Using tempfs to compile is an option with lunar, but we don't recomend using it. Setting your gcc options within lunar to use -pipe is a much better option.
Ok, I know everyone is probably sick of hearing rants about the moderation system, but I post so rarely, I just had to bitch about this one. How the hell does the post I'm replying to get 2 different people to mod it up as interesting. (at the moment I'm writing this it's got a Score: 4 and both of those were "Interesting")
Do the moderators take more than a glance at a post? You may be able to get through the first 4 paragraphs thinking the post is interesting or informative, but read the last 2 paragraphs, and you can tell the author was going for humor.
I think I'm beginning to remember why I never bother posting comments.....
If anything, it is internally-imposed by the great majority of the population who neither know nor care about the alternative ideas out there
This is truly where the problem is. Does anyone have any suggestions of how to help educate people other parties and such?
I was just having a discussion with a good friend 2 nights ago when she said "When I registered to vote I registered as an independent because I wasn't sure if I agreed with the democrats or republicans more, but after seeing some of the stuff Gore has said I've decided to become a republican."
This came from someone who I know doesn't side with alot of the republican beliefs either. I tried telling her to check out other parties and she said she would, but it seemed more like she was just humoring me. We're just stuck in a self fullfulling situation of "The smaller parties won't ever win, so I won't vote for them" Of course they won't if people keep sticking with that type of opinion!
HOWEVER, Linux is missing (or semi-missing) several pieces to make it an excellent gaming platform: easy to install/configure high-end graphics and, of course, DVD.
Why do you need to configure on your gaming platform? What is there to install? As for configuration, anything they may need to let you configure they can give you a nice simple menu for. My grandmother just bought a TiVo (which also runs linux) and had it set up and working in half an hour! This coming from someone who doesn't understand a thing about her computer. I would hope a gaming console would abstract 99.9% of what's underneath the hood from the user in the same way.
As for high-end graphics, from what I've seen it does high end graphics just as well as Windows, but I'm no expert, so I'll just avoid this one...:-)
And last, DVD. Linux can read from DVD's and can even play the video from them, the only problem right now is getting around CSS (their encryption/scrambling system) Other than that DVD's are just a huge CD, and manufacturers have been putting games on CD's for years. This should be no different
Will there be a contingent of ~20 people running into the Auditoruim to try and claim first seat?
At the Geek Pride Fest back in April in Boston there was one guy who looked about 16-17 who jumped up holding a large posterboard sign that said "First Post" when CmdrTaco got up on stage. CmdrTaco said "hold on a minute, I'm prepared for this", ran offstage and grabbed something out of a duffel bag and handed it to the kid. It was a box of grits (not hot unfortunately...) and what did this kid do? Poured them down his pants right there in front of everyone! I was sitting right behind him, and for the next hour he was fidgeting and trying to get these grits out of his pants.
At least there weren't any petrified Natalie Portman's...
Update: 09/11 05:12 PM by C: Have tested AIM connectivity with Gaim v0.9.20 and Everybuddy 0.1.4 with no problems. Sorry for the scare.
Just because you can connect doesn't mean they aren't trying to stop those clients. If you look at the message that was quoted in the story description it seems to imply that the person connected and was later disconnected.
AOL IMer Client: Gaim CVS Version. 09:24:11 AOL Instant Messenger: You have been disconnected from the AOL Instant Message Service (SM) for accessing the AOL network using unauthorized software.
I've been disconnected a few times in the last couple days when I've been using Gaim. In fact 2 days ago I was chatting with another friend who was also using Gaim, and both of us got disconnected at the same time, but the other friends we were chatting with using the official AOL versions on Windows didn't have any problems. Coincidence? I think not. I think they're checking at random intervals instead of as you connect.
Does anyone have any more info on the Netgear RT311? I'd been looking at the Linksys but the Netgear looks to be about $50 cheaper. I just can't find anything that lists the number of ports. Even the PDF spec file on the page linked in the previous post doesn't say how many ports there are. I know the Linksys has 4 ports.
I seem to have no problem with it. I've got a Y splitter plugged into the PS/2 port, and a keyboard and mouse plugged into the splitter. Just to prove that both keyboards work I'm typing this with one hand on the internal keyboard and the other on an external. In fact I can hold shift on the external, hit a letter on the internal, and it comes up capitalized. Doesn't seem to work the other way around for some reason... Must be something handled diferently with shift on the internal.
What the hell, I'll respond to myself. Seeing how the site is probably permanently down (at least till his next billing cycle) I'll cut and paste here. There were 2 diagrams on the site, but you should be able to understand without them.
Tom Van Vleck
About 1976, I was explaining Multics security to a colleague at Honeywell. (This was before it got the B2 rating, but the mandatory access control mechanism was present.) I explained the difference between storage channels and timing channels, and said that timing channels weren't weren't important because they were so slow, noisy, and easily clogged, that you couldn't send a signal effectively.
My friend, Bob Mullen, astounded me a few days later by showing me two processes in the terminal room. You could type into one and the other would type out the same phrase a few seconds later. The processes were communicating at teletype speed by causing page faults and observing how long they took. The sender process read or didn't read certain pages of a public library file. The receiver process read the pages and determined whether they were already in core by seeing if the read took a long or short real time. The processes were running on a large Multics utility installation at MIT under average load; occasionally the primitive coding scheme used would lose sync and the receiver would type an X instead of the letter sent. If you typed in "trojan horse," the other process would type "trojan horse" a little later, with occasional X's sprinkled in the output.
Bob pointed out that noise in the channel was irrelevant to the bandwidth (Shannon's Law). Suitable coding schemes could get comparable signalling rates over many different resource types, despite countermeasures by the OS: besides page faulting, one could signal via CPU demand, segment activation, disk cache loading, or other means.
When I thought about this I realized that any dynamically shared resource is a channel. If a process sees any different result due to another process's operation, there is a channel between them. If a resource is shared between two processes, such that one process might wait or not depending on the other's action, then the wait can be observed and there is a timing channel.
Closing the channel Bob demonstrated would be difficult. The virtual memory machinery would have to do extra bookkeeping and extra page reads. To close the CPU demand channel, the scheduler would have to preallocate time slots to higher levels, and idle instead of making unneeded CPU time available to lower levels.
Bob and I did not compute the bandwidth of the page fault channel. It was about as fast as electronic mail for short messages. A spy could create a Trojan Horse program that communicated with his receiver process, and if executed by a user of another classification, the program could send messages via timing channels despite the star-property controls on data.
The rules against writing down were designed to keep Trojan Horse programs from sending data to lower levels, by ensuring that illegal actions would fault. In this case, the sender is doing something legal, looking at data he's allowed to, consuming resources or not, and so on. The receiver is doing something legal too, for example looking at pages and reading the clock. Forbidding repeated clock reading or returning fake clock values would restrict program semantics and introduce complexity.
I believe we need a mechanism complementary to the PERMISSION mechanism, called a CERTIFICATION mechanism. This controls the right to Execute software, while permission controls the Read and Write flags. A user classified Secret is not allowed to execute, at Secret level, a program certified only to Unclassified. Programs would only be certified to a given level after examination to ensure they contained no Trojan Horses. This kind of permission bit handling is easy to implement, and if the site only certifies benign programs, all works perfectly.
How do we examine programs to make sure they have no Trojan Horses? The same way we examine kernels to make sure they don't. Examining application code to ensure it doesn't signal information illegally should be easier than the work we have to do on a kernel.
Do we need to forbid write down for storage, if we allow write down via timing channels? It's inconsistent to forbid some write down paths and allow others. The main reason for preventing write down is not to stop deliberate declassification (a spy can always memorize a secret and type it into an unclassified file), it's to protect users from Trojan Horse programs leaking information. The certification approach solves this problem adifferent way, by providing a way to prevent execution of Trojan Horse programs.
Who should be allowed to certify a program to a given level? I think anyone who can create a program to execute at level X should be able to take a lower level program and certify it to level X. We can't stop a malicious user from creating a transmitter program, unless we forbid all program creation at level X. Other policies are possible; a site could centralize all program certification as a security officer responsibility. In any case, the OS should audit every certification and store the identity of the certifier as a file attribute.
[2] Bell, D. E. and L. J. LaPadula, Computer Security Model: Unified Exposition and Multics Interpretation, ESD-TR-75-306, Hanscom AFB, MA, 1975 (also available as DTIC AD-A023588).
[3] Bell, D. E., and L. J. LaPadula, Secure Computer Systems: Unified Exposition and Multics Interpretation, Mitre Technical Report MTR-2997, rev 2, March 1976.
[4] Biba, K. J., S. R. Ames, Jr., E. L. Burke, P. A. Karger, W. R. Price, R. R. Schell, W. L. Schiller, The top level specification of a Multics security kernel, WP-20377, MITRE Corp, Bedford MA, August 1975.
My internet service provider, Best Internet Communications, limits the number of hits and the bandwidth each web site can consume, and my site is past its limit.
You can see right when the pulled the plug on napster. At least the network is blazingly fast now.
That's funny... My girlfriend lives on the uri campus. I just talked to her on ICQ and she's using Napster right now with no problems... Maybe they're limiting the bandwidth it uses for now, but they don't seem to have completely cut access.
C'mon, you remember what a pain it was to read/post on slashdot before threaded comments were implemented, and you remember how nice it was when nested comments were later implemented (and if you need to remind yourself how inconvenient it was before, just hop on over to technocrat.net, unless Bruce has upgraded to the latest slash version)
Actually technocrat.net does have nested comments now, and it isn't running slash anyways. It runs Squishdot which is... What the hell, let's just let technocrat tell you. This is found at The Technology of TECHNOCRAT
Our web content manager software is Zope. Zope is written in Python. The weblog software that displays our articles is a Zope component called Squishdot. It looks a lot like the Slashdot software, but the software is entirely different from Slashdot and it's expected to evolve its own unique look and feel over time.
(the other problem being incompatibility with some DVD players, IIRC)
Actually DivX didn't play on normal DVD players. You had to buy a DVD/DivX player for an extra $100 and it just wasn't worth the extra money. I don't see this as being much better, but at least you don't have to pay extra for the privledge.
It may be possible, but from what I've seen most people using it are private users, not people in any way affiliated with Comet Systems Inc. My girlfriend uses it on her web page because there's a nice rose cursor that matches the roses she uses for a background. It looks pretty and that's all she cares about. Now if comet asked people using the cursors on their website to add a CGI script to collect other info I'd start being scared, but I don't think that's going to happen...
Um... Try going back to the page (www.thesync.com/geeks) and clicking on the left hand side where it says... Drumroll please... "Past Shows" Or if for some reason you can't do that check out http://www.thesync.com/geeks/archives.html
Part III Investigation of Protected Electronic Data
The spooks' charter. Here any policeman could show up with some encrypted data and an order to provide the decryption key. If you refuse you go to jail for 2 years. Usually they won't need a judicial warrant; sometimes they won't need any sort of warrant at all, just their say-so.
The problem is that if you don't actually have they key it is up to you to prove that. If you deleted it, or if you never actually had it, you're in trouble. If the authorities reckon you've got it stashed on a floppy buried in the flowerbeds at Hyde Park Corner, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.
How can you prove you don't have something? Try slapping your forehead in a manner likely to convince the judge.
The other new power here is that the authorities can order you to keep the disclosure of your key a secret. If you tell anyone at all you'll be going down for up to 5 years for "tipping off". Not only is this disasterous for information security, but it even stops you complaining about unfair treatment. Toddle off to court to demand judicial review of the order to disclose and all you'll get from the Judge is an extended stay in Her Majesty's finest accomodation because telling the judge is illegal!. There is a tame Tribunal to hear complaints and cover them up; you aren't even entitled to legal representation at it.
STAND says, poetically: How does Part III breach the Human Rights Act, let me count the ways... Unfair offences, reversal of burden of proof, defences that are logically impossible to prove, a wholly inadequate complaints procedure with no appeals, unneccesarily broad powers, potential to force you to incriminate yourself, the list goes on.
The police need something to help them to decrypt data in certain circumstances (and not in others). Part III is not it. Parliament should delete this Part and try to come up with something better when it replays the Interception of Communications Act next year. If it doesn't throw this Part out, the European Court of Human Rights will.
Sounds to me like they do have some sort of legal leg to stand on. (With the European Court of Human Rights?)
I completely agree with you. The point I was trying to make was there is a big difference between vaporware and hype (or buzz).
When I hear the word vaporware I think of Microsoft trying to scare away competition by saying "we'll have a product out that does all that and more in X months and it will integrate better with what you're using, so just sit tight a bit longer".
Whereas when I think of Transmeta I think "We're waiting to release info until we're done because we're not sure when it'll be out or if it will do everything we're expecting now and we don't want to look like fools when it doesn't work the way we said it would 2 years ago".
Hmm... who can spot the difference between those 2?:-)
But it's not vaporware. It may be very hyped, but there's a big difference. They haven't created any hype, haven't said much, haven't even said exactly what it does.
Rumors from the media do not create vaporware. Saying you're going to release a product in 6 months and taking 2 years does. To take a quote right frim the article...
What's with all the tiresome secrecy?
Ditzel shrugs it off as nothing more than common sense. "We don't like the notion of vaporware. We're just trying to say, Wait and see what we have to say."
The problem of the BSOD (one of them) is the lack of info about what exactly caused the problem (unless you read hex).
This is not exactly true. The first couple of lines can tell you alot if you care to spend a few minutes looking them up in the Microsoft knowledge base. They may not be exact (you may see half a dozen possibilities per message) but it gives you a good starting point. You should also look at the list of drivers it gives you and the problem is usually with one of the first few on the list. My laptop has BSOD'd on me twice in 3 months and both times were within the first week and caused by a bad NIC driver. If I don't put in the PCMCIA card the driver fails, but if I put the card in without plugging the cable into it the driver crashes the whole machine!
I will probably be flamed for this, but I have found NT to be _very_ stable for me as long as the hardware is stable. The key is to use quality hardware that isn't running on beta quality drivers. Most of my problems have come from either using no-brand hardware (you get what you pay for) or using the latest greatest thing with driver version 1.0.1. NT drivers don't seem to come out of the Beta phase until they've hit 2.0 or so.I am not of course speaking for the security of NT in any way, and I have seen problems like you mentioned about memory being maxed out after a while. What I am trying to say is that in 2 years of administrating a network I have seen that 99% of the instability of NT comes from beta quality drivers. In fact after tracking down all the crappy hardware and drivers on the problematic machines we've averaged less than 1 BSOD a month total for 25 computers. (I know, I know... Linux may crash less than that, but that's not to shabby for what I was given to work with;-))
There is a slashbox that does something like this. It's called "10 Hot Comments" and changes a couple times a day to have 10 of the highest rated current comments which are usually 5's with a couple 4's sometimes.
Do you have any links to getting a Toshiba Satellite working? I just got my 2060cds and I'm not quite brave enough yet to install linux until I'm sure the internal modem (an to a lesser extent the sound card) will work.
Thanks... RRogers@naisp.net
Re:Even Windows is no guarantee of a WinModem work
on
On Linux Laptops
·
· Score: 1
Hmm... That's why my modem used to CRC so much. I just thought it was a crappy modem anyways. NT4 has an option to been on error and I used to turn that on when someone would walk in the room. Combine a beep every 3-6 seconds with 20 windows open on your screen and they think you're busy and leave you alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Using tempfs to compile is an option with lunar, but we don't recomend using it. Setting your gcc options within lunar to use -pipe is a much better option.
Ok, I know everyone is probably sick of hearing rants about the moderation system, but I post so rarely, I just had to bitch about this one. How the hell does the post I'm replying to get 2 different people to mod it up as interesting. (at the moment I'm writing this it's got a Score: 4 and both of those were "Interesting")
Do the moderators take more than a glance at a post? You may be able to get through the first 4 paragraphs thinking the post is interesting or informative, but read the last 2 paragraphs, and you can tell the author was going for humor.
I think I'm beginning to remember why I never bother posting comments.....
If anything, it is internally-imposed by the great majority of the population who neither know nor care about the alternative ideas out there
This is truly where the problem is. Does anyone have any suggestions of how to help educate people other parties and such?
I was just having a discussion with a good friend 2 nights ago when she said "When I registered to vote I registered as an independent because I wasn't sure if I agreed with the democrats or republicans more, but after seeing some of the stuff Gore has said I've decided to become a republican."
This came from someone who I know doesn't side with alot of the republican beliefs either. I tried telling her to check out other parties and she said she would, but it seemed more like she was just humoring me. We're just stuck in a self fullfulling situation of "The smaller parties won't ever win, so I won't vote for them" Of course they won't if people keep sticking with that type of opinion!
HOWEVER, Linux is missing (or semi-missing) several pieces to make it an excellent gaming platform: easy to install/configure high-end graphics and, of course, DVD.
:-)
Why do you need to configure on your gaming platform? What is there to install? As for configuration, anything they may need to let you configure they can give you a nice simple menu for. My grandmother just bought a TiVo (which also runs linux) and had it set up and working in half an hour! This coming from someone who doesn't understand a thing about her computer. I would hope a gaming console would abstract 99.9% of what's underneath the hood from the user in the same way.
As for high-end graphics, from what I've seen it does high end graphics just as well as Windows, but I'm no expert, so I'll just avoid this one...
And last, DVD. Linux can read from DVD's and can even play the video from them, the only problem right now is getting around CSS (their encryption/scrambling system) Other than that DVD's are just a huge CD, and manufacturers have been putting games on CD's for years. This should be no different
Will there be a contingent of ~20 people running into the Auditoruim to try and claim first seat?
At the Geek Pride Fest back in April in Boston there was one guy who looked about 16-17 who jumped up holding a large posterboard sign that said "First Post" when CmdrTaco got up on stage. CmdrTaco said "hold on a minute, I'm prepared for this", ran offstage and grabbed something out of a duffel bag and handed it to the kid. It was a box of grits (not hot unfortunately...) and what did this kid do? Poured them down his pants right there in front of everyone! I was sitting right behind him, and for the next hour he was fidgeting and trying to get these grits out of his pants.
At least there weren't any petrified Natalie Portman's...
Update: 09/11 05:12 PM by C: Have tested AIM connectivity with Gaim v0.9.20 and Everybuddy 0.1.4 with no problems. Sorry for the scare.
Just because you can connect doesn't mean they aren't trying to stop those clients. If you look at the message that was quoted in the story description it seems to imply that the person connected and was later disconnected.
AOL IMer Client: Gaim CVS Version. 09:24:11 AOL Instant Messenger: You have been disconnected from the AOL Instant Message Service (SM) for accessing the AOL network using unauthorized software.
I've been disconnected a few times in the last couple days when I've been using Gaim. In fact 2 days ago I was chatting with another friend who was also using Gaim, and both of us got disconnected at the same time, but the other friends we were chatting with using the official AOL versions on Windows didn't have any problems. Coincidence? I think not. I think they're checking at random intervals instead of as you connect.
Is it just me or does that site crash Netscape under Linux? Every time I try to load the page... Kaboom!
I was just about to mention that. You have to turn off Java/JavaScript (I turned them both off so I don't know which one fixed it)
This is actually the first page I've ever been to that crashed Netscape. I've had it lock up before, but never just die.
Does anyone have any more info on the Netgear RT311? I'd been looking at the Linksys but the Netgear looks to be about $50 cheaper. I just can't find anything that lists the number of ports. Even the PDF spec file on the page linked in the previous post doesn't say how many ports there are. I know the Linksys has 4 ports.
I seem to have no problem with it. I've got a Y splitter plugged into the PS/2 port, and a keyboard and mouse plugged into the splitter. Just to prove that both keyboards work I'm typing this with one hand on the internal keyboard and the other on an external. In fact I can hold shift on the external, hit a letter on the internal, and it comes up capitalized. Doesn't seem to work the other way around for some reason... Must be something handled diferently with shift on the internal.
What the hell, I'll respond to myself. Seeing how the site is probably permanently down (at least till his next billing cycle) I'll cut and paste here. There were 2 diagrams on the site, but you should be able to understand without them.
Tom Van Vleck
About 1976, I was explaining Multics security to a colleague at Honeywell. (This was before it got the B2 rating, but the mandatory access control mechanism was present.) I explained the difference between storage channels and timing channels, and said that timing channels weren't weren't important because they were so slow, noisy, and easily clogged, that you couldn't send a signal effectively.
My friend, Bob Mullen, astounded me a few days later by showing me two processes in the terminal room. You could type into one and the other would type out the same phrase a few seconds later. The processes were communicating at teletype speed by causing page faults and observing how long they took. The sender process read or didn't read certain pages of a public library file. The receiver process read the pages and determined whether they were already in core by seeing if the read took a long or short real time. The processes were running on a large Multics utility installation at MIT under average load; occasionally the primitive coding scheme used would lose sync and the receiver would type an X instead of the letter sent. If you typed in "trojan horse," the other process would type "trojan horse" a little later, with occasional X's sprinkled in the output.
Bob pointed out that noise in the channel was irrelevant to the bandwidth (Shannon's Law). Suitable coding schemes could get comparable signalling rates over many different resource types, despite countermeasures by the OS: besides page faulting, one could signal via CPU demand, segment activation, disk cache loading, or other means.
When I thought about this I realized that any dynamically shared resource is a channel. If a process sees any different result due to another process's operation, there is a channel between them. If a resource is shared between two processes, such that one process might wait or not depending on the other's action, then the wait can be observed and there is a timing channel.
Closing the channel Bob demonstrated would be difficult. The virtual memory machinery would have to do extra bookkeeping and extra page reads. To close the CPU demand channel, the scheduler would have to preallocate time slots to higher levels, and idle instead of making unneeded CPU time available to lower levels.
Bob and I did not compute the bandwidth of the page fault channel. It was about as fast as electronic mail for short messages. A spy could create a Trojan Horse program that communicated with his receiver process, and if executed by a user of another classification, the program could send messages via timing channels despite the star-property controls on data.
The rules against writing down were designed to keep Trojan Horse programs from sending data to lower levels, by ensuring that illegal actions would fault. In this case, the sender is doing something legal, looking at data he's allowed to, consuming resources or not, and so on. The receiver is doing something legal too, for example looking at pages and reading the clock. Forbidding repeated clock reading or returning fake clock values would restrict program semantics and introduce complexity.
I believe we need a mechanism complementary to the PERMISSION mechanism, called a CERTIFICATION mechanism. This controls the right to Execute software, while permission controls the Read and Write flags. A user classified Secret is not allowed to execute, at Secret level, a program certified only to Unclassified. Programs would only be certified to a given level after examination to ensure they contained no Trojan Horses. This kind of permission bit handling is easy to implement, and if the site only certifies benign programs, all works perfectly.
How do we examine programs to make sure they have no Trojan Horses? The same way we examine kernels to make sure they don't. Examining application code to ensure it doesn't signal information illegally should be easier than the work we have to do on a kernel.
Do we need to forbid write down for storage, if we allow write down via timing channels? It's inconsistent to forbid some write down paths and allow others. The main reason for preventing write down is not to stop deliberate declassification (a spy can always memorize a secret and type it into an unclassified file), it's to protect users from Trojan Horse programs leaking information. The certification approach solves this problem adifferent way, by providing a way to prevent execution of Trojan Horse programs.
Who should be allowed to certify a program to a given level? I think anyone who can create a program to execute at level X should be able to take a lower level program and certify it to level X. We can't stop a malicious user from creating a transmitter program, unless we forbid all program creation at level X. Other policies are possible; a site could centralize all program certification as a security officer responsibility. In any case, the OS should audit every certification and store the identity of the certifier as a file attribute.
[1] Honeywell, Multics Security Administration manual ####.
[2] Bell, D. E. and L. J. LaPadula, Computer Security Model: Unified Exposition and Multics Interpretation, ESD-TR-75-306, Hanscom AFB, MA, 1975 (also available as DTIC AD-A023588).
[3] Bell, D. E., and L. J. LaPadula, Secure Computer Systems: Unified Exposition and Multics Interpretation, Mitre Technical Report MTR-2997, rev 2, March 1976.
[4] Biba, K. J., S. R. Ames, Jr., E. L. Burke, P. A. Karger, W. R. Price, R. R. Schell, W. L. Schiller, The top level specification of a Multics security kernel, WP-20377, MITRE Corp, Bedford MA, August 1975.
How's that for slashdoting...
Sorry, temporarily closed
My internet service provider, Best Internet Communications, limits the number of hits and the bandwidth each web site can consume, and my site is past its limit.
http://www.multicians.org:80/limit.html
How so? Most laptops I see now (like the one I'm typing this messag on) have a PS/2 port.
Take a look at http://www.uri.edu/mrtg/jvnc.html
You can see right when the pulled the plug on napster. At least the network is blazingly fast now.
That's funny... My girlfriend lives on the uri campus. I just talked to her on ICQ and she's using Napster right now with no problems... Maybe they're limiting the bandwidth it uses for now, but they don't seem to have completely cut access.
C'mon, you remember what a pain it was to read/post on slashdot before threaded comments were implemented, and you remember how nice it was when nested comments were later implemented (and if you need to remind yourself how inconvenient it was before, just hop on over to technocrat.net, unless Bruce has upgraded to the latest slash version)
Actually technocrat.net does have nested comments now, and it isn't running slash anyways. It runs Squishdot which is... What the hell, let's just let technocrat tell you. This is found at The Technology of TECHNOCRAT
Our web content manager software is Zope. Zope is written in Python. The weblog software that displays our articles is a Zope component called Squishdot. It looks a lot like the Slashdot software, but the software is entirely different from Slashdot and it's expected to evolve its own unique look and feel over time.
(the other problem being incompatibility with some DVD players, IIRC)
Actually DivX didn't play on normal DVD players. You had to buy a DVD/DivX player for an extra $100 and it just wasn't worth the extra money. I don't see this as being much better, but at least you don't have to pay extra for the privledge.
It may be possible, but from what I've seen most people using it are private users, not people in any way affiliated with Comet Systems Inc. My girlfriend uses it on her web page because there's a nice rose cursor that matches the roses she uses for a background. It looks pretty and that's all she cares about. Now if comet asked people using the cursors on their website to add a CGI script to collect other info I'd start being scared, but I don't think that's going to happen...
Aint it disgusting... It looks like they did that for the Your Rights Online section, kinda like changing the green to gray for Ask Slashdot.
Um... Try going back to the page (www.thesync.com/geeks) and clicking on the left hand side where it says ... Drumroll please... "Past Shows" Or if for some reason you can't do that check out http://www.thesync.com/geeks/archives.html
IANAL and I know absolutely nothing about British, European or Internation law, but a little searching turned up this. http://www.stand.org.uk/index-update2. php3#top
Part III Investigation of Protected Electronic Data
The spooks' charter. Here any policeman could show up with some encrypted data and an order to provide the decryption key. If you refuse you go to jail for 2 years. Usually they won't need a judicial warrant; sometimes they won't need any sort of warrant at all, just their say-so.
The problem is that if you don't actually have they key it is up to you to prove that. If you deleted it, or if you never actually had it, you're in trouble. If the authorities reckon you've got it stashed on a floppy buried in the flowerbeds at Hyde Park Corner, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.
How can you prove you don't have something? Try slapping your forehead in a manner likely to convince the judge.
The other new power here is that the authorities can order you to keep the disclosure of your key a secret. If you tell anyone at all you'll be going down for up to 5 years for "tipping off". Not only is this disasterous for information security, but it even stops you complaining about unfair treatment. Toddle off to court to demand judicial review of the order to disclose and all you'll get from the Judge is an extended stay in Her Majesty's finest accomodation because telling the judge is illegal!. There is a tame Tribunal to hear complaints and cover them up; you aren't even entitled to legal representation at it.
STAND says, poetically: How does Part III breach the Human Rights Act, let me count the ways... Unfair offences, reversal of burden of proof, defences that are logically impossible to prove, a wholly inadequate complaints procedure with no appeals, unneccesarily broad powers, potential to force you to incriminate yourself, the list goes on.
The police need something to help them to decrypt data in certain circumstances (and not in others). Part III is not it. Parliament should delete this Part and try to come up with something better when it replays the Interception of Communications Act next year. If it doesn't throw this Part out, the European Court of Human Rights will.
Sounds to me like they do have some sort of legal leg to stand on. (With the European Court of Human Rights?)
I completely agree with you. The point I was trying to make was there is a big difference between vaporware and hype (or buzz).
:-)
When I hear the word vaporware I think of Microsoft trying to scare away competition by saying "we'll have a product out that does all that and more in X months and it will integrate better with what you're using, so just sit tight a bit longer".
Whereas when I think of Transmeta I think "We're waiting to release info until we're done because we're not sure when it'll be out or if it will do everything we're expecting now and we don't want to look like fools when it doesn't work the way we said it would 2 years ago".
Hmm... who can spot the difference between those 2?
But it's not vaporware. It may be very hyped, but there's a big difference. They haven't created any hype, haven't said much, haven't even said exactly what it does.
Rumors from the media do not create vaporware. Saying you're going to release a product in 6 months and taking 2 years does. To take a quote right frim the article...
What's with all the tiresome secrecy?
Ditzel shrugs it off as nothing more than common sense. "We don't like the notion of vaporware. We're just trying to say, Wait and see what we have to say."
The problem of the BSOD (one of them) is the lack of info about what exactly caused the problem (unless you read hex).
;-))
This is not exactly true. The first couple of lines can tell you alot if you care to spend a few minutes looking them up in the Microsoft knowledge base. They may not be exact (you may see half a dozen possibilities per message) but it gives you a good starting point. You should also look at the list of drivers it gives you and the problem is usually with one of the first few on the list. My laptop has BSOD'd on me twice in 3 months and both times were within the first week and caused by a bad NIC driver. If I don't put in the PCMCIA card the driver fails, but if I put the card in without plugging the cable into it the driver crashes the whole machine!
I will probably be flamed for this, but I have found NT to be _very_ stable for me as long as the hardware is stable. The key is to use quality hardware that isn't running on beta quality drivers. Most of my problems have come from either using no-brand hardware (you get what you pay for) or using the latest greatest thing with driver version 1.0.1. NT drivers don't seem to come out of the Beta phase until they've hit 2.0 or so.I am not of course speaking for the security of NT in any way, and I have seen problems like you mentioned about memory being maxed out after a while. What I am trying to say is that in 2 years of administrating a network I have seen that 99% of the instability of NT comes from beta quality drivers. In fact after tracking down all the crappy hardware and drivers on the problematic machines we've averaged less than 1 BSOD a month total for 25 computers. (I know, I know... Linux may crash less than that, but that's not to shabby for what I was given to work with
There is a slashbox that does something like this. It's called "10 Hot Comments" and changes a couple times a day to have 10 of the highest rated current comments which are usually 5's with a couple 4's sometimes.
Do you have any links to getting a Toshiba Satellite working? I just got my 2060cds and I'm not quite brave enough yet to install linux until I'm sure the internal modem (an to a lesser extent the sound card) will work.
Thanks... RRogers@naisp.net
Hmm... That's why my modem used to CRC so much. I just thought it was a crappy modem anyways. NT4 has an option to been on error and I used to turn that on when someone would walk in the room. Combine a beep every 3-6 seconds with 20 windows open on your screen and they think you're busy and leave you alone.