Depends. A telco has a network, which carries IP traffic (perhaps other traffic, too). That may or may not have multiple routes within it connecting any two points. And it may peer with other networks at various points. But it's not necessarily a given that a) if a big network disappears that there'll be routes *besides* that network connecting everything that was connected to it, or that if such alternatives exist, that they'll have sufficient bandwidth to cope with the loss of that network.
After all, it's notionally not economic to keep too much excess capacity around -- why bother? So it'd be a surprise if ever major route was 100% (or more) backed up by another major route.
Also, physical separation and logical separation are different. A large logical separation may, alas, boil down to two pieces of fiber in the same conduit, two wavelengths on the same piece of fiber, that sort of thing.
So yes, it *can* all be made to be redundant, but that's not neceesarily how it plays out. Other factors may act against redundancy.
Alas fiber needs to get a good deal more robust if that progression isn't to turn LANs into reliability nightmares. Cat 5 generally works even when you're using too short a length, scrunching it up, tieing knots it it etc. It usually doesn't complain when you do whatever it takes to fit it around someone's desk*. Try that with fiber, and you'll rapidly burn through your sense of humor.
* Yes, I know Cat 5 can be a right pain in the arse, but it's a lot more robust than (current) fiber.
But on a more serious note, you have to have a decrypted version of your data somewhere, in order to make use of it (something missed often hereabouts). And having something limited by the walls of your building isn't necessarily a dreadful idea, as long as you trust everyone who might be inside your building equally.
So yes, it may be of limited practical security application. At least compared to well-implemented encryption.
(Oh, and I especially like the bit about "nuclear wireless detection systems".)
You know, nobody in the world at large gives a shit if DTS is a "cleverer" codec. They are only interested in whether things with the DTS logo sound better than things with the Dolby Digital logo.
Nah. If you've got an infinite amount of data that's random (not saying pi is), then probability that any given string exists within it tends towards one. But the probability of any given string you select *being* that string tends toward zero. So you'd probably spend a very long time (not a finite time, even) looking for the offset. And then the person at the other end needs a function that generates the same "random" data, which'll take them an infinitely long time, too, if your offset is an infinite.
Now I don't know shit about maths (tends toward might actually be "1", for instance) but that's kind of how it seems intuitively. If someone's going to rip me a new one, at least answer the guys question with your superior knowledge.
Too many moves, too many critical paths
on
Root Zone Changed
·
· Score: 2
"I wonder why we did not use this as an opportunity to redress the imbalance of root server placement"
I'm guessing (and yes, guessing) that it was just to be conservative. There's probably a lot less to do, far fewer people to involve to move a machine across town, that to implement a geographically distributed bunch of servers. Setting up a DNS server and plugging it in might be easy, but coordinating different teams, new locations, procedures, languages for administration etc. isn't trivial.
In fact it's probably a little fiddly procedurally, and a lot fiddly politically. Probably one of those things that gets mired for years.
Sigh. This may not be an option. Ripping out a directory service and replacing it is non-trivial. Getting MAC clients to work with AD may be a pain, but you seem rather blase about switching directory services. It's a shame that posts saying, "Rip it out, dipshit. Why did you install that shit anyway?" aren't actually helpful to people with real world problems.
And, in fact, I'd suggest you audition NIS on Windows (yes, you heard me right). Services for UNIX v3.0 includes NIS (and NFS) server which integrates with Active Directory, so you can have NIS clients managed by the AD infrastructure. It costs $99, and also gives you a nice UNIX shell that you can use to tool around your AD server and a bunch of other goodies. (Having said that I don't anything about OS X, so I don't know how well it plays with NIS, but it's an avenue worth a look.)
I'm not failing to understand the differences between paper and online advertising -- I watched the.com boom from inside a magazine publisher that sprouted a large online presence (starting with a "Z"... short guess) and things were exactly as you describe in the magazine business, too.
My point is that "they" will offer whatever looks like it might make or save money right now. It's up to us to say "no thanks" by voting with our feet. Not to be outraged that they have the audacity to try to turn things to their advantage in the first place.
I do (typically) hold myself in a higher regard than that. I don't like the use of personal details as currency, because they're non-generic. Cash (and equivalents) are generic: you give someone universally exchangable "value" for their product or service. Once the cash transfers, you're done. Personal details on the other hand are always "you", no matter how long and perverse a journey they make beyond that first transaction. You keep paying, as it were. I won't put words into your mouth, but I think that's what you're saying?
I don't like that at all. I'd rather pay a subscription fee.
But really, it's our reponsibility not to reward terms of service we dislike by not using that service. It's not "unfair" that sites like the NYT ask for registration -- it's their choice. If you dislike the registration burden more than you like NYT news, walk away. Same as anything else.
This is a divergent point from pointing out that everything isn't going to be free always, and wondering when some people might come to realise that. Neither "Everything free always" or "someone else always pays for it" represent a stable framework.
The mistake you make is thinking that this is about somthing 'free' (as in beer). It's not. You pay to access the NYT site, with your personal details. Then those details are sold on. You can buy it, or not buy it. As people are fond of pointing out: there are alternatives. But all this whinging about how stuff shouldn't be sold and should instead be free sounds like fifteen year-olds talking about how the world could be great if only they were running it.
Most of them don't make tons of money on their online operations. And it's reasonable enough for them to ask for registration anyway; since they provide the service, they can set the terms by which its offered.
When you register, you're using your personal details as currency, to pay for the access. You're buying that access the same as anything else. They provide a service, you pay to use it. If they provide one and ask you to pay and you say, "No, it should be free!" then you're just being naive.
Nothing you say makes a cogent point against registration sites. You just say that you don't like them. Fine, don't like them -- there are alternatives. But don't pretend there's something "wrong" in the model.
I have another idea. Why don't you presume to never pay for anything, ever? To live in a fantasy world where all you have to do is consume.
(Or perhaps you don't mean that, in which case I apologise. But I'm getting sick of seeing people here with the attitude, "We're all for 'Free'. And look, we can just take shit! Stick it to the man! Yeah!")
Well, let's have the conversation. Having registered a domain in a fit of pique, I'd like to pursue it. Summaries of "what this means for you" are exactly the kind of thing that would be handy, IMHO.
I'd be suprised if anyone has the desire and wherwithall to go challenging questionable EULAs throught he legal system. But perhaps that's not necessary -- the onerous terms sneaking in depend largely on the fact that nobody notices them, or that most people installing the software are ignorant of their implications.
So I've registered:
badlicense.org (and badlicence.org)
I'd be happy to let that be used for a site dedicated to explaining the EULAs of software. Perhaps an overview, and details on particular products.
Reasonably carefully worded it wouldn't even matter if the EULA had been interepreted in detail by a lawyer. Just highlighting the apparent detail should be enough to raise eyebrows and invite some clarification (perhaps, even, modification) from those issuing the EULA.
Companies will always tell you you're doing something wrong if you're doing something that pisses them off. Then they'll tell you it's illegal, perhaps even say it loudly with plenty of money and lawyers, such that you can't afford to point out loudly enough that it *is* legal. Then everyone (alright, "joe public") will believe (alright, "have the impression") they were right because you backed off. And if you manage to point out it *is* legal, then they'll work hard to change things so it becomes illegal.
This is just how companies will tend to be, since it's what the selection pressure favours. Why are people continually surprised by this?
This is somewhat misleading. I bought a cert for a smal personal Web server from Comodo, since it was cheap (about $60). It works fine with (i.e. is trusted by) all 4.7x Netscape and above, all IE 5 and above.
The only point of buying one, after all, being that visitors aren't subjected to confusing warnings about certificates.
Besides that one certificate I haven't dealt with Comodo so won't recommend at random -- but they supplied the certificate quickly, cheaply enough, and it works.
Re:Good article, alot of Linux-bashing though
on
Overview of the BSDs
·
· Score: 2
This intense rivalry between the BSD and Linux communities is something that baffles me...
They're all still people. Having -- and sharing -- apparently noble goals doesn't seem to make people any less (or more) petty and egotistical.
"...spacecraft from several nations, as well as NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense, will be first to chalk up lunar return..."
Actually, only one of those spacecraft will be first. The others will lay claim to terms like 'second', 'third' and so on. In fact there are many words that are intended just for the possibility that there will several, one after the other.
Though it's nice to see a wave of missions that have the look of gearing up for future utilisation. Hope something comes of it.
What is "physical access to your shit" in this context? They have encrypted data, nothing else. That's no more "physical access to your shit" than if they sniffed it from passing IP packets. The entire foundation of encryption as a means of protecting data is that possession of an encrypted version of the data doesn't give you access to the data. That to go from encrypted -> plaintext without key is a 'hard' problem and all that.
Of course I'm hoping you're just a troll that I was careless enough to respond to. Either that or you don't know what the fuck you're on about.
So erm, weren't you upset about not being able to use three of those four CPUs in OpenBSD, being as it doesn't yet support SMP, except in an under-development CVS branch?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, but the basic point is still valid. It's not about how likely any given component is to fail, but about what might happen were it to fail.
Depends. A telco has a network, which carries IP traffic (perhaps other traffic, too). That may or may not have multiple routes within it connecting any two points. And it may peer with other networks at various points. But it's not necessarily a given that a) if a big network disappears that there'll be routes *besides* that network connecting everything that was connected to it, or that if such alternatives exist, that they'll have sufficient bandwidth to cope with the loss of that network.
After all, it's notionally not economic to keep too much excess capacity around -- why bother? So it'd be a surprise if ever major route was 100% (or more) backed up by another major route.
Also, physical separation and logical separation are different. A large logical separation may, alas, boil down to two pieces of fiber in the same conduit, two wavelengths on the same piece of fiber, that sort of thing.
So yes, it *can* all be made to be redundant, but that's not neceesarily how it plays out. Other factors may act against redundancy.
Alas fiber needs to get a good deal more robust if that progression isn't to turn LANs into reliability nightmares. Cat 5 generally works even when you're using too short a length, scrunching it up, tieing knots it it etc. It usually doesn't complain when you do whatever it takes to fit it around someone's desk*. Try that with fiber, and you'll rapidly burn through your sense of humor.
* Yes, I know Cat 5 can be a right pain in the arse, but it's a lot more robust than (current) fiber.
(chortle)
:-)
Interesting? Yeah, I suppose it is...
But on a more serious note, you have to have a decrypted version of your data somewhere, in order to make use of it (something missed often hereabouts). And having something limited by the walls of your building isn't necessarily a dreadful idea, as long as you trust everyone who might be inside your building equally.
So yes, it may be of limited practical security application. At least compared to well-implemented encryption.
(Oh, and I especially like the bit about "nuclear wireless detection systems".)
You know, nobody in the world at large gives a shit if DTS is a "cleverer" codec. They are only interested in whether things with the DTS logo sound better than things with the Dolby Digital logo.
I hadn't considered the size of the offset. And it seems blindingly obvious now you mention it. Ta.
Nah. If you've got an infinite amount of data that's random (not saying pi is), then probability that any given string exists within it tends towards one. But the probability of any given string you select *being* that string tends toward zero. So you'd probably spend a very long time (not a finite time, even) looking for the offset. And then the person at the other end needs a function that generates the same "random" data, which'll take them an infinitely long time, too, if your offset is an infinite.
Now I don't know shit about maths (tends toward might actually be "1", for instance) but that's kind of how it seems intuitively. If someone's going to rip me a new one, at least answer the guys question with your superior knowledge.
I'm guessing (and yes, guessing) that it was just to be conservative. There's probably a lot less to do, far fewer people to involve to move a machine across town, that to implement a geographically distributed bunch of servers. Setting up a DNS server and plugging it in might be easy, but coordinating different teams, new locations, procedures, languages for administration etc. isn't trivial.
In fact it's probably a little fiddly procedurally, and a lot fiddly politically. Probably one of those things that gets mired for years.
"...resource for convincing stubborn Internet Explorer users why they should switch..."
Should be:
- Provides a better subjective browsing experience
If that's not true, you'll never win.Sigh. This may not be an option. Ripping out a directory service and replacing it is non-trivial. Getting MAC clients to work with AD may be a pain, but you seem rather blase about switching directory services. It's a shame that posts saying, "Rip it out, dipshit. Why did you install that shit anyway?" aren't actually helpful to people with real world problems.
And, in fact, I'd suggest you audition NIS on Windows (yes, you heard me right). Services for UNIX v3.0 includes NIS (and NFS) server which integrates with Active Directory, so you can have NIS clients managed by the AD infrastructure. It costs $99, and also gives you a nice UNIX shell that you can use to tool around your AD server and a bunch of other goodies. (Having said that I don't anything about OS X, so I don't know how well it plays with NIS, but it's an avenue worth a look.)
I'm not failing to understand the differences between paper and online advertising -- I watched the .com boom from inside a magazine publisher that sprouted a large online presence (starting with a "Z"... short guess) and things were exactly as you describe in the magazine business, too.
My point is that "they" will offer whatever looks like it might make or save money right now. It's up to us to say "no thanks" by voting with our feet. Not to be outraged that they have the audacity to try to turn things to their advantage in the first place.
(And yes, I think news should be free, too.)
Craig.
I do (typically) hold myself in a higher regard than that. I don't like the use of personal details as currency, because they're non-generic. Cash (and equivalents) are generic: you give someone universally exchangable "value" for their product or service. Once the cash transfers, you're done. Personal details on the other hand are always "you", no matter how long and perverse a journey they make beyond that first transaction. You keep paying, as it were. I won't put words into your mouth, but I think that's what you're saying?
I don't like that at all. I'd rather pay a subscription fee.
But really, it's our reponsibility not to reward terms of service we dislike by not using that service. It's not "unfair" that sites like the NYT ask for registration -- it's their choice. If you dislike the registration burden more than you like NYT news, walk away. Same as anything else.
This is a divergent point from pointing out that everything isn't going to be free always, and wondering when some people might come to realise that. Neither "Everything free always" or "someone else always pays for it" represent a stable framework.
The mistake you make is thinking that this is about somthing 'free' (as in beer). It's not. You pay to access the NYT site, with your personal details. Then those details are sold on. You can buy it, or not buy it. As people are fond of pointing out: there are alternatives. But all this whinging about how stuff shouldn't be sold and should instead be free sounds like fifteen year-olds talking about how the world could be great if only they were running it.
(BTW. Apologise: British variant of apologize.)
Most of them don't make tons of money on their online operations. And it's reasonable enough for them to ask for registration anyway; since they provide the service, they can set the terms by which its offered.
When you register, you're using your personal details as currency, to pay for the access. You're buying that access the same as anything else. They provide a service, you pay to use it. If they provide one and ask you to pay and you say, "No, it should be free!" then you're just being naive.
Nothing you say makes a cogent point against registration sites. You just say that you don't like them. Fine, don't like them -- there are alternatives. But don't pretend there's something "wrong" in the model.
I have another idea. Why don't you presume to never pay for anything, ever? To live in a fantasy world where all you have to do is consume.
(Or perhaps you don't mean that, in which case I apologise. But I'm getting sick of seeing people here with the attitude, "We're all for 'Free'. And look, we can just take shit! Stick it to the man! Yeah!")
Well, let's have the conversation. Having registered a domain in a fit of pique, I'd like to pursue it. Summaries of "what this means for you" are exactly the kind of thing that would be handy, IMHO.
So they want to monitor usage, charge and control access according to how you're using the service.
Wouldn't that be contradictory to the whole idea of being a common carrier? Hands off, except where we want to squeeze customers for revenue?
I'd be suprised if anyone has the desire and wherwithall to go challenging questionable EULAs throught he legal system. But perhaps that's not necessary -- the onerous terms sneaking in depend largely on the fact that nobody notices them, or that most people installing the software are ignorant of their implications.
So I've registered:
badlicense.org (and badlicence.org)
I'd be happy to let that be used for a site dedicated to explaining the EULAs of software. Perhaps an overview, and details on particular products.
Reasonably carefully worded it wouldn't even matter if the EULA had been interepreted in detail by a lawyer. Just highlighting the apparent detail should be enough to raise eyebrows and invite some clarification (perhaps, even, modification) from those issuing the EULA.
So, anyone interested?
It's layer 1, layer 2. It'll be as secure as anything you run on it at layer 3 and above.
Companies will always tell you you're doing something wrong if you're doing something that pisses them off. Then they'll tell you it's illegal, perhaps even say it loudly with plenty of money and lawyers, such that you can't afford to point out loudly enough that it *is* legal. Then everyone (alright, "joe public") will believe (alright, "have the impression") they were right because you backed off. And if you manage to point out it *is* legal, then they'll work hard to change things so it becomes illegal.
This is just how companies will tend to be, since it's what the selection pressure favours. Why are people continually surprised by this?
The only point of buying one, after all, being that visitors aren't subjected to confusing warnings about certificates.
Besides that one certificate I haven't dealt with Comodo so won't recommend at random -- but they supplied the certificate quickly, cheaply enough, and it works.
They're all still people. Having -- and sharing -- apparently noble goals doesn't seem to make people any less (or more) petty and egotistical.
Actually, only one of those spacecraft will be first. The others will lay claim to terms like 'second', 'third' and so on. In fact there are many words that are intended just for the possibility that there will several, one after the other.
Though it's nice to see a wave of missions that have the look of gearing up for future utilisation. Hope something comes of it.
Of course I'm hoping you're just a troll that I was careless enough to respond to. Either that or you don't know what the fuck you're on about.
So erm, weren't you upset about not being able to use three of those four CPUs in OpenBSD, being as it doesn't yet support SMP, except in an under-development CVS branch?