You can pretty easily put together an inexpensive SATA array with multiple terrabytes of storage. To anyone that thinks Fibre Channel or iSCSI is just a million times better or more reliable than SATA, I'd say you're being sold a bill of goods by your vendor. Unless you have very high performance needs like say a database being hit by thousands of people, SATA will serve you just fine.
This has been going on since the beginning of the industry, and it won't change. You can complain about it all you want, but it's going to continue to happen.
I disagree. Lock-in is getting smaller every year. To give a few examples, Do you have any vendor lock-in with your SMTP server? Nope, because SMTP has been the standard mail transfer protocol for years. Are you locked into a single router vendor? Hell no, because TCP/IP is TCP/IP.
Lock-in only makes sense as far as a single vendor-neutral standard doesn't outweigh the benefits of a non-standard. The standard for document exchange is PDF, not.doc. You don't have to run any Adobe software if you don't wish to. As any industry matures, standards tend to set in and destroy lock-in.
Can't everyone read the password hashes file? On Linux at least.
Absolutely not. Shadow password files became common on Linux 12-15 years ago, and other Unix variants around the same time. Only root is allowed to see the hash. If you have root privs, seeing the password hash wouldn't gain you much.
There may be something of value here.. it's really hard to say as the article author chose to take a bunch of analogies out of context, and give few details. Essentially this article is useless. The only thing I got out of it is "we're focusing on the wrong things in security, for example passwords and viruses." That's probably true, but it sure doesn't tell me much.
There's the lay definition of a professional, and then there's the legal definition of it. The lay definition simply describes someone who's good at what they do, whereas the legal definition is far more rigorous.
Maybe. Slashdot isn't a legal forum though, and "professional" isn't really legal jargon.
Sure you can call yourself a "professional", just not a "professional engineer" or "professional accountant", or anything of that sort.
So you're saying that jobs that require licensing require a license to practice that job? What does that have to do with being "professional"? (Which seems to be the operative word in this discussion)
He does not write text books, news articles, or legal documents. His guess is as good as yours or mine as to what Microsoft's intentions are.
Yah.. he's only the single guy most familiar with the thing Microsoft says it has patents on. So he sure doesn't know anything more than you or I about it. The patents involve Xenix. Look it up sometime, it may seem oddly familiar.
I'm unaware of Microsoft giving out any information about WHAT these patents are. The stories I've read are all about Balmer blowing a lot smoking, while yelling "We'll Sue! We'll Sue!"
A profession is formed for the public good, in order for experts in the field to supervise, regulate, and discipline one another.
That's funny. I always thought a "profession" had more to do with social class than anything about supervising, regulating, and discipline. This is the first I've ever heard such a formal definition, with rules set forth, etc. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, and teachers are similarly regulated.
So you can't call yourself a "professional" unless you've been regulated by the government, or some other "official" organization? I guess there's a lot of people with misleading perceptions of themselves.
I mean ti's not news, it's just a guy with a job like another telling us his life.
It seems you have a rather narrow definition of news. Newspapers have fluff pieces about peoples lives all the time. Newspaper columnists are known make an entire career out of doing what you just describe.
It may not be any good, it may be crap (I can't read the thing as it's slashdotted), but just because it's not "something that happened today or yesterday" doesn't make it "not news".
Crunch is coming, and Yahoo is going under one way or another.
Why? I don't find Yahoo useful, but I also don't find MTV useful either. Is Yahoo losing money, or losing business? They don't have the cachet of Google of course, but they're a more established portal site.
Not being "the next big thing" doesn't mean death. Yahoo has a MUCH better position than say Facebook, or MySpace, who could be gone tomorrow, and no one would really care.
Study finds that countries with more international fibre links suffers less when one is cut.
Science isn't only about measuring things we don't think we understand. It's also about measuring things we think we do understand, and seeing if we actually do.
The story is the abuse, not the fact that it's happening to a church.
Let's get real here. Do you honestly believe this would be as big a story if it were the Red Cross that got this letter? How about if it were NORML (marijuana legalization group?). The fact of it being a church makes this story. It'd never get national press coverage if it were some other random group of people.
The only problem I have with this whole story is the exemption being sought specifically for churches. They shouldn't get any extra rights than anyone else.
Would they prosecute, though? What are their damages? Would it be worth the negative PR?
Is it worth the fight? You'd probably win.. but what? The right to have big televisions at superbowl gatherings? Not exactly the kind of thing most churches really care about. Choose your battles. While I believe the NFL is in the wrong here, and no one should be able to dictate TV size to anyone else for broadcast TV, it's such a small issue that it's not much worth the fight.
It's probably better to just tell the people that no, the NFL says we can't have large TVs here. Tell them to tell their friends, and so on. This kind of thing builds, though slowly.
Anyone that's done much exploration of spam filtering already knows the basic architecture of self-learning filters. This article has nothing new.
Recently I've implemented greylisting on my mail server. The drop in spam has been enormous, though there have been a couple cases where email didn't go through on the first try.
Essentially it's a step inserted into the SMTP transfer. The first time a given email+ip address attempt to send you mail, the server responds "try again later". If it tries again after 5 minutes, the mail is accepted. If it tries again before 5 minutes, it gets another "try again later".
The only problem is a small number of SMTP servers won't try again after a "try again later" message. The number of poor SMTP servers is fairly small, I'd estimate 1%-2% of all users.
In practice, who is really going to take a church to court?
Not the NFL. That's why they start with the scary sounding letters. They know mere threats will stop 95% of the churches. There are already ad viewers in the process, so its not like there's no profit from large audiences.
This is the part I don't understand. The only thing I can figure out is the Guys In Charge tell the lawyers "Go enforce our copyright", and give them a long leash. The lawyers don't understand business, but do understand law, so they just happily send out C&D letters. Every now and again one of the Guys In Charge here about the dumb C&D letters, briefly think, "huh, I wonder if that's good business?", then forget about it as they drive over that homeless guy in their giant SUV.
I've seen Ubuntu break itself to an unbootable state three separate times on three different systems. I've never seen that on any distribution. I still use it.. but much more of this and I'll be looking elsewhere.
Also, the latest release seems to have broken wireless, at least for the Intel IPW 3945 chipset in my laptop. I had to downgrade to 7.04, and all is well again.
The NFL is a large corporation. Corporations prefer to use lawyers and scary sounding letters rather than the coppers. It's a lot harder to put a scary sounding letter on television than a bunch of cops busting up a church.
If I were to blame anything I'd blame that flithy hypocritical religion of islam... Oh I'm sorry I'm not allowed to say that, right?
You're certainly "allowed" to say that, but it doesn't make it accurate. Islam, like Christianity, isn't one religion with a singular belief set. Do you blame Lutherans for those nutjobs who protest Iraq soldiers funerals because we tolerate gay people too much? Do you blame Catholics because of the wack-job Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics? How about blaming Mormons for David Koresh and Wacko?
Every religion has it's branch of insanity. There's always crazy people with a horrible agenda to go after, some of them use religion as a tool to gather followers. Islam isn't any different. Now tell me how narrow-minded I am.
Well here you go. You seem to think it's all about some kind of political incorrectness, repressing your right to say "wrong" things. There's certainly some of that in the world.. up until recently it was "don't critisize the war, or you're with the terrorist". Political correctness works on both sides, see.
This isn't about political correctness though. There's plenty of Muslims in the world who aren't fundamentalists bent on silencing everyone. There may be more fundy-Muslims around the world than fundy-Christians (actually I have no idea if that's true), but that's beside the point. A few hundred years ago, the roles were reversed (dark ages anyone?). My history books tell me about something called the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. Heard of those?
What is WRONG with you people--you jingoists, you untiring flag-wavers, you twin-tower-tattooing rednecks, you support-the-war-or-you-aren't-a-patriot fucks?
There's a certain segment of the population that just likes things to be simple. They don't understand the world, and they don't want to. They rely on the President or Bill O'Reilly, or hell, even Susan Sarandon to tell them what's right. If the leadership tells them something simple like "we gotta get them terrorists" they'll defend that forever. Questioning that would be going down the path of trying to understand something they don't want to.
Everyone does that to SOME degree with some topic. If my mechanic started talking about how bad Chevy transmissions are compared to Ford transmissions, and how Chevy was a rotten company for making bad transmissions, my eyes would glaze over, especially if I heard all the time how great Chevy transmissions are from my friends, family, etc. Obviously I think international politics are more important than transmissions... but my point is there's a certain amount of willful disengagement with the populace.
Your message is right, but your approach is wrong. You sound like Ron Paul (in the sanest thing he's ever said) talking about Iraq at the Republican debate the other night. People, at least in the US, don't like to listen to ranting and raving people. It doesn't matter what they're saying, it's just an automatic "this guy sounds crazy, whatever he's saying is crazy".
the problem is at some point they are going to drop support for it
Welcome to software development.
What products don't eventually become unsupported? Even a compiled language like C or C++ has libraries that eventually become unsupported, and maintaining them even if you had the source would become a difficult task.
Will the new Perl or the new Python be the first to shoot itself in the foot with incompatibility?
Unlike closed source languages, Python and Perl are both totally open. If you don't want to switch to the new 3.0 language, don't. If enough people don't want to switch to 3.0, 2.x will live on forever. If everyone leaves 2.x and you're the only one on it.. you can continue to support it yourself for however long you wish.
If porting your code to 3.0 is advantageous, do it. But no one is forcing you either way. There's no foot shooting going on, it's offering an alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Disks are cheap, storage systems aren't.
No, SOME storage systems are expensive.
You can pretty easily put together an inexpensive SATA array with multiple terrabytes of storage. To anyone that thinks Fibre Channel or iSCSI is just a million times better or more reliable than SATA, I'd say you're being sold a bill of goods by your vendor. Unless you have very high performance needs like say a database being hit by thousands of people, SATA will serve you just fine.
This has been going on since the beginning of the industry, and it won't change. You can complain about it all you want, but it's going to continue to happen.
I disagree. Lock-in is getting smaller every year. To give a few examples, Do you have any vendor lock-in with your SMTP server? Nope, because SMTP has been the standard mail transfer protocol for years. Are you locked into a single router vendor? Hell no, because TCP/IP is TCP/IP.
Lock-in only makes sense as far as a single vendor-neutral standard doesn't outweigh the benefits of a non-standard. The standard for document exchange is PDF, not
Can't everyone read the password hashes file? On Linux at least.
Absolutely not. Shadow password files became common on Linux 12-15 years ago, and other Unix variants around the same time. Only root is allowed to see the hash. If you have root privs, seeing the password hash wouldn't gain you much.
There may be something of value here.. it's really hard to say as the article author chose to take a bunch of analogies out of context, and give few details. Essentially this article is useless. The only thing I got out of it is "we're focusing on the wrong things in security, for example passwords and viruses." That's probably true, but it sure doesn't tell me much.
Pick one.
And the Govt will try to prosecute you for having "data smuggling software" on your computer.
There's the lay definition of a professional, and then there's the legal definition of it. The lay definition simply describes someone who's good at what they do, whereas the legal definition is far more rigorous.
Maybe. Slashdot isn't a legal forum though, and "professional" isn't really legal jargon.
Sure you can call yourself a "professional", just not a "professional engineer" or "professional accountant", or anything of that sort.
So you're saying that jobs that require licensing require a license to practice that job? What does that have to do with being "professional"? (Which seems to be the operative word in this discussion)
He does not write text books, news articles, or legal documents. His guess is as good as yours or mine as to what Microsoft's intentions are.
Yah.. he's only the single guy most familiar with the thing Microsoft says it has patents on. So he sure doesn't know anything more than you or I about it.
The patents involve Xenix. Look it up sometime, it may seem oddly familiar.
I'm unaware of Microsoft giving out any information about WHAT these patents are. The stories I've read are all about Balmer blowing a lot smoking, while yelling "We'll Sue! We'll Sue!"
A profession is formed for the public good, in order for experts in the field to supervise, regulate, and discipline one another.
That's funny. I always thought a "profession" had more to do with social class than anything about supervising, regulating, and discipline. This is the first I've ever heard such a formal definition, with rules set forth, etc.
Doctors, nurses, lawyers, and teachers are similarly regulated.
So you can't call yourself a "professional" unless you've been regulated by the government, or some other "official" organization? I guess there's a lot of people with misleading perceptions of themselves.
I mean ti's not news, it's just a guy with a job like another telling us his life.
It seems you have a rather narrow definition of news. Newspapers have fluff pieces about peoples lives all the time. Newspaper columnists are known make an entire career out of doing what you just describe.
It may not be any good, it may be crap (I can't read the thing as it's slashdotted), but just because it's not "something that happened today or yesterday" doesn't make it "not news".
Crunch is coming, and Yahoo is going under one way or another.
Why? I don't find Yahoo useful, but I also don't find MTV useful either. Is Yahoo losing money, or losing business? They don't have the cachet of Google of course, but they're a more established portal site.
Not being "the next big thing" doesn't mean death. Yahoo has a MUCH better position than say Facebook, or MySpace, who could be gone tomorrow, and no one would really care.
Yes, greylisting is nice. However, this has nothing to do with Amavis/SA.
Nothing except that it's another spam fighting technique, which is the ultimate goal here.
Seriously, go read the article.
I did read the article. It had nothing useful in it for me.
Study finds that countries with more international fibre links suffers less when one is cut.
Science isn't only about measuring things we don't think we understand. It's also about measuring things we think we do understand, and seeing if we actually do.
The story is the abuse, not the fact that it's happening to a church.
Let's get real here. Do you honestly believe this would be as big a story if it were the Red Cross that got this letter? How about if it were NORML (marijuana legalization group?). The fact of it being a church makes this story. It'd never get national press coverage if it were some other random group of people.
The only problem I have with this whole story is the exemption being sought specifically for churches. They shouldn't get any extra rights than anyone else.
Would they prosecute, though? What are their damages? Would it be worth the negative PR?
Is it worth the fight? You'd probably win.. but what? The right to have big televisions at superbowl gatherings? Not exactly the kind of thing most churches really care about. Choose your battles. While I believe the NFL is in the wrong here, and no one should be able to dictate TV size to anyone else for broadcast TV, it's such a small issue that it's not much worth the fight.
It's probably better to just tell the people that no, the NFL says we can't have large TVs here. Tell them to tell their friends, and so on. This kind of thing builds, though slowly.
Anyone that's done much exploration of spam filtering already knows the basic architecture of self-learning filters. This article has nothing new.
Recently I've implemented greylisting on my mail server. The drop in spam has been enormous, though there have been a couple cases where email didn't go through on the first try.
Essentially it's a step inserted into the SMTP transfer. The first time a given email+ip address attempt to send you mail, the server responds "try again later". If it tries again after 5 minutes, the mail is accepted. If it tries again before 5 minutes, it gets another "try again later".
The only problem is a small number of SMTP servers won't try again after a "try again later" message. The number of poor SMTP servers is fairly small, I'd estimate 1%-2% of all users.
In practice, who is really going to take a church to court?
Not the NFL. That's why they start with the scary sounding letters. They know mere threats will stop 95% of the churches.
There are already ad viewers in the process, so its not like there's no profit from large audiences.
This is the part I don't understand. The only thing I can figure out is the Guys In Charge tell the lawyers "Go enforce our copyright", and give them a long leash. The lawyers don't understand business, but do understand law, so they just happily send out C&D letters. Every now and again one of the Guys In Charge here about the dumb C&D letters, briefly think, "huh, I wonder if that's good business?", then forget about it as they drive over that homeless guy in their giant SUV.
I've seen Ubuntu break itself to an unbootable state three separate times on three different systems. I've never seen that on any distribution. I still use it.. but much more of this and I'll be looking elsewhere.
Also, the latest release seems to have broken wireless, at least for the Intel IPW 3945 chipset in my laptop. I had to downgrade to 7.04, and all is well again.
The NFL is a large corporation. Corporations prefer to use lawyers and scary sounding letters rather than the coppers. It's a lot harder to put a scary sounding letter on television than a bunch of cops busting up a church.
If I were to blame anything I'd blame that flithy hypocritical religion of islam... Oh I'm sorry I'm not allowed to say that, right?
You're certainly "allowed" to say that, but it doesn't make it accurate. Islam, like Christianity, isn't one religion with a singular belief set. Do you blame Lutherans for those nutjobs who protest Iraq soldiers funerals because we tolerate gay people too much? Do you blame Catholics because of the wack-job Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics? How about blaming Mormons for David Koresh and Wacko?
Every religion has it's branch of insanity. There's always crazy people with a horrible agenda to go after, some of them use religion as a tool to gather followers. Islam isn't any different.
Now tell me how narrow-minded I am.
Well here you go. You seem to think it's all about some kind of political incorrectness, repressing your right to say "wrong" things. There's certainly some of that in the world.. up until recently it was "don't critisize the war, or you're with the terrorist". Political correctness works on both sides, see.
This isn't about political correctness though. There's plenty of Muslims in the world who aren't fundamentalists bent on silencing everyone. There may be more fundy-Muslims around the world than fundy-Christians (actually I have no idea if that's true), but that's beside the point. A few hundred years ago, the roles were reversed (dark ages anyone?). My history books tell me about something called the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. Heard of those?
What is WRONG with you people--you jingoists, you untiring flag-wavers, you twin-tower-tattooing rednecks, you support-the-war-or-you-aren't-a-patriot fucks?
There's a certain segment of the population that just likes things to be simple. They don't understand the world, and they don't want to. They rely on the President or Bill O'Reilly, or hell, even Susan Sarandon to tell them what's right. If the leadership tells them something simple like "we gotta get them terrorists" they'll defend that forever. Questioning that would be going down the path of trying to understand something they don't want to.
Everyone does that to SOME degree with some topic. If my mechanic started talking about how bad Chevy transmissions are compared to Ford transmissions, and how Chevy was a rotten company for making bad transmissions, my eyes would glaze over, especially if I heard all the time how great Chevy transmissions are from my friends, family, etc. Obviously I think international politics are more important than transmissions... but my point is there's a certain amount of willful disengagement with the populace.
Your message is right, but your approach is wrong. You sound like Ron Paul (in the sanest thing he's ever said) talking about Iraq at the Republican debate the other night. People, at least in the US, don't like to listen to ranting and raving people. It doesn't matter what they're saying, it's just an automatic "this guy sounds crazy, whatever he's saying is crazy".
It seemed relevant to me. Are you trying to be ironic here?
the problem is at some point they are going to drop support for it
Welcome to software development.
What products don't eventually become unsupported? Even a compiled language like C or C++ has libraries that eventually become unsupported, and maintaining them even if you had the source would become a difficult task.
Will the new Perl or the new Python be the first to shoot itself in the foot with incompatibility?
Unlike closed source languages, Python and Perl are both totally open. If you don't want to switch to the new 3.0 language, don't. If enough people don't want to switch to 3.0, 2.x will live on forever. If everyone leaves 2.x and you're the only one on it.. you can continue to support it yourself for however long you wish.
If porting your code to 3.0 is advantageous, do it. But no one is forcing you either way. There's no foot shooting going on, it's offering an alternative.