There's no such thing as a free virus scanner. The risks others have outlined aside, this would only serve to have Linux and Mac users subsidizing software for Windows users - exactly the wrong economic incentive.
and the option to have several ports closed by the ISP (checked by default)
Good idea.
If the user insists, they of course can go on and use the internet anyway. But only after clicking "ok" to a sentence declaring that they are now informed and "solely liable to any damage they might do to the internet"
See, this is why our home Internet connections should be charged by the bit. $15/mo + 15c/GB or so. Consumers of electrical goods are already used to making these kinds of economic decisions about cost/benefit. Again, to the extent Windows users are flooding the ISP's network with botnet traffic, Linux and Mac users are paying for it.
None of those have per-system license fees? Last time I looked at the business (a couple years ago), everybody local was using commercial products in contravention of their respective licenses, so I could never compete as I'd pass along the $200 or so in expected license costs.
BTW one of my chief annoyances with the Mac OS is the inability to quickly and easily switch between windows. You have to juggle windows around on the screen. i.e. It's stuck in the pre-95 era. The Windows & Linux tab bars are a very easy solution to that problem.
There are at least 3 ways to get what you're looking for under Stock OSX. Gosh, how I'd love that model as an option under KDE.
Ugh, no, unless you're sitting way back. My 24" LG is x1200 and that's too big. At the distance I sit from it, I have to turn my head to see both sides of the screen.
Eizo makes a 22" 1900x1200, which seems like the ideal. Expensive as all get-out, but I did pay $700 for a 17" CRT back in the day (inflation-adjusted to probably $1500).
I wonder what legal limbo you would get into if you declined the software agreement (which they like to call a contract) and yet force the software on you anyway.
How can they force it on you if you're not using the software? You're not allowed to use it if you don't accept the license (you can return it instead).
I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men.
You do not need an armed population to achieve a revolution, and in many ways it is counter-productive. Once enough of the population want to change a government, there is nothing that can stop them, as the government cannot kill all of the people.
In most revolutions the majority of the People are not actors. I think the number I read once was 17% is a critical threshold. Don't forget - the US Constitution was written by people who had just seceded militarily (really it wasn't revolutionary war). The British regulars were sent out to Lexington to quell the unrest through violent means.
Sure, if you could somehow coordinate most of the populace to simultaneously rise up across a land, yeah, they could just use their bodies as shields until enough of them survived and grappled with the military hand-to-hand*. But an occasional revolution was felt to be necessary and proper by the men who had recently engaged in the process, so they would not have wanted to set the barrier very high.
* even that is uncertain in an age of electric miniguns and Apache gunships
You said bittorrent is banned because of liability risk. I don't see how that problem has been avoided for HTTP. Surely a whitelist would be required? There are innumerable websites out there more risky than anything Bittorrent has to offer.
It's like people say you can't hear the difference in suitably high-bit rate MP3, but I can - in the cymbals - they're not as bright as CD or FLAC.
Yeah, anything with nice high harmonics will be pretty well sacked by MP3. But, it's supposed to be lower quality, with size being the trade-off. It does pretty well given the advantage (enough to enable entire industries).
But, yeah... they can pry my Miles Davis CD's from my cold dead fingers.
If you really want the Second Amendment to mean what it originally was intended to mean, then yes -- private ownership of these weapons is Constitutionally guaranteed. I don't think this is a good idea, but this position requires changing the meaning of the 2nd.
There's no need for that, it's a good idea. The point is that the People can overthrow the Government by force, should it become tyrannical.
You can either have the Government with assloads of tremendously destructive equipment, and the People have to match it.... or you can just limit your Government's military to the equipment necessary to repel an invasion, which is supposed to be their job.
Of course, we've only been hit hard once in the past century and they weren't able to defend against that (after having their name changed to the Department of Defense, even).
So, if the Military is doing Constitutional things in the first place, then the 2nd Amendment isn't so difficult a problem. In that light, is it better to have an all-powerful Empire-building Military, or a Constitutional one?
Ideally you'd have a running torrent for a distro, and then as updates came out they'd replace the old files in the torrent.
Except the current bittorrent protocol doesn't allow those kind of updates. Some relatively straightforward modifications to the protocol could allow it, but they don't exist yet. So you'd wind up with thousand of torrents to manage, PIT torrents, obsolete torrents, etc. I got some good input on the Fedora list about this a couple years ago.
Another enhancement to make this valuable would be to preferentially unchoke network-near peers, even lower performance ones for these kinds of low-priority torrents. Then the ISP's can keep the majority of the traffic off links they pay for and prefer (and support?) this model.
This would make a fine thesis project. Have at it, boys.
You realize that while they stopped development of further wave features, it is still available and functioning for anyone who wants to use it?
So, how long will that last?
Actually, I think I finally saw a use case for Wave the other night. There was an earthquake here (rare in NH) and a WTF-fest broke out on 3 or 4 of the first Facebook comments in my social network, several referencing Twitter searches.
I *think* this is what Wave is for. I'm still not sure, though.
Just as I mentioned, the 250MB/s SLC cache drives. The zpool behind them is pumping 700MB/s out. It would be nice to have a big cache that could exceed the speed of the disks. The PCIe 1500MB/s cache drives do that.
That's a pretty sweet rig - I've got some friends doing scientific computing who can't get enough GPU in a system - they'd probably like this.
I have to say the EVGA site is very glitzy but not terribly helpful. I downloaded the 'spec sheet' and it was a 1-page advertisement. Sigh. Newegg's specs says 3 of the slots are x8 but they look like x16 on the picture.
Even the ZFS guys insist on ECC for storage, but for a monster compute farm this looks awesome.
I think it's only on SLC SSD's - 250MB/s is close to a full SATA 3Gbps bus. But since those are the cache drives, more speed would be helpful.
6Gbps SATA should double that, but the PCIe card devices claim 1500Mbps. I don't usually work in the price ranges of those parts, though, and to be fair, those may just have built-in striping.
It's my understanding that Stuxnet was designed to only *do only* to one certain computer/system that was specifically targeted.
Right, and I believe that is the version released in January 2009. Now that the cat is out of the bag and Microsoft is likely to patch the 0-days, Stuxnet probably phoned home and was given all the remaining payloads. The results would be unknown at this point.
The illustrations all seem to show an x8 card, but I think what they're saying is they multiplex a PCIe lane over each pair in the SFF-8087 cable. So, eventually you'll be able to run x16 out of a card to your drive bay, and use that now for a 4x4 config, but perhaps a single x16 config in the future.
In short, a slower PCIe extension cord using existing cables (as opposed to the oddball PCIe external cables). This will probably put pressure on mobo vendors to add more x16 slots. I regularly build storage servers with 16 and 24 drive bays, and it looks like top-end now are Tyan AMD boards with 4 x16 slots. I'd like to see, for instance, a SuperMicro with 6 PCIe x16 slots and dual Intel sockets (though I'm using AMD 12-core more and more lately). PCIe 3.0 is due out in a couple months, so probably it will be there - OCZ could also update to the faster coding rate.
Slashdot Mirror
The portal would offer a free virus scanner
There's no such thing as a free virus scanner. The risks others have outlined aside, this would only serve to have Linux and Mac users subsidizing software for Windows users - exactly the wrong economic incentive.
and the option to have several ports closed by the ISP (checked by default)
Good idea.
If the user insists, they of course can go on and use the internet anyway. But only after clicking "ok" to a sentence declaring that they are now informed and "solely liable to any damage they might do to the internet"
See, this is why our home Internet connections should be charged by the bit. $15/mo + 15c/GB or so. Consumers of electrical goods are already used to making these kinds of economic decisions about cost/benefit. Again, to the extent Windows users are flooding the ISP's network with botnet traffic, Linux and Mac users are paying for it.
Combofix, Avast!, Malwarebytes, and HijackThis.
None of those have per-system license fees? Last time I looked at the business (a couple years ago), everybody local was using commercial products in contravention of their respective licenses, so I could never compete as I'd pass along the $200 or so in expected license costs.
My local PD has to pull a few people out of a sand trap that used to be a road about 60 years ago. Do the mapping companies have _any_ liability here?
In related news, my daughter is having trouble at school with their expectation that she submit to erroneous, absolute authority.
BTW one of my chief annoyances with the Mac OS is the inability to quickly and easily switch between windows. You have to juggle windows around on the screen. i.e. It's stuck in the pre-95 era. The Windows & Linux tab bars are a very easy solution to that problem.
There are at least 3 ways to get what you're looking for under Stock OSX. Gosh, how I'd love that model as an option under KDE.
30" 2560x1600. Problem solved (permanently).
Ugh, no, unless you're sitting way back. My 24" LG is x1200 and that's too big. At the distance I sit from it, I have to turn my head to see both sides of the screen.
Eizo makes a 22" 1900x1200, which seems like the ideal. Expensive as all get-out, but I did pay $700 for a 17" CRT back in the day (inflation-adjusted to probably $1500).
I wonder what legal limbo you would get into if you declined the software agreement (which they like to call a contract) and yet force the software on you anyway.
How can they force it on you if you're not using the software? You're not allowed to use it if you don't accept the license (you can return it instead).
I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men.
Gollum was a Hobbit
You do not need an armed population to achieve a revolution, and in many ways it is counter-productive. Once enough of the population want to change a government, there is nothing that can stop them, as the government cannot kill all of the people.
In most revolutions the majority of the People are not actors. I think the number I read once was 17% is a critical threshold. Don't forget - the US Constitution was written by people who had just seceded militarily (really it wasn't revolutionary war). The British regulars were sent out to Lexington to quell the unrest through violent means.
Sure, if you could somehow coordinate most of the populace to simultaneously rise up across a land, yeah, they could just use their bodies as shields until enough of them survived and grappled with the military hand-to-hand*. But an occasional revolution was felt to be necessary and proper by the men who had recently engaged in the process, so they would not have wanted to set the barrier very high.
* even that is uncertain in an age of electric miniguns and Apache gunships
You said bittorrent is banned because of liability risk. I don't see how that problem has been avoided for HTTP. Surely a whitelist would be required? There are innumerable websites out there more risky than anything Bittorrent has to offer.
It's like people say you can't hear the difference in suitably high-bit rate MP3, but I can - in the cymbals - they're not as bright as CD or FLAC.
Yeah, anything with nice high harmonics will be pretty well sacked by MP3. But, it's supposed to be lower quality, with size being the trade-off. It does pretty well given the advantage (enough to enable entire industries).
But, yeah... they can pry my Miles Davis CD's from my cold dead fingers.
If you really want the Second Amendment to mean what it originally was intended to mean, then yes -- private ownership of these weapons is Constitutionally guaranteed. I don't think this is a good idea, but this position requires changing the meaning of the 2nd.
There's no need for that, it's a good idea. The point is that the People can overthrow the Government by force, should it become tyrannical.
You can either have the Government with assloads of tremendously destructive equipment, and the People have to match it.... or you can just limit your Government's military to the equipment necessary to repel an invasion, which is supposed to be their job.
Of course, we've only been hit hard once in the past century and they weren't able to defend against that (after having their name changed to the Department of Defense, even).
So, if the Military is doing Constitutional things in the first place, then the 2nd Amendment isn't so difficult a problem. In that light, is it better to have an all-powerful Empire-building Military, or a Constitutional one?
Ideally you'd have a running torrent for a distro, and then as updates came out they'd replace the old files in the torrent.
Except the current bittorrent protocol doesn't allow those kind of updates. Some relatively straightforward modifications to the protocol could allow it, but they don't exist yet. So you'd wind up with thousand of torrents to manage, PIT torrents, obsolete torrents, etc. I got some good input on the Fedora list about this a couple years ago.
Another enhancement to make this valuable would be to preferentially unchoke network-near peers, even lower performance ones for these kinds of low-priority torrents. Then the ISP's can keep the majority of the traffic off links they pay for and prefer (and support?) this model.
This would make a fine thesis project. Have at it, boys.
So yes, BT gets blocked. If we could just block BT upload traffic, we would prefer that method the best at the corporate level.
Don't you have a traffic shaper?
For schools, it's always blocked for liability reasons. Period.
Gosh, I hope they block HTTP too or there's gonna be hell to pay.
You realize that while they stopped development of further wave features, it is still available and functioning for anyone who wants to use it?
So, how long will that last?
Actually, I think I finally saw a use case for Wave the other night. There was an earthquake here (rare in NH) and a WTF-fest broke out on 3 or 4 of the first Facebook comments in my social network, several referencing Twitter searches.
I *think* this is what Wave is for. I'm still not sure, though.
Just as I mentioned, the 250MB/s SLC cache drives. The zpool behind them is pumping 700MB/s out. It would be nice to have a big cache that could exceed the speed of the disks. The PCIe 1500MB/s cache drives do that.
That's a pretty sweet rig - I've got some friends doing scientific computing who can't get enough GPU in a system - they'd probably like this.
I have to say the EVGA site is very glitzy but not terribly helpful. I downloaded the 'spec sheet' and it was a 1-page advertisement. Sigh. Newegg's specs says 3 of the slots are x8 but they look like x16 on the picture.
Even the ZFS guys insist on ECC for storage, but for a monster compute farm this looks awesome.
So if they construct a new road, or change their routing algorithm, I've now lost my password forever?
Don't worry, the guy down the hall sniffed all your Google Maps HTTP request traffic.
-$1,100/month and -40 hours/month I get to spend with my family. Your new society rocks!
Don't be silly - in his society you'll both be assigned to nearby workcenters.
The best ridicule posts are proofread.
I think it's only on SLC SSD's - 250MB/s is close to a full SATA 3Gbps bus. But since those are the cache drives, more speed would be helpful.
6Gbps SATA should double that, but the PCIe card devices claim 1500Mbps. I don't usually work in the price ranges of those parts, though, and to be fair, those may just have built-in striping.
Isn't Evga's X58 Classified boards better with 7 16x/8x slots?
Is this part 141-BL-E759-A1? I see 4x16x and no ECC.
You do some mild feature extraction work on all the real filmed bits and replace as much with CGI as you can.
The only way I might consider going is if they hired the Star Wars: Revisited guy to produce the project. Then, maybe.
Nice, a Braille reader for BluRay subtitles should now be technically possible. BluRays make decent eBooks with the right software.
(HDMI neglects to ship closed-captioning data so you *have* to capture/diff/ocr from HDMI rasters to extract the text).
It's my understanding that Stuxnet was designed to only *do only* to one certain computer/system that was specifically targeted.
Right, and I believe that is the version released in January 2009. Now that the cat is out of the bag and Microsoft is likely to patch the 0-days, Stuxnet probably phoned home and was given all the remaining payloads. The results would be unknown at this point.
The illustrations all seem to show an x8 card, but I think what they're saying is they multiplex a PCIe lane over each pair in the SFF-8087 cable. So, eventually you'll be able to run x16 out of a card to your drive bay, and use that now for a 4x4 config, but perhaps a single x16 config in the future.
In short, a slower PCIe extension cord using existing cables (as opposed to the oddball PCIe external cables). This will probably put pressure on mobo vendors to add more x16 slots. I regularly build storage servers with 16 and 24 drive bays, and it looks like top-end now are Tyan AMD boards with 4 x16 slots. I'd like to see, for instance, a SuperMicro with 6 PCIe x16 slots and dual Intel sockets (though I'm using AMD 12-core more and more lately). PCIe 3.0 is due out in a couple months, so probably it will be there - OCZ could also update to the faster coding rate.