Judging from the picture, the design borrows heavily from that of watercraft. The bottom of the aircraft has been modified to the point that it resembles the hull of a boat of personal watercraft.
I suspect that it works very similarly to the way that planing hulls(no pun intended) work. Just as a boat's hull spreads its wake outwards from the sides of the hull, this aircraft design likely spreads the aircraft's wake out to the sides more than straight down. This would reduce the pressure wave below the aircraft. I am confident that if the sonic boom was measured from the side on the same plane with the aircrafts altitude the sonic boom would be the same as normal and possibly more intense.
On the contrary. For short term investors, SCO has been a good buy since they first filed the suit. Look at this SCO stock chart.
Now, I feel that this won't last for too long but, it will likely last for as long as they can keep their name in the news. Once it finally goes to court, probably in 2004, it will all be over. But, for the next three to six months, SCOX is still a good buy.
I wonder how much trouble he would be in if he had asked the companies' permissions before plying his trade
He wouldn't be in any trouble at all. Most responsible CIO/CFOs regularly contract with third parties to test their security. These usually involve full on intrusion attempts including social engineering attempts. They pay a hefty sum for such services and usually feel a little better if something(preferrably minor) is actually found. That way they have something to fix and feel even more secure than when they are told that they are completely secure from the outset.
What Lamo does is simple, straightforward, black hat cracking that he feels is justified and made legitimate by not causing damage and then reporting his findings to the appropriate people. What it really is is bragging on his part in an effort to boost his pathetic ego.
This lame weasel has been publicly boasting about his escapades for over a year now. It's about time the authorities caught up with him. I suppose that they will use this as another reason why Andy Griffith and Barney Fife need the Patriot Act.
The consumer level firewalls that you mention can be secure but, they can also be compromised depending on the situation. The most important issue is the proper setup and on going maintenance of any security device. You cannot hope to be secure with a "fire and forget" security solution.
The first issue is proper installation and configuration. Does the installer really know what they are doing and why? In many/most cases, the answer is no. The initial default configurations of these devices is usually very secure using a combination of NAT, which does indeed increase the level of security, and restrictive firewall rules. However, far too many people find the default configurations too restrictive for their needs and start opening holes in order to permit certain desired services like gaming. This is where the problems start. As unknowing installers open various ports or enable port forwarding or installing certain machines in "DMZ" zones the inadvertently open their systems up to the world.
The second issue is with the actual OS of the device itself. There have been a few vulnerabilities in the devices that you mention that allow for compromise of the actual firewall. I have personally found two Linksys devices that were compromised and reconfigured as open proxies for the purpose of relaying spam. The vulnerabilities were known and there were fixes available to resolve the issue but, people frequently do not know about these vulnerabilities and the firmware updates are not applied. In most cases they are never even aware that they have been compromised. Do you know how to determine if you have been compromised and how often do you check to make sure? So, regular maintenance is very important but very few ever check for, let alone install firmware updates.
The biggest issue is a true understanding of the risks and how to defend against them. I frequently see "qualified" network engineers with years of experience who still do not completely grasp the many facets of the IP protocol and how it can be used to invade a network. This does not however impact their belief that they are effectively installing and configuring firewalls of all varieties(shudder).
To answer your question directly, depending on the precise situation and the requirements of the network, a Linksys or Netgear firewall can be just as secure as a CheckPoint firewall but, all three must be configured correctly, monitored constantly and maintained regularly.
A thorough understanding of TCP/IP and its security is the most important step towards true security and this is in fact what most people lack. Look at this article asking about private IP addressing and the slew of comments that illustrate the person does not even understand subnetting. Yet, I'll wager that most of these people would not think twice about setting up a firewall and probably regard themselves as "experts" in network security.
The actual firewall is not as critical as the understanding of the firewall. Switching from Linksys to a Linux firewall isn't helpful if you don't truly understand what you are looking at with ipchains -Lvn or iptables -Lvn. In fact, if you don't truly understand the many facets of securing an IP network as well as hardening the Linux OS, you are far better off with the Linksys. At least, in the default configuration, it is more likely to be secure.
That's what all those k-5 kids are gonna be looking like after your third sentence. Your daughter will likely also learn a new level of humiliation when the other kids start saying that you have the "boringest" job in the world.
An earlier post mentioned using Logo for a hands on demonstration which I think is a fantastic idea but, probably won't be very effective using a single laptop.
I think you would be better understood if you abstracted the subject, tremendously. I think that you would be better appreciated if you showed clips from familiar movies that used CG heavily and then explained, at a very high level, how programmers made it all happen.
Perhaps you could demonstrate a very simple animation of your own and then explain what goes into making it work. Then all the kids will think you are God and ask when you will have the next Shrek finished. Also, your daughter won't think she has the lamest Dad in the world. At least until she is 13 or so.
As a final note, see if you can arrange for or borrow a projector. 20+ kids gathered around a laptop makes of a lame presentation.
You are kidding, right? Do you honestly believe that EMI, let alone the record industry as a whole, is going to change their practices because of a single insignificant law suite that cost them a single CD and court costs? Here comes the clue train.
This will have no impact on them whatever. They will continue with business as usual and for each returned CD that they get, they will sell millions.
The only way for there to be a "changing tide" is if they are seriously affected monetarily, as in a major drop in sales, or if they are legally bound by a class action suite or something similar.
I would recommend that you ues UseNet for this. Write up your how-to or knowledgebase document so that it CLEARLY explains the problem and the appropriate steps to resolve it. For an example format get a knowledgebase article from Microsoft or Novell. Then post it to the appropriate newsgroup, making sure to use a clear simple title that acurately describes the issue (think about the keywords you searched for when you first encounterd the problem). Google takes care of the rest for you by archiving the message for posterity. Then, whenever you or anyone else needs that information again, it is a simple matter of searching Google Groups for your post.
Here's another article on it w/picture
on
Seamless Video Walls
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Here is another atricle about it that includes a picture of the display. This one isn't Slashdotted.
Perhaps you have heard the expression: "Life is not a destination but, rather a journey." It took at least a couple of decades before I could grasp the true meaning and the wisdom of this statement. In time, you will too.
People are now used to high drama, high action and MASSIVE special effects in their Sci-Fi diet. But a major part of the atraction of 2001 is its realism which many people find very boaring.
Have you every spent two or three hours watching Nasa TV when a soviet cargo ship docks with the ISS? Real life space activity is miserably slow, tedious, deliberate and boaring. 2001 played it like it was. The space scenes were slow, deliberate and tedious just like the real thing.
2001 cannot be compared to the new Star Wars films or DS9. 2001 was from a time when there was no CG effects. Special effects in general were new and most lacked any realism. But, 2001 made it work. It was believable and realistic and that is what makes people fans of 2001. If you must compare 2001 to something, try comparing it to the Star Trek TV series. Until 2001 was released, Start Trek and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea were the state of the are for Sci-Fi.
Now as for the Acid trip scenes in 2001, I can't explain that but,those scenes were fairly short. In real life there is no boom when something explodes in space and things happen very slowly or people float off into the void.
Note that every PC has at least one single-switch-latency path to every other PC; some PC pairs have more than one such path.
Every host does have at least one pathe to every other host but, most hosts have multiple paths to other hosts. It is true however that all hosts do not necessarily have multiple paths to all other hosts.
no node is more than one hop from each other node. This requires a routing table written for each pc.
Admittedly, I understand that no node is more than one hop away. But, how is this different than all nodes plugged into a large switch like a Cisco 6500 or a Nortel Passport 8600? These switches can have ~128 ports and can switch 256Gbps aggregate throughput at wire speed. Add another switch and then add a second NIC to each host and you increase the capacity even further. Additionally, this does not require special routing tables or software on the hosts.
The technique that was used seems to be more of a mental exercise in making spaghetti, I don't see it reducing latency or increasing performance beyond the currently used techniques.
Obviously, I don't get it. This doesn't look any different than redundant backbones or what is frequently done with VLANs. Multiple paths between hosts is what I see. How is this "new"?
While I agree that your suggestion would be nice, I wouldn't hold my breath. The fact is that, even if Corel is not answering to shareholders anymore, they are still a for profit company and will do their best to generate profit.
Corel tried the Linux route, producing their own distribution and a few Linux native versions of their apps. That endeavour failed miserably and they abandonded the effort completey, similar to their plan to port all their apps to Java.
Having already failed in the Linux arena and "wasted" millions of dollars in the process, Corel is unlikely to revisit what was for them a boondoggle anytime in the near future. Frankly, I do not know where Corel is going to go. In all likelyhood they will develop for the most pervasive platform but, they are unlikely to make inroads against MS Word with Wordperfect and PhotoShop seems to have a firm grip on the would be Draw market. They need a new product and I'm not sure they know what that is.
Als, please pay special attention to those "server" apps that were covered in the review, KDE, GNOME, Evolution, Eclipse, OpenOffice. I don't know how my servers have managed without these for so long. The only items they mentioned that are truely important to servers are ACLs and LVM.
Absolutely no mention was made of Apache, SQL server, SAMBA, mail, performance, reliability, nothing.
Right now the Max is ~30 hits per second and the Current is ~29 hits per second, yet the site is rather sluggish and unresponsive. I would have expected the server to be able to manage a bit more than ~30 hits per second.
Well, yea. You could do that. It might even work. But, wouldn't it be a lot quicker, simpler, easier, cheaper to just add a transparent porxy caching server to your network?
Of course you could use squid for this but, there are also several commercial products that do very well.
The most important thing to remember is to make sure the server is big and powerful. The server must have at least one fast processor, oodles of memory(1 gig or more) and it needs to have a very fast disk subsystem. I recommend hardware RAID1 with 4 or more of the fastest SCSI disks you can find. Also, the RAID controller should have as much on board cache as you can get.
This saves bandwidth and makes for a blessed user experience provided they are not the first to get that particular data.
No it didn't stop working. The netware servers with the same licenses would broadcast a warning message about the license violation to every workstation on the network every 60 seconds. This basically made it impossible for people to work and the administrator would quickly shutdown one of the offending servers.
I saw this a few times when companies with multiple offices established WAN connections. As soon as the WAN connection came up, the servers saw each other and started screaming. Usually, the companies would then buy a new server license and update the illegal server, problem solved. But, a few unscupulous admins would filter the SAP traffic at the routers, which prevented the servers from seeing each others license number, and continue with the illegal server/servers.
Slashdot Mirror
would it be a better design for watercraft also?
Judging from the picture, the design borrows heavily from that of watercraft. The bottom of the aircraft has been modified to the point that it resembles the hull of a boat of personal watercraft.
I suspect that it works very similarly to the way that planing hulls(no pun intended) work. Just as a boat's hull spreads its wake outwards from the sides of the hull, this aircraft design likely spreads the aircraft's wake out to the sides more than straight down. This would reduce the pressure wave below the aircraft. I am confident that if the sonic boom was measured from the side on the same plane with the aircrafts altitude the sonic boom would be the same as normal and possibly more intense.
On the contrary. For short term investors, SCO has been a good buy since they first filed the suit. Look at this SCO stock chart.
Now, I feel that this won't last for too long but, it will likely last for as long as they can keep their name in the news. Once it finally goes to court, probably in 2004, it will all be over. But, for the next three to six months, SCOX is still a good buy.
Cubix has been doing this for ages. Cubix was selling blade servers from before anyone ever called them blade servers. Hundreds in a rack. No problem.
I wonder how much trouble he would be in if he had asked the companies' permissions before plying his trade
He wouldn't be in any trouble at all. Most responsible CIO/CFOs regularly contract with third parties to test their security. These usually involve full on intrusion attempts including social engineering attempts. They pay a hefty sum for such services and usually feel a little better if something(preferrably minor) is actually found. That way they have something to fix and feel even more secure than when they are told that they are completely secure from the outset.
What Lamo does is simple, straightforward, black hat cracking that he feels is justified and made legitimate by not causing damage and then reporting his findings to the appropriate people. What it really is is bragging on his part in an effort to boost his pathetic ego.
This lame weasel has been publicly boasting about his escapades for over a year now. It's about time the authorities caught up with him. I suppose that they will use this as another reason why Andy Griffith and Barney Fife need the Patriot Act.
The consumer level firewalls that you mention can be secure but, they can also be compromised depending on the situation. The most important issue is the proper setup and on going maintenance of any security device. You cannot hope to be secure with a "fire and forget" security solution.
The first issue is proper installation and configuration. Does the installer really know what they are doing and why? In many/most cases, the answer is no. The initial default configurations of these devices is usually very secure using a combination of NAT, which does indeed increase the level of security, and restrictive firewall rules. However, far too many people find the default configurations too restrictive for their needs and start opening holes in order to permit certain desired services like gaming. This is where the problems start. As unknowing installers open various ports or enable port forwarding or installing certain machines in "DMZ" zones the inadvertently open their systems up to the world.
The second issue is with the actual OS of the device itself. There have been a few vulnerabilities in the devices that you mention that allow for compromise of the actual firewall. I have personally found two Linksys devices that were compromised and reconfigured as open proxies for the purpose of relaying spam. The vulnerabilities were known and there were fixes available to resolve the issue but, people frequently do not know about these vulnerabilities and the firmware updates are not applied. In most cases they are never even aware that they have been compromised. Do you know how to determine if you have been compromised and how often do you check to make sure? So, regular maintenance is very important but very few ever check for, let alone install firmware updates.
The biggest issue is a true understanding of the risks and how to defend against them. I frequently see "qualified" network engineers with years of experience who still do not completely grasp the many facets of the IP protocol and how it can be used to invade a network. This does not however impact their belief that they are effectively installing and configuring firewalls of all varieties(shudder).
To answer your question directly, depending on the precise situation and the requirements of the network, a Linksys or Netgear firewall can be just as secure as a CheckPoint firewall but, all three must be configured correctly, monitored constantly and maintained regularly.
A thorough understanding of TCP/IP and its security is the most important step towards true security and this is in fact what most people lack. Look at this article asking about private IP addressing and the slew of comments that illustrate the person does not even understand subnetting. Yet, I'll wager that most of these people would not think twice about setting up a firewall and probably regard themselves as "experts" in network security.
The actual firewall is not as critical as the understanding of the firewall. Switching from Linksys to a Linux firewall isn't helpful if you don't truly understand what you are looking at with ipchains -Lvn or iptables -Lvn. In fact, if you don't truly understand the many facets of securing an IP network as well as hardening the Linux OS, you are far better off with the Linksys. At least, in the default configuration, it is more likely to be secure.
That's what all those k-5 kids are gonna be looking like after your third sentence. Your daughter will likely also learn a new level of humiliation when the other kids start saying that you have the "boringest" job in the world.
An earlier post mentioned using Logo for a hands on demonstration which I think is a fantastic idea but, probably won't be very effective using a single laptop.
I think you would be better understood if you abstracted the subject, tremendously. I think that you would be better appreciated if you showed clips from familiar movies that used CG heavily and then explained, at a very high level, how programmers made it all happen.
Perhaps you could demonstrate a very simple animation of your own and then explain what goes into making it work. Then all the kids will think you are God and ask when you will have the next Shrek finished. Also, your daughter won't think she has the lamest Dad in the world. At least until she is 13 or so.
As a final note, see if you can arrange for or borrow a projector. 20+ kids gathered around a laptop makes of a lame presentation.
You are kidding, right? Do you honestly believe that EMI, let alone the record industry as a whole, is going to change their practices because of a single insignificant law suite that cost them a single CD and court costs? Here comes the clue train.
This will have no impact on them whatever. They will continue with business as usual and for each returned CD that they get, they will sell millions.
The only way for there to be a "changing tide" is if they are seriously affected monetarily, as in a major drop in sales, or if they are legally bound by a class action suite or something similar.
I would recommend that you ues UseNet for this. Write up your how-to or knowledgebase document so that it CLEARLY explains the problem and the appropriate steps to resolve it. For an example format get a knowledgebase article from Microsoft or Novell. Then post it to the appropriate newsgroup, making sure to use a clear simple title that acurately describes the issue (think about the keywords you searched for when you first encounterd the problem). Google takes care of the rest for you by archiving the message for posterity. Then, whenever you or anyone else needs that information again, it is a simple matter of searching Google Groups for your post.
Here is another atricle about it that includes a picture of the display. This one isn't Slashdotted.
You're posting on Slashdot, just like you do during the "busy" week.
Could someone post a link to it? I'd like to know what it is. :)
Life is "slow, tedious, deliberate and boring".
Perhaps you have heard the expression: "Life is not a destination but, rather a journey." It took at least a couple of decades before I could grasp the true meaning and the wisdom of this statement. In time, you will too.
People are now used to high drama, high action and MASSIVE special effects in their Sci-Fi diet. But a major part of the atraction of 2001 is its realism which many people find very boaring.
Have you every spent two or three hours watching Nasa TV when a soviet cargo ship docks with the ISS? Real life space activity is miserably slow, tedious, deliberate and boaring. 2001 played it like it was. The space scenes were slow, deliberate and tedious just like the real thing.
2001 cannot be compared to the new Star Wars films or DS9. 2001 was from a time when there was no CG effects. Special effects in general were new and most lacked any realism. But, 2001 made it work. It was believable and realistic and that is what makes people fans of 2001. If you must compare 2001 to something, try comparing it to the Star Trek TV series. Until 2001 was released, Start Trek and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea were the state of the are for Sci-Fi.
Now as for the Acid trip scenes in 2001, I can't explain that but,those scenes were fairly short. In real life there is no boom when something explodes in space and things happen very slowly or people float off into the void.
This doesn't really work, no matter what Microsoft might say.
The point is that if the system is vulnerable at all then it should not be used and the results from it cannot be trusted.
Note that every PC has at least one single-switch-latency path to every other PC; some PC pairs have more than one such path.
Every host does have at least one pathe to every other host but, most hosts have multiple paths to other hosts. It is true however that all hosts do not necessarily have multiple paths to all other hosts.
no node is more than one hop from each other node. This requires a routing table written for each pc.
Admittedly, I understand that no node is more than one hop away. But, how is this different than all nodes plugged into a large switch like a Cisco 6500 or a Nortel Passport 8600? These switches can have ~128 ports and can switch 256Gbps aggregate throughput at wire speed. Add another switch and then add a second NIC to each host and you increase the capacity even further. Additionally, this does not require special routing tables or software on the hosts.
The technique that was used seems to be more of a mental exercise in making spaghetti, I don't see it reducing latency or increasing performance beyond the currently used techniques.
Obviously, I don't get it. This doesn't look any different than redundant backbones or what is frequently done with VLANs. Multiple paths between hosts is what I see. How is this "new"?
While I agree that your suggestion would be nice, I wouldn't hold my breath. The fact is that, even if Corel is not answering to shareholders anymore, they are still a for profit company and will do their best to generate profit.
Corel tried the Linux route, producing their own distribution and a few Linux native versions of their apps. That endeavour failed miserably and they abandonded the effort completey, similar to their plan to port all their apps to Java.
Having already failed in the Linux arena and "wasted" millions of dollars in the process, Corel is unlikely to revisit what was for them a boondoggle anytime in the near future. Frankly, I do not know where Corel is going to go. In all likelyhood they will develop for the most pervasive platform but, they are unlikely to make inroads against MS Word with Wordperfect and PhotoShop seems to have a firm grip on the would be Draw market. They need a new product and I'm not sure they know what that is.
Als, please pay special attention to those "server" apps that were covered in the review, KDE, GNOME, Evolution, Eclipse, OpenOffice. I don't know how my servers have managed without these for so long. The only items they mentioned that are truely important to servers are ACLs and LVM.
Absolutely no mention was made of Apache, SQL server, SAMBA, mail, performance, reliability, nothing.
Does anyone know if ACLs are included in the Red Hat 10 Severn beta or is it strictly for Enterprise?
Right now the Max is ~30 hits per second and the Current is ~29 hits per second, yet the site is rather sluggish and unresponsive. I would have expected the server to be able to manage a bit more than ~30 hits per second.
Well, yea. You could do that. It might even work. But, wouldn't it be a lot quicker, simpler, easier, cheaper to just add a transparent porxy caching server to your network?
Of course you could use squid for this but, there are also several commercial products that do very well.
The most important thing to remember is to make sure the server is big and powerful. The server must have at least one fast processor, oodles of memory(1 gig or more) and it needs to have a very fast disk subsystem. I recommend hardware RAID1 with 4 or more of the fastest SCSI disks you can find. Also, the RAID controller should have as much on board cache as you can get.
This saves bandwidth and makes for a blessed user experience provided they are not the first to get that particular data.
No it didn't stop working. The netware servers with the same licenses would broadcast a warning message about the license violation to every workstation on the network every 60 seconds. This basically made it impossible for people to work and the administrator would quickly shutdown one of the offending servers.
I saw this a few times when companies with multiple offices established WAN connections. As soon as the WAN connection came up, the servers saw each other and started screaming. Usually, the companies would then buy a new server license and update the illegal server, problem solved. But, a few unscupulous admins would filter the SAP traffic at the routers, which prevented the servers from seeing each others license number, and continue with the illegal server/servers.
My former college has resorted to using DAV when they decided to disable FTP for security reasons.
They chose to use DAV instead of FTP for security reasons? That is a riot.