Hmph. I moved to a Mac mini a few weeks ago, and decided that I would finish up ripping all my CD's. Up to then, they had all been ripped as flac, and I was converting from flac -> ogg as necessary.
Now, with iTunes on my main PC and my wife's laptop, i thought 'Wouldn't it be great if we could use a daap server and stream all our music?' So, I thought I would use iTunes to rip the rest of my cd's, and maybe convert my current flac files to ALAC. Then I could convert to ogg, and SURELY i could stream those.
That's when the drums of doom started playing.
First, I found that iTunes couldn't handle streaming off files. The Quicktime ogg plugin works okay for playing off the local hard drive, but no nice streaming from my daap server.
No problem, I'll convert to AAC and stream those.
(The drums started playing louder)
Then, I found there is no way to really get iTunes to play or convert FLAC files. There's a plugin, but I can't for the life of me get it to work. And , I found there was no ALAC -> anything, so I ran the risk of being locked into a format that was non portable.
No problem, I'll just find an opensource ripper to convert to FLAC, the to AAC.
(The drums started playing MUCH louder)
I started using 'abcde', a rather nifty shell script that rips and converts cd's to any of a number of formats, including FLAC. It even uses Freecddb for the track information.
But... On OSX, the only real way to easily rip CD tracks is to copy the AIFF files that OSX presents to you when it mounts the audio CD.
And FLAC does NOT like the particilar AIFF files OSX presents.
(The drums are deafening)
24 hours, a bunch of research and hacking on FLAC, I make a custom flac binaries that can handle the AIFF files. And there's the opensource 'faac' program that can convert the flac files to AAC.
Except.... the AAC files faac creates can't be streamed or played by iTunes. Something about the MP4 headers faac generates aren't compatable.
(THE DRUMS ARE IN MY HEAD!)
Another 24 hours of researching, and I come up with the MPEG4IP project at Cisco, which has a nifty little program called 'mp4creator', which is designed to create or modify mp4 files. It has an '--optimize' function which modifies the headers of an existing.m4a (aac) file so something iTunes can handle.
I threw everything into a script, and now I can rip files on my Mac mini, store them as FLAC, and then convert and play them as AAC/M4a files via iTunes.
But Apple could have made things MUCH easier by making iTunes more open to other codecs or providing more information for others to creat iTunes codecs.
And now I find someone has written an ALAC converter, so I could have used the ALAC format to being with.
The most annoying thing there can be in a manager is for them to CONSTANTLY ask questions like, "Why can't we ?". Especially when it shows they understand nothing about the technology or it's underpinnings.
I don't mind questions being asked, but having to constantly teach baby steps to the same person over and over and over again is very frustrating.
A better question would be 'What are our options to do ', or even 'How can we best do ?'.
At least give the program a somewhat descriptive name, ie Office, Internet Explorer, TurboTax, NotePad, Photoshop, etc...
Yeah, and forget Access, Visio, Excel, BOB, Acrobat, Encore, PowerPoint, and similarly named programs. I can't tell what they do either just by their names....
It's posts liket his that make me wish there were a '-1 Bullshit' moderation tag.....
Patches added to kernels != 'forking'. Different software subsystems != 'forking'. Different methods of hardware detection and setup != 'forking'.
If that's true, then Linux forked in the early/mid '90s, because Redhat used a more SysV-like bootup system, and SLackware used a more BSD-like bootup system.
Distros have always had sometimes significant differences between them. I've never, however, had problems getting things to run between distros, except for maybe library differences and versioning hell.
And the first distro that removes 'binary compatibility' will simply go away, because at that point it will cease to be 'Linux'.
In the meantime, you could use TabBrowser Preferences to do what you want. I use it for OSX, Linux, and Win32 to keep everything in tabs in one window.
Hardly surprising - his book was inspired by the same tales that brought researchers to the same area, looking for the same creatures.
Mmmm. And here I thought Crichton had just ripped off H. Ryder Haggard and Edgar Rice Burroughs, who both used most of the same elements as Congo. What *COULD* I have been thinking.
Since I moved to the boondocks a year ago, and no cable available, I recently signed up for DirectTV and got a DTivo unit ($75 installed with a one year contract).
Overall, I'm quite pleased. Satellite is NOT the same quality as normal (analog) cable, and I can see a difference between the two (then again, I do a lot of video editing, so MPEG artifacts are very obvious to me), but the image quality is quite watchable on my 26" TV at close range. Note that most cable companies are moving/have moved to 'digital cable' as well, which should be comparable image quality to DirectTV.
What I'm REALLY happy with is the DirectTivo unit. I got the Phillips DSR 7000 model, which is a Series 2 model, and I'm overjoyed with it. Does everything it's supposed to, is very hackable, and once you enable the USB ports, for $20 you can get a decent ethernet adaptor for it.
As far as losing picture, I've only lost it once, and that was for an hour during an ice storm which was covering the dish with ice. It cleared up on it's own, however.
Personally I don't care for (later) Heinlein-esque, neo-Burroughs, "let's talk about sex, disturbing stuff, and all combinations of the two, then call it art", science-fiction books. To me, it ends up sounding like pubescent mental masturbation.
But that's just my opinion, haven't read the book, and don't plan to. That's just what I get from this "review".
I think this interview with Ray Bradbury sums up my opinions nicely.
>For example, are the data links insecure--I dont >think so as most are now 128bit encrypted, right?
128-bit encryption without knowing the cryptographic algorithm used is meaningless as a definition of crypto strength, especially if the encryption is badly designed and broken; both of which are true for 128-bit WEP. Do a google search on it and you'll find the papers that describe the vulnerablility, and the tools to exploit it.
WEP is what hapens when non-crypto people design crypto.
Here's a starter link Look at the '802.11 Encryption" section
Last time I checked (and it's my job to) WEP and wireless security are still broken, as far as standards are concerned. 802.1x (PEAP, LEAP, whatever you want to call it) isn't appropriate in all (or even most, IMHO) situtations, and fixes to WEP like TKIP aren't widely deployed.
Wireless will continue to have security issues as long as the underlying security technology is broken and is hard to deploy in a secure, stable, and manageble fashion.
The 'scroll mouse' was first marketed by Mouse Systems, although MS's mouse was the first financially sucessful wheel mouse.
The optical mouse was also Mouse Systems (with the grid-pad), and MS and Logitech both developed plain surface optical at the same time ~1999. MS was first to market, however.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/CuttingEdge/ op ticalmouse990526.html
Official policy is that tunneling through the proxy is a violation of HR policy, which expressly forbids avoiding the content filter, or avoiding the security infrastructure, eg.. the firewalls, and is handled as a disciplinary action. That's an HR policy, not mine (security).
Unofficial policy is that if I find you tunneling (there are ways) I will give you and your manager a heads-up warning and not take it to HR. If I find it a second time, I call HR and let them deal with it.
Tunneling through, even for 'smart' employees (who usually aren't), is a huge security concern for me, and if you can just tunnel though, how can HR have any assurance that you are complying with the AUP? Some of the 'smart' ones are the worst offenders. (2 hours of surfing this anyone? NOTE: do not click the link. DO NOT CLICK THE LINK!!!!!)
Anyway, that's the policy that ends with '...up to and including termination', and our HR staff does not fool around.
So much for the hard nosed stuff. The reality is that you can pretty much do anything you want as far as surfing and 'regular' protocols go (FTP, AIM, MS messenger, HTTP, HTTPS, etc..), but not telnet and ssh. As long as it isn't porn or racial hate sites. That's the trade off. Follow the fairly liberal rules, and no one complains. Break the rules and our (female) ex-military/lawyer HR person comes down upon you like a ton of bricks.
It works out well, in general, and we have very few issues in our organization. All we ask is that people act in a somewhat mature fashion in their Internet usage and we have no problems with what they do otherwise. That's up to their manager.
>If the program catagorizing your logs was not >full of it, your company had serious problems to >begin with.
No arguments there.
>Chances are that SmartFilter or some >sister program told you just what you wanted to >hear. Did you really sample those sites? Did you >have another program to verify your >employees were really going to those places?
I wrote my own report engine, because I couldn't find anything that would give me the detail level I needed. And yes, I did sample those sites. In fact, if I'm investigating an AUP violation, I have to look at most of them. I don't depend on the category or the URL name, although most of those are self explanitory. As I said, filters without someone *looking* at the logs (implying a human) is pointless. And don't think I enjoy that part of the job. Ugh...nothing more depressing than surfing someone else's porn.
>You've got 10,000 employees like I've got half >Bill Gates's shares of M$.
Must be nice to have so much money. Our NT domain says we have about 9800 employees, but that doesn't include some of our other divisions. (The corporation I work for is on the Fortune 500. You can probably figure out which one without too much trouble)
>If you trusted them, you would never need a >filter, would you?
Er, the 'trusted individuals' are myself and my group. With great power comes great...nevermind...
>For all that, you still end up combing the logs >to improve the filters. Don't you have something >better to do? Like provide information services?
I don't improve the filters. I have never added one site to the filter list. All I do is report on apparent violations(which is by IP address only; we don't narrow it down to an individual until the investigation is ongoing), and investigate. The filter is more useful as a guide than a site blocker. I could not block anything and it would be about the same for me.
And it is part of my job. Me and the other people in my group aren't vindictive about it, and it is a necessary evil in corporate America.
We use SmartFilter at work. In fact, I'm the primary babysitter and representive of the Spanish Inquisition where it is concerned.
Traditionally, I've been against filtering software, under the "if you treat people like children, they won't dissapoint you" philosophy. Unfortunately, in examining logs BEFORE we turned on the filtering, people were doing a great job of acting like children beforehand. Reporting on a days worth of logs on the 'sex' category generated a 150 page (small print) report, covering about 50 employees. These were NOT banner adds and spam mail. After the filter went on, it went to about 20 pages. After a well placed firing for an extreme example, it went down to about 3.
There are a few things you have to consider when dealing with filtering software.
1. The people categorizing URL's and sites are not much better than trained monkeys. Just because a site gets blocked isn't part of a conspiracy. Just a TMIF (trained monkey input failure) event. Usually they correct it within a week.
(Side note: My favorite mis-categorization was when a dog breeding site was classified as a pornography site)
2. Filters are unfortunately a necessary evil in this day and age, since companies (mostly larger ones) MUST show that they are activly preventing the development of a 'hostile environment' toward protected groups, such as women and minorities. Filters are an easy way of doing that.
3. Filters by themselves are useless. Its amazing the number of things that they don't catch, and methods of by-passing them are out there. You have to keep the logs, and actually look at them. Filters are only alerts, not real preventitive measures.
4. Also, you have to take care that someone in your company won't use them for 'evil', like some middle manager on a witch hunt. You have to have good, fair policies in place covering Internet usage and trusted individuals with good ethics to see those policies are being followed.
In the last 18 months, my company has gone from having many gross violations of our Internet usage policies to very few violations. Most people can get to most the things they want to, and most, if not all of the 10K full time employees are pretty happy with the arrangement, or at least I haven't heard any complaints. For better or worse, the content filter and daily review of log reports is primarily responsible for that.
Your test is flawed. Big red buttons are attached to alarms. Usually big loud alarms. And anyone pushing the button would set off the big loud alarm, and EVERYONE would look to see who pushed the big red button. Most people do not like to attract negative attention to themselves, therefore they do not push big red buttons.
If it were, say, a small white button, somewhere out of the way, which was obviously NOT an alarm button or a doorbell, I would guess that people would stand in line to push it. People will only act in such ways if there are no obvious consequences.
Hmmm. It is inexcusable for Mozilla 1.0, which tries to be a very standards based browser, to support Microsoft's proprietary, non-(w3c)-standard authentication scheme?
And it is unexcusable for Opera, Konquor, lynx, wget, and every other http-based tool?
MS Proxy server supports other authentication methods. The manager for the proxy server has chosen to only support NTLM authentication. I would consider *THAT* to be unexcusable, myself...
If you REALLY must use NTLM authentication, there are installable local proxy servers that can fake out the NTLM authentication for you, like this one.
jf
(who manages proxy servers for a living...among other things.)
Might I mention that the Nazi's V1 and V2 were largely developed by rocket enthusists (including Von Braun) who, before WWII, were mostly considered crackpots...
You are correct (my bad), but it was 'officially' a part of the Jupiter project. It was named Jupiter C to get through the budgeting process, since anything with 'Jupiter' attached to it was almost automatically approved.
Officially, it was a variation of the Jupiter. Actually, it was much, much closer to the origional Redstone...
Korolev, the "Grand Designer" of the Soviet space program, was easily the equal of Von Braun. With his ability and the fact that the Russians got all the German V2 production lines and factories and, many of the people who operated them during WWII, also gave the Soviets a huge boost.
And the US *DID* use the V2 scientists to the best of their abilities, but initially only for military projects. The doomed satelite launches made in response to Sputnik (Vanguard) were on not-ready-for-prime-time civilian launch vehicles, not military rockets. In fact, the military already had proven technology on the shelf that could put a satellite in orbit, but Von Braun was expressly forbidden by the President from using 'military hardware' for such a purpose.
Eventually, Von Braun was allowed to put the first American satellite (Explorer 1) in orbit with his Jupiter C rocket.
(NOTE: Jupiter C was a slightly modified Jupiter missle, which was designed during Von Braun's 'satellite ban' for a 'special nose-cone' test. After the initial testing, Von Braun kept a few Jupiter C's in storage for a 'certain time' and a 'certain nose-cone test'. Later it was obvious that the 'nose-cone test' was his plan to put a satellite in orbit.)
Anyway, I picked all this up last weekend at the Kansas Cosmosphere. Very neat place, and the current home of the Odyssey command module from Apollo 13.
Don't sell the Soviet space program short...
on
Soviet Moon Rocket
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Although they lost interest in landing on the moon after Apollo 11, along with the N-1 failure, but they still managed to land the first automated rovers
I saw a backup Lunokhod 2 rover last weekend. it looked like a tractor, but was still pretty impressive for early 1970's technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmph. I moved to a Mac mini a few weeks ago, and decided that I would finish up ripping all my CD's. Up to then, they had all been ripped as flac, and I was converting from flac -> ogg as necessary.
.m4a (aac) file so something iTunes can handle.
Now, with iTunes on my main PC and my wife's laptop, i thought 'Wouldn't it be great if we could use a daap server and stream all our music?' So, I thought I would use iTunes to rip the rest of my cd's, and maybe convert my current flac files to ALAC. Then I could convert to ogg, and SURELY i could stream those.
That's when the drums of doom started playing.
First, I found that iTunes couldn't handle streaming off files. The Quicktime ogg plugin works okay for playing off the local hard drive, but no nice streaming from my daap server.
No problem, I'll convert to AAC and stream those.
(The drums started playing louder)
Then, I found there is no way to really get iTunes to play or convert FLAC files. There's a plugin, but I can't for the life of me get it to work. And , I found there was no ALAC -> anything, so I ran the risk of being locked into a format that was non portable.
No problem, I'll just find an opensource ripper to convert to FLAC, the to AAC.
(The drums started playing MUCH louder)
I started using 'abcde', a rather nifty shell script that rips and converts cd's to any of a number of formats, including FLAC. It even uses Freecddb for the track information.
But... On OSX, the only real way to easily rip CD tracks is to copy the AIFF files that OSX presents to you when it mounts the audio CD.
And FLAC does NOT like the particilar AIFF files OSX presents.
(The drums are deafening)
24 hours, a bunch of research and hacking on FLAC, I make a custom flac binaries that can handle the AIFF files. And there's the opensource 'faac' program that can convert the flac files to AAC.
Except.... the AAC files faac creates can't be streamed or played by iTunes. Something about the MP4 headers faac generates aren't compatable.
(THE DRUMS ARE IN MY HEAD!)
Another 24 hours of researching, and I come up with the MPEG4IP project at Cisco, which has a nifty little program called 'mp4creator', which is designed to create or modify mp4 files. It has an '--optimize' function which modifies the headers of an existing
I threw everything into a script, and now I can rip files on my Mac mini, store them as FLAC, and then convert and play them as AAC/M4a files via iTunes.
But Apple could have made things MUCH easier by making iTunes more open to other codecs or providing more information for others to creat iTunes codecs.
And now I find someone has written an ALAC converter, so I could have used the ALAC format to being with.
well THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO BLOODY MUCH!
The most annoying thing there can be in a manager is for them to CONSTANTLY ask questions like, "Why can't we ?". Especially when it shows they understand nothing about the technology or it's underpinnings.
I don't mind questions being asked, but having to constantly teach baby steps to the same person over and over and over again is very frustrating.
A better question would be 'What are our options to do ', or even 'How can we best do ?'.
At least give the program a somewhat descriptive name, ie Office, Internet Explorer, TurboTax, NotePad, Photoshop, etc...
Yeah, and forget Access, Visio, Excel, BOB, Acrobat, Encore, PowerPoint, and similarly named programs. I can't tell what they do either just by their names....
Wow.
In the day of paper thin magizines (anyone read 'Time' lately?), that's pretty hefty. Even if it is 1/2 size.
What I didn't see was any mention of how much advertising there was (or will be).
Yeah, but you should point out that sometimes you get REALLY GOOD lemonade from that kid.
It's posts liket his that make me wish there were a '-1 Bullshit' moderation tag.....
Patches added to kernels != 'forking'.
Different software subsystems != 'forking'.
Different methods of hardware detection and setup != 'forking'.
If that's true, then Linux forked in the early/mid '90s, because Redhat used a more SysV-like bootup system, and SLackware used a more BSD-like bootup system.
Distros have always had sometimes significant differences between them. I've never, however, had problems getting things to run between distros, except for maybe library differences and versioning hell.
And the first distro that removes 'binary compatibility' will simply go away, because at that point it will cease to be 'Linux'.
In the meantime, you could use TabBrowser Preferences to do what you want. I use it for OSX, Linux, and Win32 to keep everything in tabs in one window.
Mmmm. And here I thought Crichton had just ripped off H. Ryder Haggard and Edgar Rice Burroughs, who both used most of the same elements as Congo. What *COULD* I have been thinking.
>ethanol from fermented corn is not gonna work, >primarily since all of the farm machines need >gasoline
Uh. Diesel. Almost all farm equipment have run on diesel for the last 40 years. And bio-diesel is a reality....
Since I moved to the boondocks a year ago, and no cable available, I recently signed up for DirectTV and got a DTivo unit ($75 installed with a one year contract).
Overall, I'm quite pleased. Satellite is NOT the same quality as normal (analog) cable, and I can see a difference between the two (then again, I do a lot of video editing, so MPEG artifacts are very obvious to me), but the image quality is quite watchable on my 26" TV at close range. Note that most cable companies are moving/have moved to 'digital cable' as well, which should be comparable image quality to DirectTV.
What I'm REALLY happy with is the DirectTivo unit. I got the Phillips DSR 7000 model, which is a Series 2 model, and I'm overjoyed with it. Does everything it's supposed to, is very hackable, and once you enable the USB ports, for $20 you can get a decent ethernet adaptor for it.
As far as losing picture, I've only lost it once, and that was for an hour during an ice storm which was covering the dish with ice. It cleared up on it's own, however.
Please note that I was mostly referring to the type of book the 'review' *SEEMED* to indicate this was.
If a review is supposed to give you information on why you should or should not read a book, that's what I took away from this one.
Personally I don't care for (later) Heinlein-esque, neo-Burroughs, "let's talk about sex, disturbing stuff, and all combinations of the two, then call it art", science-fiction books. To me, it ends up sounding like pubescent mental masturbation.
But that's just my opinion, haven't read the book, and don't plan to. That's just what I get from this "review". I think this interview with Ray Bradbury sums up my opinions nicely.
>For example, are the data links insecure--I dont
>think so as most are now 128bit encrypted, right?
128-bit encryption without knowing the cryptographic algorithm used is meaningless as a definition of crypto strength, especially if the encryption is badly designed and broken; both of which are true for 128-bit WEP. Do a google search on it and you'll find the papers that describe the vulnerablility, and the tools to exploit it.
WEP is what hapens when non-crypto people design crypto.
Here's a starter link Look at the '802.11 Encryption" section
Last time I checked (and it's my job to) WEP and wireless security are still broken, as far as standards are concerned. 802.1x (PEAP, LEAP, whatever you want to call it) isn't appropriate in all (or even most, IMHO) situtations, and fixes to WEP like TKIP aren't widely deployed.
Wireless will continue to have security issues as long as the underlying security technology is broken and is hard to deploy in a secure, stable, and manageble fashion.
That's a technology factor in my book.
The 'scroll mouse' was first marketed by Mouse Systems, although MS's mouse was the first financially sucessful wheel mouse.
/ op ticalmouse990526.html
The optical mouse was also Mouse Systems (with the grid-pad), and MS and Logitech both developed plain surface optical at the same time ~1999. MS was first to market, however.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/CuttingEdge
Official policy is that tunneling through the proxy is a violation of HR policy, which expressly forbids avoiding the content filter, or avoiding the security infrastructure, eg.. the firewalls, and is handled as a disciplinary action. That's an HR policy, not mine (security).
Unofficial policy is that if I find you tunneling (there are ways) I will give you and your manager a heads-up warning and not take it to HR. If I find it a second time, I call HR and let them deal with it.
Tunneling through, even for 'smart' employees (who usually aren't), is a huge security concern for me, and if you can just tunnel though, how can HR have any assurance that you are complying with the AUP? Some of the 'smart' ones are the worst offenders. (2 hours of surfing this anyone? NOTE: do not click the link. DO NOT CLICK THE LINK!!!!!)
Anyway, that's the policy that ends with '...up to and including termination', and our HR staff does not fool around.
So much for the hard nosed stuff. The reality is that you can pretty much do anything you want as far as surfing and 'regular' protocols go (FTP, AIM, MS messenger, HTTP, HTTPS, etc..), but not telnet and ssh. As long as it isn't porn or racial hate sites. That's the trade off. Follow the fairly liberal rules, and no one complains. Break the rules and our (female) ex-military/lawyer HR person comes down upon you like a ton of bricks.
It works out well, in general, and we have very few issues in our organization. All we ask is that people act in a somewhat mature fashion in their Internet usage and we have no problems with what they do otherwise. That's up to their manager.
I hate to respond to this one, but I have to:
...nevermind...
>If the program catagorizing your logs was not
>full of it, your company had serious problems to
>begin with.
No arguments there.
>Chances are that SmartFilter or some
>sister program told you just what you wanted to
>hear. Did you really sample those sites? Did you
>have another program to verify your
>employees were really going to those places?
I wrote my own report engine, because I couldn't find anything that would give me the detail level I needed. And yes, I did sample those sites. In fact, if I'm investigating an AUP violation, I have to look at most of them. I don't depend on the category or the URL name, although most of those are self explanitory. As I said, filters without someone *looking* at the logs (implying a human) is pointless. And don't think I enjoy that part of the job. Ugh...nothing more depressing than surfing someone else's porn.
>You've got 10,000 employees like I've got half
>Bill Gates's shares of M$.
Must be nice to have so much money. Our NT domain says we have about 9800 employees, but that doesn't include some of our other divisions. (The corporation I work for is on the Fortune 500. You can probably figure out which one without too much trouble)
>If you trusted them, you would never need a
>filter, would you?
Er, the 'trusted individuals' are myself and my group. With great power comes great
>For all that, you still end up combing the logs
>to improve the filters. Don't you have something
>better to do? Like provide information services?
I don't improve the filters. I have never added one site to the filter list. All I do is report on apparent violations(which is by IP address only; we don't narrow it down to an individual until the investigation is ongoing), and investigate. The filter is more useful as a guide than a site blocker. I could not block anything and it would be about the same for me.
And it is part of my job. Me and the other people in my group aren't vindictive about it, and it is a necessary evil in corporate America.
We use SmartFilter at work. In fact, I'm the primary babysitter and representive of the Spanish Inquisition where it is concerned.
Traditionally, I've been against filtering software, under the "if you treat people like children, they won't dissapoint you" philosophy. Unfortunately, in examining logs BEFORE we turned on the filtering, people were doing a great job of acting like children beforehand. Reporting on a days worth of logs on the 'sex' category generated a 150 page (small print) report, covering about 50 employees. These were NOT banner adds and spam mail. After the filter went on, it went to about 20 pages. After a well placed firing for an extreme example, it went down to about 3.
There are a few things you have to consider when dealing with filtering software.
1. The people categorizing URL's and sites are not much better than trained monkeys. Just because a site gets blocked isn't part of a conspiracy. Just a TMIF (trained monkey input failure) event. Usually they correct it within a week.
(Side note: My favorite mis-categorization was when a dog breeding site was classified as a pornography site)
2. Filters are unfortunately a necessary evil in this day and age, since companies (mostly larger ones) MUST show that they are activly preventing the development of a 'hostile environment' toward protected groups, such as women and minorities. Filters are an easy way of doing that.
3. Filters by themselves are useless. Its amazing the number of things that they don't catch, and methods of by-passing them are out there. You have to keep the logs, and actually look at them. Filters are only alerts, not real preventitive measures.
4. Also, you have to take care that someone in your company won't use them for 'evil', like some middle manager on a witch hunt. You have to have good, fair policies in place covering Internet usage and trusted individuals with good ethics to see those policies are being followed.
In the last 18 months, my company has gone from having many gross violations of our Internet usage policies to very few violations. Most people can get to most the things they want to, and most, if not all of the 10K full time employees are pretty happy with the arrangement, or at least I haven't heard any complaints. For better or worse, the content filter and daily review of log reports is primarily responsible for that.
Your test is flawed. Big red buttons are attached to alarms. Usually big loud alarms. And anyone pushing the button would set off the big loud alarm, and EVERYONE would look to see who pushed the big red button. Most people do not like to attract negative attention to themselves, therefore they do not push big red buttons.
If it were, say, a small white button, somewhere out of the way, which was obviously NOT an alarm button or a doorbell, I would guess that people would stand in line to push it. People will only act in such ways if there are no obvious consequences.
Hmmm. It is inexcusable for Mozilla 1.0, which tries to be a very standards based browser, to support Microsoft's proprietary, non-(w3c)-standard authentication scheme?
And it is unexcusable for Opera, Konquor, lynx, wget, and every other http-based tool?
MS Proxy server supports other authentication methods. The manager for the proxy server has chosen to only support NTLM authentication. I would consider *THAT* to be unexcusable, myself...
If you REALLY must use NTLM authentication, there are installable local proxy servers that can fake out the NTLM authentication for you, like this one.
jf
(who manages proxy servers for a living...among other things.)
Er, that was Romero, methinks, not Carmack.
And I never heard the thing about Quake in an Aztec environment.....
Might I mention that the Nazi's V1 and V2 were largely developed by rocket enthusists (including Von Braun) who, before WWII, were mostly considered crackpots...
http://www.space.edu/projects/book/chapter8.html
You are correct (my bad), but it was 'officially' a part of the Jupiter project. It was named Jupiter C to get through the budgeting process, since anything with 'Jupiter' attached to it was almost automatically approved.
Officially, it was a variation of the Jupiter. Actually, it was much, much closer to the origional Redstone...
Korolev, the "Grand Designer" of the Soviet space program, was easily the equal of Von Braun. With his ability and the fact that the Russians got all the German V2 production lines and factories and, many of the people who operated them during WWII, also gave the Soviets a huge boost.
And the US *DID* use the V2 scientists to the best of their abilities, but initially only for military projects. The doomed satelite launches made in response to Sputnik (Vanguard) were on not-ready-for-prime-time civilian launch vehicles, not military rockets. In fact, the military already had proven technology on the shelf that could put a satellite in orbit, but Von Braun was expressly forbidden by the President from using 'military hardware' for such a purpose.
Eventually, Von Braun was allowed to put the first American satellite (Explorer 1) in orbit with his Jupiter C rocket.
(NOTE: Jupiter C was a slightly modified Jupiter missle, which was designed during Von Braun's 'satellite ban' for a 'special nose-cone' test. After the initial testing, Von Braun kept a few Jupiter C's in storage for a 'certain time' and a 'certain nose-cone test'. Later it was obvious that the 'nose-cone test' was his plan to put a satellite in orbit.)
Anyway, I picked all this up last weekend at the Kansas Cosmosphere. Very neat place, and the current home of the Odyssey command module from Apollo 13.
Although they lost interest in landing on the moon after Apollo 11, along with the N-1 failure, but they still managed to land the first automated rovers I saw a backup Lunokhod 2 rover last weekend. it looked like a tractor, but was still pretty impressive for early 1970's technology.