I've got two 1 TB drives in my home server. I use software RAID to keep my data safe and happy. You pretty much have to buy these things in pairs if you care even a little bit about the data. Unless, of course, you're buying this to use as a back up.
RAID is not a backup!
RAID protects you from a drive failure or two, sure... But what if you delete something you shouldn't have? Or something important gets corrupted? Or you get a nasty virus? Or your house burns down? Or you get some kind of nasty lightning strike that takes out your entire RAID? Or you run one of Seagate's firmware updates?
A backup is a periodic snapshot, preferably stored off-site, that you can go back to if something horrible happens to your data.
You can certainly use HDDs as backup... Or even a RAID... But you need to move your data to those drives and then take them offline and put them someplace safe. Just simply RAIDing your working set doesn't give you a backup.
What about the individuals who's computers were compromised by him? Are they not themselves partially culpable for his actions? Shouldn't people feel compelled to not let themselves become zombies?
Sure, I should probably lock the door of my house when I leave for work... It's probably a good idea to lock my car in the parking lot, too... But that doesn't mean it isn't a criminal act if you walk into my house and steal something.
Yes, from an insurance standpoint not locking the door will likely have an effect. If my insurance company knows that I didn't lock my car they probably won't pay for any repairs it may need after being recovered. But the guy who steals it is still a criminal, still goes on trial, and still goes to jail.
Just because someone didn't patch their computer doesn't mean it's OK to exploit those vulnerabilities. It's a weak point in the computer's security, not an open invitation. Are you suggesting that it's OK to break into someone's house because the windows are fragile?
Creating a botnet from zombied computers is no trivial act. Simply exploiting a vulnerability takes some time and effort. It isn't as if this guy just kind of tripped over a botnet and accidentally stole some identities. This was an intentional criminal act.
Except that in real life, "space ship" usually describes a vehicule to travel through space.
And in real life time travel is impossible.
Look at the quote:
in order to pull off the kind of time travel we see in the Back To The Future trilogy â" the kind where the traveler is transposed in time, but remains stationary in the same relative position to where he/she left â" the DeLorean would have to be an outstanding space ship, in addition to its already laudable work as a time-ship.
It clearly refers to the DeLorean needing to be a vehicle that travels through both time (time-ship) and space (space-ship). There isn't anything in there about surviving a vacuum or packing oxygen tanks.
I was referring to the "the DeLorean would have to be an outstanding space ship" bit.
See shaitand's reply, he said what I didn't in my original post.
If you spend zero time in space, then you don't need to have spaceship capabilities, even if you travel enormous distances.
You are both assuming that "space ship" means "vessel that travels through the space beyond the Earth's atmosphere." All that "space ship" means, literally, is a ship that travels through space - any space, including the space within the Earth's atmosphere.
You could easily describe a car, truck, boat, airplane, or segway as a "space ship."
Since it was in space for 0.0000E+999 seconds, i.e. never.
It did travel in time and moved from one point to another in the universe (to stay in the same spot on earth) but it didn't "travel in space", hence no need to be a spaceship.
Seems to me that you're misunderstanding the terminology.
Nobody is claiming that the DeLorean needs to be able to survive the vacuum of space. Nobody is claiming that it is capable of leaving the Earth's atmosphere.
The article is referring to the two seperate aspects of spacetime - space, and time. Space as in the distance between two locations. The inches between my keyboard and monitor...the feet between my desk and the door...the miles between my office and my house. That kind of space. Not the interstellar void.
The Earth is constantly spinning as well as orbiting the sun. The sun itself, as well as our entire galaxy, is moving. The only reason we don't notice all that is because we're stuck to the ground and moving along at the same speed as everything else.
If you were to simply remove yourself from the flow of time for a moment, the rest of the universe would keep chugging along. It would leave you behind. The Earth would spin away from you, as well as orbit away from you. When you re-entered the flow of time you'd be in a different place than where you started from.
Given the (literally) astronomical distance that everyone moves over the span of a few years... Any machine that was capable of traveling through time would also have to be able to travel great distances in space. Otherwise you wouldn't pop back in to the same geographic location you left from.
Granted, this is all fiction. There was no real DeLorean that traveled through time or space. It's all made up. But that's kind of the point of this article... To explore what it would actually take to accomplish that kind of feat, using real world mathematics. To illustrate just what a fantastic proposition it is.
If you have to pay a corporation a single dollar for the permission to program, you are doing it wrong. How does Apple get a free pass for this kind of shit?
Note that while the API download and simulator are free â" deploying to a real iPhone or iTouch is not, even if it is your own. To do that you have to apply to the iPhone Developer Program which is $99.
You don't have to pay a single cent to program. You have to register... But the SDK is completely free. Anyone can download it.
What you do have to pay for is distributing your software to live hardware. Apple uses code signing much like you see on consoles like the Xbox and PlayStation. If you aren't worried about distributing to other people you can always just jailbreak your device... Then you don't even have to pay for the code signing.
I've worked at several places that didn't roll out patches right away. It wasn't because the IT department was busily testing the patches. It was because they were afraid of the patches, but had no time to test them.
That's typically the problem around here. We've got plenty to keep us busy on a day-to-day basis... Something is always broken, or requiring replacement, or testing, or whatever.
I hate to just roll out a patch and hope for the best. That's bit me in the ass far too many times. But I find it hard to actually come up with time to read over the patch notes, apply the patch in a test environment, and then watch to see if something happens.
Sure, this particular patch is a few months old... And it was released with enough obvious urgency that we've pushed it through and updated most of our systems... But we're still sitting on some updates that are just as old, but don't seem quite as necessary.
A router won't alert you when a program or service tries to access your connection
Depends on the router, I guess...
Most routers have some kind of logging feature. Typically those logs can be directed to an email account, or maybe a syslog server or something like that. Normally those logs can also be filtered to some degree.
Personally, I receive alerts from a few different routers when things start going weird.
NAT must be set for a router to work. The very nature of a router is to use NAT. Ironically though it is a bigger issue on corporate networks as they are more likely to forward off ports. Not that NAT is a panacea by any means, but it is better then nothing. All routers need to do some type of NAT period, it is how a router works.
Wrong.
Routers route, that's what they do. They get traffic from one place to another. They do not require NAT. There were plenty of routers on the Internet long before NAT even existed.
I remember when consumer-grade NAT routers were starting to get big... All the weird little headaches when NAT didn't work right... Trying to get FTP connections do do what they should do... And then folks started advertising their routers as having "transparent NAT", which generally worked the way it should.
Jeez, with virus scanners, several types of automatic updates, and other gadgety things polluting the standard corporate desktop, it is a wonder that people can get any work done on their PCs anyway. Six Inches of Air.
Corporate desktops aren't that bad. I mean, they can be... But usually there's at least a little oversight. You don't typically see people with eleven different smiley-toolbars in a business... It happens, but not so much.
Home users, on the other hand, can be a true nightmare. Plugins for various web pages... Piles of downloaded crapware games... IncrediMail... Several different media players and a pile of music or movies... A couple different P2P programs... A couple different malware scanners... I cringe just thinking about it.
You're right though. Entirely too many different bits of software want to do their own updates. Windows Updates, Office Updates, anti-malware updates, updates for Adobe Reader, updates for Flash, updates for Java, updates for Real Player, updates for HP's drivers and suites, updates for QuickTime and iTunes...
It's ridiculous. I'll routinely see at least a half-dozen updaters running in the background.
That's one of the things I really like about most Linux distributions... Generally you've got a single package manager that takes care of everything for you.
I know a lot of people who are afraid of updates because of the genuine advantage validation. They got student priced versions of the software 5 years ago and are no longer students. They don't want to risk losing Visio/Word/PowerPoint or having some other software disabled on their computer.
The fear factor of automated reporting/validation is stopping a lot of people from running the updates.
I'm not sure how many people there are that are aware they should be running updates but actively decide not to because of WGA. I'm sure there are some folks, but I can't imagine it's all that many.
But you are correct, updates don't happen nearly enough, which is why machines are still vulnerable.
You've got updates for Windows, updates for Office, updates for whatever antivirus you're running... All those updates take a decent bite out of your productivity. They eat some of your bandwidth, then eat some of your computing power, then they ask for a reboot.
I know plenty of people who just ignore all the update notices. Unless the machine does all its updating completely automatically without interrupting the user, frequently it just doesn't happen.
This is why I recommend everyone have a router installed on their internet connection, even if they have only one PC. Routers inherently block almost all worms.
I think, what you're trying to say, is that it is important for everyone to have a firewall on their Internet connection... Not a router. Routers don't inherently offer any protection at all. Many home-grade routers come pre-configured with NAT, which does get you some basic protection... But not all routers do NAT, and not all of them give you any protection.
And an external firewall on your Internet connection only protects you so far. It might keep a worm from crawling in through your Internet connection... But it won't stop a worm from spreading once it is inside your network.
That's why it is important to control the traffic inside your network, as well as traffic to/from the Internet. Maybe it isn't necessary to run a firewall on each and every PC, but you sure as hell better be monitoring your traffic and keeping your machines patched.
do we really need an article here on/. every time obama wipes his arse?
The article... Or, at least the summary, since I didn't RTFA... Is more about the fact that the picture was taken with a digital camera for the first time ever.
This is slashdot. We get a story every time somebody releases a shiny new phone or installs linux on their toaster. We get stories about libraries digitizing their books. A digital picture being taken for the first time is at least as newsworthy as any of that.
We just had an "Ask Slashdot" about managing SD cards, with a few professional photographers chiming in about how they manage their huge collections... We've had dozens of stories over the years about preserving digital data over the years... Surely someone's curious how they're going to preserve this presidential portrait over the years, right? Regardless of whether you like Obama or not, he is the President Elect, he'll be going in the history books. We've got cave art and oil paintings that have withstood the test of time... How are they going to ensure that this photograph last at least as long as more traditional prints? How are they going to ensure that the digital file they open next year is the same one they just created? That it hasn't been altered or photoshopped or something?
More's to the point, why would you need an EXTERNAL IP just for your coffee machine ?
Connect your appliances on a traditional network, then map the 10.0.0.* addresses to ports on a single external IP ?
It's one thing for you to talk to your fridge from the car, but quite another to start dealing with inter-appliance politics... "Dave, the toaster oven is being nasty to me and stealing all my power again".
The problem is going to be communication between the devices and the rest of the world.
We support a couple larger clients that are running some kind of IP-enabled power meters on their buildings. This lets the local power company read their meters in realtime - no estimating, no sending a guy out once a month. It gets these companies a nice discount on their electricity bill.
The way those meters are set up, the polling is initiated by the power company. We got a little worksheet from the power company that instructed us in which ports to open, and asked us for the IP address that they'd be polling.
That works fine for these larger clients who can afford to have someone manage their IT infrastructure - either in-house or outsourced. But what about your average home user? Is every home user going to be expected to run through a worksheet for each appliance they buy?
Obviously, if you've got a half-dozen devices sitting behind one public IP you can't have them all listening for connections on the same port. You'd have to give each device its own port. Maybe all refrigerators would use port 666... But what if you had two refrigerators in your building?
You could have them initiate an outgoing connection to your electric company. Instead of having the company poll you, you just submit your data. That'd actually work pretty well... Unless the electric company has a reason they don't want to do that.
That all sounds great in a controlled IT environment... But when I'm on vacation visiting my family I rarely have the same resources available to me that I do at work.
a) If you're installing SP3 every time (as you should be), why are you doing it separately? You should be slipstreaming the SP3 installation into the original installation media, so no separate installation is required, it's integrated as part of the main install. This will save a significant amount of time (by your estimation, an hour), and many would argue, is cleaner as well. It'll probably even save space, as old files from the RTM/SP1/SP2 installation won't be backed up.
Slipstreaming is great, but not always practical. I don't typically carry around my CD library with me on vacation, so I wouldn't have access to my own slipstreamed disc. So then I'd be looking at trying to slipstream whatever installation media my folks were able to come up with. That means I'd need a CD burner, and if their computer is already toast I'm going to have to come up with a second machine. And no, I don't always have my laptop with me. Seems to me that it might very well take more time to make a slipstream disc from their installation media than just install SP3 separately.
b) Assuming these are just everyday desktop boxes, most of the hardware should be found on Windows Update in the hardware section, this isn't a guarantee, but I've had great success with it. It of course won't be the latest available much of the time, but it will likely have been tested by Microsoft and certified, so stability is likely very high. What isn't found, manually install.
It really depends on the box. Windows Update does indeed pick up a lot of drivers, but that only helps if you can run Windows Update. Frequently I'm left without a working NIC after a clean install. This leaves me digging for driver discs or trying to download the appropriate driver from the manufacturer's website. Depending on what brand the computer is this can be quick and easy or relatively painful.
c) When copying the saved data back, the permission specific metadata will usually (I add the qualifier for specific cases that no doubt exist) automatically change to match the logged on user doing the copying. If they don't, change them? You say you should be able to change the UID, by UID, I assume you mean either the owner or the permissions. You can change the owner and permissions of all files and folders in a directory recursively through the permissions GUI in Explorer, or do it by the command line: takeown.exe for fiddling with ownership, cacls.exe for ACL's (icacls.exe is preferred in Vista). You have _BOTH_ a GUI and CLI frontend to make the changes you desire, so what's the problem?
Typically, yes, it's relatively easy to re-set ownership and permissions. Normally I use ROBOCOPY/COPY:DT for the backup, which strips off ownership and security, which makes it very easy to set it to whatever I want on the restore.
Caught off-guard on vacation without a second machine... Just trying to pull data off a slaved HDD after a fresh reload... Well, complications can arise.
Finally, some of your estimations seem a little "padded", I've done a ridiculous amount of XP installations, and THREE HOURS?! What are you installing it on? You'd be hard pushed to find 2001 era hardware from the original XP release that took anywhere near that long. In my experience, 1.5hrs is usually the upper bound, with 30minutes the lower bound.
Of course the estimations are padded, hasn't Star Trek taught you anything? You always pad your estimations!
However... Depending on the size of the drive you're reloading, and whether you're doing a full format or not, it can take a while. And if it's a weird enough machine you might have to go looking for AHCI/RAID drivers just to get the install running.
I ask again. How is "We can revoke your subscription at any time and you can't do anything about it." good for the customer or a step in the right direction?
Pretty much all the DRM out there is variations on "We can revoke your subscription at any time and you can't do anything about it." It may, or may not, actually be spelled out as such... But that's the basic idea. You're allowed to install the software where they tell you that you can, the number of times that they tell you you can... And if you stray from their allowances it stops working. Look at all the crap with SecuROM lately - 3 installations and that's it. They're just now making a way to "de-authorize" a computer.
I'm not claiming that "We can revoke your subscription at any time and you can't do anything about it" is progress. It isn't. But it is the way DRM works these days.
The alternative, of course, is to completely avoid the DRM. You can crack Steam protection just as easily as you can crack SecuROM. And if you crack the DRM then you don't have to worry about having access to your software removed.
Why do you think it works for both sides?
Well, obviously it works pretty well for the distributors. They've got the control they want.
You, as a player, get to choose whether you're going to play by their rules or not. You can certainly crack their DRM, or even pirate the software from the start. But if you do choose to play by their rules you may as well get something for it, right?
SecuROM protection doesn't give the player anything for their trouble. There's nothing easier or more convenient about it. It gives the distributors the control they want, and gives the players nothing at all.
Steam give the players an easy way to re-install their software, automatic updates, etc.
It's still DRM, which still restricts your freedom. But if I have to choose between SecuROM and Steam, I know which one I'll pick.
itunes is nothing like Steam. Apple cannot revoke your ability to play the file you purchased.
iTunes may not be able to revoke my ability to play the file that I purchased... But it is, much like with Steam, DRM that generally works for both sides of the equation.
Steam is good for players because all you need is your username and password to re-install anything you've ever purchased on Steam. Lose the CD? No problem! Reformat your entire computer? No problem! Just log in to Steam, kick off the download, and wait. You also get all your game updates distributed automatically, built-in profile/achievement/friends/community support, and a very simple and easy-to-use on-line store.
You failed to mention the ability for Steam to revoke access to your subscriptions at any time. For any or no reason.
How is asking permission to use something you purchased good for customers? How is this fair DRM?
I never claimed that Steam was the best thing ever. I never claimed that steam was without flaws. All I claimed was that Steam was a step in the right direction.
It is, much like with iTunes, DRM that generally works for both sides of the equation.
Anyone with a microphone and a MySpace page can make their music available to anyone and everyone who wants to hear it.
You say that as though it's a good thing.
It is.
The key phrase, and one that's also giving the RIAA labels fits, is anyone and everyone who wants to hear it.
The Internet not only makes it very easy to get your music out to folks, but it also makes it very easy to pick and choose exactly what you want to hear. The RIAA labels want to cram 10 songs onto a CD and charge you $20+ for the whole thing when all you really want is a single song for $2.
Sorry, but there is no possible "business" that can be conducted along the lines of "give it to me for nothing or I'll take it." That is where music is today.
That's simply not true. I'm more than willing to pay for my music - I'm just not giving money to the RIAA.
I discovered Jonathan Coulton after someone posted a link to a video on YouTube of his Re:Your Brains song. I purchased all of his music legally on his website.
I also happily purchased a recent NIN album on-line.
It's all a matter of value. People need to feel that they're getting their money's worth.
I don't see a future where many bands put out music for everyone to download for free just for the exposure. What the heck do I care about a band in New Jersey if I am in LA? Sure, I might download their stuff but they aren't getting me to buy drinks in the bar they play at.
No... But maybe you're getting them some ad revenue from their website. Or maybe their music is good enough that you decide to buy a t-shirt or hat or something. Or maybe they've got an album with some nice box art and extras that you decide to buy. Or, if they get enough exposure, maybe you'll buy a ticket to go see them live.
By the way, the other thing that dies is FM radio. When there is no music promotion, there is no FM radio as we know it today.
I doubt it. There's still plenty of people watching broadcast TV despite the availability of cable TV and the ability to download shows on-line. Local FM radio offers local flavor and personality that you aren't likely to get from a pile of MP3s. And it can be a great way to showcase local talent.
And even if FM radio fades there's always IP radio...unless the RIAA manages to silence it. All my local radio stations are available on-line... And then they're not only getting revenue from the ads they sell on the air, but the ads on their website as well. And I've been a happy user of last.fm for a while now.
Steam is a horror show. It's not the idea, exactly. It just has the "OpenOffice on Linux" effect. That is, every time you try to play any of the games you've got on it, you have to download and install yet another fucking update, which will soak up half an hour, so you might as well go have lunch instead.
Obviously the user experience is going to vary depending on what games you have installed, how often they're updated, how often you launch Steam, and how fast your Internet connection is...
Personally, I'm firing up Steam at least once a day, so I don't typically have a whole pile of updates waiting for me. And my bandwidth is decent enough that I'm not normally waiting half an hour for things to download and install.
I'm sure there are probably better ways to do what Steam does... But compared to a lot of the alternatives (SecuROM) it works pretty well.
Anyway, I don't really understand what slashdoters want the RIAA to do exactly (well, other than curl up and die).
I can't really speak for anyone else... But, personally, that's exactly what I want them to do.
These days the RIAA have no purpose. Once upon a time they were very necessary... It was expensive to get your music recorded, get it packaged, get it distributed, get on the radio, get tours booked... That was the purpose that the RIAA served. You made your music, they packaged and sold it, you both made money.
These days that isn't necessary. People can record their own music on just about any computer. They can get a cheap hosting account with GoDaddy, or throw together a page on MySpace, or toss a video up on YouTube. You can sell things on-line and collect payment with PayPal. You can burn your own CDs.
All the RIAA does these days is get between me and the artists that I want to listen to, and then demand a cut of the profits.
Sure, it's possible for these companies to dramatically restructure and remain relevant... Sony could have come up with a great "official" music portal site along the lines of MySpace or Facebook. BMG could have come up with a great on-line store like iTunes. They could've embraced digital distribution...but they didn't.
I can't believe sueing people like the RIAA does is a viable business model. The costs must outweigh the benefits by far. Even if the RIAA manages to win a case against a poor grandmother who has never heard of P2P and the like, she won't be able to pay the fine because the costs of defending herself have bankrupted her for good. I have a very hard time understanding the people who work for the RIAA and sue people for a living.
It isn't. Suing people is not the RIAA's business model.
They're used to making money by being the gatekeepers of music. Traditionally, if you wanted to be a musician, it was expensive to get your music heard. You had to get it recorded onto a record/tape/CD... Get it packaged and distributed to retailers... Get it played on the radio... Get tours booked... This is what the RIAA did. They discovered people, provided the means for them to distribute their music, and profited from the whole thing.
These days it is easy to distribute music. Anyone with a microphone and a MySpace page can make their music available to anyone and everyone who wants to hear it. You can easily collect payments directly through something like PayPal. You can even use Cafe Press to turn out promotional materials yourself. The RIAA, in short, is no longer needed.
These lawsuits aren't intended to make money, they're intended to scare people. The RIAA wants to convince people that on-line distribution in general is bad. They want people to be terrified of downloading anything, regardless of where it comes from. Then they can go back to selling CD's and being the gatekeepers that they used to be.
What is the legality of this? RIAA tells them that they represent Metallica and I have a rar file called metalica. This would mean that the provider opens my rar file and looks into it. They should not be allowed to do so. Privacy and such, you know.
Part of the problem is this they don't even bother to do this.
Someone associated with the RIAA will fire up a P2P app and kick off a download for 'metalica.rar' They'll log every single IP address that they're connected to, and then they'll send off a pile of court orders.
Nobody ever checks to see what's in 'metalica.rar' Nobody bothers to ask if you paid for your music or not. Nobody checks to see if the folks downloading from you have paid for their music. Nobody asks if you intended to share that file or if it just wound up in the wrong directory. They don't even check to make sure the IP address actually belongs to you and wasn't spoofed.
I'd bet that the reason we don't see another monkey island or similar is due to piracy.
That is not true. Adventure games, like Monkey Island, have been deemed not popular/profitable enough to make. The big publishers only want to turn out shooters, war sims, and the occasional fantasy/RPG title. It isn't just adventure games either...when is the last time you saw a decent flight sim? Or, more specifically my personal favorite - space flight sims.
Piracy is being used as a digital bogeyman to explain anything and everything that publishers dislike.
Music/Game sales slipping? Must be piracy, there's no way people don't like what we're selling or how we're selling it. Find new talent? Embrace on-line distribution? Why do that when we can just prosecute?!
Producing games is expensive. Nobody wants to just break-even these days, they all want the next ginormous hit. So everyone is trying to copy the leader... That's why you get eleventy-billion Halo clones and GTA-alikes. MMORPGs, similarly, were seen as a cash cow. For a while there we had new MMORPGs being announced weekly.
My hope is that someday it will be feasible to simply host the game on some server and deliver all the content over the net
It already is, and in such a way that it's actually a boon to both the producers and the players.
Steam is good for producers because you've got centralized tracking of game registration/authorization. And people are hesitant to mess around too much with a game on Steam because it can get their entire Steam Account (and all their Steam games) banned. Sure, it can be cracked/bypassed... But it works at least as well as SecuROM does, and it's less invasive to the player. Plus you can distribute your game digitally, so you save on packaging.
Steam is good for players because all you need is your username and password to re-install anything you've ever purchased on Steam. Lose the CD? No problem! Reformat your entire computer? No problem! Just log in to Steam, kick off the download, and wait. You also get all your game updates distributed automatically, built-in profile/achievement/friends/community support, and a very simple and easy-to-use on-line store.
But distribution methods like Steam don't fix the problem. It doesn't matter how you distribute your games/music or how you protect them - if people don't feel that they're worth the price you're asking, they won't buy.
Some people are going to pirate no matter what. There's no way they'll ever pay a cent. It might be the thrill of doing something "illegal"... It might be some kind of weird political statement... But they're just never going to pay.
But then you also have folks who are just unwilling to pay $60 for yet-another-scifi-shooter that is a crappy imitation of Halo with only 5 hours of gameplay. They may be willing to pirate a copy of it just to see what everyone is talking about. They may be bored enough to play around with it for a few hours. But they aren't willing to shell out $60 for a piece of crap.
You aren't the only person who likes adventure games. If EA was willing to put the time and resources into turning out a decent adventure title it would sell. But you (and the other adventure fans out there) can't buy what they aren't making.
Similarly I would buy a decent space flight sim, if they'd make it.
Hopefully recent titles like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge mean that EA is finally willing to try something new... But I'll believe it when I see more than one or two interesting titles.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got two 1 TB drives in my home server. I use software RAID to keep my data safe and happy. You pretty much have to buy these things in pairs if you care even a little bit about the data. Unless, of course, you're buying this to use as a back up.
RAID is not a backup!
RAID protects you from a drive failure or two, sure... But what if you delete something you shouldn't have? Or something important gets corrupted? Or you get a nasty virus? Or your house burns down? Or you get some kind of nasty lightning strike that takes out your entire RAID? Or you run one of Seagate's firmware updates?
A backup is a periodic snapshot, preferably stored off-site, that you can go back to if something horrible happens to your data.
You can certainly use HDDs as backup... Or even a RAID... But you need to move your data to those drives and then take them offline and put them someplace safe. Just simply RAIDing your working set doesn't give you a backup.
What about the individuals who's computers were compromised by him? Are they not themselves partially culpable for his actions? Shouldn't people feel compelled to not let themselves become zombies?
Sure, I should probably lock the door of my house when I leave for work... It's probably a good idea to lock my car in the parking lot, too... But that doesn't mean it isn't a criminal act if you walk into my house and steal something.
Yes, from an insurance standpoint not locking the door will likely have an effect. If my insurance company knows that I didn't lock my car they probably won't pay for any repairs it may need after being recovered. But the guy who steals it is still a criminal, still goes on trial, and still goes to jail.
Just because someone didn't patch their computer doesn't mean it's OK to exploit those vulnerabilities. It's a weak point in the computer's security, not an open invitation. Are you suggesting that it's OK to break into someone's house because the windows are fragile?
Creating a botnet from zombied computers is no trivial act. Simply exploiting a vulnerability takes some time and effort. It isn't as if this guy just kind of tripped over a botnet and accidentally stole some identities. This was an intentional criminal act.
Except that in real life, "space ship" usually describes a vehicule to travel through space.
And in real life time travel is impossible.
Look at the quote:
in order to pull off the kind of time travel we see in the Back To The Future trilogy â" the kind where the traveler is transposed in time, but remains stationary in the same relative position to where he/she left â" the DeLorean would have to be an outstanding space ship, in addition to its already laudable work as a time-ship.
It clearly refers to the DeLorean needing to be a vehicle that travels through both time (time-ship) and space (space-ship). There isn't anything in there about surviving a vacuum or packing oxygen tanks.
I was referring to the "the DeLorean would have to be an outstanding space ship" bit.
See shaitand's reply, he said what I didn't in my original post.
If you spend zero time in space, then you don't need to have spaceship capabilities, even if you travel enormous distances.
You are both assuming that "space ship" means "vessel that travels through the space beyond the Earth's atmosphere." All that "space ship" means, literally, is a ship that travels through space - any space, including the space within the Earth's atmosphere.
You could easily describe a car, truck, boat, airplane, or segway as a "space ship."
Since it was in space for 0.0000E+999 seconds, i.e. never.
It did travel in time and moved from one point to another in the universe (to stay in the same spot on earth) but it didn't "travel in space", hence no need to be a spaceship.
Seems to me that you're misunderstanding the terminology.
Nobody is claiming that the DeLorean needs to be able to survive the vacuum of space. Nobody is claiming that it is capable of leaving the Earth's atmosphere.
The article is referring to the two seperate aspects of spacetime - space, and time. Space as in the distance between two locations. The inches between my keyboard and monitor...the feet between my desk and the door...the miles between my office and my house. That kind of space. Not the interstellar void.
The Earth is constantly spinning as well as orbiting the sun. The sun itself, as well as our entire galaxy, is moving. The only reason we don't notice all that is because we're stuck to the ground and moving along at the same speed as everything else.
If you were to simply remove yourself from the flow of time for a moment, the rest of the universe would keep chugging along. It would leave you behind. The Earth would spin away from you, as well as orbit away from you. When you re-entered the flow of time you'd be in a different place than where you started from.
Given the (literally) astronomical distance that everyone moves over the span of a few years... Any machine that was capable of traveling through time would also have to be able to travel great distances in space. Otherwise you wouldn't pop back in to the same geographic location you left from.
Granted, this is all fiction. There was no real DeLorean that traveled through time or space. It's all made up. But that's kind of the point of this article... To explore what it would actually take to accomplish that kind of feat, using real world mathematics. To illustrate just what a fantastic proposition it is.
If you have to pay a corporation a single dollar for the permission to program, you are doing it wrong. How does Apple get a free pass for this kind of shit?
Note that while the API download and simulator are free â" deploying to a real iPhone or iTouch is not, even if it is your own. To do that you have to apply to the iPhone Developer Program which is $99.
You don't have to pay a single cent to program. You have to register... But the SDK is completely free. Anyone can download it.
What you do have to pay for is distributing your software to live hardware. Apple uses code signing much like you see on consoles like the Xbox and PlayStation. If you aren't worried about distributing to other people you can always just jailbreak your device... Then you don't even have to pay for the code signing.
I've worked at several places that didn't roll out patches right away. It wasn't because the IT department was busily testing the patches. It was because they were afraid of the patches, but had no time to test them.
That's typically the problem around here. We've got plenty to keep us busy on a day-to-day basis... Something is always broken, or requiring replacement, or testing, or whatever.
I hate to just roll out a patch and hope for the best. That's bit me in the ass far too many times. But I find it hard to actually come up with time to read over the patch notes, apply the patch in a test environment, and then watch to see if something happens.
Sure, this particular patch is a few months old... And it was released with enough obvious urgency that we've pushed it through and updated most of our systems... But we're still sitting on some updates that are just as old, but don't seem quite as necessary.
A router won't alert you when a program or service tries to access your connection
Depends on the router, I guess...
Most routers have some kind of logging feature. Typically those logs can be directed to an email account, or maybe a syslog server or something like that. Normally those logs can also be filtered to some degree.
Personally, I receive alerts from a few different routers when things start going weird.
NAT must be set for a router to work. The very nature of a router is to use NAT. Ironically though it is a bigger issue on corporate networks as they are more likely to forward off ports. Not that NAT is a panacea by any means, but it is better then nothing. All routers need to do some type of NAT period, it is how a router works.
Wrong.
Routers route, that's what they do. They get traffic from one place to another. They do not require NAT. There were plenty of routers on the Internet long before NAT even existed.
I remember when consumer-grade NAT routers were starting to get big... All the weird little headaches when NAT didn't work right... Trying to get FTP connections do do what they should do... And then folks started advertising their routers as having "transparent NAT", which generally worked the way it should.
Jeez, with virus scanners, several types of automatic updates, and other gadgety things polluting the standard corporate desktop, it is a wonder that people can get any work done on their PCs anyway. Six Inches of Air.
Corporate desktops aren't that bad. I mean, they can be... But usually there's at least a little oversight. You don't typically see people with eleven different smiley-toolbars in a business... It happens, but not so much.
Home users, on the other hand, can be a true nightmare. Plugins for various web pages... Piles of downloaded crapware games... IncrediMail... Several different media players and a pile of music or movies... A couple different P2P programs... A couple different malware scanners... I cringe just thinking about it.
You're right though. Entirely too many different bits of software want to do their own updates. Windows Updates, Office Updates, anti-malware updates, updates for Adobe Reader, updates for Flash, updates for Java, updates for Real Player, updates for HP's drivers and suites, updates for QuickTime and iTunes...
It's ridiculous. I'll routinely see at least a half-dozen updaters running in the background.
That's one of the things I really like about most Linux distributions... Generally you've got a single package manager that takes care of everything for you.
I know a lot of people who are afraid of updates because of the genuine advantage validation. They got student priced versions of the software 5 years ago and are no longer students. They don't want to risk losing Visio/Word/PowerPoint or having some other software disabled on their computer.
The fear factor of automated reporting/validation is stopping a lot of people from running the updates.
I'm not sure how many people there are that are aware they should be running updates but actively decide not to because of WGA. I'm sure there are some folks, but I can't imagine it's all that many.
But you are correct, updates don't happen nearly enough, which is why machines are still vulnerable.
You've got updates for Windows, updates for Office, updates for whatever antivirus you're running... All those updates take a decent bite out of your productivity. They eat some of your bandwidth, then eat some of your computing power, then they ask for a reboot.
I know plenty of people who just ignore all the update notices. Unless the machine does all its updating completely automatically without interrupting the user, frequently it just doesn't happen.
This is why I recommend everyone have a router installed on their internet connection, even if they have only one PC. Routers inherently block almost all worms.
I think, what you're trying to say, is that it is important for everyone to have a firewall on their Internet connection... Not a router. Routers don't inherently offer any protection at all. Many home-grade routers come pre-configured with NAT, which does get you some basic protection... But not all routers do NAT, and not all of them give you any protection.
And an external firewall on your Internet connection only protects you so far. It might keep a worm from crawling in through your Internet connection... But it won't stop a worm from spreading once it is inside your network.
That's why it is important to control the traffic inside your network, as well as traffic to/from the Internet. Maybe it isn't necessary to run a firewall on each and every PC, but you sure as hell better be monitoring your traffic and keeping your machines patched.
do we really need an article here on /. every time obama wipes his arse?
The article... Or, at least the summary, since I didn't RTFA... Is more about the fact that the picture was taken with a digital camera for the first time ever.
This is slashdot. We get a story every time somebody releases a shiny new phone or installs linux on their toaster. We get stories about libraries digitizing their books. A digital picture being taken for the first time is at least as newsworthy as any of that.
We just had an "Ask Slashdot" about managing SD cards, with a few professional photographers chiming in about how they manage their huge collections... We've had dozens of stories over the years about preserving digital data over the years... Surely someone's curious how they're going to preserve this presidential portrait over the years, right? Regardless of whether you like Obama or not, he is the President Elect, he'll be going in the history books. We've got cave art and oil paintings that have withstood the test of time... How are they going to ensure that this photograph last at least as long as more traditional prints? How are they going to ensure that the digital file they open next year is the same one they just created? That it hasn't been altered or photoshopped or something?
More's to the point, why would you need an EXTERNAL IP just for your coffee machine ?
Connect your appliances on a traditional network, then map the 10.0.0.* addresses to ports on a single external IP ?
It's one thing for you to talk to your fridge from the car, but quite another to start dealing with inter-appliance politics ... "Dave, the toaster oven is being nasty to me and stealing all my power again".
The problem is going to be communication between the devices and the rest of the world.
We support a couple larger clients that are running some kind of IP-enabled power meters on their buildings. This lets the local power company read their meters in realtime - no estimating, no sending a guy out once a month. It gets these companies a nice discount on their electricity bill.
The way those meters are set up, the polling is initiated by the power company. We got a little worksheet from the power company that instructed us in which ports to open, and asked us for the IP address that they'd be polling.
That works fine for these larger clients who can afford to have someone manage their IT infrastructure - either in-house or outsourced. But what about your average home user? Is every home user going to be expected to run through a worksheet for each appliance they buy?
Obviously, if you've got a half-dozen devices sitting behind one public IP you can't have them all listening for connections on the same port. You'd have to give each device its own port. Maybe all refrigerators would use port 666... But what if you had two refrigerators in your building?
You could have them initiate an outgoing connection to your electric company. Instead of having the company poll you, you just submit your data. That'd actually work pretty well... Unless the electric company has a reason they don't want to do that.
That all sounds great in a controlled IT environment... But when I'm on vacation visiting my family I rarely have the same resources available to me that I do at work.
a) If you're installing SP3 every time (as you should be), why are you doing it separately? You should be slipstreaming the SP3 installation into the original installation media, so no separate installation is required, it's integrated as part of the main install. This will save a significant amount of time (by your estimation, an hour), and many would argue, is cleaner as well. It'll probably even save space, as old files from the RTM/SP1/SP2 installation won't be backed up.
Slipstreaming is great, but not always practical. I don't typically carry around my CD library with me on vacation, so I wouldn't have access to my own slipstreamed disc. So then I'd be looking at trying to slipstream whatever installation media my folks were able to come up with. That means I'd need a CD burner, and if their computer is already toast I'm going to have to come up with a second machine. And no, I don't always have my laptop with me. Seems to me that it might very well take more time to make a slipstream disc from their installation media than just install SP3 separately.
b) Assuming these are just everyday desktop boxes, most of the hardware should be found on Windows Update in the hardware section, this isn't a guarantee, but I've had great success with it. It of course won't be the latest available much of the time, but it will likely have been tested by Microsoft and certified, so stability is likely very high. What isn't found, manually install.
It really depends on the box. Windows Update does indeed pick up a lot of drivers, but that only helps if you can run Windows Update. Frequently I'm left without a working NIC after a clean install. This leaves me digging for driver discs or trying to download the appropriate driver from the manufacturer's website. Depending on what brand the computer is this can be quick and easy or relatively painful.
c) When copying the saved data back, the permission specific metadata will usually (I add the qualifier for specific cases that no doubt exist) automatically change to match the logged on user doing the copying. If they don't, change them? You say you should be able to change the UID, by UID, I assume you mean either the owner or the permissions. You can change the owner and permissions of all files and folders in a directory recursively through the permissions GUI in Explorer, or do it by the command line: takeown.exe for fiddling with ownership, cacls.exe for ACL's (icacls.exe is preferred in Vista). You have _BOTH_ a GUI and CLI frontend to make the changes you desire, so what's the problem?
Typically, yes, it's relatively easy to re-set ownership and permissions. Normally I use ROBOCOPY /COPY:DT for the backup, which strips off ownership and security, which makes it very easy to set it to whatever I want on the restore.
Caught off-guard on vacation without a second machine... Just trying to pull data off a slaved HDD after a fresh reload... Well, complications can arise.
Finally, some of your estimations seem a little "padded", I've done a ridiculous amount of XP installations, and THREE HOURS?! What are you installing it on? You'd be hard pushed to find 2001 era hardware from the original XP release that took anywhere near that long. In my experience, 1.5hrs is usually the upper bound, with 30minutes the lower bound.
Of course the estimations are padded, hasn't Star Trek taught you anything? You always pad your estimations!
However... Depending on the size of the drive you're reloading, and whether you're doing a full format or not, it can take a while. And if it's a weird enough machine you might have to go looking for AHCI/RAID drivers just to get the install running.
Bluntly, t
I ask again. How is "We can revoke your subscription at any time and you can't do anything about it." good for the customer or a step in the right direction?
Pretty much all the DRM out there is variations on "We can revoke your subscription at any time and you can't do anything about it." It may, or may not, actually be spelled out as such... But that's the basic idea. You're allowed to install the software where they tell you that you can, the number of times that they tell you you can... And if you stray from their allowances it stops working. Look at all the crap with SecuROM lately - 3 installations and that's it. They're just now making a way to "de-authorize" a computer.
I'm not claiming that "We can revoke your subscription at any time and you can't do anything about it" is progress. It isn't. But it is the way DRM works these days.
The alternative, of course, is to completely avoid the DRM. You can crack Steam protection just as easily as you can crack SecuROM. And if you crack the DRM then you don't have to worry about having access to your software removed.
Why do you think it works for both sides?
Well, obviously it works pretty well for the distributors. They've got the control they want.
You, as a player, get to choose whether you're going to play by their rules or not. You can certainly crack their DRM, or even pirate the software from the start. But if you do choose to play by their rules you may as well get something for it, right?
SecuROM protection doesn't give the player anything for their trouble. There's nothing easier or more convenient about it. It gives the distributors the control they want, and gives the players nothing at all.
Steam give the players an easy way to re-install their software, automatic updates, etc.
It's still DRM, which still restricts your freedom. But if I have to choose between SecuROM and Steam, I know which one I'll pick.
itunes is nothing like Steam. Apple cannot revoke your ability to play the file you purchased.
iTunes may not be able to revoke my ability to play the file that I purchased... But it is, much like with Steam, DRM that generally works for both sides of the equation.
Steam is good for players because all you need is your username and password to re-install anything you've ever purchased on Steam. Lose the CD? No problem! Reformat your entire computer? No problem! Just log in to Steam, kick off the download, and wait. You also get all your game updates distributed automatically, built-in profile/achievement/friends/community support, and a very simple and easy-to-use on-line store.
You failed to mention the ability for Steam to revoke access to your subscriptions at any time. For any or no reason.
How is asking permission to use something you purchased good for customers? How is this fair DRM?
I never claimed that Steam was the best thing ever. I never claimed that steam was without flaws. All I claimed was that Steam was a step in the right direction.
It is, much like with iTunes, DRM that generally works for both sides of the equation.
You say that as though it's a good thing.
It is.
The key phrase, and one that's also giving the RIAA labels fits, is anyone and everyone who wants to hear it .
The Internet not only makes it very easy to get your music out to folks, but it also makes it very easy to pick and choose exactly what you want to hear. The RIAA labels want to cram 10 songs onto a CD and charge you $20+ for the whole thing when all you really want is a single song for $2.
You're confusing the RIAA with the record labels it represents.
No I'm not, I'm just too lazy to actually look up who's being represented by the RIAA and list them off individually.
Sorry, but there is no possible "business" that can be conducted along the lines of "give it to me for nothing or I'll take it." That is where music is today.
That's simply not true. I'm more than willing to pay for my music - I'm just not giving money to the RIAA.
I discovered Jonathan Coulton after someone posted a link to a video on YouTube of his Re:Your Brains song. I purchased all of his music legally on his website.
I also happily purchased a recent NIN album on-line.
It's all a matter of value. People need to feel that they're getting their money's worth.
I don't see a future where many bands put out music for everyone to download for free just for the exposure. What the heck do I care about a band in New Jersey if I am in LA? Sure, I might download their stuff but they aren't getting me to buy drinks in the bar they play at.
No... But maybe you're getting them some ad revenue from their website. Or maybe their music is good enough that you decide to buy a t-shirt or hat or something. Or maybe they've got an album with some nice box art and extras that you decide to buy. Or, if they get enough exposure, maybe you'll buy a ticket to go see them live.
By the way, the other thing that dies is FM radio. When there is no music promotion, there is no FM radio as we know it today.
I doubt it. There's still plenty of people watching broadcast TV despite the availability of cable TV and the ability to download shows on-line. Local FM radio offers local flavor and personality that you aren't likely to get from a pile of MP3s. And it can be a great way to showcase local talent.
And even if FM radio fades there's always IP radio...unless the RIAA manages to silence it. All my local radio stations are available on-line... And then they're not only getting revenue from the ads they sell on the air, but the ads on their website as well. And I've been a happy user of last.fm for a while now.
Steam is a horror show. It's not the idea, exactly. It just has the "OpenOffice on Linux" effect. That is, every time you try to play any of the games you've got on it, you have to download and install yet another fucking update, which will soak up half an hour, so you might as well go have lunch instead.
Obviously the user experience is going to vary depending on what games you have installed, how often they're updated, how often you launch Steam, and how fast your Internet connection is...
Personally, I'm firing up Steam at least once a day, so I don't typically have a whole pile of updates waiting for me. And my bandwidth is decent enough that I'm not normally waiting half an hour for things to download and install.
I'm sure there are probably better ways to do what Steam does... But compared to a lot of the alternatives (SecuROM) it works pretty well.
Anyway, I don't really understand what slashdoters want the RIAA to do exactly (well, other than curl up and die).
I can't really speak for anyone else... But, personally, that's exactly what I want them to do.
These days the RIAA have no purpose. Once upon a time they were very necessary... It was expensive to get your music recorded, get it packaged, get it distributed, get on the radio, get tours booked... That was the purpose that the RIAA served. You made your music, they packaged and sold it, you both made money.
These days that isn't necessary. People can record their own music on just about any computer. They can get a cheap hosting account with GoDaddy, or throw together a page on MySpace, or toss a video up on YouTube. You can sell things on-line and collect payment with PayPal. You can burn your own CDs.
All the RIAA does these days is get between me and the artists that I want to listen to, and then demand a cut of the profits.
Sure, it's possible for these companies to dramatically restructure and remain relevant... Sony could have come up with a great "official" music portal site along the lines of MySpace or Facebook. BMG could have come up with a great on-line store like iTunes. They could've embraced digital distribution...but they didn't.
I can't believe sueing people like the RIAA does is a viable business model. The costs must outweigh the benefits by far. Even if the RIAA manages to win a case against a poor grandmother who has never heard of P2P and the like, she won't be able to pay the fine because the costs of defending herself have bankrupted her for good. I have a very hard time understanding the people who work for the RIAA and sue people for a living.
It isn't. Suing people is not the RIAA's business model.
They're used to making money by being the gatekeepers of music. Traditionally, if you wanted to be a musician, it was expensive to get your music heard. You had to get it recorded onto a record/tape/CD... Get it packaged and distributed to retailers... Get it played on the radio... Get tours booked... This is what the RIAA did. They discovered people, provided the means for them to distribute their music, and profited from the whole thing.
These days it is easy to distribute music. Anyone with a microphone and a MySpace page can make their music available to anyone and everyone who wants to hear it. You can easily collect payments directly through something like PayPal. You can even use Cafe Press to turn out promotional materials yourself. The RIAA, in short, is no longer needed.
These lawsuits aren't intended to make money, they're intended to scare people. The RIAA wants to convince people that on-line distribution in general is bad. They want people to be terrified of downloading anything, regardless of where it comes from. Then they can go back to selling CD's and being the gatekeepers that they used to be.
What is the legality of this? RIAA tells them that they represent Metallica and I have a rar file called metalica. This would mean that the provider opens my rar file and looks into it. They should not be allowed to do so. Privacy and such, you know.
Part of the problem is this they don't even bother to do this.
Someone associated with the RIAA will fire up a P2P app and kick off a download for 'metalica.rar' They'll log every single IP address that they're connected to, and then they'll send off a pile of court orders.
Nobody ever checks to see what's in 'metalica.rar' Nobody bothers to ask if you paid for your music or not. Nobody checks to see if the folks downloading from you have paid for their music. Nobody asks if you intended to share that file or if it just wound up in the wrong directory. They don't even check to make sure the IP address actually belongs to you and wasn't spoofed.
I'd bet that the reason we don't see another monkey island or similar is due to piracy.
That is not true. Adventure games, like Monkey Island, have been deemed not popular/profitable enough to make. The big publishers only want to turn out shooters, war sims, and the occasional fantasy/RPG title. It isn't just adventure games either...when is the last time you saw a decent flight sim? Or, more specifically my personal favorite - space flight sims.
Piracy is being used as a digital bogeyman to explain anything and everything that publishers dislike.
Music/Game sales slipping? Must be piracy, there's no way people don't like what we're selling or how we're selling it. Find new talent? Embrace on-line distribution? Why do that when we can just prosecute?!
Producing games is expensive. Nobody wants to just break-even these days, they all want the next ginormous hit. So everyone is trying to copy the leader... That's why you get eleventy-billion Halo clones and GTA-alikes. MMORPGs, similarly, were seen as a cash cow. For a while there we had new MMORPGs being announced weekly.
My hope is that someday it will be feasible to simply host the game on some server and deliver all the content over the net
It already is, and in such a way that it's actually a boon to both the producers and the players.
Steam is good for producers because you've got centralized tracking of game registration/authorization. And people are hesitant to mess around too much with a game on Steam because it can get their entire Steam Account (and all their Steam games) banned. Sure, it can be cracked/bypassed... But it works at least as well as SecuROM does, and it's less invasive to the player. Plus you can distribute your game digitally, so you save on packaging.
Steam is good for players because all you need is your username and password to re-install anything you've ever purchased on Steam. Lose the CD? No problem! Reformat your entire computer? No problem! Just log in to Steam, kick off the download, and wait. You also get all your game updates distributed automatically, built-in profile/achievement/friends/community support, and a very simple and easy-to-use on-line store.
But distribution methods like Steam don't fix the problem. It doesn't matter how you distribute your games/music or how you protect them - if people don't feel that they're worth the price you're asking, they won't buy.
Some people are going to pirate no matter what. There's no way they'll ever pay a cent. It might be the thrill of doing something "illegal"... It might be some kind of weird political statement... But they're just never going to pay.
But then you also have folks who are just unwilling to pay $60 for yet-another-scifi-shooter that is a crappy imitation of Halo with only 5 hours of gameplay. They may be willing to pirate a copy of it just to see what everyone is talking about. They may be bored enough to play around with it for a few hours. But they aren't willing to shell out $60 for a piece of crap.
You aren't the only person who likes adventure games. If EA was willing to put the time and resources into turning out a decent adventure title it would sell. But you (and the other adventure fans out there) can't buy what they aren't making.
Similarly I would buy a decent space flight sim, if they'd make it.
Hopefully recent titles like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge mean that EA is finally willing to try something new... But I'll believe it when I see more than one or two interesting titles.