Er, probably your wife/husband will be co-owner of the car, and if you own the car, you can do anything to it you want, provided it doesn't make it unsafe for operating. A GPS tracker certainly won't make it any less safe, so...
Remember that the police are subject to more stringent restrictions on what they can do than ordinary citizens in any event. Bounty hunters and PIs can do all sorts of crap cops can't (without a warrant) because they're private citizens.
The issue with network-based server management is that it isn't suitable for a large data center. For instance, a typical webhosting setup might have a couple hundred (or thousand) servers - the ideal target for remote management, because it's wildly impractical/impossible to put them all on KVMs. Each server will have one NIC for the "public" network, the one connected to the Internet. To help lock down remote access for SSH etc., you will also have a private network. We're already up to two distinct networks here, you'll note. Now add a third one for management, which incidentally is also going to require DHCP. The cost for building yet another discrete internal network - and managing it! - is going to be nontrivial. It's usually cheaper, and about as effective, to buy a couple cheap-ass carts and put monitors and keyboards on them. It means your NOC staff has to get off their asses every now and then, but... Is sparing them that really worth the $10k+ it will probably cost in network hardware (not to mention cabling nightmares)?
Serial consoles are great, but not for PCs. In a big DC, you will not have the root password to every server. You will be logging in via some special authentication mechanism like SecurID and then doing sudo su (or just ssh public keys). So getting a login prompt is not going to be helpful; you'll have to reboot the server. On real Unix hardware, you can usually do this by sending a hardware break and typing "reboot" (or similar). This will work even if the OS is crashed or thrashing or whatever. On a PC, no dice, because it's purely the software which handles the serial connection. So you have to hit the reset button, which will probably solve whatever issue was going on anyway (while simultaneously destroying any in-memory logs of what the cause might have been).
For us, in our DC with about 5000 servers, the worst servers to manage are actually the real Unix hardware, but that's only because we have just the one laptop (and because the Unix servers are all disasters held together by spit and baling wire, but that's another story). Also the laptop sucks ass and keeps breaking because it's 6 years old and has been dropped several times. That's something else to keep in mind if you're looking for a laptop-based solution: People Will Drop It. Not only that, if they have to step away from the server for a second, the laptop will get left on the floor, where some unwary soul will step on it or wheel a crash cart over it. Laptops are expensive, even secondhand. A crummy 15" CRT and keyboard will set you back $100, if that, and if they're on a cart that can be wheeled around they won't get dropped (often). Just make sure to buy monitors with fully-removable video and power cords, so when someone wheels the cart off without unplugging it you won't wreck the server's video connector and pull the PDC out of the rack.
Congress makes available a detailed ledger of expenses. Of course, you don't expect it to list names of all our spies abroad, right? (They're still getting paid.) And you don't expect it to list every component going into our spy satellites. (Then enemies could get a better idea of how to build them.) And so on. So the "detail" is usually stuff like "$157 million for CIA payroll," but doesn't break down exactly who gets what. Similarly, we have "$3.2 billion for space-related defense projects."
Most of the "secrecy" really comes about by obscurity: our government spends over $1 trillion a year on various projects, all detailed on several thousand pages of a budget law. (Actually, on many, many individual bills, each of which are hundreds or thousands of pages long.) Remember that we first learned about these mysterious spy satellites because (a) they are in the budget; and (b) some Congresscritters noticed and started wondering. Remember the uproar about politicians being able to look at our tax returns? No great conspiracy (maybe a small one), it was just so buried in everything else that nobody noticed until it was (almost) too late.
I have a hard time keeping track of my own damn budget, and I spend less than 1/10 millionth what the government does. Think about the magnitude here. There's a reason that Congress typically hands out huge checks to various agencies instead of individual projects: it's simply not possible for 300-odd people, even with 100-person staffs, to micromanage every aspect of government.
Good argument for dramatically reducing the size of the government, isn't it? Although I doubt it will ever be possible to reduce ours to something which can be effectively supervised.
I hate to do it, but I'm going to have to trot out my standard freedom argument. Much like proponents of free speech sometimes have to support really objectionable speech (like KKK rallies), I have to support this guy's right to make software which might be used for spamming. After all, there's nothing wrong with BitTorrent, even though one of its major uses (perhaps its primary use) is distribution of pirated materials. Bulk mailers can have perfectly legitimate uses; it's not fair to blame their developers for what spammers sometimes do with them.
Is this karma? Well, maybe so. But two wrongs don't make a right. The proper way of dealing with this guy - if his program really is intended to aid spammers - is to make his software illegal or, better yet, convince him to stop writing and selling it. And even then, stealing and reselling the program is hardly an effective vigilante response!
All search engines return a bunch of results ordered by those it thinks most likely address your search terms. One very simple way of ranking the results is popularity (number of pages with the same answer to your question). You could fine-tune the popularity index with a Google-ish reference counting algorithm.
One of the neatest approaches of this technology, I think, is the ability to eliminate search results. Anyone who's ever used Google to troubleshoot a problem knows that the first thirty or forty matches will all be the same: web mirrors of mailing lists or USENET posts. Using a vaguely semantic technology like this, Google could say, "Hey, all these pages are effectively identical" and collapse them into a single result.
This would be terribly useful for me, since I usually start my troubleshooting searches with an error message. Error messages in the Unix world being quite standardized, this nets me at least ten irrelevant "threads." Since each "thread" is duplicated about ten times in the Google results, that means the question I'm actually asking may not appear until page 5 or later. But using result grouping like this - which Google tries and is generally unsuccessful at - would mean I'd see my question asked on the first or second pages. Big improvement.
Another nifty trick would be an actual, working "related pages" link. So let's say I find my question, but, as is all too common, it's a question without an answer. I click on the link, the search engine does its magic, and it pulls up (perhaps) technical details on the software in question or alternate solutions to my problem. This is definitely going to be harder to implement than my other idea (perhaps even impossible for now), but it'd be really nice. It could make navigating the Internet like navigating Wikipedia or amazon.com.
There are other codecs than MPEG2. XVID, for example, can do DVD quality at about half the bitrate. If you knock down the resolution a notch, like from 720xwhatever to 640xwhatever, you can cut the bitrate even further. 1.5Mb/s XVID (including audio) is very, very good on a computer monitor at that resolution. Since I get 3Mb/s on my cable, we could even stand to bump up the resolution to, say, 800x600 (which is what most HDTVs actually are).
You'd still probably want your nice expensive HDTV for stuff where quality really matters, but as far as delivering high-quality video over the Internet the capacity is definitely there. Well, it's there on the user side: if a million people suddenly started downloading 2.6GB files all at once I can imagine a few of the server's routers running shrieking from the data center while on fire.
The best lies are the ones with a kernel of truth. Wage laws are outdated: they were designed mainly to combat early industrial problems where there was actual physical work involved.
The issue here - and I want to emphasize again that I am not endorsing EA's position, just trying to explain the aforementioned kernel of truth - is that overtime rules don't really apply well to our current economy. They are built with very fixed limits: for example, 80 or 90 hours in a two-week period. If an employee goes past that limit, his employer has to pay him OT... even if both parties are happy with alternate forms of compensation. This may seem odd, but the goal, back when the rules were made, was to discourage OT entirely.
But nowadays more and more employers are realizing the value of flex time. Not just daily flex time ("Come in whenever you want, as long as you work 8 hours") but weekly and even monthly flex time. Don't like working Fridays? Work 10-hour days instead. Like 4-day weekends? Put in 60 hours a week and you'll get two of 'em a month. That's a sort of flexibility which most labor laws don't allow. (Well, they clearly do allow it if you're tricky, but they aren't supposed to. So the fear is that legislatures will enforce the letter of the law and close up loopholes rather than reforming the law, which is what they should do.)
EA mentioned artists for a reason. Artists are notoriously, or perhaps stereotypically, unstructured. They are the poster children for flex time. If a fit of inspiration hits you and you work 120 hours in two weeks, well, you should be able to do that - and then your employer can give you two weeks off to get over the inevitable burnout.
I want to say it a third time because this sounds like I'm supporting what EA does: I am not. An important component of long-term flex time like I've been describing is compensation for the periods where you work unusually long hours. EA does not appear to be offering that compensation. That's a big problem. But, well... Just because EA is saying "Labor laws are broken" doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. It just means they're poor advocates.
The only real way to handle it is to get in the habit of checking your home directory for cruft on a regular basis. Do what you can to save longer-term things directly to where they will be saved, but that will only mitigate the problem. If you can't remember to check, write a cron job which emails you if your home directory gets more than a certain number of files. Something very simple like:
0 0 * * * if [ `ls -d $HOME/* | wc -l` -gt 20]; then echo 'Too much stuff!'; fi
One problem which I have is the creation of temporary directories for archives. Most tar files, as you know, extract to a directory. So if I get package-1.2.3.tar.gz, I also usually have a package-1.2.3 directory lying around. Even if I want to save the original.tar.gz file it's pointless to have the directory there too. You might want to write a script which looks for those stale directories. Don't run it automatically, of course: just keep it in ~/bin or someplace so you can run it as step 1 of the cleanup process.
Something like this might work:
#!/bin/sh
find "$1" -type f -name '*.tar.gz' | ( while read tarfile; do basedir=`dirname "$tarfile"` tarbasedir=`tar tzf "$tarfile" | head -1` tardir="$basedir/$tarbasedir" if [ -d "$tardir" ]; then spaceused=`du -s $tardir | cut -f1` echo "$spaceused $tardir $tarfile" fi done )
The output is in three fields: space used by the directory, the directory name, and the tar.gz file where we found the original. You can be asked to delete anything it finds with:
%./sm . | awk '{print $2}' | xargs rm -i
If you want to be a little safer you can just delete the original.tar.gz files. Substitute $3 in the awk expression in that case. And finally, again using awk, you can delete only directories which use up more than a certain amount of space with something like '{if($1 > 5000) print $2}'.
You can also whip something up using find to look for files which haven't been accessed in more than a certain number of days. Reading a file updates its atime, so that's a pretty secure way to find stale temporary files.
% find ~ -type f -atime +60
For real zaniness, add xargs basename, sort, uniq -c, and sort -n. That'll get you a breakdown of how many applicable files found in each directory and sort it for you.
Who remember DOS times - it is reserved name which is presumably impossible to give to a file. Some tools do allow to create/delete files with such name under WinNT/friends.
Try \\?\path, e.g., \\?\c:\nul.
C:\>echo Hello, world! >\\?\c:\nul
C:\>dir \\?\c:\nul Volume in drive \\?\c: has no label. Volume Serial Number is 2007-5968
I agree. Linus needs to consider altering the kernel development model to be a little more precise about what sort of development is actually taking place. For example (and I'm making up numbers), 2.4.10 might be a bugfix upgrade from 2.4.9. But 2.4.11 might add support for JFS, XFS, and ReiserFS... as well as a few bugfixes. 2.4.12 might be released to fix a single significant bug, and then 2.4.13 changes a critical VM algorithm. 2.4.14 rolls back the change made in 2.4.13, and... you get the idea. It makes no sense to number versions that simplistically. What would make more sense is saying something like: "2.4 is going to be our stable branch. It gets only bugfixes. 2.5 will be our more modern branch. It gets features which are small in scope, so you can still be pretty assured you've got a reliable setup. 2.7 will be our development branch, where all our crazy ideas get added." And then, of course, eventually 2.4 will die out. Then you make 2.8 and 2.5 becomes your stable branch, etc.
If you know FreeBSD you can see my inspiration for this, so rather than STABLE, CURRENT, and HEAD, let's call the Linux branches Server, Desktop, and Developer. Now because the time it takes to cycle from one set to another - that is, from 1/2/3 to 2/3/4 - is only about 6 months, even the server platform isn't that far behind. The desktop platform probably lags only a month behind the developer version. You can have your cake and eat it too. If it helps, you can think of the whole thing as a sort of tiered wide beta.
It really is a very good system. Hell, you can even view the BSDs themselves as an example of it: OpenBSD is STABLE, FreeBSD is CURERNT, and NetBSD is HEAD. (That's not really fair or accurate, but hey, it's a simile, it only has to be similar.)
Zope/Plone are indeed awesome. The downside, and it's a big one, is that far fewer people know Python than PHP and Perl. Make sure you consider the possibility that five years down the road someone else - someone who doesn't know Python - may be running the site. While you can do customization without having to know Python at all, sometimes adding feature will require actual coding.
This is really only a concern if the website's for your employer or a customer or something. If it's just for you, then I'd definitely say to go with Zope/Plone. If you really want some feature you can't find elsewhere you can always (learn Python and) write it yourself.
At my local Kroger they just have cards they swipe for everyone without one of his own. I'm not sure on their logic, but everyone does it so it must be some kind of store policy. Maybe those Kroger cards carry rewards like cash back which you can't get unless you have your own.
Still, it does seem silly to put out this special card that gets you lower prices, and then not require anyone to actually have it.
Well, there are both coding and LAN parties. Lots of social activities involving computers and other nerdly things. And as we all know, everything gets better with beer, including the code you write!
Re:It's been known for 6 months or more,
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Longer than that. Remember back when Bush was putting together his first cabinet? Everyone wanted Powell, but he kept sending signals about not wanting to spend so much time away from his family. In the end he went for it anyway, but even then most people were saying it would be for one term at most.
Maybe if he'd had a bigger role in the Administration he would've stayed on, but it seems Condi Rice has had his job in all but name for the past year or so. Maybe Powell just likes to stay out of the limelight more than she does so it only seems that way, though.
What possible motivation could there be for that? Intel has a vested interest in SMP systems, as they get double or more the money they normally would. Even multicore CPUs won't get them that.
That said, ATX doesn't provide for SMP either. You need to go to a different form factor, EATX (for Extended), to do that. I expect we'll see an EBTX eventually. Just not now.
It makes sense to roll things out in this order. You can only do Intel-style SMP with Xeons, which also want a special (24-pin) power connector. Probably EBTX or whatever they call it will require such a connector, along with other bits server motherboards would want. Maybe a formal spec for how to attach risers to the board for >2CPU and >8GB systems, since they can get pretty heavy and obviously cause major cooling issues.
The conspiracy theory is that Google is planning to release its own browser based on Firefox. This would certainly seem to support that theory, and I left my tinfoil hat in my other pants. ("Hey, is that a tinfoil hat in your pants, or...")
Unfortuantely, even the fanciest boxes running BSD can't complete on a pure throughput basis with good Cisco routers. An twenty-four port gigabit Cisco router has a 48 Gbps backplane, but a PC running BSD will be limited by its bus--the fastest servers have a 64 bit 133 MHz bus with PCI-X. That's 8 Gbps. And you can't put more than a handful of network cards in even the largest BSD-capable server--there simply aren't the expansion slots.
Most server motherboards support multiple PCI buses. At present there are usually either two or three and only one is 64/133; but in a few years I can easily see that changing as PCI bus speeds double yet again. There are already four-port ethernet NICs out there.
Right now, you're absolutely right: doing this in a PC would cost as much as or more than a dedicated solution, especially when you factor in the infamous TCO. And as you say later, small networks have no need for this sort of thing. But again, in a few years it may be affordable to do this on commodity hardware. Once the enormous cost of big iron from Cisco et al. comes down, I think a lot of those small networks might just find needs. Especially if we get into the much-touted Internet of the Future where everything has an IP address.
Well, watches and some other things work on the same approximate principle, or so I'm told, and they deal well enough with movement. And in fact severe shocks as well. Usually when an analog watch breaks, it's the gears and stuff, not the actual quartz-driving mechanism.
I'm sure it's a concern since drives based on this technology would have to be way more sensitive than a watch. But it would probably also be vibrating way, way, way faster, so comparatively low-frequency interactions might be easier to detect and correct.
The problem with the new MS regime of patching cycle is that they did not release information as it became available to them. Microsoft should release patches as soon as they are available, not on a monthly cycle.
What's to be gained from that? "There's a critical IIS vulnerability that allows remote attackers to take complete control of your computer. Sorry, no patch yet. We recommend firewalling ports 80 and 443 or disabling IIS on your web server."
Recently, at least, MS has been telling us in advance of workarounds for critical vulnerabilities where a workaround exists. (For example, disabling ActiveX in IE.) Even when they don't have a real fix yet.
Microsoft's initial assumtion that virus's & scripts are released only when the patch is release is largely flawed.
I'm not sure that's their assumption at all. I think it's more like "Why draw attention to something bad we can't do anything about yet?" You're certainly right that some attacks begin before the patch is released. But remember that all the biggest worms - at least that I can remember - exploit vulnerabilities that were fixed by MS months before.
I really don't have any problems with MS's approach to issuing patches. Considering what they have to work with - a painfully insecure, bloated, complex, closed-source operating system - they are really doing about the best they can. (If you want to fault them for any of those problems I just listed, I'll absolutely agree with you.)
You're not the only one who made this point, but you're the one who did so using the most words, so you get my reply.
Let's begin by conceding the (highly debatable) question of whether the intelligence reports were made up or simply wrong (or something in between).
How many demonstrations have we had against the Iraq war? Have we called in the military to round them up with lethal force? No? I'm sure there were arrests made at many of these demonstrations. I'm also sure that, in at least some cases, rocks really were being thrown at the cops (and free speech != freedom to cause injury, even to the police).
How many prominent individuals, like celebrities and rock stars, have stepped up and dedicated shows or speeches to stopping the Iraq war? Have they been arrested? Blacklisted? Hell, Moore made an entire movie condemning both the Iraq war and the president personally. Yet he lives his life quite free to say and do as he wishes. (Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee people will listen.)
How many well-known, major newspapers have come out supporting Kerry over Bush (usually over the Iraq issue)? Often explaining their reasons at considerable length and with quite a bit of acid? Yet they still publish their stories with no problems, and people still read them. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you agree with everything that's published.
I hope you see my point. Is America a perfect utopia of freedom? Don't be absurd. Only an idiot would claim that it is or, in fact, ever should be. But compared to China and a lot of other places, you'd better believe we qualify as a free country. And I have absolutely no problems condemning China's record on freedom even though our own is far from spotless. You don't have to be perfect to see the horrible disfiguring flaws in others.
Also, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I am speaking about the Chinese government, not the Chinese people. The one guy who actually supported me (I still can't decide if he was being sarcastic) came off as, uh... slightly prejudiced. I don't want to get lumped in with him. A big part of the reason I am so critical of the Chinese government is that I think the Chinese people deserve better, and I want to see them get it. Turning a blind eye to all the shit that's wrong over there is not going to help them. All that will do is give the corrupt dictators in power the idea that we'll tolerate whatever horrible things they do to their people... as long as they keep sending us cheap exports.
Which, by the way, is why I was morally opposed to the way we did the first Gulf War. "Go ahead, Saddam, keep doing your thing. Just make sure the oil doesn't stop flowing." We've done it to the entire Gulf region for at least thirty years, and we're paying for it now (re: terrorism, not re: Iraq). Unfortunately, the correct solution is not to turn back time and re-invade Iraq, the correct solution is just to do things right in the future, but that's a subject for another long-winded defense of my politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that the police are subject to more stringent restrictions on what they can do than ordinary citizens in any event. Bounty hunters and PIs can do all sorts of crap cops can't (without a warrant) because they're private citizens.
Serial consoles are great, but not for PCs. In a big DC, you will not have the root password to every server. You will be logging in via some special authentication mechanism like SecurID and then doing sudo su (or just ssh public keys). So getting a login prompt is not going to be helpful; you'll have to reboot the server. On real Unix hardware, you can usually do this by sending a hardware break and typing "reboot" (or similar). This will work even if the OS is crashed or thrashing or whatever. On a PC, no dice, because it's purely the software which handles the serial connection. So you have to hit the reset button, which will probably solve whatever issue was going on anyway (while simultaneously destroying any in-memory logs of what the cause might have been).
For us, in our DC with about 5000 servers, the worst servers to manage are actually the real Unix hardware, but that's only because we have just the one laptop (and because the Unix servers are all disasters held together by spit and baling wire, but that's another story). Also the laptop sucks ass and keeps breaking because it's 6 years old and has been dropped several times. That's something else to keep in mind if you're looking for a laptop-based solution: People Will Drop It. Not only that, if they have to step away from the server for a second, the laptop will get left on the floor, where some unwary soul will step on it or wheel a crash cart over it. Laptops are expensive, even secondhand. A crummy 15" CRT and keyboard will set you back $100, if that, and if they're on a cart that can be wheeled around they won't get dropped (often). Just make sure to buy monitors with fully-removable video and power cords, so when someone wheels the cart off without unplugging it you won't wreck the server's video connector and pull the PDC out of the rack.
Although the image of Linus walking around with kernel developers hanging from his clothes while assorted groupies carry scorecards is pretty funny.
(You mean that Linus is adored by many people and scorned by everybody else.)
Most of the "secrecy" really comes about by obscurity: our government spends over $1 trillion a year on various projects, all detailed on several thousand pages of a budget law. (Actually, on many, many individual bills, each of which are hundreds or thousands of pages long.) Remember that we first learned about these mysterious spy satellites because (a) they are in the budget; and (b) some Congresscritters noticed and started wondering. Remember the uproar about politicians being able to look at our tax returns? No great conspiracy (maybe a small one), it was just so buried in everything else that nobody noticed until it was (almost) too late.
I have a hard time keeping track of my own damn budget, and I spend less than 1/10 millionth what the government does. Think about the magnitude here. There's a reason that Congress typically hands out huge checks to various agencies instead of individual projects: it's simply not possible for 300-odd people, even with 100-person staffs, to micromanage every aspect of government.
Good argument for dramatically reducing the size of the government, isn't it? Although I doubt it will ever be possible to reduce ours to something which can be effectively supervised.
Is this karma? Well, maybe so. But two wrongs don't make a right. The proper way of dealing with this guy - if his program really is intended to aid spammers - is to make his software illegal or, better yet, convince him to stop writing and selling it. And even then, stealing and reselling the program is hardly an effective vigilante response!
One of the neatest approaches of this technology, I think, is the ability to eliminate search results. Anyone who's ever used Google to troubleshoot a problem knows that the first thirty or forty matches will all be the same: web mirrors of mailing lists or USENET posts. Using a vaguely semantic technology like this, Google could say, "Hey, all these pages are effectively identical" and collapse them into a single result.
This would be terribly useful for me, since I usually start my troubleshooting searches with an error message. Error messages in the Unix world being quite standardized, this nets me at least ten irrelevant "threads." Since each "thread" is duplicated about ten times in the Google results, that means the question I'm actually asking may not appear until page 5 or later. But using result grouping like this - which Google tries and is generally unsuccessful at - would mean I'd see my question asked on the first or second pages. Big improvement.
Another nifty trick would be an actual, working "related pages" link. So let's say I find my question, but, as is all too common, it's a question without an answer. I click on the link, the search engine does its magic, and it pulls up (perhaps) technical details on the software in question or alternate solutions to my problem. This is definitely going to be harder to implement than my other idea (perhaps even impossible for now), but it'd be really nice. It could make navigating the Internet like navigating Wikipedia or amazon.com.
Ah well. I can dream.
You'd still probably want your nice expensive HDTV for stuff where quality really matters, but as far as delivering high-quality video over the Internet the capacity is definitely there. Well, it's there on the user side: if a million people suddenly started downloading 2.6GB files all at once I can imagine a few of the server's routers running shrieking from the data center while on fire.
When sympathetic groups do that, it's called "civil disobedience."
The issue here - and I want to emphasize again that I am not endorsing EA's position, just trying to explain the aforementioned kernel of truth - is that overtime rules don't really apply well to our current economy. They are built with very fixed limits: for example, 80 or 90 hours in a two-week period. If an employee goes past that limit, his employer has to pay him OT... even if both parties are happy with alternate forms of compensation. This may seem odd, but the goal, back when the rules were made, was to discourage OT entirely.
But nowadays more and more employers are realizing the value of flex time. Not just daily flex time ("Come in whenever you want, as long as you work 8 hours") but weekly and even monthly flex time. Don't like working Fridays? Work 10-hour days instead. Like 4-day weekends? Put in 60 hours a week and you'll get two of 'em a month. That's a sort of flexibility which most labor laws don't allow. (Well, they clearly do allow it if you're tricky, but they aren't supposed to. So the fear is that legislatures will enforce the letter of the law and close up loopholes rather than reforming the law, which is what they should do.)
EA mentioned artists for a reason. Artists are notoriously, or perhaps stereotypically, unstructured. They are the poster children for flex time. If a fit of inspiration hits you and you work 120 hours in two weeks, well, you should be able to do that - and then your employer can give you two weeks off to get over the inevitable burnout.
I want to say it a third time because this sounds like I'm supporting what EA does: I am not. An important component of long-term flex time like I've been describing is compensation for the periods where you work unusually long hours. EA does not appear to be offering that compensation. That's a big problem. But, well... Just because EA is saying "Labor laws are broken" doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. It just means they're poor advocates.
Is that where they test Linux by throwing it in the ocean? Much like testing Windows by defenestrating it?
Something like this might work:
Then you run it as follows:The output is in three fields: space used by the directory, the directory name, and the tar.gz file where we found the original. You can be asked to delete anything it finds with:If you want to be a little safer you can just delete the originalYou can also whip something up using find to look for files which haven't been accessed in more than a certain number of days. Reading a file updates its atime, so that's a pretty secure way to find stale temporary files.
For real zaniness, add xargs basename, sort, uniq -c, and sort -n. That'll get you a breakdown of how many applicable files found in each directory and sort it for you.Ain't Unix awesome?
If you know FreeBSD you can see my inspiration for this, so rather than STABLE, CURRENT, and HEAD, let's call the Linux branches Server, Desktop, and Developer. Now because the time it takes to cycle from one set to another - that is, from 1/2/3 to 2/3/4 - is only about 6 months, even the server platform isn't that far behind. The desktop platform probably lags only a month behind the developer version. You can have your cake and eat it too. If it helps, you can think of the whole thing as a sort of tiered wide beta.
It really is a very good system. Hell, you can even view the BSDs themselves as an example of it: OpenBSD is STABLE, FreeBSD is CURERNT, and NetBSD is HEAD. (That's not really fair or accurate, but hey, it's a simile, it only has to be similar.)
This is really only a concern if the website's for your employer or a customer or something. If it's just for you, then I'd definitely say to go with Zope/Plone. If you really want some feature you can't find elsewhere you can always (learn Python and) write it yourself.
Still, it does seem silly to put out this special card that gets you lower prices, and then not require anyone to actually have it.
Well, there are both coding and LAN parties. Lots of social activities involving computers and other nerdly things. And as we all know, everything gets better with beer, including the code you write!
Maybe if he'd had a bigger role in the Administration he would've stayed on, but it seems Condi Rice has had his job in all but name for the past year or so. Maybe Powell just likes to stay out of the limelight more than she does so it only seems that way, though.
That said, ATX doesn't provide for SMP either. You need to go to a different form factor, EATX (for Extended), to do that. I expect we'll see an EBTX eventually. Just not now.
It makes sense to roll things out in this order. You can only do Intel-style SMP with Xeons, which also want a special (24-pin) power connector. Probably EBTX or whatever they call it will require such a connector, along with other bits server motherboards would want. Maybe a formal spec for how to attach risers to the board for >2CPU and >8GB systems, since they can get pretty heavy and obviously cause major cooling issues.
The conspiracy theory is that Google is planning to release its own browser based on Firefox. This would certainly seem to support that theory, and I left my tinfoil hat in my other pants. ("Hey, is that a tinfoil hat in your pants, or...")
Right now, you're absolutely right: doing this in a PC would cost as much as or more than a dedicated solution, especially when you factor in the infamous TCO. And as you say later, small networks have no need for this sort of thing. But again, in a few years it may be affordable to do this on commodity hardware. Once the enormous cost of big iron from Cisco et al. comes down, I think a lot of those small networks might just find needs. Especially if we get into the much-touted Internet of the Future where everything has an IP address.
I'm sure it's a concern since drives based on this technology would have to be way more sensitive than a watch. But it would probably also be vibrating way, way, way faster, so comparatively low-frequency interactions might be easier to detect and correct.
Recently, at least, MS has been telling us in advance of workarounds for critical vulnerabilities where a workaround exists. (For example, disabling ActiveX in IE.) Even when they don't have a real fix yet.
I'm not sure that's their assumption at all. I think it's more like "Why draw attention to something bad we can't do anything about yet?" You're certainly right that some attacks begin before the patch is released. But remember that all the biggest worms - at least that I can remember - exploit vulnerabilities that were fixed by MS months before.I really don't have any problems with MS's approach to issuing patches. Considering what they have to work with - a painfully insecure, bloated, complex, closed-source operating system - they are really doing about the best they can. (If you want to fault them for any of those problems I just listed, I'll absolutely agree with you.)
Let's begin by conceding the (highly debatable) question of whether the intelligence reports were made up or simply wrong (or something in between).
How many demonstrations have we had against the Iraq war? Have we called in the military to round them up with lethal force? No? I'm sure there were arrests made at many of these demonstrations. I'm also sure that, in at least some cases, rocks really were being thrown at the cops (and free speech != freedom to cause injury, even to the police).
How many prominent individuals, like celebrities and rock stars, have stepped up and dedicated shows or speeches to stopping the Iraq war? Have they been arrested? Blacklisted? Hell, Moore made an entire movie condemning both the Iraq war and the president personally. Yet he lives his life quite free to say and do as he wishes. (Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee people will listen.)
How many well-known, major newspapers have come out supporting Kerry over Bush (usually over the Iraq issue)? Often explaining their reasons at considerable length and with quite a bit of acid? Yet they still publish their stories with no problems, and people still read them. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you agree with everything that's published.
I hope you see my point. Is America a perfect utopia of freedom? Don't be absurd. Only an idiot would claim that it is or, in fact, ever should be. But compared to China and a lot of other places, you'd better believe we qualify as a free country. And I have absolutely no problems condemning China's record on freedom even though our own is far from spotless. You don't have to be perfect to see the horrible disfiguring flaws in others.
Also, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I am speaking about the Chinese government, not the Chinese people. The one guy who actually supported me (I still can't decide if he was being sarcastic) came off as, uh... slightly prejudiced. I don't want to get lumped in with him. A big part of the reason I am so critical of the Chinese government is that I think the Chinese people deserve better, and I want to see them get it. Turning a blind eye to all the shit that's wrong over there is not going to help them. All that will do is give the corrupt dictators in power the idea that we'll tolerate whatever horrible things they do to their people... as long as they keep sending us cheap exports.
Which, by the way, is why I was morally opposed to the way we did the first Gulf War. "Go ahead, Saddam, keep doing your thing. Just make sure the oil doesn't stop flowing." We've done it to the entire Gulf region for at least thirty years, and we're paying for it now (re: terrorism, not re: Iraq). Unfortunately, the correct solution is not to turn back time and re-invade Iraq, the correct solution is just to do things right in the future, but that's a subject for another long-winded defense of my politics.