
If it took the thieves a few hours to download over a slow connection, that would have been less than 1% of Target's traffic during that time period.
Target execs signed sworn documents affirming that they were PCI compliant. Large companies have to do an audit of their PCI compliance so that they actually know if they are compliant or not. That statement of compliance saved them millions in extra processing fees (or allowed them to get processing at all).
IF those documents were false, that's lying for material gain aka fraud. We don't yet know if a) they were PCI compliant or b) they had the required audit and thought they were compliant. It appears likely that they may not have been compliant, and they knew or should have known. That's one potential fraud.
Further, there is an implied warranty to customers that cardholder data would be handled according to best practices. If they were reckless, that COULD be construed as fraud.
The difference is that a battery can hold a useful amount of energy. As a rough guideline, 1 amp hour ~= 10,000 farads. That's the capacity of a large ultra capacitor or a AAA battery. You don't power a city with those. You can, use them to power your SSD for four seconds in case of a power outage so it can finish writing the data.
> Meh.. Windows Server, RHEL... who wants an OS. The VM infrastructure below, the storage, the network,
Yeah nobody uses Linux for virtualization, storage, or networking. Who's ever heard of OpenStack? Well, noone except the major datacenters. And the minor ones. And people at home.
> Patents (used to) cover only specific implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
That's a legitimate criticism of many patents. Of course, an implementation IS itself an idea, so we'd need to be a little more specific with our vocabulary in order to really talk about policy. Saying "you shouldn't be able to patent ideas" won't quite get us there. Certainly we can say "goals, objectives, shouldn't be patentable; only METHODS for achieving an objective should be."
Certainly there exist bad patents that are too broad, that cover an objective rather than a method or mechanism. On the other hand, there simply is no such thing as a "software patent" per se. The problem with the patents is that they are over broad. Whether they cover something made of wood, plastic, or magnetized iron particles is irrelevant.
That is a common misconception, spread by people who like a certain type of FUD. In fact, what is not patent patentable is "the laws of nature, including those of science and mathematics".
The LAWS of nature. You can't patent gravity, you can patent an elevator. You can't patent refraction, you can patent an acoustic lens. You can't patent the associative property of addition, you can patent a scoring system for detecting bogus reviews.
If you take out "the laws of" and replace it with "anything using", THEN you would end up with "you can't patent anything using nature, including science and math", but that's not the law. The law is that you can't patent the laws of nature, including mathematical LAWS. You can patent things that are scientific, and you can patent things that are mathematical.
If y you think about it, it makes sense. You can't invent "x + 1 = 1 + x". That's always been true. However, you CAN invent a way of detecting suspicious stock trades. Since that could be a new invention, it could be patented.
> but it doesn't sound too secure, leaving it up to the app to police itself. > We've seen how well that didn't work in places like Wall Street. Is Capiscum's real security the sandboxing?
As a simple example, many web server exploits write files to/var/tmp and then to/sbin. It's not that Apache or Nginx is malicious, Apache is being tricked into writing those files. With Capsicum, Apache would, on start-up, declare to the OS "don't let me write any files outside of cgi-data/."
> Last time I tried SELinux, many years ago, I found I was always having to expand privileges so that utilities and apps could do their jobs. > We finally said the heck with it, and gave pretty much every permission to every program.
Other people had the same problem and reported exactly what the log said, so the distro default policies have been updated. That pretty much solved the problem, so SELinux is ready for you to give it another try.
Also, there exist "targeted" policies which restrict only the most likely vectors, such as PHP. With targeted policy, it's like PHP is running under SELinux but Gimp is not.
Clearly it's not possible to render a software program as hardware. If everyone who explained the process (use Verilog) above is correct, that would mean that the exact same algorithm exists as both hardware and software.
We can't have the same algorithm exist as both hardware and software, because that would mean algorithms are hardware just as much as they are software.
that would mean all the people whining about "software patents" may as well be whining about unicorns. I hereby declare Verilog, ASICs, and FPGAs to be non-existent so we can continue to pretend that there is such a thing as a "software patent".
Slashdot Mirror
Western Digital World Edition drives and some other network capable external drives run Linux. Truecrypt runs on Linux, so there's no reason you can't run Truecrypt (or cryptsetup) in your external drive.
cryptsetup may well be included already in the default firmware.
If you're an uptime freak, you upgrade the Linux kernel without rebooting. I even had an employee swap out a CPU without a reboot once. I guess that CPU was completely idle at the time. (The machine had two CPUs.)
Theoretically, yes. Practically, it doesn't happen.
You sell something. 40 days later, the customer calls their bank. The bank mails a form, which the customer receives 10 days later. They fill it in and mail it back. 14 days later, the bank deducts the amount from the merchant's receipts. Ten days after that, the merchant receives a letter saying they've been charged back for a transaction that occurred over two months ago. They money has already been taken from them, subtracted from recent sales.
IF the merchant digs up a signed receipt, they can start the process to dispute the chargeback. 90 days later they'll just get another letter saying the customer now says the product wasn't as advertised.
What HAS worked for me, in a small business, is to call the customer and start some friendly small talk. "Hi George, it's Ray from bettercgi.com. How was your vacation? ...". After establishing that human contact so the customer sees me as an actual person, I mention the chargeback. "I wanted to see if there was a misunderstanding because the bank sent me a letter saying you filed a fraud report against me...". When they are reminded of what the charge is for, I used to ask them to call the bank and cancel the chargeback. That involves the bank mailing another form for them to fill out, so that never ended up working. Now, I just get them to repay the amount. I end up eating the chargeback fee of about $39, plus the double processing fees. I then CALL them 20 days later and REMIND them what the charge is for because people who forget and charge back once tend to forget and charge back again.
As a consumer, please keep in mind your credit card provides strong protection from FRAUD. When you call the bank and charge back, you are accusing someone of fraud.
> It would take a truly overwhelming number of bulbs to impact anything significantly.
Is a billion CFLs enough to be a problem? That would be the direct result of mandating that everyone use them.
On the other hand, that billion could be cut in half with no negative consequences if people choose to use fluorescent in kitchen, while the spare bedroom light that is on for minutes per year gets a cheap (and clean) incandescent.
That's interesting. I do wonder about ONE study that contradicts widely held knowledge.
> 80's over hear
Are you trying to say "80s over here"?
When two of every three words you say are wrong, you may not be as smart as you think you are.
> As for his point, it only stands if you can't do math or know anything about pollition.
You want MORE pollution? That's odd.
An incandescent bulb takes about 1 penny per hour of electricity to operate. If you use your attic light 5 minutes per month, that's 60 minutes per year, or 1 penny per year. One penny worth of power for the incandescent.
How much power do you think it takes to make a CFL, to refine the mercury and all of that?
Let me give you a hint - more than a penny worth. Much more.
Then, you have the toxins in the CFL, the heavy metals and such.
Fluorescent is a really good idea for the main kitchen light that you use all the time.
It's a stupendously bad idea for the attic, the hall closet, anywhere that's only used a few minutes per month.
If it's not used enough for it's efficiency to matter, fluorescent uses more energy (to make the lamp), it pollutes more, and it costs a LOT more. That extra 900% cost is money that could feed millions of starving children, or even something that would actually reduce pollution. Screwed into our attic light fixtures, that's millions of ten dollar bills being completed wasted.
I replaced several CFLs, of two different brands, after they were in place for about a year and had been turned on for a total of maybe 20 minutes.
20 minutes of light for about $10-$15 is really, really wasteful.
"A wise investment that saves you money over a period of 10 years - even if you rarely used the bulb."
!?!? How much do you think several minutes of power costs? Apparently you think it costs thousands of dollars per hour to turn on a light?
A 50 watt bulb costs less than one penny per hour to operate. So that bulb in your attic costs less than a dollar for your entire life. Spending $10-$15 on an "energy efficient" bulb in your attic is dumb, dumb, dumb. That WASTES energy because it takes a lot more energy to make that CFL than the incandescent would have ever used.
Halogen bulbs use a vapor cycle where the tungsten burns off the filament, collects on the quartz envelope, then vaporizes off of the hot envelope and recollects on the filament. Used with a dimmer, the temperature won't be high enough to vaporize it and the lifecycle becomes tens of hours rather than thousands of hours.
Let me repeat that last part - they WILL last for 10,20, maybe 50 hours with a dimmer. Then they die.
FYI that's false. The Obama administration said that for about 26 hours before they started walking back that claim.
Within hours after they said it, someone did the math and it showed that conservative groups were referred about 80 times as often as liberal groups.
That's kind of like claiming there was no racial bias in 1940s West Virginia because while there were thousands of black people in prison, there were also three white guys.
That's good to hear. Each attic or rarely used closet doesn't need a $30 light bulb when a 30 cent light bulb will do just fine.
Using CFLs in such roles wastes 95% of the resources used to make them. There's a reason CFLs are so much more expensive -
that cost represents resources used in their manufacture, wasted resources for rarely used locations.
Also my ceiling fans have built in dimmers. Other than the one fan/light we use often, it would be stupid and wasteful to throw out all our ceiling
fans and buy entire new ones just to have a CFL capable dimmer.
That's true, the regex is used with the non-case-sensitive flag. We use it with mod_rewrite, so it would be[NC] something like:
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} https?://([a-z0-9\-]+\.)*foo\.com(/|$) [NC]
In for example Perl the regex would be used within //i (or another delimiter for clarity).
For matching URLs from a domain, here's a regex we came up with that covers some special cases. Hopefully Slashdot doesn't mangle it too badly.
https?://([a-z0-9\-]+\.)*foo\.com(/|$)
That covers:
https as well as http
"subdomains" like maps.google.com as well as www.google.com and google.com
It's not fooled by google.com.hacker.ru
Just because Nintendo's existing product didn't already infringe doesn't mean they are worthless. Perhaps Nintendo redesigned products specifically to avoid infringement. Perhaps they would like to make or license products that would infringe.
Suppose I invent a working time machine. Nintendo hasn't infringed that patent in the past. Does that make the time machine patent worthless?
IA labs made actual products similar to wii-fit and met with Nintendo to discuss making Wii accessories using their technology at about the time the 3DS was to be released. IA then found out that Nintendo made the accessories themselves, apparently "stealing the ideas" that IA presented to them. So that's not what we'd normally call a patent troll.
It turns out that Nintendo had been developing the products before meeting with IA, and the court ruled that Nintendo didn't infringe the IA patents, so IA lost. It appears to me that IA was a bit too aggressive in defending their patents, but they didn't engage in the pattern of behavior normally associated with a troll.
A credit card number in a decent database is 8 bytes.
Therefore, 100 million CC numbers is 800 million bytes.
That's 800 MB, which is the amount of data a gigabit Ethernet can transfer in 10 seconds.
With the name on the card, and such, it's a few GBs. Maybe one minute of data transfer or thereabouts.
If it took the thieves a few hours to download over a slow connection, that would have been less than 1% of Target's traffic during that time period.
Target execs signed sworn documents affirming that they were PCI compliant. Large companies have to do an audit of their PCI compliance so that they actually know if they are compliant or not. That statement of compliance saved them millions in extra processing fees (or allowed them to get processing at all).
IF those documents were false, that's lying for material gain aka fraud. We don't yet know if a) they were PCI compliant or b) they had the required audit and thought they were compliant. It appears likely that they may not have been compliant, and they knew or should have known. That's one potential fraud.
Further, there is an implied warranty to customers that cardholder data would be handled according to best practices. If they were reckless, that COULD be construed as fraud.
That's funny.
The difference is that a battery can hold a useful amount of energy.
As a rough guideline, 1 amp hour ~= 10,000 farads.
That's the capacity of a large ultra capacitor or a AAA battery. You don't power a city with those. You can, use them to power your SSD for four seconds in case of a power outage so it can finish writing the data.
> Meh.. Windows Server, RHEL... who wants an OS. The VM infrastructure below, the storage, the network,
Yeah nobody uses Linux for virtualization, storage, or networking. Who's ever heard of OpenStack? Well, noone except the major datacenters. And the minor ones. And people at home.
> Patents (used to) cover only specific implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
That's a legitimate criticism of many patents. Of course, an implementation IS itself an idea, so we'd need to be a little more specific with our vocabulary in order to really talk about policy. Saying "you shouldn't be able to patent ideas" won't quite get us there. Certainly we can say "goals, objectives, shouldn't be patentable; only METHODS for achieving an objective should be."
Certainly there exist bad patents that are too broad, that cover an objective rather than a method or mechanism. On the other hand, there simply is no such thing as a "software patent" per se. The problem with the patents is that they are over broad. Whether they cover something made of wood, plastic, or magnetized iron particles is irrelevant.
That is a common misconception, spread by people who like a certain type of FUD. In fact, what is not patent patentable is "the laws of nature, including those of science and mathematics".
The LAWS of nature. You can't patent gravity, you can patent an elevator. You can't patent refraction, you can patent an acoustic lens. You can't patent the associative property of addition, you can patent a scoring system for detecting bogus reviews.
If you take out "the laws of" and replace it with "anything using", THEN you would end up with "you can't patent anything using nature, including science and math", but that's not the law. The law is that you can't patent the laws of nature, including mathematical LAWS. You can patent things that are scientific, and you can patent things that are mathematical.
If y
you think about it, it makes sense. You can't invent "x + 1 = 1 + x". That's always been true. However, you CAN invent a way of detecting suspicious stock trades. Since that could be a new invention, it could be patented.
> but it doesn't sound too secure, leaving it up to the app to police itself.
> We've seen how well that didn't work in places like Wall Street. Is Capiscum's real security the sandboxing?
As a simple example, many web server exploits write files to /var/tmp and then to /sbin. It's not that Apache or Nginx is malicious, Apache is being tricked into writing those files. With Capsicum, Apache would, on start-up, declare to the OS "don't let me write any files outside of cgi-data/."
> Last time I tried SELinux, many years ago, I found I was always having to expand privileges so that utilities and apps could do their jobs.
> We finally said the heck with it, and gave pretty much every permission to every program.
Other people had the same problem and reported exactly what the log said, so the distro default policies have been updated. That pretty much solved the problem, so SELinux is ready for you to give it another try.
Also, there exist "targeted" policies which restrict only the most likely vectors, such as PHP. With targeted policy, it's like PHP is running under SELinux but Gimp is not.
Clearly it's not possible to render a software program as hardware. If everyone who explained the process (use Verilog) above is correct, that would mean that the exact same algorithm exists as both hardware and software.
We can't have the same algorithm exist as both hardware and software, because that would mean algorithms are hardware just as much as they are software.
that would mean all the people whining about "software patents" may as well be whining about unicorns. I hereby declare Verilog, ASICs, and FPGAs to be non-existent so we can continue to pretend that there is such a thing as a "software patent".