If you're using a NAT with IPTables, it's trivial to tell it to drop packets on any port regardless of whether they're established or UDP.
And how are you going to receive replies if you tell it to drop the response packets?
The trick that this article points out is that UDP is connectionless, so even a stateful firewall will not know whether a packet is a valid reply or not. The only way to prevent this is to block UDP entirely.
It seems that the croud here decries criminal background checks as useless or even counter-productive. And yet this is the same croud that villifies Diebold for hiring criminals. Go figure...
I guess I should clarify. RISC "philosophy" lives on, but practicality has long been dead. Modern CPUs have RISC microcode with a x86 -> RISC translator in front. The translator adds a bit of overhead and uses up some silicone, but on the other hand CISC instructions are smaller, so you can fit more of them in a given amount of L1/L2 cache.
This "standard" is going to be the same "standard" as MS Office XML, CIFS,.net, Kerberos, and all the other "standards" Microsoft has ever promoted. They even managed to bastardize ASCII, and yet some gullible people still jump up and down every time Microsoft announces a new "standard".
I hope when SCO loses IBM, Novell, and others can pierce the corporate veil and go after the SCOmbags personally. Then the SCOmbags will make a deal and testify against Microsoft to protect their own skin.
I would go further and say that this article is a troll submitted (*cough* *cough*) anonymous coward and posted, no doubt, to inflate page hits.
The article starts out with a ridiculous premise that you need a "license" to use open source products. Wrong. The only time you need a license is if you want to *distribute* them. So yes, if you are using QT in a proprietary product, you need to pay Trolltech for proprietary license, but you do not need to pay anyone to run Cygwin on your machine!
The second ridiculous premise is equating support contracts for open source products to OEM costs of proprietary software. Uhhm hello? The only thing you get with OEM proprietary software is installation support, and not a good one at that. For anything else, you have to pay per incident and expect to get this response.
Of all the products the AC listed, the only one you have to pay for is QT. Is it worth $3300 when you can get VS.net for $700? Well, QT is an excellent widget library that runs on Windows, OSX, and all flavours of Unix. How many platforms does C# run on? That's right, *one* (no, mono is not a viable alternative). How much money will this save you in the long run? Besides, there are alternatives to QT (GTK, Swing, etc.) so you can use something else if you don't want to pay.
So in summary, AC is comparing apples and oranges. Notice that he/she doesn't even ask for advice but simply states "we are not OSS shop anymore" as a matter of fact. What was the point of the article then? A rant by some AC who doesn't know what he is doing? Or a planted article by Microsoft shill? Hmmm....
We're at a CO2 level even highter that what we had during the height of the ice age, yet the arctic glaciers that swept through all of Europe and North America somehow are not advancing on us at the alarming rate they should be?
Increased CO2 levels trap more heat in the atmosphere making it *warmer*, not colder. And what do you know! consistent with this prediction, the the global temperatures are on the rise and the glaciers are melting. Why don't you learn a little about the issue before opening your mouth?
How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?
The same way it worked before DRM. You are making a ridiculous assumption that DRM is the only thing that prevents someone from distriduting copies of copyrighted works. That is utterly false. There is this thing called copyright law that works just fine without DRM. Photocopiers didn't kill the book publishers. Tape recorders didn't kill music industry. VCRs *multiplied* the profits of the movie industry, despite the fact that certain studios nearly had them outlawed.
For this reason your question is either biased or stupid or both. Turns out it is entirely possible to have a viable economy without infringing on the consumers' fair use rights or first sale doctrine. Who would have thunk!
I understand his point: because of the blind spots you need to keep guards on board, which kind of defeats the purpose of the cameras. But is it actually realistic to *not* have guards on board? I would hope not!
2. Equipment not working at -40.
Considering that these ships are intended to be used by the coast guard in the gulf of Mexico, I don't see the problem.
3. Unshielded cables.
WTF is he talking about? The only way to sniff data from an unshielded cable is if you are right next to it. It is not going to help you when the cable is on a ship in the middle of the ocean. Further, the moment data is transmitted off the ship via radar, all bets are off. Unless you encrypt it *anyone* can listen to it.
The danger with that system is that there is no value to the patent, and any patent would be granted to anyone with the money to buy one.
False. If the patent describes a true invention it would be valuable since it would be easy to prove that the invention is novel and non-obvious. The patent would also describe what was invented and when -- both of those things are important if you were to sue someone over it. Finally, the patent filing fee should be very modest so that almost anyone can afford to get a patent. Currently you need to spend thousands to file a patent application so that typically only the corporations can afford it.
It would be the network equivalent of people buying every 2,3,4,5 and 6 letter domain name in a new TLD. If you had a few million bux, it would be yours.
There would be *no point* in doing that since patent by itself would have no presumption of validity. Nothing would prevent anyone from patenting a true invention. And you wouldn't need to spend "a few million bux" unless you wanted to file a few million patents. Your TLD analogy makes no sense at all.
Sure, you might have to defend them in courst, but you could still squash every small business without a 6-7 figure legal budget.
You wouldn't have to "defend" anything. The only time you would go to court is if you wanted to *sue* someone else over your patent. And in that case you would first have to establish that your patent is valid. This would make patent trolling much harder. Currently, the patent is *presumed valid* when you go to court even though the patent office does not examine the patent applications.
Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work. Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented. The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.
Didn't Dull announce some time ago that it will sell AMD servers? I just went to the Dull website and couldn't find a single AMD product. I then searched for AMD. The first match was 64-bit RedHat. The second match was SpaceBall 5000. etc. Where's AMD? Is this announcement simply an attempt for Intel to look better in light of the antitrust lawsuit?
These guys were studying "penis worm" and came to the conclusion that "the results are truly orgasmic". You know, you could have done that without the particle accelerator...
RTFA (or, better yet, go to NVidia's site to verify). It's not 64x, it's 2x or 4x depending on the configuration. Stupidest sensationalism ever! Here is the link for the lazy.
Hey, thanks for the info. Looks like promise has the same enclosure with FC and plain SCSI ports. What are the advantages/disatvantages of iSCSI, FC, and plain SCSI? I am specifically wondering about M500i, M500f, and M500p? Seems like they all have the same features, but plain SCSI is faster.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're using a NAT with IPTables, it's trivial to tell it to drop packets on any port regardless of whether they're established or UDP.
And how are you going to receive replies if you tell it to drop the response packets?
The trick that this article points out is that UDP is connectionless, so even a stateful firewall will not know whether a packet is a valid reply or not. The only way to prevent this is to block UDP entirely.
It seems that the croud here decries criminal background checks as useless or even counter-productive. And yet this is the same croud that villifies Diebold for hiring criminals. Go figure...
Slashdot meets dupe quota. The number of duplicate stories is now 1,000,000. Slashdot spokesman and frequent poster Zonk called it a 'milestone'.
I guess I should clarify. RISC "philosophy" lives on, but practicality has long been dead. Modern CPUs have RISC microcode with a x86 -> RISC translator in front. The translator adds a bit of overhead and uses up some silicone, but on the other hand CISC instructions are smaller, so you can fit more of them in a given amount of L1/L2 cache.
So swords are a series of tubes too?
That word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
For that matter, neither does "Plays for sure".
Well, we certainly can't let that happen!
Since when does US care about international law?
This "standard" is going to be the same "standard" as MS Office XML, CIFS, .net, Kerberos, and all the other "standards" Microsoft has ever promoted. They even managed to bastardize ASCII, and yet some gullible people still jump up and down every time Microsoft announces a new "standard".
I hope when SCO loses IBM, Novell, and others can pierce the corporate veil and go after the SCOmbags personally. Then the SCOmbags will make a deal and testify against Microsoft to protect their own skin.
I would go further and say that this article is a troll submitted (*cough* *cough*) anonymous coward and posted, no doubt, to inflate page hits.
The article starts out with a ridiculous premise that you need a "license" to use open source products. Wrong. The only time you need a license is if you want to *distribute* them. So yes, if you are using QT in a proprietary product, you need to pay Trolltech for proprietary license, but you do not need to pay anyone to run Cygwin on your machine!
The second ridiculous premise is equating support contracts for open source products to OEM costs of proprietary software. Uhhm hello? The only thing you get with OEM proprietary software is installation support, and not a good one at that. For anything else, you have to pay per incident and expect to get this response.
Of all the products the AC listed, the only one you have to pay for is QT. Is it worth $3300 when you can get VS.net for $700? Well, QT is an excellent widget library that runs on Windows, OSX, and all flavours of Unix. How many platforms does C# run on? That's right, *one* (no, mono is not a viable alternative). How much money will this save you in the long run? Besides, there are alternatives to QT (GTK, Swing, etc.) so you can use something else if you don't want to pay.
So in summary, AC is comparing apples and oranges. Notice that he/she doesn't even ask for advice but simply states "we are not OSS shop anymore" as a matter of fact. What was the point of the article then? A rant by some AC who doesn't know what he is doing? Or a planted article by Microsoft shill? Hmmm....
Nice spin there. All he did was call one lady hot. BFD! As much as I think the governator is a joke, this is just getting ridiculous.
Not only that, but Window S. was Microsoft's security strategist? This has got to be a belated aprils fools joke.
Increased CO2 levels trap more heat in the atmosphere making it *warmer*, not colder. And what do you know! consistent with this prediction, the the global temperatures are on the rise and the glaciers are melting. Why don't you learn a little about the issue before opening your mouth?
The same way it worked before DRM. You are making a ridiculous assumption that DRM is the only thing that prevents someone from distriduting copies of copyrighted works. That is utterly false. There is this thing called copyright law that works just fine without DRM. Photocopiers didn't kill the book publishers. Tape recorders didn't kill music industry. VCRs *multiplied* the profits of the movie industry, despite the fact that certain studios nearly had them outlawed.
For this reason your question is either biased or stupid or both. Turns out it is entirely possible to have a viable economy without infringing on the consumers' fair use rights or first sale doctrine. Who would have thunk!
1. Blind spots.
I understand his point: because of the blind spots you need to keep guards on board, which kind of defeats the purpose of the cameras. But is it actually realistic to *not* have guards on board? I would hope not!
2. Equipment not working at -40.
Considering that these ships are intended to be used by the coast guard in the gulf of Mexico, I don't see the problem.
3. Unshielded cables.
WTF is he talking about? The only way to sniff data from an unshielded cable is if you are right next to it. It is not going to help you when the cable is on a ship in the middle of the ocean. Further, the moment data is transmitted off the ship via radar, all bets are off. Unless you encrypt it *anyone* can listen to it.
You don't get it.
The danger with that system is that there is no value to the patent, and any patent would be granted to anyone with the money to buy one.
False. If the patent describes a true invention it would be valuable since it would be easy to prove that the invention is novel and non-obvious. The patent would also describe what was invented and when -- both of those things are important if you were to sue someone over it. Finally, the patent filing fee should be very modest so that almost anyone can afford to get a patent. Currently you need to spend thousands to file a patent application so that typically only the corporations can afford it.
It would be the network equivalent of people buying every 2,3,4,5 and 6 letter domain name in a new TLD. If you had a few million bux, it would be yours.
There would be *no point* in doing that since patent by itself would have no presumption of validity. Nothing would prevent anyone from patenting a true invention. And you wouldn't need to spend "a few million bux" unless you wanted to file a few million patents. Your TLD analogy makes no sense at all.
Sure, you might have to defend them in courst, but you could still squash every small business without a 6-7 figure legal budget.
You wouldn't have to "defend" anything. The only time you would go to court is if you wanted to *sue* someone else over your patent. And in that case you would first have to establish that your patent is valid. This would make patent trolling much harder. Currently, the patent is *presumed valid* when you go to court even though the patent office does not examine the patent applications.
Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work. Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented. The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.
Didn't Dull announce some time ago that it will sell AMD servers? I just went to the Dull website and couldn't find a single AMD product. I then searched for AMD. The first match was 64-bit RedHat. The second match was SpaceBall 5000. etc. Where's AMD? Is this announcement simply an attempt for Intel to look better in light of the antitrust lawsuit?
It's easy.
i = integer (iFoo)
f = float (fFoo)
d = double (dFoo)
oh wait you mean the other hungarian? Never mind.
These guys were studying "penis worm" and came to the conclusion that "the results are truly orgasmic". You know, you could have done that without the particle accelerator...
RTFA (or, better yet, go to NVidia's site to verify). It's not 64x, it's 2x or 4x depending on the configuration. Stupidest sensationalism ever! Here is the link for the lazy.
Hey, thanks for the info. Looks like promise has the same enclosure with FC and plain SCSI ports. What are the advantages/disatvantages of iSCSI, FC, and plain SCSI? I am specifically wondering about M500i, M500f, and M500p? Seems like they all have the same features, but plain SCSI is faster.
(That's our display department.)
Nvidia makes the best chipsets for AMD. Why would they want to merge with second-rate vendor? I hope AMD doesn't become as unstable as ATI drivers.