Studies have shown people respond better to natural light than to artificial light, so it looks like they're trying to take advantage of that. Whether it's true or not, I dont know. I probably spend most of my time in artificial light and with the exception of encouraging me to post on Slashdot it hasn't had any negative side-effects.
To my knowledge pam_tally is not part of the standard RHEL v3 installation. Was this some type of custom installation?
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1
That's true. I even re-read one of the FAQ's on the GPL and it says that while you can charge a fee for the software the person who purchases the software is free to distribute it. So it would seem if I download the RPMs from RHN then RedHat shouldn't be able to terminate my support license because according to the GPL they're not allowed to impose additional restrictions on distribution of GPLed software. I'll have to speak to RedHat again for clarification. Thanks for pointing this out, listen.
Re:They spelled my name right...
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This is interesting because the RedHat rep I conversed with said (and I quote): "As long as you don't violate the terms of our agreement by seeking
support or RHN service for machines not covered under the subscription, you're safe to install RHEL3 on as many machines as you choose." I think RedHat needs to get their story straight.
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 2
You are absolutely correct. The updates I was referring to that you are *not* permitted to download are the binary package updates available from RHN which they are permitted to restrict (though they do make the source RPMs available for free as required by the GPL). I should have been more clear. Thanks for picking that up.
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I spoke with RedHat several months ago about this issue and here's the deal. You are free to place RHEL on as many machines as you'd like without even violating your license. You can distribute RHEL to others; there are no restrictions on distributing RHEL itself. You are allowed to use up2date and RHN to update only the machines you have a valid license for. You are not allowed to download updates from RHN and then apply them to machines that do not have a valid license. You may, however, download the RHEL SRPMs which are freely available on RedHat's site and update your software manually that way. If you believe any of this is incorrect then contact RedHat and they'll clarify it for you.
If all the root servers somehow miraculously disappeared then most people would be alright for 1-2 days. After 2 days all the cached NS records for.com will have expired and virtually no one will be able to resolve any.com addresses. Similar results for all other TLDs, but the time until resolution failure for each TLD can differ.
Of course this is a highly unlikely scenerio as there are 13 root DNS servers and many of these servers are actually multiple machines using anycast (for example). Of course, taking out a handful of the machines places sufficient load on the remaining servers to cause them to start dropping requests, but this too is unlikely.
In fact they've also switched from Windows NT to Linux on the Server Assitant CD's they distribute with new servers in order to perform (mostly) unattended OS installs.
This is nice to hear, but it would be even more valuable if the same tests were performed on a variety of operating systems in order to compare the results.
The quick answer is "Yes, you can."
In FreeBSD 5 for instance you can change a line in rc.conf and then just rerun the script for the daemon that corresponds to it. It's a bit like the init.d scripts in Linux except with a big global variables file.
In FreeBSD 4 you can do it as well, but if I recall the scripts in FreeBSD 4 often lump several daemons together into a single file so you might end up restarting more than one daemon. I may be wrong, though.
Brian
Speaking for the 2002 Prius, it's not the speed that determines whether you're running on the ICE or the electric motor... it's the amount of power you're trying to apply.
I can slowly accelerate from 0-35 or so on a level road on the electric motor alone. Above 35-40 or so my ICE comes on. If I accelerate with any significant power from a standstill then the ICE comes on immediately to provide the power. In fact I'm looking forward to the next Prius models which should hopefully be able to accelerate a little faster on the electric motor.
Re:gravity effects are instantaneous
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1
The speed at which changes in gravity are detected really depends on the fundamental nature of gravity which is still not understood. Is it caused by a type of displacement in space-time as often described using the rubber sheet analogy or is it the result of some kind of theoretical graviton particle(I haven't seen any actual research on this, but I've heard a professor mention it)?.
If it's caused by a displacement in space-time or any other of a huge number of phenomena that we haven't discovered yet, it's entirely possible for changes in gravity to take effect thoughout the entire universe instantaneously. Our rules of physics only currently apply to phenomena that exist in the four dimensions we're aware of. Gravity has a 3-dimensional component that we can measure to determine the gravitational attraction between bodies, but it may also have extra-dimensional properties that appear to break some of our existing rules. Should gravitational force be the result of something beyond what can be perceived 3-dimensionally, then it doesn't necessarily have to be bound by our current understanding of physics.
I'm reminded of the example of a cone. As you look down into the cone if you were a two-dimensional being you would see only a circle; you could not perceive the depth of the cone. In fact, you'd think the shortest distance from one side of the circle to the other were to traverse the diameter. Since this is a cone, however, it's shorter to actually traverse half the circumference instead to reach the other side.
As simplistic an example as that is, it serves to show us that we perceive 3 (and to a limited degree 4) dimensions out of a possibly infinitely dimensional universe. Forces that act on dimensions beyond what we can directly perceive may "break" the rules that we make for dimensions we can perceive.
You may agree with me... you may disagree... but it doesn't really matter.:) All that matters is that we keep an open mind and not let the "rules" constrain us as we attempt to explore the unknown.
If you're too impatient to wait for a writable DVD standard to emerge (like I am) then check out Sony's DRU-500A DVD burner. It records to all four DVD formats as well as CD formats. I got one for Christmas and so far I'm enjoying it.:)
What if a I place a device between the intended sender and receiver in such a way that it blocks the intended sender and receiver completely. I intercept a key exchange attempt from the sender and respond as any recipient would. I then have a quantum encrypted channel between myself and the sender. At the same time, I negotiate my own quantum encrypted channel between myself and the recipient. I can now receive data sent from one channel and send it to the other channel. This seems to negate the benefits of using quantum encrypted channels (unless one can somehow assure that I cannot totally block the actual transmissions between the intended sender and receiver).
I suppose some kind of authentication needs to be incorporated into this technology to ensure you're establishing a session to the correct receiver.
I'm going to respond to my own question with a possible solution.
After reading one of the more detailed articles linked to the original, I think one solution is to agree as a matter of protocol that the receiver's report will consist of photons all polarized in a specific direction.
The sender sends some random data to the receiver using photon polarization. The receiver randomly chooses polarizations and reports back to the sender its list of choices without polarizing (or using a consistent polarization). The sender then tells it which choices were correct (once again without polarization). At this point all subsequent data could be sent polarized using the bit pattern from the correctly chosen photons to determine the polarization pattern.
I'd be interested in seeing how the initial key exchange works.
The receiver randomly chooses orientations and derives a bit pattern from the incoming transmission. Makes sense. It then says the receiver reports which random choices it made to the sender. I'm not sure exactly how the sender is able to decode this transmission from the receiver. It cant choose random orientations else it would lose the data which indicates the shared key. Any ideas?
The problem would be in intercepting it in the first place. An interceptor has only one shot at properly decoding each photon. Since an interceptor would get possibly 50% of them decoded incorrectly, they wouldn't be able to decode the message nor repeat the original message.
The problem with this is that you need to know in which direction it was polarized when you first receive the photon. If you guess incorrectly, then you've lost the information in that photon. Since it's possible to incorrectly guess 50% of the time, you could lose up to 50% of the transmission.
It's like having to intercept a message by guessing in advance every word in the message.:)
I was thinking that, too...
In fact, not only does Dijkstra find the shortest path from point A to point B... it's finds the shortest path from point A to all other points!
hmm...
Slashdot Mirror
Studies have shown people respond better to natural light than to artificial light, so it looks like they're trying to take advantage of that. Whether it's true or not, I dont know. I probably spend most of my time in artificial light and with the exception of encouraging me to post on Slashdot it hasn't had any negative side-effects.
Any phone with Bluetooth...
To my knowledge pam_tally is not part of the standard RHEL v3 installation. Was this some type of custom installation?
That's true. I even re-read one of the FAQ's on the GPL and it says that while you can charge a fee for the software the person who purchases the software is free to distribute it. So it would seem if I download the RPMs from RHN then RedHat shouldn't be able to terminate my support license because according to the GPL they're not allowed to impose additional restrictions on distribution of GPLed software. I'll have to speak to RedHat again for clarification. Thanks for pointing this out, listen.
This is interesting because the RedHat rep I conversed with said (and I quote): "As long as you don't violate the terms of our agreement by seeking support or RHN service for machines not covered under the subscription, you're safe to install RHEL3 on as many machines as you choose." I think RedHat needs to get their story straight.
You are absolutely correct. The updates I was referring to that you are *not* permitted to download are the binary package updates available from RHN which they are permitted to restrict (though they do make the source RPMs available for free as required by the GPL). I should have been more clear. Thanks for picking that up.
I spoke with RedHat several months ago about this issue and here's the deal. You are free to place RHEL on as many machines as you'd like without even violating your license. You can distribute RHEL to others; there are no restrictions on distributing RHEL itself. You are allowed to use up2date and RHN to update only the machines you have a valid license for. You are not allowed to download updates from RHN and then apply them to machines that do not have a valid license. You may, however, download the RHEL SRPMs which are freely available on RedHat's site and update your software manually that way. If you believe any of this is incorrect then contact RedHat and they'll clarify it for you.
If all the root servers somehow miraculously disappeared then most people would be alright for 1-2 days. After 2 days all the cached NS records for .com will have expired and virtually no one will be able to resolve any .com addresses. Similar results for all other TLDs, but the time until resolution failure for each TLD can differ.
Of course this is a highly unlikely scenerio as there are 13 root DNS servers and many of these servers are actually multiple machines using anycast (for example). Of course, taking out a handful of the machines places sufficient load on the remaining servers to cause them to start dropping requests, but this too is unlikely.
In fact they've also switched from Windows NT to Linux on the Server Assitant CD's they distribute with new servers in order to perform (mostly) unattended OS installs.
This is nice to hear, but it would be even more valuable if the same tests were performed on a variety of operating systems in order to compare the results.
Brian
The quick answer is "Yes, you can." In FreeBSD 5 for instance you can change a line in rc.conf and then just rerun the script for the daemon that corresponds to it. It's a bit like the init.d scripts in Linux except with a big global variables file. In FreeBSD 4 you can do it as well, but if I recall the scripts in FreeBSD 4 often lump several daemons together into a single file so you might end up restarting more than one daemon. I may be wrong, though. Brian
New Jersey already has this, too...
http://www.nj.gov/njsp/info/reg_sexoffend.html
Speaking for the 2002 Prius, it's not the speed that determines whether you're running on the ICE or the electric motor... it's the amount of power you're trying to apply. I can slowly accelerate from 0-35 or so on a level road on the electric motor alone. Above 35-40 or so my ICE comes on. If I accelerate with any significant power from a standstill then the ICE comes on immediately to provide the power. In fact I'm looking forward to the next Prius models which should hopefully be able to accelerate a little faster on the electric motor.
The speed at which changes in gravity are detected really depends on the fundamental nature of gravity which is still not understood. Is it caused by a type of displacement in space-time as often described using the rubber sheet analogy or is it the result of some kind of theoretical graviton particle(I haven't seen any actual research on this, but I've heard a professor mention it)?. If it's caused by a displacement in space-time or any other of a huge number of phenomena that we haven't discovered yet, it's entirely possible for changes in gravity to take effect thoughout the entire universe instantaneously. Our rules of physics only currently apply to phenomena that exist in the four dimensions we're aware of. Gravity has a 3-dimensional component that we can measure to determine the gravitational attraction between bodies, but it may also have extra-dimensional properties that appear to break some of our existing rules. Should gravitational force be the result of something beyond what can be perceived 3-dimensionally, then it doesn't necessarily have to be bound by our current understanding of physics. I'm reminded of the example of a cone. As you look down into the cone if you were a two-dimensional being you would see only a circle; you could not perceive the depth of the cone. In fact, you'd think the shortest distance from one side of the circle to the other were to traverse the diameter. Since this is a cone, however, it's shorter to actually traverse half the circumference instead to reach the other side. As simplistic an example as that is, it serves to show us that we perceive 3 (and to a limited degree 4) dimensions out of a possibly infinitely dimensional universe. Forces that act on dimensions beyond what we can directly perceive may "break" the rules that we make for dimensions we can perceive. You may agree with me... you may disagree... but it doesn't really matter. :) All that matters is that we keep an open mind and not let the "rules" constrain us as we attempt to explore the unknown.
If you're too impatient to wait for a writable DVD standard to emerge (like I am) then check out Sony's DRU-500A DVD burner. It records to all four DVD formats as well as CD formats. I got one for Christmas and so far I'm enjoying it. :)
hmm... how about this?
What if a I place a device between the intended sender and receiver in such a way that it blocks the intended sender and receiver completely. I intercept a key exchange attempt from the sender and respond as any recipient would. I then have a quantum encrypted channel between myself and the sender. At the same time, I negotiate my own quantum encrypted channel between myself and the recipient. I can now receive data sent from one channel and send it to the other channel. This seems to negate the benefits of using quantum encrypted channels (unless one can somehow assure that I cannot totally block the actual transmissions between the intended sender and receiver).
I suppose some kind of authentication needs to be incorporated into this technology to ensure you're establishing a session to the correct receiver.
oh, no, I was responding to the original message to why intercepting it would not be possible. ;)
:)
I wasn't saying that there was a problem with quantum encryption, I was saying that would be the problem with intercepting the data.
I'm going to respond to my own question with a possible solution.
After reading one of the more detailed articles linked to the original, I think one solution is to agree as a matter of protocol that the receiver's report will consist of photons all polarized in a specific direction.
The sender sends some random data to the receiver using photon polarization. The receiver randomly chooses polarizations and reports back to the sender its list of choices without polarizing (or using a consistent polarization). The sender then tells it which choices were correct (once again without polarization). At this point all subsequent data could be sent polarized using the bit pattern from the correctly chosen photons to determine the polarization pattern.
I'd be interested in seeing how the initial key exchange works. The receiver randomly chooses orientations and derives a bit pattern from the incoming transmission. Makes sense. It then says the receiver reports which random choices it made to the sender. I'm not sure exactly how the sender is able to decode this transmission from the receiver. It cant choose random orientations else it would lose the data which indicates the shared key. Any ideas?
The problem would be in intercepting it in the first place. An interceptor has only one shot at properly decoding each photon. Since an interceptor would get possibly 50% of them decoded incorrectly, they wouldn't be able to decode the message nor repeat the original message.
The problem with this is that you need to know in which direction it was polarized when you first receive the photon. If you guess incorrectly, then you've lost the information in that photon. Since it's possible to incorrectly guess 50% of the time, you could lose up to 50% of the transmission. It's like having to intercept a message by guessing in advance every word in the message. :)
I was thinking that, too... In fact, not only does Dijkstra find the shortest path from point A to point B... it's finds the shortest path from point A to all other points! hmm...