Look at the risk of being labeled a fanboi, macs are easier to use than windows and when used in the manner that most home users will use it are arguably more secure than Linux. Sure it's possible to make a more secure linux, but not one that's usable to a home user.
As for locking it away add something like the following to your cron jobs running as root:
find / -depth | cpio -dpl/backup
this makes a virtual backup of your files sufficient for most user's anti-viral backup needs. It does not protect you against some forms of file modification or a disk crash. But on the otherhand it consumes almost no space ont he hard drive, so it can be done almost anywhere.
you need to add to that files to avoid, and be sure the directory is only root accessible. If you want to get fancy you make copies of these virtual backups for weekly.monthy yearly backups. If you want to get tricky you can do crazy shit like mounting another filesystem on top of that directory to hide it from accidental or viral access.
You seem to be missing the whole point. Your message never gets to the sender unless you pre-pay the postage. Just like the post office. So forge your hearder if you want. You still gotta pay. The rebate system I proposed simply is a means for "good" people not to pay at all.
I think this is a great idea. Until it's unversally adopted however the AOL users will pay a steep price unfortunately. But if this could be implemented universally and transparently. Say for example each month my outbound e-mail bill is incremented by a bit to pay for my sent e-mails it would kill spam dead. Sure there would still be spam from zombies but then those idiots would stop after the first monthly bill.
Even better would be a reciprocal system whereby if I read an e-mail other than the content then I refund the cost to the sender. that way legitimate senders are rarely charged. Specualtive sendors who try to send me welcome information are charged sometimes, and spammers or their zombies are charged routinely.
If renoir painted a nude orgy on a canvas, and then changed his mind and painted most of it over and put clothes on everyone so it looked like people spraweld on the grass at a sunday church picnic would there be a problem. If some currator scraped off the covering paint to reveal the draft orgy form should we go after renoir for public obscenity?
IN the case of the game there were some dark corners that were painted over. Someone wrote some code to expose them. They presumably were not inteded to be exposed. If anything they suggest the probity of the maker in deciding to remove them. But they did not excise them they painted them over. There could be lots of reasons to do this. Like the great painters they might have just been trying to save cash on canvases and just swithed off access rather than paying someone to carefully extract the sexy bits from the main code.
On the other hand another analogy is to prohibition era vinters who while forbidden to make wine except for sacraments, would ship barrels of "grape juice" to New York city with explicit instructions no to add so much sugar and certain kinds of yeast because then it might accidentally turn into wine which would be illegal. This winking cover up of the underlying product was of course intended to sell more grape juice because of it's unauthorized potential.
So perhaps this comes down to proving intent. Did rock star intend hot coffee to happen? Did they want to create a whisper marketing regime. And did they actually seed the hints that it existed?
could easily have been exploited to grant a non-privileged user with admin rights the capability to create and remove 'root' user accounts.
Duh. any user with admin rights can create and remove user accounts.
What's more diabolical is that you can do this without entering the admin password. That's not a bug either but maybe an unwise choice. (sorry but I ain't saying how till they patch it.)
An hot news story that makes the outrageous inducing claim that Cingular has just patented the Emoticon appears to be untrue, since the US Patent office shows no such listing for the claimed Cingular patent. But that's not to say it's not outrageous:-0 since in fact AT&T, some guy in kirkland WA, and a dozen others have patented the emoticon or aspects of it. Perhaps most galling is that the patents actually use the word "emoticon" to describe what they are patenting. They of course don't actually patent the emoticon itself but the act of entering an emoticon into multi-media, sort of like patenting the one-click patent versus patenting, say, commerce. Is this one of the whackiest patents ever:-p
I've been looking at a mac xraid myself. in 3U (plus 1 more U for the server) it's got 14 hot swap bays each running ULTRA ATA 100 with a separate controller on every disk. redundant logic, hot swap power supplies, hot swpa disks, and hardware raid 0,1,3,5. dual fiber channel to the server.
even if you stuff it with apple disks the whole thing including a high performance dual gig dual processor xserve is about 15K$ for 7 terrabytes running at 7200 rpms. You can get it slightly cheaper if you populae it yourself and throw together your own server. but it hardly seems worth it since a major attraction is that you can also get a 3 year apple warantee on it from a reliable company.
So if your network is going to be distributed over ethernet then I can't see why this is not one of the best things going.
I'd like to hear why sata or scsi linux is a better solution.
Yeah, I get so tired of people publishing probabilty success rates without stating what the baseline is.
For example, I could announce I have an 85% accurate weather prediction system. it's this: predict the sun will shine most of the day. nowhere does it rain all day more than 15% of the days. so my predictor is 85% accurate.
When you claim an accuracy you need to also give the null model accuracy or it's gibberish.
thanks for the detailed exposition! Makes total sense. it is Just like trying to ssh through double fire walls. I had assumed bittorrent had a magic way to establish the connections via a third party both could see but now that I think about it that would fail too.
I have not tried that. But why should that matter. That is to say I would expect the difference between a privledges port number and an unprivledged (50,000) would only show up if you could connect to it at all but once connected the speed should not be affected by its privledge. I'm reporting slowness not zero peers. Or am I missing something?
Does this explain my question here? my mac sits behind an airport router plugged into dynamic IP DSL. the local network is 10.1.x.x
If it's a port issue why then does it even work at all? wouldn't this simply give you no connections at all rather than it just being slow? and why would this mean an imbalance is upload and download rates?
Okay I'll preface this by saying I'm fairly savy about the intended operation of Bit Torrent and I have read all the explanations at the bit torrent site.
When I run bit torrent I chronically notice that nearly all the time my upload rate grossly exceeds my download rate. I have a DSL with a 750K upload and a nominal 300K download rate according to DSL reports. I usually set the torrent client to mac connect to it's default of 4 peers, though I have tried 6 8 , 10 and 12.
Usually my torrent shows it poking along at 50 to 140Kb/s download and upload rate of 260 to 400K.
THis happens in nearly all cases. Even in situations where i'm only linked to seeds then all that happens is the upload rate goes to zero, but the download rate is stuck in the same low range.
So can someone please explain to me why this happens? That is to say, this thing is supposed to be roughly tit-for-tat (evenif that's not the exact alrgorithm under the hood). So I would expect that on average my my upload and download rates would be the same in a long term sense. The only way I can imagine this is not the case requires some unusual conditions. This would happen for example if there were an extremely large pool of people launching torrents, collecting the first few "freebie" packets from me then exiting the torrent pool. They would be leaching the upload rate but during the initial few moments when they joined have nothing to offer in return. You can't sustain that condition of course so their would have to be a constant stream of these short timers flushing through the system. I find this explanation implausible.
Moreover since I'm able to spew 40K up, I'd expect that occasionally I'd see 40K down just when events conspired to randomly favor me. Yet I don't
So someone please give me an explanation of why i see this consistently? It just makes no sense that the upload and download rates are not nearly equal.
The specualtion about super bugs seems misplaced. So far antibiotics work quite well, albeit with limited lifespans of usefulness before resistance is induced. If dreaded "super bugs" were goinf to emerge from soils they would already exist or would have come about from these resistant bugs already. It has not happened.
Taking a wild ass guess I would be unsurprised if it turned out that the reason soil based bugs show such resistance is because some other bug is already using this antibiotic and they had to develop resistance to survive. For example, look at Penicilin which is naturually produced by mold presumably for this very reason: to kill bacteria.
So this has been going on millions of years before we came along. If a super bug was going to out there we would have found it already.
The comparison was also run on a computer with a crippled half speed memory buss. To get full speed from the bus you have to have two memory modules. They only had one 512DDR module. Thus they also hamstrung it on the memory speed which can be pretty important in video and photo applications.
basically this test is borked, and the fact the editors don't even know this means everything else they say is borked too. Notice the comment at the end of the article it turns out that in the first version of the article they did the math wrong and figuring out percentage increases in speed (they were using the larger number as the denominator in the ratio rather than the smaller one. ) Duh.
Uh this comparison while meaningful in it's own right is downright silly in the text desrciption.
The core Duo is a dual processor. The G5 in question is a single processor. The applications are not explicitly multi-processor applications. They might be multi-threaded having a Gui thread and a calaculation thread, but unless they are explicitly written for multiple processors the heavy lifting is going to be occurring on a single processor. Thus this comparison is essentially between a single processor Pentium M and Single processor G5.
Now on most days saying your new Single processor is 20% to 30 % faster is big news. And look you get two of them, so it's got twice the capacity. Not twice the speed.
I have little doubt that the Spec marks jobs cited were multi-processor aware. it's would be sort of stupid to be otherwise. So his claims seem pretty much in line with the results of the application tests in this article.
Additionally this article is doing imovie and iphoto operations which are disk and memory intensive. As a result you cannot expect the speed of the system to follow the speed of the processor.
One the other hand if you were actually working on the core duo you would notice the following. While your iDVD movie was being compressed to mpeg2, and you went to check your mail or perhaps were doing something else processor intensive the the machine would not be dogged at all by the intense iDVD calculation since it has two processors one of which is twiddling it's thumbs waiting slavishly on you.
In short the UI of the dual is going to seem very peppy no matter what apps you are running in the background. (*execpt ones that bog the disk). Eventually more apps will be multi-processor aware and you will have a choce of faster apps or leaving that peppy UI.
In any case you have a machine that costs the same but is 20 to 30% faster for applications and has twice the processor capacity to either multi-task or exploit for mulit-processor aware apps. What's the big deal.
No it refers to the plan for biologists to tap into a new buzz phrase compliant source of funding now that biotech has worn off. I'm totally serious. Where I work, molecular biologists aren't really welcome to talk about things like protein folding or RNA structure modeling, or cellular structure or enzyme catalyis--the ultimate nanotechnology--for this very reason. The Nanotech guys are afraid to see their pot o gold diverted.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the risk of being labeled a fanboi, macs are easier to use than windows and when used in the manner that most home users will use it are arguably more secure than Linux. Sure it's possible to make a more secure linux, but not one that's usable to a home user.
/backup
As for locking it away add something like the following to your cron jobs running as root:
find / -depth | cpio -dpl
this makes a virtual backup of your files sufficient for most user's anti-viral backup needs. It does not protect you against some forms of file modification or a disk crash. But on the otherhand it consumes almost no space ont he hard drive, so it can be done almost anywhere.
you need to add to that files to avoid, and be sure the directory is only root accessible. If you want to get fancy you make copies of these virtual backups for weekly.monthy yearly backups. If you want to get tricky you can do crazy shit like mounting another filesystem on top of that directory to hide it from accidental or viral access.
Well with the advances in Field programmable gate arrays so we will have software defined hardware defined software algorithm defined radio
You seem to be missing the whole point. Your message never gets to the sender unless you pre-pay the postage. Just like the post office. So forge your hearder if you want. You still gotta pay. The rebate system I proposed simply is a means for "good" people not to pay at all.
I think this is a great idea. Until it's unversally adopted however the AOL users will pay a steep price unfortunately.
But if this could be implemented universally and transparently. Say for example each month my outbound e-mail bill is incremented by a bit to pay for my sent e-mails it would kill spam dead. Sure there would still be spam from zombies but then those idiots would stop after the first monthly bill.
Even better would be a reciprocal system whereby if I read an e-mail other than the content then I refund the cost to the sender. that way legitimate senders are rarely charged. Specualtive sendors who try to send me welcome information are charged sometimes, and spammers or their zombies are charged routinely.
If renoir painted a nude orgy on a canvas, and then changed his mind and painted most of it over and put clothes on everyone so it looked like people spraweld on the grass at a sunday church picnic would there be a problem. If some currator scraped off the covering paint to reveal the draft orgy form should we go after renoir for public obscenity?
IN the case of the game there were some dark corners that were painted over. Someone wrote some code to expose them. They presumably were not inteded to be exposed. If anything they suggest the probity of the maker in deciding to remove them. But they did not excise them they painted them over. There could be lots of reasons to do this. Like the great painters they might have just been trying to save cash on canvases and just swithed off access rather than paying someone to carefully extract the sexy bits from the main code.
On the other hand another analogy is to prohibition era vinters who while forbidden to make wine except for sacraments, would ship barrels of "grape juice" to New York city with explicit instructions no to add so much sugar and certain kinds of yeast because then it might accidentally turn into wine which would be illegal. This winking cover up of the underlying product was of course intended to sell more grape juice because of it's unauthorized potential.
So perhaps this comes down to proving intent. Did rock star intend hot coffee to happen? Did they want to create a whisper marketing regime. And did they actually seed the hints that it existed?
Duh. any user with admin rights can create and remove user accounts.
What's more diabolical is that you can do this without entering the admin password. That's not a bug either but maybe an unwise choice. (sorry but I ain't saying how till they patch it.)
An hot news story that makes the outrageous inducing claim that Cingular has just patented the Emoticon appears to be untrue, since the US Patent office shows no such listing for the claimed Cingular patent. But that's not to say it's not outrageous :-0 since in fact AT&T, some guy in kirkland WA, and a dozen others have patented the emoticon or aspects of it. Perhaps most galling is that the patents actually use the word "emoticon" to describe what they are patenting. They of course don't actually patent the emoticon itself but the act of entering an emoticon into multi-media, sort of like patenting the one-click patent versus patenting, say, commerce. Is this one of the whackiest patents ever :-p
I was totally serious. what is wrong with my post?
I've been looking at a mac xraid myself. in 3U (plus 1 more U for the server) it's got 14 hot swap bays each running ULTRA ATA 100 with a separate controller on every disk. redundant logic, hot swap power supplies, hot swpa disks, and hardware raid 0,1,3,5. dual fiber channel to the server.
even if you stuff it with apple disks the whole thing including a high performance dual gig dual processor xserve is about 15K$ for 7 terrabytes running at 7200 rpms. You can get it slightly cheaper if you populae it yourself and throw together your own server. but it hardly seems worth it since a major attraction is that you can also get a 3 year apple warantee on it from a reliable company.
So if your network is going to be distributed over ethernet then I can't see why this is not one of the best things going.
I'd like to hear why sata or scsi linux is a better solution.
true but, averaged over the whole planet I'm still 85% correct.
Yeah, I get so tired of people publishing probabilty success rates without stating what the baseline is.
For example, I could announce I have an 85% accurate weather prediction system. it's this: predict the sun will shine most of the day. nowhere does it rain all day more than 15% of the days. so my predictor is 85% accurate.
When you claim an accuracy you need to also give the null model accuracy or it's gibberish.
thanks for the detailed exposition! Makes total sense. it is Just like trying to ssh through double fire walls. I had assumed bittorrent had a magic way to establish the connections via a third party both could see but now that I think about it that would fail too.
I have not tried that. But why should that matter. That is to say I would expect the difference between a privledges port number and an unprivledged (50,000) would only show up if you could connect to it at all but once connected the speed should not be affected by its privledge. I'm reporting slowness not zero peers. Or am I missing something?
oops I stated the DSL up/down rates backward. I can upload 300K and download 750K according to DSL reports.
One more fact:
my mac sits behind an airport wifi so the local network is 10.1.x.x
not sure if that matters.
oops boffed the link.
heres' the link
Does this explain my question here?
my mac sits behind an airport router plugged into dynamic IP DSL. the local network is 10.1.x.x
If it's a port issue why then does it even work at all? wouldn't this simply give you no connections at all rather than it just being slow? and why would this mean an imbalance is upload and download rates?
Does your comment explain my question here, or is what I observe still to wierd to explain?
post your response there if you can.
Okay I'll preface this by saying I'm fairly savy about the intended operation of Bit Torrent and I have read all the explanations at the bit torrent site.
When I run bit torrent I chronically notice that nearly all the time my upload rate grossly exceeds my download rate. I have a DSL with a 750K upload and a nominal 300K download rate according to DSL reports. I usually set the torrent client to mac connect to it's default of 4 peers, though I have tried 6 8 , 10 and 12.
Usually my torrent shows it poking along at 50 to 140Kb/s download and upload rate of 260 to 400K.
THis happens in nearly all cases. Even in situations where i'm only linked to seeds then all that happens is the upload rate goes to zero, but the download rate is stuck in the same low range.
So can someone please explain to me why this happens? That is to say, this thing is supposed to be roughly tit-for-tat (evenif that's not the exact alrgorithm under the hood). So I would expect that on average my my upload and download rates would be the same in a long term sense. The only way I can imagine this is not the case requires some unusual conditions. This would happen for example if there were an extremely large pool of people launching torrents, collecting the first few "freebie" packets from me then exiting the torrent pool. They would be leaching the upload rate but during the initial few moments when they joined have nothing to offer in return. You can't sustain that condition of course so their would have to be a constant stream of these short timers flushing through the system. I find this explanation implausible.
Moreover since I'm able to spew 40K up, I'd expect that occasionally I'd see 40K down just when events conspired to randomly favor me. Yet I don't
So someone please give me an explanation of why i see this consistently? It just makes no sense that the upload and download rates are not nearly equal.
No that's not the reason here. They tested things like Vancomyocin which is not in animal feed.
The specualtion about super bugs seems misplaced. So far antibiotics work quite well, albeit with limited lifespans of usefulness before resistance is induced. If dreaded "super bugs" were goinf to emerge from soils they would already exist or would have come about from these resistant bugs already. It has not happened.
Taking a wild ass guess I would be unsurprised if it turned out that the reason soil based bugs show such resistance is because some other bug is already using this antibiotic and they had to develop resistance to survive. For example, look at Penicilin which is naturually produced by mold presumably for this very reason: to kill bacteria.
So this has been going on millions of years before we came along. If a super bug was going to out there we would have found it already.
The comparison was also run on a computer with a crippled half speed memory buss. To get full speed from the bus you have to have two memory modules. They only had one 512DDR module. Thus they also hamstrung it on the memory speed which can be pretty important in video and photo applications.
basically this test is borked, and the fact the editors don't even know this means everything else they say is borked too. Notice the comment at the end of the article it turns out that in the first version of the article they did the math wrong and figuring out percentage increases in speed (they were using the larger number as the denominator in the ratio rather than the smaller one. ) Duh.
Uh this comparison while meaningful in it's own right is downright silly in the text desrciption.
The core Duo is a dual processor. The G5 in question is a single processor. The applications are not explicitly multi-processor applications. They might be multi-threaded having a Gui thread and a calaculation thread, but unless they are explicitly written for multiple processors the heavy lifting is going to be occurring on a single processor. Thus this comparison is essentially between a single processor Pentium M and Single processor G5.
Now on most days saying your new Single processor is 20% to 30 % faster is big news. And look you get two of them, so it's got twice the capacity. Not twice the speed.
I have little doubt that the Spec marks jobs cited were multi-processor aware. it's would be sort of stupid to be otherwise. So his claims seem pretty much in line with the results of the application tests in this article.
Additionally this article is doing imovie and iphoto operations which are disk and memory intensive. As a result you cannot expect the speed of the system to follow the speed of the processor.
One the other hand if you were actually working on the core duo you would notice the following. While your iDVD movie was being compressed to mpeg2, and you went to check your mail or perhaps were doing something else processor intensive the the machine would not be dogged at all by the intense iDVD calculation since it has two processors one of which is twiddling it's thumbs waiting slavishly on you.
In short the UI of the dual is going to seem very peppy no matter what apps you are running in the background. (*execpt ones that bog the disk).
Eventually more apps will be multi-processor aware and you will have a choce of faster apps or leaving that peppy UI.
In any case you have a machine that costs the same but is 20 to 30% faster for applications and has twice the processor capacity to either multi-task or exploit for mulit-processor aware apps. What's the big deal.
Hey, it's 4 am. give me a break.
No it refers to the plan for biologists to tap into a new buzz phrase compliant source of funding now that biotech has worn off. I'm totally serious. Where I work, molecular biologists aren't really welcome to talk about things like protein folding or RNA structure modeling, or cellular structure or enzyme catalyis--the ultimate nanotechnology--for this very reason. The Nanotech guys are afraid to see their pot o gold diverted.