Yep. Several chunks of CNet are running on Apache 2.0. www.news.com has been on 2.0 for about six months, and I believe they've now switched www.download.com, too.
I was wondering that myself, given that it would neatly solve the problem something in the lounge that hooks up to the MP3 server, with neither a clumsy PC nor lots of nasty cabling.
I found this, but can't actually seem to find it on sale, or get a guide price. I know it's not exactly a wireless adaptor for the PS2, but it solves the same problem, and without needing anyone to actually port anything.
I would argue for these things because I believe them. I don't pretend my beliefs to be "objectively" true, but I do believe them likely to yield the sort of society I want to live in.
If I choose, I can fault anyone for holding any beliefs. I would tend to fault them if I thought their beliefs hypocritical, or their actions not aligned with their stated beliefs (which may well be the same thing). This because I choose to believe by my beliefs. That's what freedom is. Not pretending that your beliefs are inherently superior and thus pretend them "objectively" correct, but own up to them, live by them, seek the company of those who are like minded, and defend against those who would seek to impose a different way of life.
In terms of actions, that's how people live, regardless of how we choose to label it.
I don't disagree with the conclusion, because it's a subjective view that I hold.
But the notion that it is objectively better is wrong, because the notion of an "absolute moral standard" has no foundation. To borrow an analogy: what is space without the objects in it? If you claim an absolute (objective) moral standard, what defines it, how and why?
I disagree with your notion of objective morals, as I've said. As it happens, it seems we share at least some of our morals, although we don't share our basis for arriving at them. In fact, I find your reasoning dangerous: it abdicates responsibility for your morals. Pointing to "objective", "absolute" or any other morals as the core of your beliefs leaves you free to never question those beliefs.
No, they aren't "objectively" wrong. They are *subjectively* wrong. Just because a lot of people disagree (and me among them) doesn't make it objectively wrong.
The benefits and drawbacks of views and courses of action are implicitly defined by your goal and constraints. If you think, "Houses for all, but no slave labour," then you've got a goal, but your constraints mean you can't force people to work to achieve it. But it's objectively neither wrong nor right; it's just a goal with constraints.
No, I don't think this technocratic and ignorant of society. There's plenty of room to talk about what's acceptable. But don't bastardise the semantics to support a point of view.
Actually this misses the point. Unless you have a truly baroque machine setup which is unique, undocumented and can't easily be replicated, then protecting the system itself isn't the critical issue. OK, so if you're in an always-on realtime environment then maybe it is, but then you shouldn't be relying on "unique" anything.
Otherwise the only difference between a virus clobbering you as root or as a user is that you likely lose n users data as root, and likely only one if it's a user. Yes, that means you shouldn't run everything as root, but it's the *data* that's important, not the system. Ask your boss whether he cares more about needing to have IS reinstall his machine, or that he might lose all his personal data from it.
This is a good thing because it's a bad thing (yes, yes, I realise that's pompous). The precedent set is disquieting. But it was always going to happen; in either large chunks or small bites (perhaps both) the responsibility of ISPs was always going to be defined this way. People suing because they don't like what they see, and ISPs saying "but we're a common carrier, it's not our fault" in court cases.
So anyway, this is good because it's not a mom and pop ISP. This is someone who can afford to press a point, if it's worth it to them. Thus it opens the potential for a real debate on these issues. If it were an easily-trampled minnow, that wouldn't happen.
In this case, be happy it's Microsoft. Your enemy's enemy and all that...
My brother was visiting British Aerospace some years back and they had a bunch of Lightnings (old British supersonic fighters -- yes, such things existed:-) sat on an apron. He asked what they were for and was told that they were trade-ins from a sale of Tornadoes (European supersonic fighterish bombers) to Saudi Arabia.
He asked what was going to happen to them, and was told that they were for sale... for one pound each. The condition was that you had to take it away within a week if you bought one. Did they fly? "Well they flew them in here, but they've had the weapons deactivated and they've been sat there rotting a few years." Apparently an ex-BAe fitter who had worked on Lightnings was among the purchasers of the one-pound fighters, and had reworked it so he could, if so inclined, start the engine.
And one other point: this 747 sim is acool story. It's not "Microsoft is shit", nor about software patents or geeks in society. Just some cool borderline-crazy stuff some guy is getting up to. Reminds me of Slashdot in 1997. When I was a lad.
You know this is just for the sake of twattish pedantry, but it was called "Uridium", not "Iridium".
I remember because I was so impressed by it on the C64, not least the noise the bay door made when you launched. I had an Amstrad CPC, and the Amstrad version was (as was all-too common) ported from the Spectrum, and was thus piss poor.
They're talking about a couple of things. Southern UK mainland general air traffic (excluding TMAs of airports etc.) was handled a centre at West Drayton. This was exceptionally long in the tooth, generating lots of fun stories about forty year-old computers etc.
They decided a while back to replace West Drayton, and built "the world's most advanced" air traffic control centre, at Swanwick. Many years after it was due, Swanwick opened for business recently.
Of course the didn't just switch over and shut down West Drayton. To the press, West Drayton was a "backup". In fact it was (is) handling a bunch of movements. And a couple of months back, they had a large system crash. This was, as usual, sold as "problems with old computers" playing up. From inside NATS (National Air Traffic Service) one hears a different story: something about sysadmin (if you will) error knocking the thing over.
But Swanick is late and expensive. At heart, it's an IT project, after all...
Apparently there have actually been four events. First one was an "Is this an earthquake?" That gave way directly to the 5.2 shake, which lasted a few seconds before diminishing. Whole-building motion, and you could feeling the building twisting and deforming. But no apparent damage, and subsided quickly.
- [If] it's keyed to GPS location, then you have a defined search space. This search space is the set of all practically resolvable locations on earth. Worse, this is (a bit) like a "non-flat" keyspace, since you can rule out *lots* of locations, and start with some obvious ones (think how John the Ripper and L0phtcrack work).
- It requries a tamperproof unit. Go and look up all the usual issues with "tamperproof" units.
Neither of these things make it useless. They just bound the situations (and probably the length of time) for which it may potentially be of use.
Easy - I beat it! Dumbass computer.I'm ace. Medium - It beats me. It was hiding in the right place, even though I'm too clever for it. Cheat. Hard - It doesn't just beat me, it humiliates me. Fucking thing is broken. Who coded this shit. It was so cheating.
I did RTFA. It would be a shame to complain without having read the article first. And no, I don't need all words with multiple meanings expressly defined. That's the point of context. And that's why you use it correctly in the place of expressly defining the meaning of your terms.
That may be true, but it's clumsy and journalistically incompetent to take a common or implied meaning and not explain that you're not using that meaning. The Slashdot headline implies Lamarckism. If you don't mean to imply something, qualify it or use phrasing that doesn't imply it in the first place. Pointing loftily to less common meanings as an excuse for clumsy wordplay is shoddy.
This is kindof interesting. A couple of things spring immediately to mind.
First, presentation of the image will (may) vary in different situations. The visual presentation of a password is pretty irrelevant: as long as you can understand and input the right symbols the font, colour size etc. in which they are presented isn't relevant. On the other hand an image must look substantially like the crib image. Sounds obvious, but consider differences in resolution, colour depth etc. You can divide the image into regions (a grid, perhaps) but ultimately there will be a limit to the resolution of the grid that you can rely on (not to mention input errors limiting the viable grid resolution.) To get more possible regions, you'd need a plain bigger image to get around the input resolution issue. All of which complicates the implementation (of course, you could break each image down semantically somehow, but that sounds like a further adventure altogether.)
And, after all that, prople may turn out to have pattern preferences that are "as crappy" as poorly chosen passwords? Always use a photo of your daughter and click on both eyes and outline her cute smile? Ooops. Use your country flag and click where regions of colour meet?
This is hardly another example of tyrannical Microsoft sinking to gruesome tactics that no decent company would countenance.
These companies are, after all, competing with other. Ultimately the decision about whether it's worth the (probably small) potential benefit of this sort of activity will come down to an individual who happens to be present. The potential downside is the negative publicity generated. But the difference in this happening or not is down to an individual, not a company. And you can bet there are equally zealous individuals in most big companies which have any record of successful competition.
Erm, wouldn't this thing be sat there twitching the whole time?
CPU usage fluctuates from near zero to 100% depending on what your box is up to, and a subsecond basis. Surely this'd only be good for a machine with a fairly constant load?
I still have an earlyish engineering sample of a Netwinder lying about. For a while it did sterling service hooked up to my ADSL line as a Web Server. But it was always somewhat idosyncratic.
For a while I've wanted a small, silent desktop that could be always on without waking the neighbours and do thin-ish client stuff. The Netwinder packed a lot into a very small case, and had a tiny but exceptionally noisy fan trying to keep it all cool. People had hacks for slowing up the fan or nifty ways of making it quieter, but it was noisier than many desktops. The range of ports for video I/O, modem etc. were never all made to work, and (I think) they dropped several of the more esoteric hardware features on the production models.
Besides the fan, it was slow and had crap graphics. OK for a server, but not as a client. With 2MB of video RAM and a poor quality output, display was limited to 1024*768, and not 24-bit colour. Performance was bad enought that even running just Citrix ICA on X was just too slow to be comfortable. So it just didn't quite cut it as a client: too noisy, too slow, poor graphics.
I guess the blade version may have been pretty useful, but the desktop version just didn't quite fit. I'd argue there's not a widespread need to make a server quite that tiny for use a gateway, SMB server (don't forget the small disk), whatever. Why not have a bigger, cheaper, quieter and faster server? Anything you could do with a Netwinder, you could do with a cheap PC with a couple of ethernet cards in it.
If they could make it quiet, stick in just a little more horsepower and decent graphics, it might make a nice client. But that's a lot of "ifs". As it was, it didn't quite cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be picky, but wouldn't that be just the ones we know about? Might there not be one or two outside that radius, perhaps?
(Yeah, it was an asshole thing to point out, but I was in the mood...)
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.24.html#subj1
Yep. Several chunks of CNet are running on Apache 2.0. www.news.com has been on 2.0 for about six months, and I believe they've now switched www.download.com, too.
I was wondering that myself, given that it would neatly solve the problem something in the lounge that hooks up to the MP3 server, with neither a clumsy PC nor lots of nasty cabling. I found this, but can't actually seem to find it on sale, or get a guide price. I know it's not exactly a wireless adaptor for the PS2, but it solves the same problem, and without needing anyone to actually port anything.
I would argue for these things because I believe them. I don't pretend my beliefs to be "objectively" true, but I do believe them likely to yield the sort of society I want to live in.
If I choose, I can fault anyone for holding any beliefs. I would tend to fault them if I thought their beliefs hypocritical, or their actions not aligned with their stated beliefs (which may well be the same thing). This because I choose to believe by my beliefs. That's what freedom is. Not pretending that your beliefs are inherently superior and thus pretend them "objectively" correct, but own up to them, live by them, seek the company of those who are like minded, and defend against those who would seek to impose a different way of life.
In terms of actions, that's how people live, regardless of how we choose to label it.
I don't disagree with the conclusion, because it's a subjective view that I hold.
But the notion that it is objectively better is wrong, because the notion of an "absolute moral standard" has no foundation. To borrow an analogy: what is space without the objects in it? If you claim an absolute (objective) moral standard, what defines it, how and why?
I disagree with your notion of objective morals, as I've said. As it happens, it seems we share at least some of our morals, although we don't share our basis for arriving at them. In fact, I find your reasoning dangerous: it abdicates responsibility for your morals. Pointing to "objective", "absolute" or any other morals as the core of your beliefs leaves you free to never question those beliefs.
No, they aren't "objectively" wrong. They are *subjectively* wrong. Just because a lot of people disagree (and me among them) doesn't make it objectively wrong.
The benefits and drawbacks of views and courses of action are implicitly defined by your goal and constraints. If you think, "Houses for all, but no slave labour," then you've got a goal, but your constraints mean you can't force people to work to achieve it. But it's objectively neither wrong nor right; it's just a goal with constraints.
No, I don't think this technocratic and ignorant of society. There's plenty of room to talk about what's acceptable. But don't bastardise the semantics to support a point of view.
...or if it has more or less than existing systems (and workflows).
It's: "Is there a net decrease in aircraft safety during movements?"
If not, then it's not necessarily an issue.
One more excuse from your ISP:
"What, you going to tell me your backbone took a backhoe?"
"No, it was run into by a super-secret spy subm--."
Actually this misses the point. Unless you have a truly baroque machine setup which is unique, undocumented and can't easily be replicated, then protecting the system itself isn't the critical issue. OK, so if you're in an always-on realtime environment then maybe it is, but then you shouldn't be relying on "unique" anything.
Otherwise the only difference between a virus clobbering you as root or as a user is that you likely lose n users data as root, and likely only one if it's a user. Yes, that means you shouldn't run everything as root, but it's the *data* that's important, not the system. Ask your boss whether he cares more about needing to have IS reinstall his machine, or that he might lose all his personal data from it.
This is a good thing because it's a bad thing (yes, yes, I realise that's pompous). The precedent set is disquieting. But it was always going to happen; in either large chunks or small bites (perhaps both) the responsibility of ISPs was always going to be defined this way. People suing because they don't like what they see, and ISPs saying "but we're a common carrier, it's not our fault" in court cases.
So anyway, this is good because it's not a mom and pop ISP. This is someone who can afford to press a point, if it's worth it to them. Thus it opens the potential for a real debate on these issues. If it were an easily-trampled minnow, that wouldn't happen.
In this case, be happy it's Microsoft. Your enemy's enemy and all that...
My brother was visiting British Aerospace some years back and they had a bunch of Lightnings (old British supersonic fighters -- yes, such things existed :-) sat on an apron. He asked what they were for and was told that they were trade-ins from a sale of Tornadoes (European supersonic fighterish bombers) to Saudi Arabia.
He asked what was going to happen to them, and was told that they were for sale... for one pound each. The condition was that you had to take it away within a week if you bought one. Did they fly? "Well they flew them in here, but they've had the weapons deactivated and they've been sat there rotting a few years." Apparently an ex-BAe fitter who had worked on Lightnings was among the purchasers of the one-pound fighters, and had reworked it so he could, if so inclined, start the engine.
And one other point: this 747 sim is acool story. It's not "Microsoft is shit", nor about software patents or geeks in society. Just some cool borderline-crazy stuff some guy is getting up to. Reminds me of Slashdot in 1997. When I was a lad.
You know this is just for the sake of twattish pedantry, but it was called "Uridium", not "Iridium".
I remember because I was so impressed by it on the C64, not least the noise the bay door made when you launched. I had an Amstrad CPC, and the Amstrad version was (as was all-too common) ported from the Spectrum, and was thus piss poor.
Christ, I must be bored.
They're talking about a couple of things. Southern UK mainland general air traffic (excluding TMAs of airports etc.) was handled a centre at West Drayton. This was exceptionally long in the tooth, generating lots of fun stories about forty year-old computers etc.
They decided a while back to replace West Drayton, and built "the world's most advanced" air traffic control centre, at Swanwick. Many years after it was due, Swanwick opened for business recently.
Of course the didn't just switch over and shut down West Drayton. To the press, West Drayton was a "backup". In fact it was (is) handling a bunch of movements. And a couple of months back, they had a large system crash. This was, as usual, sold as "problems with old computers" playing up. From inside NATS (National Air Traffic Service) one hears a different story: something about sysadmin (if you will) error knocking the thing over.
But Swanick is late and expensive. At heart, it's an IT project, after all...
Apparently there have actually been four events. First one was an "Is this an earthquake?" That gave way directly to the 5.2 shake, which lasted a few seconds before diminishing. Whole-building motion, and you could feeling the building twisting and deforming. But no apparent damage, and subsided quickly.
/ 36 . 8.-123.-121.html
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsUS/Maps/US2
Couple of aftershocks (they say) but they were much lighter, at around 2.5, and weren't felt here (at least, not by me in a quiet apartment...)
Who audits the new version? This is only well motivated if you're sure the new version is *always* a "better" version than the old.
Now what the hell does that mean in the general case?
There are two points here:
- [If] it's keyed to GPS location,
then you have a defined search space. This search space is the set of all practically resolvable locations on earth. Worse, this is (a bit) like a "non-flat" keyspace, since you can rule out *lots* of locations, and start with some obvious ones (think how John the Ripper and L0phtcrack work).
- It requries a tamperproof unit.
Go and look up all the usual issues with "tamperproof" units.
Neither of these things make it useless. They just bound the situations (and probably the length of time) for which it may potentially be of use.
Easy - I beat it! Dumbass computer.I'm ace.
Medium - It beats me. It was hiding in the right place, even though I'm too clever for it. Cheat.
Hard - It doesn't just beat me, it humiliates me. Fucking thing is broken. Who coded this shit. It was so cheating.
Maybe that's just me...
Alright, for those who are interested, that content is account for about 10Mbit/s constant traffic right now. I'm looking at our MRTG right here.
I did RTFA. It would be a shame to complain without having read the article first. And no, I don't need all words with multiple meanings expressly defined. That's the point of context. And that's why you use it correctly in the place of expressly defining the meaning of your terms.
That may be true, but it's clumsy and journalistically incompetent to take a common or implied meaning and not explain that you're not using that meaning. The Slashdot headline implies Lamarckism. If you don't mean to imply something, qualify it or use phrasing that doesn't imply it in the first place. Pointing loftily to less common meanings as an excuse for clumsy wordplay is shoddy.
This is kindof interesting. A couple of things spring immediately to mind.
First, presentation of the image will (may) vary in different situations. The visual presentation of a password is pretty irrelevant: as long as you can understand and input the right symbols the font, colour size etc. in which they are presented isn't relevant. On the other hand an image must look substantially like the crib image. Sounds obvious, but consider differences in resolution, colour depth etc. You can divide the image into regions (a grid, perhaps) but ultimately there will be a limit to the resolution of the grid that you can rely on (not to mention input errors limiting the viable grid resolution.) To get more possible regions, you'd need a plain bigger image to get around the input resolution issue. All of which complicates the implementation (of course, you could break each image down semantically somehow, but that sounds like a further adventure altogether.)
And, after all that, prople may turn out to have pattern preferences that are "as crappy" as poorly chosen passwords? Always use a photo of your daughter and click on both eyes and outline her cute smile? Ooops. Use your country flag and click where regions of colour meet?
This is hardly another example of tyrannical Microsoft sinking to gruesome tactics that no decent company would countenance.
These companies are, after all, competing with other. Ultimately the decision about whether it's worth the (probably small) potential benefit of this sort of activity will come down to an individual who happens to be present. The potential downside is the negative publicity generated. But the difference in this happening or not is down to an individual, not a company. And you can bet there are equally zealous individuals in most big companies which have any record of successful competition.
Erm, wouldn't this thing be sat there twitching the whole time?
CPU usage fluctuates from near zero to 100% depending on what your box is up to, and a subsecond basis. Surely this'd only be good for a machine with a fairly constant load?
I still have an earlyish engineering sample of a Netwinder lying about. For a while it did sterling service hooked up to my ADSL line as a Web Server. But it was always somewhat idosyncratic.
For a while I've wanted a small, silent desktop that could be always on without waking the neighbours and do thin-ish client stuff. The Netwinder packed a lot into a very small case, and had a tiny but exceptionally noisy fan trying to keep it all cool. People had hacks for slowing up the fan or nifty ways of making it quieter, but it was noisier than many desktops. The range of ports for video I/O, modem etc. were never all made to work, and (I think) they dropped several of the more esoteric hardware features on the production models.
Besides the fan, it was slow and had crap graphics. OK for a server, but not as a client. With 2MB of video RAM and a poor quality output, display was limited to 1024*768, and not 24-bit colour. Performance was bad enought that even running just Citrix ICA on X was just too slow to be comfortable. So it just didn't quite cut it as a client: too noisy, too slow, poor graphics.
I guess the blade version may have been pretty useful, but the desktop version just didn't quite fit. I'd argue there's not a widespread need to make a server quite that tiny for use a gateway, SMB server (don't forget the small disk), whatever. Why not have a bigger, cheaper, quieter and faster server? Anything you could do with a Netwinder, you could do with a cheap PC with a couple of ethernet cards in it.
If they could make it quiet, stick in just a little more horsepower and decent graphics, it might make a nice client. But that's a lot of "ifs". As it was, it didn't quite cut it.