Previously we reported that SCO was scraping the bottom of the barrel. We must now print a retraction:
It appears as though SCO is in fact not scraping the bottom of the barrel...any longer. They have broken through the bottom and are working themselves into a barrel sized pit. The barrel was located near an outhouse, and so now you can see where they are coming up with all this...stuff.
Chances re good they are simply checking the results of a pop-up call, and if the pop-up doesn't exist they create or display a layer (DHTML, CSS, whatever) over the content. Chances are it'll move to attract attention, and either close in a short period of time or allow you to click a link/button to close it.
That's fine by me. If I am annoyed I can simply close the browser window or tab that contains it and it will go away as well. Pop-up ads don't go away when the window that called them disappears, and that is the primary reason for using a pop up ad.
The problem with making a fix for this issue is that it's a simple arms race. The discussion was long and hard on bugzilla about how to overcome websites that simply diaplayed a message stating that if the pop-ups didn't work they weren't going to display the content.
The ultimate decision was to let it alone. People will walk away from those sites naturally - adding yet another layer of filtering, or one of many other solutions simply slows the browser and doesn't actually provide much return on investment for the average user.
In this case I will stop going to those sites that annoy me. Others will not, and it may be that layers will be the advertising choice. But advertisers have to decide whether they want an ad that is always on, but off to the side/top/bottom/whatever, or whether they want to bi in the face of the viewer for a moment while they search for the button to close the ad. There are pros and cons to each method, but I suspect that most people don't pay any more attention to the ad than is necessary to close it.
Content providers like Salon have the right idea, IMHO, they openly say they exist because of ads, and you can choose to view ads for free content for a day, or buy a subscription. They don't hide the content behind a moving ad, or make you jump through more than one ad.
Of course, now that I think about the matter further, I'm more concerned about the spoofing aspects of it than anything else. Chances are good it simply sends a simple formatted ethernet packet (not IP) every so often. Probably doesn't even use Keeloq or similar cryptographic functionality.
So someone could, for instance, listen to the broadcast, set up their own cf card/microcontroller combo, cover the kid's arm with tin foil and walk out of the playland with them.
The parents are thinking the kid is still inside the building, but in the end the park would be just as liable as the idiot parents who trust the technology more than their own good sense.
Teenagers would just resent the technology. So what else good is this for, except a day care setting where each kid is 'checked in' and 'checked out'?
Neat, nifty, cool, but socially not good for Americans. Another culture might find it quite acceptable.
My first thought was, "What, a CF card on each kid with a little microcontroller where you have to cha[r|n]ge the batteries every day?"
Then I looked at the website for the tags - 5 years worth of service, regular MAC address, only transmits occasionally, never receives.
Way geeky, I think. I'd like to know what kind of 802.11 packet they're transmitting!
Then I read the comments. Are all you guys privacy geeks, or what? What happened to all the "Cool technology! How'd they do that? etc" comments, consequences be darned (as in fixing holes in socks)
First, you sit down and decide what you really want to work on. Try and vet out some of your itches you've been wanting to scratch - working on the kernel of an OS, doing I/O for cool hardware, learning the ins and outs of HIPAA, pissing of the RIAA. Whatever.
Next, make a list of employment opportunities you have a good chance of obtaining. Don't be afraid to look outside the box. There are lots of companies who want to hire you, but have poorly worded want ads. The ad "Looking for filing clerk" is just crying out for some data shuffling, web based interfacing, database sorting application that your wizardly skills are well suited for.
Now make a matrix with rows representing aspects of a job you'd like, and a column for each job. Score those that you know now, and call ahead (random disgruntled employees are great resources) for those that aren't specified on the web or in the ad. Don't forget to include things like 401K, health care, smoking area, bonuses, severance, location and relocation, etc.
Take a good look at it and either come up with a formula to calculate a company's 'coolness' factor or just eyeball it and give each a score.
Now, and this is the critical part, throw it in the trash, remind yourself what your budget is, and have a good laugh. Maybe joke with your coworker about it, "I'm such a geek, I not only thought I could get a job with another company that's better than this one, I actually created a spreadsheet! HAH!" Then nervously look around to see if the boss was listening before going back to moving the mouse whenever you hear footsteps.
Seriously, though, the best jobs I've had were based solely on the supervisor I had. The only equations I can count on are:
Any project, bad boss --> painful work.
Any project, good boss --> enjoyable work.
The difference, I've found, is that a good boss stands back and lets me create. The act of creation is what's important to me. A good boss not only knows that there's several ways of accomplishing something, they won't step into the process and become the creative entity - they allow you to create and implement.
Of course, this won't apply if you are a soulless code monkey.
The best advice I can give after making sure the job meets your basic needs (stretches you a bit, is in an area you are familair with or would like to become familiar, meets financial, health, retirement, etc needs) is to interview directly with the person who will be surpervising you and then see if you can chat with 2-4 people who you'll be working with or who work for your possible boss.
This is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Many chipmakers have offered microcontrollers and microprocessors with FPGA on chip. Often it is an extension of the I/O built into the processor, so it's not much different than an external FPGA on the processor bus. Please note that this is NOT like processors that run on the FPGA itself - these are seperate from the FPGA portion of the chip.
Stretch is different in a few ways:
It pulls the FPGA closer to the core, so that it can be utilized almost as part of the pipeline. I say almost because of the following statement in the article: Inside the chip, the ISEF is coupled to the rest of the circuit by 128-bit buses and has 32 128-bit registers. It runs in parallel with other areas of the processor, effectively becoming a fully reconfigurable co-processor, and can be reprogrammed for new instructions at any time during operation.
So it's still fairly seperate from the processor core.
But the core itself is high performance (fast clock, a little faster than the average FPGA) and it has a very fast memory bus (again faster than the average FPGA)
The downsides are likely to be:
1) Power cost and dissipation. Since it's a slow clock, the dissipation probably won't be bad, but it's not going into a small portable machine.
2) Time to reconfigure. This isn't meant to be a general processor with task switching. Context and task switching is going to be expensive and if you plan on running two concurrent tasks which both require special instructions the entire processor will likely perform, on average, much worse than it would without the reconfigurable portion. Unless, of course, the processes were created to use the same set of special instructions so the context switch isn't more expesnsive than it is for today's processors.
So they are targetting it correctly, it seems. Specialized areas with, in general, only one task/program running at a time. Multimedia players, for example, would be great here. A digital recorder/player would work well if both the encoding and decoding portions of the code were compiled so the special instructions created wouldn't have to be changed for either application to allow playback while recording.
'they' can't tell you what you can and can't do with their products after you purchase them.
And I suspect what many people are missing is that 'they' can tell you what you are allowed to do with copies of their copyright works.
'They' also claim that the only way they can offer these copies of these works for such a low price is by restricting users. You can't re-sell the copy, this is a license to use the copy for a single purpose for a single user, and when the user dies the license dies with them. When I say intended, I simply mean within the law - broadcasting a movie purchased for home use is illegal, for instance. Showing it to a group inside your home is fine. This is a different area of copyright law.
However, and this is the sticking point - the gaping hole in the copyright law - many claim that they should be able to purchase the work and then use it for its intended purpose and follow all rights and rules pertaining to the license except the one telling them how they use it for its intended purpose. This is the vehicle they use to take the work and actually view/listen/read/etc
So a blind person may employ a book reader (be it a person, computer, etc) to read a book, which is a copyrighted work. This is called fair use. Not fully applicable, though, as the book seller doesn't have a shrink wrap license when the item is sold.
The DVD is a shade of gray away. Linux users wanted to be able to view their DVDs on Linux. They created software that allowed them to do so. As in the book example, there is no license applied when the DVD is opened or purchased. However, a cheap dvd player/tv combo is under $100. DVD makers can easily make the argument that basic DVD playing requies a minimum investement in hardware, and therefore there is no compelling need to enable Linux DVD playing, nor is there a need to permit this kind of fair use. If they want to watch DVDs, then they should have no reason to break the encryption - it's cheap to do so using completely legal methods.
In this case, however, there's a license. The songs are cheap. But even more so than with DVDs, there is no 'cheap' solution allowing customers to listen to legally purchased iTunes tracks. They must have a computer compatable with the system, and if they want portable tunes they have to have an ipod. In this case all Aple could claim against this utility is that the minimum cost of listening to their product is $500, and that their license bind customers to this level of entry into the playing field.
So what does 'fair use' mean? Does it mean that the customer has the power to use any means they choose to use the copyrighted work for its intended use, be it a computer, pen and paper decryption, loading it on another portable player, etc? Or does it mean that as long as the distributer of the copyright provides reasonable means to enjoy the work then the distributer can legitimately restrict users from using their work in a more flexible way? If so, what is reasonable? Can that be based on convenience, cost, accesability, etc? This is the area where all these 'de' programs are aiming. The more we get, the better defined this area will become - which is a good thing.
Set up a QoS router and route all your bulk (high latency acceptable) traffic through your neighbors router. Leave your own connection (wired, I hope) for low latency and burst transfers (gaming, browsing, etc).
Then, when your neighbor asks, just say, "Oh yeah, we're sharing alright. I've set everything up."
Unfortunately the ceremony was marred by an apparent 'wardrobe malfuntion' in the Diebold voting system during the final tally. During the brief time the code was naked many were shocked and offended by what they saw. One sobbing professor commented, "I took my students to see an innocent american tradition, only to have to explain to them afterwards what an 'access database' was, and how easy it was to change their votes. I'm quite certian the incident scarred them."
Diebold denied having planned this event, while the EFF solemnly vowed to prohibit Diebold from hosting any future votes. Google indicated that this was the most replayed cache during the ceremony.
The problem with this is that the thugs can simply threaten to beat you in one of two cases:
1) You didn't get a receipt or
2) Your voting didn't please them
By allowing people the opportunity to check on themselves, you are also allowing others to check on them.
The only way to provide this kind of check and balance is to allow people to observe their paper ballot inside the voting place, but not allow them to leave with it.
This requires that the voting machines and operators are secure.
But then, this has always been the case. We've always relied on the operators and the machines we've used. This isn't as new a problem as you might think. The only reason people are up in arms is that the machine hides so much of the process that it's difficult, if not impossible, to verify. This is why so many people are pushing for voter receipts that the voter does not leave with. The receipts are collected, and if an audit is needed then the receipts are what gets counted since the voter ostensibly checked the receipt after voting.
The problem with this is that you get very large receipts since they have to be human readable.
But these are not insurmountable problems, and I'm quite certian that after another 12 years we'll be happy with our machines and the process. As long as we can audit the machines, any and all offenses can be punished accordingly when caught, just as they are now.
Besides, voting was never meant to be fool-proof. It's simply the best way that is currently practical to run a republic. Eventually this will change.
I can only hope that you had the presence of mind to store the data in a seperate access database, and only linked it to the report and query database file.
Of course, from the sound of it you would have been better off refactoring the data into several other tables, or at least creating a table to hold the x axis of the cross tab so your query didn't have to search the entire large table more than once per query.
Unfortunately my numbers for the 1024 bit key are not correct. It would take them significantly longer than a year to break a 1024 bit key. The 512 key (12 times a day) is still pretty substantial, though - used widely in hardware crypto systems.
See Bulletin #13 from RSA Labs for a decent machine-cost analysis of breaking larger keys.
"There, I said it, can you please put the gun away now?":-)
Assuming those numbers are correct, and assuming they use several year old algorithms:
Google can break an RSA-512 key. 12 times a day.
It would take them 8 months to break an RSA-1024 key.
Of course this glosses over some of the technical difficulties (such as memory bandwidth, RAM, etc) but the interesting thing is that if they directed their gaze towards a problem of for even an hour, they could solve some truly monumental problems.
But, according to Slashdot, Google is good today, not evil, so we can expect them not to use their power for bad.
It's hard for me to believe that RAID causes more downtime than single drive setups, unless you have a really bad raid system and a really good backup system.
The only time RAID should ever be down, is during initial setup. Thereafter you should replace bad drives while it's running and you should never have cause to shut it down due to a RAID issue.
If you are experiencing RAID hardware problems then take a good look into these areas:
RAID Hardware --> Are you using cheap stuff? It honestly isn't worth it. Perhaps you're just discovering the 'real' value of 'cheap' hardware.
RAID Software --> If you're using unsupported drivers (ie, vendor doesn't supply or support them) then ditch the hardware and get hardware with supported drivers - make sure they support them on your configuration. You've already proven that you can't support them yourself.
System Hardware --> If the system is generally cheap (cheap power, bad airflow, cheap components, etc) then you simply can't expect the RAID card to work 24/7.
Server Room --> Make certian your server room can handle the power and ventilation needs of the servers. This should go without saying, but all too often it is the problem.
The reason people go with cheap components is the lower initial cost. They only work for a few thousand hours of heavy operation. You must get server rated components if you want them to operate for more than a year or two. There really is a difference.
Lastly, I use 20+ Promise FastTrack ATA RAID cards in 20+ Novell networks. I use cheap components, and they work in harsh conditions. They are not set up for hot-swap, as that's not a need in this situation. I have to replace the cheap hardware every 2-4 years, powersupplies every year, hard drives every 2-3 years. The only time the RAID cards have gone bad is when a power supply failure (usually due to a power outage/surge/brownout) fries the motherboard and usually most of the components in the case.
I have never had a failure where both HDs completely failed simultaneously, though usually when the rest of the computer goes I replace the whole thing and get the data off one of the old hard drives. This is not an advertisement for Promise. They simply are the only one's with supported Novell 3.12 drivers.:-) Soon to go away...:-(
I'd be surprised if you've covered all these bases and are still having problems.
That being said, does the nature of the World Wide Web in fact give sites like Wonkette, Drudge, or even Slashdot a free pass on accuracy if it means the difference between getting the scoop or not?"
No, human nature gives these sites free pass to print exciting, breaking (though not fully or even partially accurate) news. People in general want to be caught up in the excitement of *something*. They like to think they have an inside track, or some source of information that their fellow man does not have. It's a source of pride to them.
These sites simply cater to this human desire. They get started because they, typical humans that they are, feel they have some sort of inside track and they want to show off. Soon enough they attract a large enough audience to see dollar signs and attract other 'anonymous sources' who are more than happy to pretend they have an even deeper inside track or understanding of a particular event.
At that point they have no where to go but down, because their customers expect greater and deeper stories to get their 'fix'. They have a very strong urge to fulfill that need, but it can't be fulfilled forever unless you're willing to extrapolate and fill out tenuous information.
Some sites keep it under control a little bit, but few try to hide the fact that they don't really care. Slashdot practically trumpets this fact. They're more than happy to post an 'update', especially since it really won't hurt their reputation. By the time it's up, half their readers don't see it.
It's not necessarily a news site problem - it's a human condition. Whether this condition is a problem depends on how well you can capitalize off it.
The pictures showed both a keyed version with a serial number, and a 4 digit roller lock (didn't see a serial, but I imagine there is one)
The locks are as easy to pick, I imagine, as previous luggage locks.
The four digit combination only has 10k combinations. It would take awhile, but it's possible to get all the serial numbers matched up to 4 digit codes. Although they, hopefully, used a longer serial and like a hash function there will be many serial numbers that go to 4 digit codes so you'd have to create a much larger table, or discover the hash/encryption method and key.
Slashdot Mirror
Previously we reported that SCO was scraping the bottom of the barrel. We must now print a retraction:
It appears as though SCO is in fact not scraping the bottom of the barrel...any longer. They have broken through the bottom and are working themselves into a barrel sized pit. The barrel was located near an outhouse, and so now you can see where they are coming up with all this...stuff.
-Adam
Chances re good they are simply checking the results of a pop-up call, and if the pop-up doesn't exist they create or display a layer (DHTML, CSS, whatever) over the content. Chances are it'll move to attract attention, and either close in a short period of time or allow you to click a link/button to close it.
That's fine by me. If I am annoyed I can simply close the browser window or tab that contains it and it will go away as well. Pop-up ads don't go away when the window that called them disappears, and that is the primary reason for using a pop up ad.
The problem with making a fix for this issue is that it's a simple arms race. The discussion was long and hard on bugzilla about how to overcome websites that simply diaplayed a message stating that if the pop-ups didn't work they weren't going to display the content.
The ultimate decision was to let it alone. People will walk away from those sites naturally - adding yet another layer of filtering, or one of many other solutions simply slows the browser and doesn't actually provide much return on investment for the average user.
In this case I will stop going to those sites that annoy me. Others will not, and it may be that layers will be the advertising choice. But advertisers have to decide whether they want an ad that is always on, but off to the side/top/bottom/whatever, or whether they want to bi in the face of the viewer for a moment while they search for the button to close the ad. There are pros and cons to each method, but I suspect that most people don't pay any more attention to the ad than is necessary to close it.
Content providers like Salon have the right idea, IMHO, they openly say they exist because of ads, and you can choose to view ads for free content for a day, or buy a subscription. They don't hide the content behind a moving ad, or make you jump through more than one ad.
It'll all even out over time through attrition.
-Adam
Of course, now that I think about the matter further, I'm more concerned about the spoofing aspects of it than anything else. Chances are good it simply sends a simple formatted ethernet packet (not IP) every so often. Probably doesn't even use Keeloq or similar cryptographic functionality.
So someone could, for instance, listen to the broadcast, set up their own cf card/microcontroller combo, cover the kid's arm with tin foil and walk out of the playland with them.
The parents are thinking the kid is still inside the building, but in the end the park would be just as liable as the idiot parents who trust the technology more than their own good sense.
Teenagers would just resent the technology. So what else good is this for, except a day care setting where each kid is 'checked in' and 'checked out'?
Neat, nifty, cool, but socially not good for Americans. Another culture might find it quite acceptable.
-Adam
My first thought was, "What, a CF card on each kid with a little microcontroller where you have to cha[r|n]ge the batteries every day?"
Then I looked at the website for the tags - 5 years worth of service, regular MAC address, only transmits occasionally, never receives.
Way geeky, I think. I'd like to know what kind of 802.11 packet they're transmitting!
Then I read the comments. Are all you guys privacy geeks, or what? What happened to all the "Cool technology! How'd they do that? etc" comments, consequences be darned (as in fixing holes in socks)
Ah well. So much for *real* geeks.
-Adam
It's not necessary to put the word "vet" in quotation marks.
I'm pretty sure he means to neuter (or spay) the company he joins, so 'vet' is properly quoted since he is using its slang meaning.
-Adam
First, you sit down and decide what you really want to work on. Try and vet out some of your itches you've been wanting to scratch - working on the kernel of an OS, doing I/O for cool hardware, learning the ins and outs of HIPAA, pissing of the RIAA. Whatever.
Next, make a list of employment opportunities you have a good chance of obtaining. Don't be afraid to look outside the box. There are lots of companies who want to hire you, but have poorly worded want ads. The ad "Looking for filing clerk" is just crying out for some data shuffling, web based interfacing, database sorting application that your wizardly skills are well suited for.
Now make a matrix with rows representing aspects of a job you'd like, and a column for each job. Score those that you know now, and call ahead (random disgruntled employees are great resources) for those that aren't specified on the web or in the ad. Don't forget to include things like 401K, health care, smoking area, bonuses, severance, location and relocation, etc.
Take a good look at it and either come up with a formula to calculate a company's 'coolness' factor or just eyeball it and give each a score.
Now, and this is the critical part, throw it in the trash, remind yourself what your budget is, and have a good laugh. Maybe joke with your coworker about it, "I'm such a geek, I not only thought I could get a job with another company that's better than this one, I actually created a spreadsheet! HAH!" Then nervously look around to see if the boss was listening before going back to moving the mouse whenever you hear footsteps.
Seriously, though, the best jobs I've had were based solely on the supervisor I had. The only equations I can count on are:
Any project, bad boss --> painful work.
Any project, good boss --> enjoyable work.
The difference, I've found, is that a good boss stands back and lets me create. The act of creation is what's important to me. A good boss not only knows that there's several ways of accomplishing something, they won't step into the process and become the creative entity - they allow you to create and implement.
Of course, this won't apply if you are a soulless code monkey.
The best advice I can give after making sure the job meets your basic needs (stretches you a bit, is in an area you are familair with or would like to become familiar, meets financial, health, retirement, etc needs) is to interview directly with the person who will be surpervising you and then see if you can chat with 2-4 people who you'll be working with or who work for your possible boss.
Good luck!
-Adam
This is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Many chipmakers have offered microcontrollers and microprocessors with FPGA on chip. Often it is an extension of the I/O built into the processor, so it's not much different than an external FPGA on the processor bus. Please note that this is NOT like processors that run on the FPGA itself - these are seperate from the FPGA portion of the chip.
Stretch is different in a few ways:
It pulls the FPGA closer to the core, so that it can be utilized almost as part of the pipeline. I say almost because of the following statement in the article:
Inside the chip, the ISEF is coupled to the rest of the circuit by 128-bit buses and has 32 128-bit registers. It runs in parallel with other areas of the processor, effectively becoming a fully reconfigurable co-processor, and can be reprogrammed for new instructions at any time during operation.
So it's still fairly seperate from the processor core.
But the core itself is high performance (fast clock, a little faster than the average FPGA) and it has a very fast memory bus (again faster than the average FPGA)
The downsides are likely to be:
1) Power cost and dissipation. Since it's a slow clock, the dissipation probably won't be bad, but it's not going into a small portable machine.
2) Time to reconfigure. This isn't meant to be a general processor with task switching. Context and task switching is going to be expensive and if you plan on running two concurrent tasks which both require special instructions the entire processor will likely perform, on average, much worse than it would without the reconfigurable portion. Unless, of course, the processes were created to use the same set of special instructions so the context switch isn't more expesnsive than it is for today's processors.
So they are targetting it correctly, it seems. Specialized areas with, in general, only one task/program running at a time. Multimedia players, for example, would be great here. A digital recorder/player would work well if both the encoding and decoding portions of the code were compiled so the special instructions created wouldn't have to be changed for either application to allow playback while recording.
-Adam
Doesn't it know that the seagull is going to eat him?
"If you destroy me, I will only become more powerful!"
-Adam
'they' can't tell you what you can and can't do with their products after you purchase them.
And I suspect what many people are missing is that 'they' can tell you what you are allowed to do with copies of their copyright works.
'They' also claim that the only way they can offer these copies of these works for such a low price is by restricting users. You can't re-sell the copy, this is a license to use the copy for a single purpose for a single user, and when the user dies the license dies with them. When I say intended, I simply mean within the law - broadcasting a movie purchased for home use is illegal, for instance. Showing it to a group inside your home is fine. This is a different area of copyright law.
However, and this is the sticking point - the gaping hole in the copyright law - many claim that they should be able to purchase the work and then use it for its intended purpose and follow all rights and rules pertaining to the license except the one telling them how they use it for its intended purpose. This is the vehicle they use to take the work and actually view/listen/read/etc
So a blind person may employ a book reader (be it a person, computer, etc) to read a book, which is a copyrighted work. This is called fair use. Not fully applicable, though, as the book seller doesn't have a shrink wrap license when the item is sold.
The DVD is a shade of gray away. Linux users wanted to be able to view their DVDs on Linux. They created software that allowed them to do so. As in the book example, there is no license applied when the DVD is opened or purchased. However, a cheap dvd player/tv combo is under $100. DVD makers can easily make the argument that basic DVD playing requies a minimum investement in hardware, and therefore there is no compelling need to enable Linux DVD playing, nor is there a need to permit this kind of fair use. If they want to watch DVDs, then they should have no reason to break the encryption - it's cheap to do so using completely legal methods.
In this case, however, there's a license. The songs are cheap. But even more so than with DVDs, there is no 'cheap' solution allowing customers to listen to legally purchased iTunes tracks. They must have a computer compatable with the system, and if they want portable tunes they have to have an ipod. In this case all Aple could claim against this utility is that the minimum cost of listening to their product is $500, and that their license bind customers to this level of entry into the playing field.
So what does 'fair use' mean? Does it mean that the customer has the power to use any means they choose to use the copyrighted work for its intended use, be it a computer, pen and paper decryption, loading it on another portable player, etc? Or does it mean that as long as the distributer of the copyright provides reasonable means to enjoy the work then the distributer can legitimately restrict users from using their work in a more flexible way? If so, what is reasonable? Can that be based on convenience, cost, accesability, etc? This is the area where all these 'de' programs are aiming. The more we get, the better defined this area will become - which is a good thing.
-Adam
BUT, have you ever talked to any of these good looking women?
Of course.
In fact, just the other day one came to my desk and said, "My wireless card isn't working..."
-Adam
doesn't solve the bigger problem, our personal and financial info drifting in the wind.
"The identity, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The credit core you need is in the wind..."
-Adam
Set up a QoS router and route all your bulk (high latency acceptable) traffic through your neighbors router. Leave your own connection (wired, I hope) for low latency and burst transfers (gaming, browsing, etc).
Then, when your neighbor asks, just say, "Oh yeah, we're sharing alright. I've set everything up."
-Adam
"You must require 48mbps of bandwidth to connect to this port."
-Adam
Unfortunately the ceremony was marred by an apparent 'wardrobe malfuntion' in the Diebold voting system during the final tally. During the brief time the code was naked many were shocked and offended by what they saw. One sobbing professor commented, "I took my students to see an innocent american tradition, only to have to explain to them afterwards what an 'access database' was, and how easy it was to change their votes. I'm quite certian the incident scarred them."
Diebold denied having planned this event, while the EFF solemnly vowed to prohibit Diebold from hosting any future votes. Google indicated that this was the most replayed cache during the ceremony.
-Adam
The problem with this is that the thugs can simply threaten to beat you in one of two cases:
1) You didn't get a receipt or
2) Your voting didn't please them
By allowing people the opportunity to check on themselves, you are also allowing others to check on them.
The only way to provide this kind of check and balance is to allow people to observe their paper ballot inside the voting place, but not allow them to leave with it.
This requires that the voting machines and operators are secure.
But then, this has always been the case. We've always relied on the operators and the machines we've used. This isn't as new a problem as you might think. The only reason people are up in arms is that the machine hides so much of the process that it's difficult, if not impossible, to verify. This is why so many people are pushing for voter receipts that the voter does not leave with. The receipts are collected, and if an audit is needed then the receipts are what gets counted since the voter ostensibly checked the receipt after voting.
The problem with this is that you get very large receipts since they have to be human readable.
But these are not insurmountable problems, and I'm quite certian that after another 12 years we'll be happy with our machines and the process. As long as we can audit the machines, any and all offenses can be punished accordingly when caught, just as they are now.
Besides, voting was never meant to be fool-proof. It's simply the best way that is currently practical to run a republic. Eventually this will change.
-Adam
I can only hope that you had the presence of mind to store the data in a seperate access database, and only linked it to the report and query database file.
Of course, from the sound of it you would have been better off refactoring the data into several other tables, or at least creating a table to hold the x axis of the cross tab so your query didn't have to search the entire large table more than once per query.
-Adam
No, but apparently in Google Moonbase web sites cache Google!
-Adam
Unfortunately my numbers for the 1024 bit key are not correct. It would take them significantly longer than a year to break a 1024 bit key. The 512 key (12 times a day) is still pretty substantial, though - used widely in hardware crypto systems.
:-)
See Bulletin #13 from RSA Labs for a decent machine-cost analysis of breaking larger keys.
"There, I said it, can you please put the gun away now?"
-Adam
Assuming those numbers are correct, and assuming they use several year old algorithms:
Google can break an RSA-512 key. 12 times a day.
It would take them 8 months to break an RSA-1024 key.
Of course this glosses over some of the technical difficulties (such as memory bandwidth, RAM, etc) but the interesting thing is that if they directed their gaze towards a problem of for even an hour, they could solve some truly monumental problems.
But, according to Slashdot, Google is good today, not evil, so we can expect them not to use their power for bad.
-Adam
So you didn't replace the batteries on a regular basis? Sounds like a maintenance issue to me.
The cards I use store array info on the hard drives themselves. I can move the hard drives from one card to another without reconfiguring anything.
Of course, I would suggest staying away from RAID cards that use batteries...
-Adam
Just the cheap FastTrack tx100. Some of the older fasttrack66 cards as well.
-Adam
It's hard for me to believe that RAID causes more downtime than single drive setups, unless you have a really bad raid system and a really good backup system.
:-) Soon to go away... :-(
The only time RAID should ever be down, is during initial setup. Thereafter you should replace bad drives while it's running and you should never have cause to shut it down due to a RAID issue.
If you are experiencing RAID hardware problems then take a good look into these areas:
RAID Hardware --> Are you using cheap stuff? It honestly isn't worth it. Perhaps you're just discovering the 'real' value of 'cheap' hardware.
RAID Software --> If you're using unsupported drivers (ie, vendor doesn't supply or support them) then ditch the hardware and get hardware with supported drivers - make sure they support them on your configuration. You've already proven that you can't support them yourself.
System Hardware --> If the system is generally cheap (cheap power, bad airflow, cheap components, etc) then you simply can't expect the RAID card to work 24/7.
Server Room --> Make certian your server room can handle the power and ventilation needs of the servers. This should go without saying, but all too often it is the problem.
The reason people go with cheap components is the lower initial cost. They only work for a few thousand hours of heavy operation. You must get server rated components if you want them to operate for more than a year or two. There really is a difference.
Lastly, I use 20+ Promise FastTrack ATA RAID cards in 20+ Novell networks. I use cheap components, and they work in harsh conditions. They are not set up for hot-swap, as that's not a need in this situation. I have to replace the cheap hardware every 2-4 years, powersupplies every year, hard drives every 2-3 years. The only time the RAID cards have gone bad is when a power supply failure (usually due to a power outage/surge/brownout) fries the motherboard and usually most of the components in the case.
I have never had a failure where both HDs completely failed simultaneously, though usually when the rest of the computer goes I replace the whole thing and get the data off one of the old hard drives. This is not an advertisement for Promise. They simply are the only one's with supported Novell 3.12 drivers.
I'd be surprised if you've covered all these bases and are still having problems.
-Adam
Like just this morning I went to Drudge and saw this posted: ... Stephen King, dead at 54
:-(
Sad news
God, I was so upset until I went to Google news.
I was upset after going to Google news.
-Adam
That being said, does the nature of the World Wide Web in fact give sites like Wonkette, Drudge, or even Slashdot a free pass on accuracy if it means the difference between getting the scoop or not?"
No, human nature gives these sites free pass to print exciting, breaking (though not fully or even partially accurate) news. People in general want to be caught up in the excitement of *something*. They like to think they have an inside track, or some source of information that their fellow man does not have. It's a source of pride to them.
These sites simply cater to this human desire. They get started because they, typical humans that they are, feel they have some sort of inside track and they want to show off. Soon enough they attract a large enough audience to see dollar signs and attract other 'anonymous sources' who are more than happy to pretend they have an even deeper inside track or understanding of a particular event.
At that point they have no where to go but down, because their customers expect greater and deeper stories to get their 'fix'. They have a very strong urge to fulfill that need, but it can't be fulfilled forever unless you're willing to extrapolate and fill out tenuous information.
Some sites keep it under control a little bit, but few try to hide the fact that they don't really care. Slashdot practically trumpets this fact. They're more than happy to post an 'update', especially since it really won't hurt their reputation. By the time it's up, half their readers don't see it.
It's not necessarily a news site problem - it's a human condition. Whether this condition is a problem depends on how well you can capitalize off it.
-Adam
The pictures showed both a keyed version with a serial number, and a 4 digit roller lock (didn't see a serial, but I imagine there is one)
The locks are as easy to pick, I imagine, as previous luggage locks.
The four digit combination only has 10k combinations. It would take awhile, but it's possible to get all the serial numbers matched up to 4 digit codes. Although they, hopefully, used a longer serial and like a hash function there will be many serial numbers that go to 4 digit codes so you'd have to create a much larger table, or discover the hash/encryption method and key.
-Adam