its $0.005 per kb - half a cent per kilobit,or 4 cents per kilobyte (more like 5 cents if you include data tranfer overhead, etc). In other words, $50 per megabyte.
Today's front page of slashdot weights in at 517KB - that's over half a megabyte. At that rate, $3000 is just over 100 page views.
That's why you surf the lighter-weight versions of pages: http://slashdot.org/palm/ gives a front page that weighs only 8 KB. A page view at those rates is a dime, instead of $25.00
Web pages are getting ridiculously heavy, thanks to high-speed internet and people feeling that they don't have to optimize - "it takes away from the experience."
The same can be said for server loads - page generation is going backwards in terms of cpu usage. I've seen php scripts that end up #including almost 100 other scripts ON EVERY PAGE LOAD!!!
Most distros nowadays are pretty decent about not installing, never mind running, stuff "out of the box". This "article" is severely dated, back to the time when the only people who installed linux *wanted* all sorts of servers running.
I'm from those "bad old days", and I've had to adapt, by not assuming that tools and utilities that I took for granted are still available in a near-default install. Even when I check "developer tools", I still have to go through the list to include those older, simpler parts of the toolchain that, for some reason, are too "simple" for todays' developers.
Who ever thought that "tree" would be near-forgotten? What next, fgrep?:-)
40x larger? The US's population is only 5x larger than Britains'.
Of course, with the US's slow/no broadband internet, it would take 40x longer to get the word out...
There's no excuse for elections to take a year. This actually interferes with the running of the country.
And as for Canada... we use the system where an election is called by the government, or forced by the opposition, within a 5-year timeframe. Generally, campaigns are 5 weeks, and we know who won within a few hours.
here are the REAL rules to elections in Canada.
And yes, we have much higher broadband penetration than the US. Then again, we're also a much more urbanized society.
Now back on-topic - the lack of decent high-speed broadband is definitely hurting one sector of the economy - the lawyers working for the RIAA / MPAA. With ubiquitous high-speed, they'd have many more grannies to go after. There'd be no more "I don't even HAVE the interweb thingee" defense. The RIAA should sue the providers for harm to their business model. After all, we saw this week that it worked really well for SCO:-0
>OBVIOUSLY if you run a program that opens a port, you will have an open port. It is rather silly to demand that you can run chat clients and file sharing programs without opening ports.
Which is why I said that the fact that a port is open is not, of itself, a problem. The summary of the article said "many Linux systems are insecure with open ports"; that a port is open or not is not, in itself, indicative of a security problem, and that it put me in mind of all those "Your computer is at risk because you have open ports, your IP is xx.yy.zz.bb" ads.
As others have pointed out, the article seems to have been written with that era as the context (ipchains?!?)
>You're saying that we could evolve into another form of consciousness. But we can't evolve into another form of consciousness if we cease to exist before we do so. So your point of view is exactly as homo-centric as the articles.
My point of view is that there may or may not be other consciousness elsewhere in the universe, but that, in the end, its irrelevant. Just as, in the end, how long we survive as a species is irrelevant.
If the universe COULD care, then it already has the capacity to do the things the article posits that consciousness is needed for, so we're irrelevant. And if the universe CAN'T care, then we are still irrelevant.
Now, as to your statement:
>> conscious things, of which we are the only known example, are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything." Compare to the statement: "Primates, like ourselves, are the only animals that do XXXX."
Dolphins and whales aren't primates, and they have brains larger than ours, and are certainly conscious mammals. Ditto for elephants. Compare this to dinosaurs with brains the size of a walnut.
>>Its a computer connected to "Teh Intarweb" - its supposed to have open ports.
>>Not if it just acts as a client, as most "consumer" machines do.
Nobody with a consumer machine uses a chat program? A file-sharing program? Heck, Window95 shipped with a web server (PWS), and thats about as "ghetto consumer box" as you can get.
>>> "Conscious things like ourselves are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything."
>> Easily disproved. Conscious things NOT like ourselves also work. Mechanical intelligences, hive minds, and stuff that is so alien to us that we can't even begin to conceive it also work.
> Your examples are all 'conscious things like ourselves'. It is the consciousness that is being used to decide what is included in the set, not some arbitrary stuff like being a bag of hydrocarbons.
Nope - in such a case, the term "like ourselves" would not be needed.
Here's the difference:
Conscious things like ourselves are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything.
Conscious things are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything.
The two sentences are not equivalent. The second encapsulates all conscious things, the first only conscious things "like ourselves."
Or maybe they recognize that some PHBs won't go with "free", and StarOffice has the needed "we can get multiple licensed copies for a fee" thing going...?
... and that google may want to encourage a more diverse ecosystem, with more vendors, as a couterweight to an either-or choice - MS-Office or OpenOffice?
What google did wasn't evil - they're supporting StarOffice, and this will help continue to develop the product. Competition is good, mkay?:-)
Re:Lots of linux stories on the front page
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you're looking for something that's "not linux", you can always enter this contest - there are already a few entries that cover "open ports" that have nothing to do with linux - and one (# 12) that really nails "hardening" pretty good.
"The purpose of this post is to see the reasoning behind so many linux fluff stories making front page "
Its Sunday, this is slashdot, not PC Magazine, CmdrTaco is stuck reviewing submissions over dialup, and the big news of the MONTH was SCO getting kicked in the nuts. - but at least they got more than the $20 that guy got. Hopefully one or two will also get prison, but I'm not holding my breath.
Maybe they can turn the whole SCO fiasco into a tv show, like this kicked in the nuts video, but in reverse - have Darl wear the orange clown wig and PAY people $699 each to kick him.
Re:How To in summary...
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 5, Funny
The summary is... strange.
"... many Linux systems are insecure with open ports"... "...how to secure your server..."
Remember all those internet ads about "YOUR COMPUTER HAS OPEN PORTS !!!"
Its a computer connected to "Teh Intarweb" - its supposed to have open ports.
Next we'll read another story about how some "1337 hacker hacked into another person's machine" at IP address 127.0.0.1, erased all their files, and somehow, the "other person" was able to hack their machine and do the same thing...
Followed by a nostalgiac look at "Punch-the-monkey" ads.
"Conscious things like ourselves are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything."
Easily disproved. Conscious things NOT like ourselves also work. Mechanical intelligences, hive minds, and stuff that is so alien to us that we can't even begin to conceive it also work.
I doubt I'm the only one who thinks that this statement FTFA:
"Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach"
... is self-centered in the extreme.
Like they expect evolution to stop with us? Does ANYONE believe that humans will look the same a couple of million years from now, if we still exist? Look at what we were like 2 million years ago... oops homo sapiens sapiens didn't exist then... neanderthals were still walking about between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.
And for those who don't believe in evolution, but want to invoke god - well, isn't your god capable of witnessing all this?
As for the "it's in the universe's best interest to keep us around. We make things fun" argument - this presumes that the universe *has* an interest and is capable of acting on it - in which case the universe is in some manner conscious, and can do without us when it comes to appreciating things. Tantamount to arguing some sort of universal gaiea.
"which SCO did have the authority to license to third parties (though SCO failed to actually give Novell their chunk of the pie -- but that isn't Microsoft's problem)."
If Novell can prove that Microsoft doesn't have "clean hands", it becomes a problem for Microsoft, not just SCO. The timing of the PIPE deal as well as the license is suspicious, to say the least. I'm left wondering if there's a sudden shortage of paper shredders in the SCO area this weekend...
Microsoft's continual lying and dirty tricks indicates a gross lack of integrity at the very top. You cannot respect someone you cannot trust, and still respect yourself.
Respect is an assumption of good faith and competence in another person or in the whole of oneself. Depth of integrity, trust, complementary moral values, and skill are necessary components.
Respect adds general reliability to social interactions. It enables people to work together in a complimentary fashion, instead of each person having to understand or even agree with every detail of another's method.
Requirements
Respect forms for a person whose actions tend to create results that are generally considered good, beneficial to the appraiser or superior in some form. Integrity of principle is necessary for general consistency of action. Moral values of each party that complement each other lead to communal progress. This can happen consensually, such as with respect between disparate craftsmen working to build a house, or through conflict and elimination, such as respect for an enemy. Trust that some common goal is the actual intention of the other is necessary for respect, even if that goal is to leave the best competitor standing. Belief in the ability to reach the goal must also be assumed, even where the means is not known.
Respect is said to be "earned" when a party demonstrates all of the concept's requirements. Integrity is demonstrated through accountability of one's actions with outcome and adjustment of principles as necessary. Trust is demonstrated through consistency of claimed intent and action, with responsibility for inconsistencies and adjustment of moral values and expectations as needed. Skill is demonstrated by reaching or exceeding one's goals. Complementary moral values are achieved by either a consensual convergence of ideas or a combative elimination of inferior principles as demonstrated by failure to reach one's goal.
Microsoft has gone out of its way continually to avoid fair competition, accountability for its own illegal actions, etc. They are unredeemable and should be treated as pariahs, not lionized (unless you're a dickhead* nicknamed "Pretenderle", the MoGTroll, or "Lyin' Lyons").
Remember, they also bought a license. I wonder what Novell IP made it into Microsoft products, and if that wasn't the REAL reason Microsoft wanted a deal with Novell - not because of Microsoft IP in linux, but Novell IP in Windows?
Plus, if Novell and/or IBM and/or Red Hat manage to piece the "corporate veil" surrounding the PIPE invenstment, there's another problem, which will be much worse for the convicted monopolist.
"Owner of said passport is hauled off to some secret room where all of their orifices are checked by an ex-prison guard with large hands."
And if this(Warning: NSA - Not Safe Anywhere) or any of these(also NSA - Not Safe Anywhere) was the passport photo, pity the poor guard...
The revised scenario:
Passport is scanned
Reader goes casters up
Reader is power cycled
Passport is scanned again
Reader goes casters up
Guard looks at passport photo
Guard throws up, as do the next dozen who try to intervene, they all claim work-related traumatic stress disorder, go on permanent disability.
Re:Sometimes it doesn't make any sense to sell/buy
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
"Everybody assumes that the very name "Unix" has value, but, like autographs collectors specializing in French Existentialist writers, it would have value only to them.
It makes sense to put the ownership up in a trust holding where it can't ever be used in this kind of gambit again and I suspect that a foundation will be set up for that purpose."
It does have value, and its not owned by Novell - its owned by The Open Group. More info at unix org.
Some trademark attributions still say Novell (or even AT&T or Bell Labs), which is correct?
UNIX® is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
It must not be used as a generic term.
It must not be used in connection with products, unless the product is licensed to use the mark.
There are detailed guidelines referring to the visual presentation, form and manner of use.
In editorial or articles, but not advertising the trade marks may be used without prior permission - provided that the rules in our Trademark Usage Guide are followed.
Here is the defiitive list of UNIXes. As you can see, SCO doesn't have anything past the UNIX 95 spec (Caldera OpenSewer), whereas there have been two major updates - UNIX 98 and UNIX 03.
Re:No, ownership is very clear, but
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
"Microsoft could buy Novell, and the keys to Unix, for chump change-- and Microsoft has it IN CASH. No one else is in a cash position to do so."
Novell's market cap is $2.2 Gigabucks. IBM has $11 Gigabucks in cash reserves. Apple has almost 14, Google has 12, Oracle has 7, Sun has $6. They can all make all-cash bids. Apple would smart to buy Novell, for the corporate presence Novell has.
Slashdot Mirror
"BTW, I left a comment at the site, basically summarizing the slashdot discussion (and linking back to it), and he blocked me :)"
Sounds like he's a real dickhead! (link is NSA - Not Safe Anywhere).
its $0.005 per kb - half a cent per kilobit,or 4 cents per kilobyte (more like 5 cents if you include data tranfer overhead, etc). In other words, $50 per megabyte.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobit
kb = kilobits, same as mb = megabits, not bytes. kB == kilobytes.
Today's front page of slashdot weights in at 517KB - that's over half a megabyte. At that rate, $3000 is just over 100 page views.
That's why you surf the lighter-weight versions of pages: http://slashdot.org/palm/ gives a front page that weighs only 8 KB. A page view at those rates is a dime, instead of $25.00
The slashdot.wml file http://slashdot.org/slashdot.wml is even smaller - 1,471 bytes, or 6 cents.
6 cents for a page using wml, a dime using wap, or $25.00 for "the full experience."
Web pages are getting ridiculously heavy, thanks to high-speed internet and people feeling that they don't have to optimize - "it takes away from the experience."
The same can be said for server loads - page generation is going backwards in terms of cpu usage. I've seen php scripts that end up #including almost 100 other scripts ON EVERY PAGE LOAD!!!
This is insane.
Most distros nowadays are pretty decent about not installing, never mind running, stuff "out of the box". This "article" is severely dated, back to the time when the only people who installed linux *wanted* all sorts of servers running.
I'm from those "bad old days", and I've had to adapt, by not assuming that tools and utilities that I took for granted are still available in a near-default install. Even when I check "developer tools", I still have to go through the list to include those older, simpler parts of the toolchain that, for some reason, are too "simple" for todays' developers.
Who ever thought that "tree" would be near-forgotten? What next, fgrep? :-)
40x larger? The US's population is only 5x larger than Britains'.
Of course, with the US's slow/no broadband internet, it would take 40x longer to get the word out ...
There's no excuse for elections to take a year. This actually interferes with the running of the country.
And as for Canada ... we use the system where an election is called by the government, or forced by the opposition, within a 5-year timeframe. Generally, campaigns are 5 weeks, and we know who won within a few hours.
here are the REAL rules to elections in Canada.
And yes, we have much higher broadband penetration than the US. Then again, we're also a much more urbanized society.
[Public Service Announcement]
Get with the program. The goat guy is so last century. pick a replacement, or submit one - voting takes place in a few weeks.
Now back on-topic - the lack of decent high-speed broadband is definitely hurting one sector of the economy - the lawyers working for the RIAA / MPAA. With ubiquitous high-speed, they'd have many more grannies to go after. There'd be no more "I don't even HAVE the interweb thingee" defense. The RIAA should sue the providers for harm to their business model. After all, we saw this week that it worked really well for SCO :-0
>OBVIOUSLY if you run a program that opens a port, you will have an open port. It is rather silly to demand that you can run chat clients and file sharing programs without opening ports.
Which is why I said that the fact that a port is open is not, of itself, a problem. The summary of the article said "many Linux systems are insecure with open ports"; that a port is open or not is not, in itself, indicative of a security problem, and that it put me in mind of all those "Your computer is at risk because you have open ports, your IP is xx.yy.zz.bb" ads.
As others have pointed out, the article seems to have been written with that era as the context (ipchains?!?)
>You're saying that we could evolve into another form of consciousness. But we can't evolve into another form of consciousness if we cease to exist before we do so. So your point of view is exactly as homo-centric as the articles.
My point of view is that there may or may not be other consciousness elsewhere in the universe, but that, in the end, its irrelevant. Just as, in the end, how long we survive as a species is irrelevant.
If the universe COULD care, then it already has the capacity to do the things the article posits that consciousness is needed for, so we're irrelevant. And if the universe CAN'T care, then we are still irrelevant.
Now, as to your statement:
>> conscious things, of which we are the only known example, are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything." Compare to the statement: "Primates, like ourselves, are the only animals that do XXXX."
Dolphins and whales aren't primates, and they have brains larger than ours, and are certainly conscious mammals. Ditto for elephants. Compare this to dinosaurs with brains the size of a walnut.
>>Its a computer connected to "Teh Intarweb" - its supposed to have open ports.
>>Not if it just acts as a client, as most "consumer" machines do.
Nobody with a consumer machine uses a chat program? A file-sharing program? Heck, Window95 shipped with a web server (PWS), and thats about as "ghetto consumer box" as you can get.
>>> "Conscious things like ourselves are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything."
>> Easily disproved. Conscious things NOT like ourselves also work. Mechanical intelligences, hive minds, and stuff that is so alien to us that we can't even begin to conceive it also work.
> Your examples are all 'conscious things like ourselves'. It is the consciousness that is being used to decide what is included in the set, not some arbitrary stuff like being a bag of hydrocarbons.
Nope - in such a case, the term "like ourselves" would not be needed.
Here's the difference:
- Conscious things like ourselves are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything.
- Conscious things are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything.
The two sentences are not equivalent. The second encapsulates all conscious things, the first only conscious things "like ourselves."Or maybe they recognize that some PHBs won't go with "free", and StarOffice has the needed "we can get multiple licensed copies for a fee" thing going ...?
What google did wasn't evil - they're supporting StarOffice, and this will help continue to develop the product. Competition is good, mkay? :-)
Well, if you're looking for something that's "not linux", you can always enter this contest - there are already a few entries that cover "open ports" that have nothing to do with linux - and one (# 12) that really nails "hardening" pretty good.
"The purpose of this post is to see the reasoning behind so many linux fluff stories making front page "
Its Sunday, this is slashdot, not PC Magazine, CmdrTaco is stuck reviewing submissions over dialup, and the big news of the MONTH was SCO getting kicked in the nuts. - but at least they got more than the $20 that guy got. Hopefully one or two will also get prison, but I'm not holding my breath.
Maybe they can turn the whole SCO fiasco into a tv show, like this kicked in the nuts video, but in reverse - have Darl wear the orange clown wig and PAY people $699 each to kick him.
The summary is ... strange.
"... many Linux systems are insecure with open ports" ... "...how to secure your server ..."
Remember all those internet ads about "YOUR COMPUTER HAS OPEN PORTS !!!"
Its a computer connected to "Teh Intarweb" - its supposed to have open ports.
Next we'll read another story about how some "1337 hacker hacked into another person's machine" at IP address 127.0.0.1, erased all their files, and somehow, the "other person" was able to hack their machine and do the same thing ...
Followed by a nostalgiac look at "Punch-the-monkey" ads.
"Conscious things like ourselves are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything."
Easily disproved. Conscious things NOT like ourselves also work. Mechanical intelligences, hive minds, and stuff that is so alien to us that we can't even begin to conceive it also work.
I doubt I'm the only one who thinks that this statement FTFA: "Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach"
... is self-centered in the extreme.
Like they expect evolution to stop with us? Does ANYONE believe that humans will look the same a couple of million years from now, if we still exist? Look at what we were like 2 million years ago ... oops homo sapiens sapiens didn't exist then ... neanderthals were still walking about between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.
And for those who don't believe in evolution, but want to invoke god - well, isn't your god capable of witnessing all this?
As for the "it's in the universe's best interest to keep us around. We make things fun" argument - this presumes that the universe *has* an interest and is capable of acting on it - in which case the universe is in some manner conscious, and can do without us when it comes to appreciating things. Tantamount to arguing some sort of universal gaiea.
"which SCO did have the authority to license to third parties (though SCO failed to actually give Novell their chunk of the pie -- but that isn't Microsoft's problem)."
If Novell can prove that Microsoft doesn't have "clean hands", it becomes a problem for Microsoft, not just SCO. The timing of the PIPE deal as well as the license is suspicious, to say the least. I'm left wondering if there's a sudden shortage of paper shredders in the SCO area this weekend ...
The world will be a better place the more people just ignore Microsoft and "do their own thing."
Microsoft's continual lying and dirty tricks indicates a gross lack of integrity at the very top. You cannot respect someone you cannot trust, and still respect yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect
Microsoft has gone out of its way continually to avoid fair competition, accountability for its own illegal actions, etc. They are unredeemable and should be treated as pariahs, not lionized (unless you're a dickhead* nicknamed "Pretenderle", the MoGTroll, or "Lyin' Lyons").*WARNING - link is "NSA" - "Not Safe Anywhere"
"the UNIX copyrights are a horrible mess that no one in their right mind would dig into (or sue over)"
Oh, great - the insanity defense ... :-)
Two, actually.
Remember, they also bought a license. I wonder what Novell IP made it into Microsoft products, and if that wasn't the REAL reason Microsoft wanted a deal with Novell - not because of Microsoft IP in linux, but Novell IP in Windows?
Plus, if Novell and/or IBM and/or Red Hat manage to piece the "corporate veil" surrounding the PIPE invenstment, there's another problem, which will be much worse for the convicted monopolist.
"Owner of said passport is hauled off to some secret room where all of their orifices are checked by an ex-prison guard with large hands."
And if this (Warning: NSA - Not Safe Anywhere) or any of these (also NSA - Not Safe Anywhere) was the passport photo, pity the poor guard ...
The revised scenario:
Passport is scanned
Reader goes casters up
Reader is power cycled
Passport is scanned again
Reader goes casters up
Guard looks at passport photo
Guard throws up, as do the next dozen who try to intervene, they all claim work-related traumatic stress disorder, go on permanent disability.
Regarding your sig: "Morality is doing the right thing; ethics is doing the right thing even when you know no one is watching you."
So, we could say that paranoid people are the only people who are ethical by nature :-)
"...to someone who uses the phrase 'shuttle rocket'"
"Everybody assumes that the very name "Unix" has value, but, like autographs collectors specializing in French Existentialist writers, it would have value only to them.
It makes sense to put the ownership up in a trust holding where it can't ever be used in this kind of gambit again and I suspect that a foundation will be set up for that purpose."
It does have value, and its not owned by Novell - its owned by The Open Group. More info at unix org.
Here is the defiitive list of UNIXes. As you can see, SCO doesn't have anything past the UNIX 95 spec (Caldera OpenSewer), whereas there have been two major updates - UNIX 98 and UNIX 03.
"Microsoft could buy Novell, and the keys to Unix, for chump change-- and Microsoft has it IN CASH. No one else is in a cash position to do so."
Novell's market cap is $2.2 Gigabucks. IBM has $11 Gigabucks in cash reserves. Apple has almost 14, Google has 12, Oracle has 7, Sun has $6. They can all make all-cash bids. Apple would smart to buy Novell, for the corporate presence Novell has.
"Using the iPhone as an example, the PopSci site walks through the process of making imitation technology"
How long before Apple hits Popular Science with a DMCA takedown notice?