" this the first real evidence of their existence?"
No , not at all . There have been numerous examples found over the years . As the article says
"Hundreds of sightings have been reported over the years and a leaked government document revealed 59 sightings had been reported in Gippsland between 1998 and 2001.
Sightings != evidence
Read any tabloid - there are "documented sightings" of everything from the Loch Ness Monster to Bat Boy. Someone swears they saw something. Big deal.
Imagine you open a file to back it up. Halfway through this backup, someone rewrites the file. With snapshots, you get the contents of the file at the time you started. Without, you get half of the original contents, and half of the new contents.
You're logic is faulty. Your box is only as secure as its weakest link. If your dynamic site is compromised, it can compromise your entire computer, including your locked down site. This gives you a false sense of security.
If your dynamic+static site is compromised, it can compromise your entire computer - no different. I'm saying it's easier to lock down static content. You are still left with the same task of securing the dynamic content, as you are with a single dynamic+static site.
Yes, with Apache you have to run multiple instances of Apache to run it under different user credentials, but not so with IIS. Each application can run with its own credentials.
Who's talking about user credentials? I was talking about limiting extra features (like CGI, PHP, indexing, etc) in the server configuration.
And i don't consider managing multiple servers more "simple" than managing one.
You can have a server that is configured to not do CGI/indexing/PHP/etc in certain image directories, but do them in others.. or two configs. It's about the same amount of work, but in the separate server scenario, you are assured that the extra functions will never be accessed, because the static server isn't able to do them.
People make mistakes. If you accidently enable indexing in a directory that isn't supposed to have it, the single server scenario will happily allow it. In the two-server scenario, since you don't have the indexing module loaded on the static server, the misconfiguration will have no effect (and will probably throw an error alerting you).
Again, I'm not talking about just permissions; I'm talking about disabling extra server features. It's the same principle as removing unneeded network services on a machine.
Why would you WANT to run two different versions of Apache? Other than, perhaps, if you're hacking on the source.
You can have as many sites running as you like under different ports and addresses in a single version of IIS or Apache.
I can think of three reasons: speed, simplicity and security. Say, one web server that only serves up static files, nothing more - and is fast at it, with a locked-down configuration. Another for dynamic content, with all the complications that ensue.
Ideally, you'd put these webservers on separate boxes (or farms of boxes), but budgets may dicatate that they share a box. Personally I'd also use thttpd for the only-static portion, as it's faster, simpler, and easier to secure.
That has to be one of the most retarded things I've heard on slashdot, and I occasionally read at -1. If anything, we should have more money to throw at robotics by saving so much money by hiring illegal immigrants.
If you're referring to your post, I agree.:)
Yes, we're saving tons by having illegal immigrants. But then why would you spend it on robots that you don't need - you already have illegals doing the job you would be designing the robots for.
Japan has fewer illegals and less problems with unions - therefore they have more robots.
"There is no way a private company could build their own infrastructure to match that."
You mean like the fiber optic lines that Verizon is laying down at a stunningly high pace around here? Sorry, sir, but that argument isn't going to fly.
My mistake, I should have used "non-Baby Bell company" rather than "private company". We were talking about upstarts, after all.
I would imagine that government assistance would be somewhat forthcoming in a REAL upgrade (like FTTH in ~75% of US households).
Do you really think the govt will hand out money to random upstarts? Or will all this money go to Verizon/BellSouth/SBC/PacBell, making them further entrenched as the dominant monopolies?
Another thing you have to remember is that the bulk of the original telco rollout happened when the US population was around 120M and not the 297M that it now is. That equals a significantly improved return on investment, also the economic climate is better (this also figures into the government assistance, they reason that this class of improvement will yield a significant impact on our economy...so they would be very willing to offer a helping hand).
I don't understand the argument.. there's more people now, therefore a new telco will have a better ROI? There are indeed more potential consumers of telco products now than when telephony was new. However, since everyone who wants a phone already has one, the only way to get customers is to offer a service that the existing telcos do not, or to price yourself lower than the existing telco.
The general feeling I've seen from investors is that any new telco offering is going to get stomped by the Baby Bells, much as how most of the upstart DSL providers have been stomped in the last few years.
One side effect we can hope for is that once alternative broadband providers are cut off from existing infrastructure they might decide to put down their own - say fiber optic instead of copper.
The existing infrastructure was built using monopoly pricing and government assistance. There is no way a private company could build their own infrastructure to match that.
So between my blackberry "naturally radiating me" since it is possibly at a level equal to or lower than earth, my additional cell phone "naturally radiating me", and now my 802.11 card on my laptop sitting on my lap "naturally radiating me", all of this must be safe and "haven't been shown to cause problems" even when you factor in the exposure to all of these technologies in a typical persons work day?
Right.
I'm not busting your balls, just recognizing the fact that anything in moderation "probably" will not hurt, as the body is amazingly resiliant, but lets also apply a bit if common sense instead of blind trust to technology that still is not mature.
Radar (microwave) was used in WW2. We've been studying EMF since at least then. How mature do you want our understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum to be?
50 years of science is not "blind trust".
Yes, we should still look for problems, and continue to study the effects. But I wouldn't freak out about new technology being suddenly more dangerous than old, as your original post seemed to be doing.
Cute joke, but here in the Appleverse Steve's RDF is easily as strong as ever. For the most part Mac users have happily jumped onto the "PPC good, Intel better!" bandwagon.
Changing one's mind in the presence of changing facts is usually a good thing. The opposite - sticking hard to one's opinion when circumstances have changed - is called "stubborn".
That said, I hate fanbois that cheer on a system/platform/chipset/sports team disregarding all fact or reason.
Personally I wouldn't use a mouse without true tactile clicking, but I must agree that scroll nubbin is mighty cool.
I'm curious to try it; I may have to swing by the Apple Store. Probably won't buy it, though; I already have a Kensington 2 button + clickable scroll wheel Bluetooth mouse for my Powerbook.
(FYI, also have Linux and Windows machines - I'm not by any means a Mac zealot, and only a recent user)
Well there are more questions that can be asked. If mobile phone can cause health problems "possibly". and high power microwave is known to cause problems. Then why would there be no issues with current technology letalone higher speed specifications.
Yes, high power microwaves cause this health problem called "cooking".
Low power gear like cell phones WiFi haven't been shown to cause problems.
For the people that think "OMG the radiation!" think of it this way - you have no problems with a 1 degree change in temperature. You'd have a big problem with a 100 degree in temperature. Likewise, some radiation is ok (and most gear puts out *less* than the Earth naturally radiates!). A lot will cause you problems.
By your "very effective" link, it states that this method produces pregnancy in 5% of the women that use it.
By comparison, the figure they give for birth control pills is 0.1% - 0.5%.
Hmm, a method that is 10x less effective and requires restricting sex to certain days? About the only thing it has going for it is that it's free (or at least a one-time cost for their beads, a calendar, whatever).
I can understand promoting this method when the population can't afford birth control pills. The study was done in "Bolivia, Peru and the Philippines", where I imagine there a quite a few users that could benefit. However, I don't see it as a replacement for birth control in populations that can afford birth control pills.
Bizarre. Is your ogle compiled with ALSA support enabled?
$ ogle --check |grep alsa
Build: Linux 2.6.10-gentoo-r5 #1 Mon Jan 17 12:58:38 EST 2005 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1600MHz Fri Jan 28 17:21:07 EST 2005 mmx Xv oss alsa
Someday the stupid users do understand they are stupid, don't they? I mean, to be that stupid for years, it's horrible.
No. Many users never become un-stupid. I don't say "smarter", because many of the stupidest users are smart people - doctors, lawyers, etc - that feel they shouldn't *have* to learn, and often take a point of pride that they haven't learned it and instead can command someone else to fix it.
Much like many people, for whatever reason, take pride in the fact that they never conquered math.
The world in general will remain stupid; you have to code around it.
Hey... I saw a posting you had about the Chaintech 710 and using AC3 passthrough with mplayer in an old thread. I am trying to do the same thing but getting no sound. Can you tell me if you had to do anything specific to get it to work?
Tom
MODDERS: I had no other way of contacting the guy... cut me a break?
Anyway, I don't understand why they'll need for a simulation like this. Will the virtual beings build a whole universe? Simulations aren't usually so slow.
Because if it ran in a week, how would they eat for the next 3 years? No, they've probably slowed down the simulation so they can "study" it as it progresses.. read: eat Doritos and play video games for the next 3 years, occasionally looking at the simulation and write something up about it.
Idiots... 30 years for a project like this? In 30 years we'll have much better methods of doing this, so any project started 3 years from now wouldn't be valid for so long. Those of you who have read Ray Kurzweil's essays probably know that there is a very good chance that we will pretty much understand how the human brain works by that time (like we understand the genome now).
We've mapped the genome. We don't understand it. BIG difference.
But if you meant we'll have a superficial understanding of it, and have big glossy headlines that miss the point, you're probably right.
The thing you're missing about machinima is that it's another medium for people to express themselves, even if this particular one is just a copy of existing work. If someone draws a painting of a scene from a movie, would you "get" that? Same thing here - in both mediums it's possible to copy existing content and to create your own.
A person who does take the $5 bill would rob the bank if he/she could.
Some people don't change their answers on what is right or wrong depending on scale. Many more people do.
Is it right to kill one person to save two others? Many people would say no. 3 million others? Many fewer people would say no, depsite the fact that it is equally difficult.
Back to the bank example, many people would say that robbing a bank is wrong, even if they have the means. But they may not feel too bad about scooping up a stray $5 bill at a rich friend's house.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hundreds of sightings have been reported over the years and a leaked government document revealed 59 sightings had been reported in Gippsland between 1998 and 2001.
Sightings != evidence
Read any tabloid - there are "documented sightings" of everything from the Loch Ness Monster to Bat Boy. Someone swears they saw something. Big deal.
Imagine you open a file to back it up. Halfway through this backup, someone rewrites the file. With snapshots, you get the contents of the file at the time you started. Without, you get half of the original contents, and half of the new contents.
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news/archives/2005 0801_leaking_capacitors_muck_up_motherboards.phtml
What kind of house do you live in?!? And do you have a neighbor with flying jelly that you could get together and make a sandwich?
If your dynamic+static site is compromised, it can compromise your entire computer - no different. I'm saying it's easier to lock down static content. You are still left with the same task of securing the dynamic content, as you are with a single dynamic+static site.
Yes, with Apache you have to run multiple instances of Apache to run it under different user credentials, but not so with IIS. Each application can run with its own credentials.
Who's talking about user credentials? I was talking about limiting extra features (like CGI, PHP, indexing, etc) in the server configuration.
And i don't consider managing multiple servers more "simple" than managing one.
You can have a server that is configured to not do CGI/indexing/PHP/etc in certain image directories, but do them in others.. or two configs. It's about the same amount of work, but in the separate server scenario, you are assured that the extra functions will never be accessed, because the static server isn't able to do them.
People make mistakes. If you accidently enable indexing in a directory that isn't supposed to have it, the single server scenario will happily allow it. In the two-server scenario, since you don't have the indexing module loaded on the static server, the misconfiguration will have no effect (and will probably throw an error alerting you).
Again, I'm not talking about just permissions; I'm talking about disabling extra server features. It's the same principle as removing unneeded network services on a machine.
You can have as many sites running as you like under different ports and addresses in a single version of IIS or Apache.
I can think of three reasons: speed, simplicity and security. Say, one web server that only serves up static files, nothing more - and is fast at it, with a locked-down configuration. Another for dynamic content, with all the complications that ensue.
Ideally, you'd put these webservers on separate boxes (or farms of boxes), but budgets may dicatate that they share a box. Personally I'd also use thttpd for the only-static portion, as it's faster, simpler, and easier to secure.
Bluetooth mouse with scroll wheel, no recharging station (AA batteries). I'm using this with my Powerbook. The batteries last about a month. Works with Windows too (assuming you have Bluetooth)
If you're referring to your post, I agree. :)
Yes, we're saving tons by having illegal immigrants. But then why would you spend it on robots that you don't need - you already have illegals doing the job you would be designing the robots for.
Japan has fewer illegals and less problems with unions - therefore they have more robots.
You mean like the fiber optic lines that Verizon is laying down at a stunningly high pace around here? Sorry, sir, but that argument isn't going to fly. My mistake, I should have used "non-Baby Bell company" rather than "private company". We were talking about upstarts, after all.
Do you really think the govt will hand out money to random upstarts? Or will all this money go to Verizon/BellSouth/SBC/PacBell, making them further entrenched as the dominant monopolies?
Another thing you have to remember is that the bulk of the original telco rollout happened when the US population was around 120M and not the 297M that it now is. That equals a significantly improved return on investment, also the economic climate is better (this also figures into the government assistance, they reason that this class of improvement will yield a significant impact on our economy...so they would be very willing to offer a helping hand).
I don't understand the argument.. there's more people now, therefore a new telco will have a better ROI? There are indeed more potential consumers of telco products now than when telephony was new. However, since everyone who wants a phone already has one, the only way to get customers is to offer a service that the existing telcos do not, or to price yourself lower than the existing telco.
The general feeling I've seen from investors is that any new telco offering is going to get stomped by the Baby Bells, much as how most of the upstart DSL providers have been stomped in the last few years.
The existing infrastructure was built using monopoly pricing and government assistance. There is no way a private company could build their own infrastructure to match that.
Right.
I'm not busting your balls, just recognizing the fact that anything in moderation "probably" will not hurt, as the body is amazingly resiliant, but lets also apply a bit if common sense instead of blind trust to technology that still is not mature.
Radar (microwave) was used in WW2. We've been studying EMF since at least then. How mature do you want our understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum to be?
50 years of science is not "blind trust".
Yes, we should still look for problems, and continue to study the effects. But I wouldn't freak out about new technology being suddenly more dangerous than old, as your original post seemed to be doing.
Changing one's mind in the presence of changing facts is usually a good thing. The opposite - sticking hard to one's opinion when circumstances have changed - is called "stubborn".
That said, I hate fanbois that cheer on a system/platform/chipset/sports team disregarding all fact or reason.
Personally I wouldn't use a mouse without true tactile clicking, but I must agree that scroll nubbin is mighty cool.
I'm curious to try it; I may have to swing by the Apple Store. Probably won't buy it, though; I already have a Kensington 2 button + clickable scroll wheel Bluetooth mouse for my Powerbook.
(FYI, also have Linux and Windows machines - I'm not by any means a Mac zealot, and only a recent user)
Yes, high power microwaves cause this health problem called "cooking".
Low power gear like cell phones WiFi haven't been shown to cause problems.
For the people that think "OMG the radiation!" think of it this way - you have no problems with a 1 degree change in temperature. You'd have a big problem with a 100 degree in temperature. Likewise, some radiation is ok (and most gear puts out *less* than the Earth naturally radiates!). A lot will cause you problems.
Jobs: Oh noes! The Reality Distortion Field is fading! Scotty, do something quick!
Scotty: Cap'n! She canna take any more!
Jobs: Khaaaaaaaaaan!
By your "very effective" link, it states that this method produces pregnancy in 5% of the women that use it.
By comparison, the figure they give for birth control pills is 0.1% - 0.5%.
Hmm, a method that is 10x less effective and requires restricting sex to certain days? About the only thing it has going for it is that it's free (or at least a one-time cost for their beads, a calendar, whatever).
I can understand promoting this method when the population can't afford birth control pills. The study was done in "Bolivia, Peru and the Philippines", where I imagine there a quite a few users that could benefit. However, I don't see it as a replacement for birth control in populations that can afford birth control pills.
$ ogle --check |grep alsa
Build: Linux 2.6.10-gentoo-r5 #1 Mon Jan 17 12:58:38 EST 2005 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1600MHz Fri Jan 28 17:21:07 EST 2005 mmx Xv oss alsa
Right, many != majority. I said many. Many others are stupid, feel bad about it, but do nothing to better themselves as well. Outcome is the same.
When you come across the people that are proud, it's infuriating. "I'm not one of those nerd types, just fix it.. and do it right this time!"
These are the same type of people that yell at the mechanic when their brakes keep wearing out, yet they refuse to change their driving patterns.
Ah, forgot about that. Added, and updated my instructions.
:)
I think I've enabled comments on the main discussion journal page if you want to move this conversation there.
No. Many users never become un-stupid. I don't say "smarter", because many of the stupidest users are smart people - doctors, lawyers, etc - that feel they shouldn't *have* to learn, and often take a point of pride that they haven't learned it and instead can command someone else to fix it.
Much like many people, for whatever reason, take pride in the fact that they never conquered math.
The world in general will remain stupid; you have to code around it.
Tom
MODDERS: I had no other way of contacting the guy... cut me a break?
I've now put up some info in my slashdot journal. :)
Because if it ran in a week, how would they eat for the next 3 years? No, they've probably slowed down the simulation so they can "study" it as it progresses.. read: eat Doritos and play video games for the next 3 years, occasionally looking at the simulation and write something up about it.
These guys are my heroes. :)
We've mapped the genome. We don't understand it. BIG difference.
But if you meant we'll have a superficial understanding of it, and have big glossy headlines that miss the point, you're probably right.
As for original content, check out Red vs. Blue or The StrangerHood. There's plenty more if you look.
Some people don't change their answers on what is right or wrong depending on scale. Many more people do.
Is it right to kill one person to save two others? Many people would say no. 3 million others? Many fewer people would say no, depsite the fact that it is equally difficult.
Back to the bank example, many people would say that robbing a bank is wrong, even if they have the means. But they may not feel too bad about scooping up a stray $5 bill at a rich friend's house.