I would recommend using OpenStack and RDO if you can tie together the physical machines into a "cloud" like system (vs. say just running a single hypervisor software per computer like virtualbox).
Each student could be allocated their own project/tenant with appropriate quotas and limits. If setup with a VLAN type system, it is possible to isolate entire networks of VMs for a given project (allowing more than a single VM per student if the hardware can support it) and you can provide some basic images of where you want the students to start from.
I know it sounds like a bit of overkill, but it provides a lot of functionality that you can control from a more centralized location without the need of setting up VBox on every host.
The students can interact with the hosts (depending on how you do it) via the network directly or via the dashboard (vnc-like) web page.
This is just a preliminary invalidation, not the end of the road for this patent. Many patents that are in this state survive (partially or wholly). This simply is the start of a process within the USPTO.
Folks -- a preliminary invalidation is a non-event. Every patent you apply for is almost always initially rejected. It is the way the patent examiner pushes the burden back on the inventor. They reject, you appeal, they reject, you appeal, patent issues.
Typically the findings for an initial patent application are really weak and easy to overcome.
The re-examination process is the same way. The patent examiner places himself in the position of the person trying to shoot the patent down. That is because the other party to communicate with is the original inventor and obviously they are going to push for maintaining the application. So in order to do proper due diligence, the examiner needs to find reasons to refute the patent, and then there is an appeal, and then possibly another invalidation, and another appeal and then the patent likely holds in some form.
In short... nothing to see here... move along.
I don't know the actual percentage, but I'd bet 99.9% of all patents for which a reexamination was requested receive a preliminary invalidation. And I don't think the patent office can refuse to do a reexamination on a patent.
I don't really see this as a problem (violations of the AUP should be grounds for termination of service), HOWEVER (that is a *big* however), two things need to be in place before this should be reasonably enforceable (and some of these elements are pretty easy to do, and may be already done):
[These are in no particular order]
1. ISP (COX in this case) with said AUP needs to give basic education to their customers on signup/setup for things like WiFi security - a simple "to let you know unsecured WiFi isn't allowed, this is what you need to do to get a secured WiFi . Alternatively, for $ we will make sure it is setup correctly for you" (LET ME STRESS: the "setup for you" should be optional, perhaps a waiver stating "I understand" if you don't have them set it up for you.)
2. *** MOST IMPORTANT *** The ISP (COX) cannot be the EXCLUSIVE provider for the residence (Yes, I am looking at you, apartment complex I live in. I have NO option but COX, meaning that since I need Internet for my Job, I could be screwed if this happened. This typically isn't an issue for me, since I am relatively secure in my knowledge on how to setup networks/WiFi/etc).
There might need to be a couple other things, but, these two stood out to me as almost requirements at this point (with policies like COX has).
Honestly, I think that a lot of people would do the temporary friending (well in the places that don't allow cell phones with cameras in the court houses...and every cell phone pretty much has a camera in it these days). What I find to be amazing is that people have little regard for personal privacy when it comes to the social networking sites (or just don't understand what it really means to them -- or worse don't care).
This wouldn't work for me, I'm content with my kindle or other e-reader (or a real book) when having to sit and wait. I find it offensive that 'Facebook' among other things can be used during jury selection. While I can understand that the attorneys and the courts want the best representation of unbiased people, I think this will turn into abuse of the system on both sides.
I also would argue that there is nothing "temporary" about friending the office. My guess would be that they will start siphoning down your details and storing them for later. If this is to be permissible, there needs to be strict retention policies set forth by the court on the user data (and this should probably be evaluated in a more formal way).
Granted I didn't read TFA. I should probably do so before posting. But in either case, it worries me that people have so little regard for the data they post online and what is done with it. While I am personally careful to post things that I know I don't mind EVERYONE knowing, I am probably in the minority.
In retro spec, to prove my point, it would mean that EVERYBODY would die while driving after less than 10 years years. Even moving the decimal points out to 0.00005, you're stating that it takes a mere 20 years puts you at a 91% chance to die from driving. Moving out to 25 years shows that it takes ~18000 times driving to ensure death. I don't like that thought, I drive pretty damn often and have used up a fair share of my "allotment"
Honestly, I think you're doing the math wrong. It's not simply 10*365*2.5*0.005, which does equate 45.625 (the 45% chance). Again, this is not simple adding the percentage up, we need to delve into the world of statistics.
It is more akin to 0.005% chance each time you drive, independent of the number of times you are driving. On average, you'd see 0.005% death (using your numbers) across many many many times driving, not simply hit the equivalent of 100% chance eventually.
I believe the math works out to be something more akin to working as a binomial probability distribution instead of simply additively. The percentage that a person will die while driving, over 9125 trials (number of times driving in 10 years, 2.5 times a day) will still be 0.005 (or approach 0.005).
This is because each trial is independent of each other, and cannot be equated to a lottery with a fixed number of entrants.
You can state that a single person's chance of dieing in a car is higher by driving more often because there are more events (trials) that take place. Each of these trials will net the same (or similar) results.
Obviously the equation falls apart as soon as the subject dies (as there will be no further trials).
I can't seem to drum up the math equations behind this at the moment. It has been a long day and I'm struggling to get back into thinking stats at the moment. But you get the idea, I'm sure.
Monogamous nature of human mating interaction is almost exclusively due to societal changes -- mostly control reasons (from what I can see). However, humans do tend to have a stronger attachment to those they mate with than some other species out there do. Perhaps more akin to the mate-for-life (or close to it) mentality -- whether or not this is supported by actions and/or society (divorce rate is high etc), but there is the definite attachment in many cases.
I should stop posting, and where are my damn mod points to mod you funny for the title.
After glancing over the TFA it appears that it is shown that the two species simply existed together and one eventually out-competed the other. What isn't definitively shown as not being the case is that the Evolutionary chain didn't also occur with a net result of both species existing at once. An overlap could be caused because both species in different areas (even locals) were well suited for the environment. I guess I could just want to be argumentative after a long day of meetings with the subspecies PHB which is probably more akin to the chimpanzee than anything vaguely human... in fact I'm sure of that last statement, PHBs are NOT human.
Everything has to be black and white -- nothing can be grey in science. The truth is that science is all grey and we want to see in black and white.
DC++ appears to be the most affected from what I've seen. Unfortunately I can only go by what I'm seeing on the destination end (at this time), which makes discovery of the source software a bit difficult at times. I'll say the article I linked details a bit of the exploitable software, usually Hubs and clients that are far from patched (later versions tend to close some of the holes). However, people never update P2P software (as a broad generalization) in comparison to more mission critical applications.
I recommend sticking to BitTorrent and only use trackers you're confident in. BitTorrent's setup is significantly better (in most cases, and not the strange extensions, just the vanilla protocol clients/trackers) than most of the others out there. Again, I'd be hard pressed to point a finger in any specific scenario beyond the obvious. I have long stopped using P2P for personal reasons, partly due to the software and protocols.
I'm glad this finally made it to Slashdot. It's a bit of older news to those of us who work in the web hosting industry and have already been subjected to these types of attacks. The scale that the abuse of these networks causes the DDOS attacks to be is on a much larger scale than DDOS style attacks have been in the past (for the most part).
Thankfully some Peer to Peer network protocols aren't badly implemented (and the client software isn't as bad as others). Netcraft has a decent article about this with examples of the P2P networks that have been shown as exploitable.
I can confidently say that these attacks can easily span the 800,000 pkt/sec (per link) and include millions of source addresses for a "cheap cost" compared to the botnets that previously have been almost exclusive to the attacks. Thankfully most P2P clients aren't hijackable in a way to simply pulse connections (all at once) or the more traditional SynFlooding. Connection (fully negotiated) tends to be easier to diagnose than the strictly syn-flooding style attacks can be, on top of it they tend to be more directed (single destination vs. rotating with some kind of intelligence across an entire netblock).
I would have to say that for the most part (granted the poster wont benefit from this) the best thing to do is to get in good with the University's IT department.
I know I was working heavily with the IT department just to help there where I could. I also was part of an initiative for part of the school to get student-run websites and email for the university. Overall this gave me extensive experience working with computers and in general, and let me focus on GREAT technologies.
To do this, one must be willing to make proposals, setup equipment and work ones ass off just to get people interested. The best part is most of the time you'll either get Units or actual pay when and where possible. Not only are you using your new found knowledge, you are able to put it down on a Resume.
Just look now, I work as a Systems Administrator for an Internet Hosting Company, I am only a short time from my date of graduation.
Other options are open, and don't hesitate to get involved with the lower end Tech Support/QA etc departments who are willing to train people just to get the type of person they want.
For programmers- work with your friends/parents friends/etc to get simple stuff handled for them. Make custom apps, get your stuff on sourceforge, Become Part of the OSS community. These all work on resumes and give proven experience. Given the pay isn't good, you have to assume that you'll work a lower end job until you are ready to move on up. But moving up is possible.
there have been many/other/ similar services for this. However, most of them were targeted at other markets. Look at digital-islands, originally mostly a streaming servce, but they could handle akamai style dns as well...but ahh dot(bomb)Com industry strikes again...
*ahem* Where do you work again? -- I, for one, could use the 60-80 hour weeks, even in light of this new initiative [slashdot.org].
but in all seriousness
I understand where you are coming from (I have been there), but there are those of us who thrive in this environment of stress. However, if one of us is willing to do the 60-80 hour weeks, does this mean the management will expect this from everybody; probably. Unfortunate as it is, in the economy as it is (even now that it is appearing to turn around) we have kindof a conundrum here...
***WARNING THIS COMMENT IS UNITED STATES CENTRIC***
*** This is in no way meant to exclude other/. readers ***
Slashdot Mirror
I would recommend using OpenStack and RDO if you can tie together the physical machines into a "cloud" like system (vs. say just running a single hypervisor software per computer like virtualbox).
Each student could be allocated their own project/tenant with appropriate quotas and limits. If setup with a VLAN type system, it is possible to isolate entire networks of VMs for a given project (allowing more than a single VM per student if the hardware can support it) and you can provide some basic images of where you want the students to start from.
http://openstack.redhat.com/Main_Page
I know it sounds like a bit of overkill, but it provides a lot of functionality that you can control from a more centralized location without the need of setting up VBox on every host.
The students can interact with the hosts (depending on how you do it) via the network directly or via the dashboard (vnc-like) web page.
This is just a preliminary invalidation, not the end of the road for this patent. Many patents that are in this state survive (partially or wholly). This simply is the start of a process within the USPTO.
(Relevant Post taken from Mac Rumors discussion on this, this is not my post, but relevant for this discussion): http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=16445804&postcount=39
Folks -- a preliminary invalidation is a non-event. Every patent you apply for is almost always initially rejected. It is the way the patent examiner pushes the burden back on the inventor. They reject, you appeal, they reject, you appeal, patent issues.
Typically the findings for an initial patent application are really weak and easy to overcome.
The re-examination process is the same way. The patent examiner places himself in the position of the person trying to shoot the patent down. That is because the other party to communicate with is the original inventor and obviously they are going to push for maintaining the application. So in order to do proper due diligence, the examiner needs to find reasons to refute the patent, and then there is an appeal, and then possibly another invalidation, and another appeal and then the patent likely holds in some form.
In short... nothing to see here... move along.
I don't know the actual percentage, but I'd bet 99.9% of all patents for which a reexamination was requested receive a preliminary invalidation. And I don't think the patent office can refuse to do a reexamination on a patent.
Full Discussion here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1503872&page=1
[These are in no particular order]
There might need to be a couple other things, but, these two stood out to me as almost requirements at this point (with policies like COX has).
Honestly, I think that a lot of people would do the temporary friending (well in the places that don't allow cell phones with cameras in the court houses...and every cell phone pretty much has a camera in it these days). What I find to be amazing is that people have little regard for personal privacy when it comes to the social networking sites (or just don't understand what it really means to them -- or worse don't care).
This wouldn't work for me, I'm content with my kindle or other e-reader (or a real book) when having to sit and wait. I find it offensive that 'Facebook' among other things can be used during jury selection. While I can understand that the attorneys and the courts want the best representation of unbiased people, I think this will turn into abuse of the system on both sides.
I also would argue that there is nothing "temporary" about friending the office. My guess would be that they will start siphoning down your details and storing them for later. If this is to be permissible, there needs to be strict retention policies set forth by the court on the user data (and this should probably be evaluated in a more formal way).
Granted I didn't read TFA. I should probably do so before posting. But in either case, it worries me that people have so little regard for the data they post online and what is done with it. While I am personally careful to post things that I know I don't mind EVERYONE knowing, I am probably in the minority.
Just my $0.003
In retro spec, to prove my point, it would mean that EVERYBODY would die while driving after less than 10 years years. Even moving the decimal points out to 0.00005, you're stating that it takes a mere 20 years puts you at a 91% chance to die from driving. Moving out to 25 years shows that it takes ~18000 times driving to ensure death. I don't like that thought, I drive pretty damn often and have used up a fair share of my "allotment"
You are doing the math wrong. It's not additive. See Below (the posts inc. my comment). Man I wish my math wasn't rusty at the moment.
Honestly, I think you're doing the math wrong. It's not simply 10*365*2.5*0.005, which does equate 45.625 (the 45% chance). Again, this is not simple adding the percentage up, we need to delve into the world of statistics.
It is more akin to 0.005% chance each time you drive, independent of the number of times you are driving. On average, you'd see 0.005% death (using your numbers) across many many many times driving, not simply hit the equivalent of 100% chance eventually.
I believe the math works out to be something more akin to working as a binomial probability distribution instead of simply additively. The percentage that a person will die while driving, over 9125 trials (number of times driving in 10 years, 2.5 times a day) will still be 0.005 (or approach 0.005).
This is because each trial is independent of each other, and cannot be equated to a lottery with a fixed number of entrants.
You can state that a single person's chance of dieing in a car is higher by driving more often because there are more events (trials) that take place. Each of these trials will net the same (or similar) results.
Obviously the equation falls apart as soon as the subject dies (as there will be no further trials).
I can't seem to drum up the math equations behind this at the moment. It has been a long day and I'm struggling to get back into thinking stats at the moment. But you get the idea, I'm sure.
Monogamous nature of human mating interaction is almost exclusively due to societal changes -- mostly control reasons (from what I can see). However, humans do tend to have a stronger attachment to those they mate with than some other species out there do. Perhaps more akin to the mate-for-life (or close to it) mentality -- whether or not this is supported by actions and/or society (divorce rate is high etc), but there is the definite attachment in many cases. I should stop posting, and where are my damn mod points to mod you funny for the title.
After glancing over the TFA it appears that it is shown that the two species simply existed together and one eventually out-competed the other. What isn't definitively shown as not being the case is that the Evolutionary chain didn't also occur with a net result of both species existing at once. An overlap could be caused because both species in different areas (even locals) were well suited for the environment. I guess I could just want to be argumentative after a long day of meetings with the subspecies PHB which is probably more akin to the chimpanzee than anything vaguely human ... in fact I'm sure of that last statement, PHBs are NOT human.
Everything has to be black and white -- nothing can be grey in science. The truth is that science is all grey and we want to see in black and white.
DC++ appears to be the most affected from what I've seen. Unfortunately I can only go by what I'm seeing on the destination end (at this time), which makes discovery of the source software a bit difficult at times. I'll say the article I linked details a bit of the exploitable software, usually Hubs and clients that are far from patched (later versions tend to close some of the holes). However, people never update P2P software (as a broad generalization) in comparison to more mission critical applications.
I recommend sticking to BitTorrent and only use trackers you're confident in. BitTorrent's setup is significantly better (in most cases, and not the strange extensions, just the vanilla protocol clients/trackers) than most of the others out there. Again, I'd be hard pressed to point a finger in any specific scenario beyond the obvious. I have long stopped using P2P for personal reasons, partly due to the software and protocols.
And sadly I don't have any mod points to spend on this topic where I actually could see use of them.
I'm glad this finally made it to Slashdot. It's a bit of older news to those of us who work in the web hosting industry and have already been subjected to these types of attacks. The scale that the abuse of these networks causes the DDOS attacks to be is on a much larger scale than DDOS style attacks have been in the past (for the most part).
n etworks_hijacked_for_ddos_attacks.html
Thankfully some Peer to Peer network protocols aren't badly implemented (and the client software isn't as bad as others). Netcraft has a decent article about this with examples of the P2P networks that have been shown as exploitable.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/23/p2p_
I can confidently say that these attacks can easily span the 800,000 pkt/sec (per link) and include millions of source addresses for a "cheap cost" compared to the botnets that previously have been almost exclusive to the attacks. Thankfully most P2P clients aren't hijackable in a way to simply pulse connections (all at once) or the more traditional SynFlooding. Connection (fully negotiated) tends to be easier to diagnose than the strictly syn-flooding style attacks can be, on top of it they tend to be more directed (single destination vs. rotating with some kind of intelligence across an entire netblock).
Actually lets just let Red Hat have everyone remove links to their site.
Wonder what this will do to the google page rank? Maybe RHAT should rethink this, that is if they care where their site shows in the "Linux" search...
Just my $0.002.
I would have to say that for the most part (granted the poster wont benefit from this) the best thing to do is to get in good with the University's IT department.
I know I was working heavily with the IT department just to help there where I could. I also was part of an initiative for part of the school to get student-run websites and email for the university. Overall this gave me extensive experience working with computers and in general, and let me focus on GREAT technologies.
To do this, one must be willing to make proposals, setup equipment and work ones ass off just to get people interested. The best part is most of the time you'll either get Units or actual pay when and where possible. Not only are you using your new found knowledge, you are able to put it down on a Resume.
Just look now, I work as a Systems Administrator for an Internet Hosting Company, I am only a short time from my date of graduation.
Other options are open, and don't hesitate to get involved with the lower end Tech Support/QA etc departments who are willing to train people just to get the type of person they want.
For programmers- work with your friends/parents friends/etc to get simple stuff handled for them. Make custom apps, get your stuff on sourceforge, Become Part of the OSS community. These all work on resumes and give proven experience. Given the pay isn't good, you have to assume that you'll work a lower end job until you are ready to move on up. But moving up is possible.
Hope these few sage words help people out.
--
there have been many /other/ similar services for this. However, most of them were targeted at other markets. Look at digital-islands, originally mostly a streaming servce, but they could handle akamai style dns as well...but ahh dot(bomb)Com industry strikes again...
Speaking with other divisions of my company I know that this issue ALSO affected Europe, more global than expected?
*ahem* Where do you work again? -- I, for one, could use the 60-80 hour weeks, even in light of this new initiative [slashdot.org].
/. readers ***
but in all seriousness
I understand where you are coming from (I have been there), but there are those of us who thrive in this environment of stress. However, if one of us is willing to do the 60-80 hour weeks, does this mean the management will expect this from everybody; probably. Unfortunate as it is, in the economy as it is (even now that it is appearing to turn around) we have kindof a conundrum here...
***WARNING THIS COMMENT IS UNITED STATES CENTRIC***
*** This is in no way meant to exclude other
--M
Why is this an issue?
Most people don't disable the SNMP management. This broadcasts the sysuptime...Personally it seems like more work to snag this outta a TCP packet.