TOR was designed to help people remain anonymous and communicate safely on the web. Misusing it for illegal purposes will cause TOR to become unavailable for its original purpose, which will be sad.
I'd be fairly willing to bet a large amount of that "communication" on TOR *is* illegal, hence the reason for using TOR.
You do know that hydrogen leaks out of nearly any container, right?
Yes. Which is why if you engineer for a slightly lesser seal somewhere on the *outside* of a building, you won't have much worry about Hydrogen (in any meaningful quantities) leaking out on the *inside*.
Agreed - but having to worry about redundancy is still scary. I'm designing a server box for a project, and thus far for the sake of as much redundancy as possible, we've narrowed it down to 3 drives in RAID5, 2 more in RAID0 for the OS/bootables, and 2 more in RAID0 for backups - if we don't just use the first pair for that.
One of these things does not belong.
The thoughts of having any of those drives fail scare me. A lot.
How about a drive that advertises longevity instead of storage density. Seriously, I'd take half that storage if there was more assurance of my data integrity.
In fact, hydrogen is very safe out in the open because of the fact that it blows upward so quickly. It's enclosed spaces that we need to worry about. Liiiiikkkeeee.... a hydrogen fueling station in your garage, perhaps?
The solution here seems pretty simple. Put the business end of the fueling station outside the house (heck, way down in the back yard) and run a pipe into the garage.
(Much like the way other on-site household gas supplies are implemented.)
While what you are saying is true,the simple fact is I have NEVER seen hatred for a product like I have for Vista,and that includes WinME. I have been building,selling,repairing and customizing PCs and networks since the days of DOS and Win3.1,but the sheer public hatred for the stink that is Vista is just unreal. I recently built a machine for a customer whose sole requirement was that this machine be upgrading for a long while so he wouldn't have to touch Vista,and this is for a guy who has been happily using WinME for the past 8 years! And when the teenyboppers come in with their parents to have a new machine built and I mention Vista as an option I get a VERY loud EEEEEW!,like I took a crap in front of them or something.
Dollars to doughnuts that he, along with almost everybody who "hates Vista" has never actually used it.
So what does MSFT do? Do they do the smart thing and keep XP on the lower end and only sell Vista on machines powerful enough to run it well?
A machine "powerful enough to run Vista well" *is* the low end. $450 buys you dual cores and 2G RAM, which is more than you need for decent Vista performance.
When Allchin himself [nwsource.com],who oversaw some of the most profitable years of Windows,says he would buy a Mac rather than take Vista [...]
That email was written 3 years before Vista was released .
I should have specified senior sysadmins, to be sure -- there's no reason to be that picky about everyone on staff.
And it would still be untrue. Systems Administration and Systems Programming are different fields.
It may have been true a couple of decades ago, I'll grant you. But it isn't any more.
OTOH, the whole point of having senior people is to have someone who can dig into and eventually solve any issue that comes up -- and that means understanding what's under the abstractions.
You will never have someone who can do everything in today's world. There's just too much stuff (well, you'll get the odd savant, of course, but they are the exception not the rule).
*Far* more useful are people who a) recognise when they have hit their limits and b) hand off to people who know more about that field than they do. These are the kinds of people you want to hire. Not ones who claim to be able to do everything equally well (in the hope you'll hit the one in a million who genuinely does).
Addressing your comparison, software isn't as reliable as hardware is these days; maybe in ten years this won't be the case, but right now having someone available who can dig into the operating system (or your app server, or any layer inbetween) is damned useful.
It's also a waste of money and skills for the 99% of scenarios which will never require it.
If you want a sysadmin, hire one. If you want a systems programmer, hire one. But don't hire someone to do both jobs and expect them to do either as well as someone who specialises in those fields (it might happen, but would be foolish to expect it).
To use an example outside the world of computer, you wouldn't generally expect a heart surgeon to be doing neurosurgery, even though average representatives from both fields would probably have a reasonable understanding of each other's jobs.
I'm trying to learn German myself, but I only started last September, so I basically can't communicate at all. Beautiful language, though. I'm a computer science student, so I cannot help but love how logical and orderly it is.
It's hard to see how any language with such a useless and silly idea as nouns with different genders (to say nothing of any rhyme or reason behind how said genders are assigned), could be called "logical"...
Nonsense. That's got absolutely nothing to do with Gates, and everything with the fact that MS simply can't write another windos. After the entire NT team packed up and left, it's been going downhill, and one of the reasons Vista sucks so much is that they shipped something that nobody in the company understood how it worked. If you thought Vista was a trainwreck, wait for Win7.
Uh, what ? Dave Cutler himself was involved in Vista's development - I think he might have a rough idea "how it works".
Besides, I'm pretty sure that backwards compatibility is worth more to their customer base than out of the box security (or they would have moved away from (especially early) XP asap...).
More, accurately, they would have moved away from *Windows 95* "ASAP" and Microsoft wouldn't have had to have made Windows 98, 98SE and Me to keep them happy.
That's ridiculous. Mac OS X has just as much keyboard functionality as Windows does.
No, it doesn't. The "keyboardability" of Windows is excellent - obvious, accessible and consistent. Meanwhile, OS X's support for keyboard control is, at best, mediocre; not only must such accessibility be specifically enabled, but it relies on arcane keyboard combinations and kludges like scooting the mouse cursor around with the keyboard.
Exhibit A:
There are two ways that I know of to shut down a Mac from the keyboard: 1. Press ctrl+eject to bring up the Restart/Sleep/Shut Down dialog. 2. Press ctrl+F2 to select the menubar, then press down until you reach "Shut Down" and press enter.
.
Both operating systems have roots in older OSs that existed before mice were adopted (Apple ][ and MS-DOS).
No, they don't (and DOS certainly isn't where Windows's keyboard HCI model comes from).
No, that is ridiculous. MacOSX kept a lot of compatibility with its BSD base and emulated MacOS9. The transition period was huge, and it was starting from scratch. Microsoft will not have the same opportunity, and it will lose a lot of market share.
The transition period was incredibly brief. OS X was released in 2001. The last PPC Mac (and thus the end of "emulated OS9") was sold in 2006, only 5 years later. It will not be surprising if the next version of OS X doesn't support PPC *at all*.
How many do you think will opt to run old-Windows on top of Linux or OS X instead of betting on Microsofts unproven new-Windows, especially considering their track record on their previous offerings?
Given their respective historical records with and attitudes towards, legacy support, Microsoft's.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the original, stated uses. TOR is for privacy.
That doesn't make it legal. "Dissidents" in China passing anti-government communications, for example.
TOR was designed to help people remain anonymous and communicate safely on the web. Misusing it for illegal purposes will cause TOR to become unavailable for its original purpose, which will be sad.
I'd be fairly willing to bet a large amount of that "communication" on TOR *is* illegal, hence the reason for using TOR.
Windows still has a significant number of inherent security flaws [...]
For example ?
You do know that hydrogen leaks out of nearly any container, right?
Yes. Which is why if you engineer for a slightly lesser seal somewhere on the *outside* of a building, you won't have much worry about Hydrogen (in any meaningful quantities) leaking out on the *inside*.
Agreed - but having to worry about redundancy is still scary. I'm designing a server box for a project, and thus far for the sake of as much redundancy as possible, we've narrowed it down to 3 drives in RAID5, 2 more in RAID0 for the OS/bootables, and 2 more in RAID0 for backups - if we don't just use the first pair for that.
One of these things does not belong.
The thoughts of having any of those drives fail scare me. A lot.
Then you should be pretty scared.
photographs
Unless you take them yourself, you usually don't get negatives (or equivalent).
How about a drive that advertises longevity instead of storage density. Seriously, I'd take half that storage if there was more assurance of my data integrity.
RAID1. Your prayers are answered.
if you import it, won't they confiscate it (assuming they find out or catch it passing thru customs)?
No, and that's the difference. You can own it, you just can't sell it (or rent it out, display in public, etc).
Unless the content itself is illegal, you're allowed to own unclassified films, games, etc.
Except that the "Business End" of ANY Hydrogen refueling station is....
The end of the pipe that you refuel from!
A properly designed set of valves and receptacles would solve the problem of "leaks".
In fact, hydrogen is very safe out in the open because of the fact that it blows upward so quickly. It's enclosed spaces that we need to worry about. Liiiiikkkeeee.... a hydrogen fueling station in your garage, perhaps?
The solution here seems pretty simple. Put the business end of the fueling station outside the house (heck, way down in the back yard) and run a pipe into the garage.
(Much like the way other on-site household gas supplies are implemented.)
"Refused classification" is not the same as "banned". There is a subtle, but important difference.
While what you are saying is true,the simple fact is I have NEVER seen hatred for a product like I have for Vista,and that includes WinME. I have been building,selling,repairing and customizing PCs and networks since the days of DOS and Win3.1,but the sheer public hatred for the stink that is Vista is just unreal. I recently built a machine for a customer whose sole requirement was that this machine be upgrading for a long while so he wouldn't have to touch Vista,and this is for a guy who has been happily using WinME for the past 8 years! And when the teenyboppers come in with their parents to have a new machine built and I mention Vista as an option I get a VERY loud EEEEEW!,like I took a crap in front of them or something.
Dollars to doughnuts that he, along with almost everybody who "hates Vista" has never actually used it.
So what does MSFT do? Do they do the smart thing and keep XP on the lower end and only sell Vista on machines powerful enough to run it well?
A machine "powerful enough to run Vista well" *is* the low end. $450 buys you dual cores and 2G RAM, which is more than you need for decent Vista performance.
When Allchin himself [nwsource.com],who oversaw some of the most profitable years of Windows,says he would buy a Mac rather than take Vista [...]
That email was written 3 years before Vista was released .
Have you set up a multi-homed BGP site?
Whoa there, tiger. That's a job for the Network Admins. :)
I should have specified senior sysadmins, to be sure -- there's no reason to be that picky about everyone on staff.
And it would still be untrue. Systems Administration and Systems Programming are different fields.
It may have been true a couple of decades ago, I'll grant you. But it isn't any more.
OTOH, the whole point of having senior people is to have someone who can dig into and eventually solve any issue that comes up -- and that means understanding what's under the abstractions.
You will never have someone who can do everything in today's world. There's just too much stuff (well, you'll get the odd savant, of course, but they are the exception not the rule).
*Far* more useful are people who a) recognise when they have hit their limits and b) hand off to people who know more about that field than they do. These are the kinds of people you want to hire. Not ones who claim to be able to do everything equally well (in the hope you'll hit the one in a million who genuinely does).
Addressing your comparison, software isn't as reliable as hardware is these days; maybe in ten years this won't be the case, but right now having someone available who can dig into the operating system (or your app server, or any layer inbetween) is damned useful.
It's also a waste of money and skills for the 99% of scenarios which will never require it.
If you want a sysadmin, hire one. If you want a systems programmer, hire one. But don't hire someone to do both jobs and expect them to do either as well as someone who specialises in those fields (it might happen, but would be foolish to expect it).
To use an example outside the world of computer, you wouldn't generally expect a heart surgeon to be doing neurosurgery, even though average representatives from both fields would probably have a reasonable understanding of each other's jobs.
Why the sarcasm? If you're hiring sysadmins who aren't also system-level developers, you're not hiring people who can Do The Job Right.
This is like arguing if you aren't hiring computer techs who are microelectronics engineers, you aren't hiring the right people.
There is a vast gulf of difference between the typical tasks of sysadmins and "system-level developers".
There are two types of people. Bilingual people and Americans.
More like "bilingual and native English speakers".
The proportion of bilingual people whose mother tongue is English is very small (for obvious reasons).
You have to learn by rote each word, rules are useless.
The rules are not useless, it's just that not enough of them are taught anymore.
In particular, once you are able to recognise the root that English words have been drawn from, they become much more consistent and predictable.
I'm trying to learn German myself, but I only started last September, so I basically can't communicate at all. Beautiful language, though. I'm a computer science student, so I cannot help but love how logical and orderly it is.
It's hard to see how any language with such a useless and silly idea as nouns with different genders (to say nothing of any rhyme or reason behind how said genders are assigned), could be called "logical"...
Nonsense. That's got absolutely nothing to do with Gates, and everything with the fact that MS simply can't write another windos. After the entire NT team packed up and left, it's been going downhill, and one of the reasons Vista sucks so much is that they shipped something that nobody in the company understood how it worked. If you thought Vista was a trainwreck, wait for Win7.
Uh, what ? Dave Cutler himself was involved in Vista's development - I think he might have a rough idea "how it works".
Besides, I'm pretty sure that backwards compatibility is worth more to their customer base than out of the box security (or they would have moved away from (especially early) XP asap...).
More, accurately, they would have moved away from *Windows 95* "ASAP" and Microsoft wouldn't have had to have made Windows 98, 98SE and Me to keep them happy.
That's ridiculous. Mac OS X has just as much keyboard functionality as Windows does.
No, it doesn't. The "keyboardability" of Windows is excellent - obvious, accessible and consistent. Meanwhile, OS X's support for keyboard control is, at best, mediocre; not only must such accessibility be specifically enabled, but it relies on arcane keyboard combinations and kludges like scooting the mouse cursor around with the keyboard.
Exhibit A:
.
Both operating systems have roots in older OSs that existed before mice were adopted (Apple ][ and MS-DOS).
No, they don't (and DOS certainly isn't where Windows's keyboard HCI model comes from).
No, that is ridiculous. MacOSX kept a lot of compatibility with its BSD base and emulated MacOS9. The transition period was huge, and it was starting from scratch. Microsoft will not have the same opportunity, and it will lose a lot of market share.
The transition period was incredibly brief. OS X was released in 2001. The last PPC Mac (and thus the end of "emulated OS9") was sold in 2006, only 5 years later. It will not be surprising if the next version of OS X doesn't support PPC *at all*.
How many do you think will opt to run old-Windows on top of Linux or OS X instead of betting on Microsofts unproven new-Windows, especially considering their track record on their previous offerings?
Given their respective historical records with and attitudes towards, legacy support, Microsoft's.
Let's face it - as soon as you're not compatible with Windows, you may as well run Linux anyway, and Microsoft knows that very well.
The (relative) runaway success of OS X compared to Linux, would suggest not.
I don't understand what the major aversion to implementing some sort of transparent virtual machine to run legacy applications is.
Because it won't be "transparent" without replicating today's "problems", thus defeating the purpose.