"Cogent will offer any Level 3 customer, who is single homed to the Level 3 network as of October 5, 2005, one year of full Internet transit free of charge at the same bandwidth currently being supplied by Level 3. Cogent will provide this connectivity in over 1,000 locations throughout North America and Europe."
Not that I really know what that means, or whether their claim that Level3 cut things off really makes Level3 the bad guys. Anyone want to explain for those of us that don't get it?
Perhaps they aren't that concerned with paying a little bit but don't want to hire an admin, and hope that tech support for Linux becomes more mainstream so that there's competition to drive prices down?
Yeah. Over the last few years, when getting to know girls, they've found out about things like my penchant for Linux or my occasional game of Magic, and I'll somewhat sheepishly say something like "Yeah, I'm a huge nerd". Somehow, it seems to work in my favour now, where years ago it brought only disdain... Shrug. Can't complain.:)
There are a few different ways of downloading torrents without uploading. They'll probably go slower, but they'll still download. THAT'S how the protocol works.
Yes, but it has limited functionality by comparison.
The new Google toolbar is neat, but it can't compete with the open source Googlebar (which Google, to their credit, offers a link to on the Google toolbar download page). Many more features like the use of Google Maps, and so forth.
The difference is so great that my browsing is significantly less efficient when browsing at someone else's computer, even if they're using Firefox.
Pretty much everyone has 100 invites these days. I got the impression that the invite system was designed to keep the percentage of completely clueless users low in the early days when they actually wanted to hear from the users... Possibly also as a tool to keep growth of the system manageable so they don't suddenly need 1 billion 2 GB mail accounts in a week. It probably also helps limit automated signups. I could also be wrong though.
I thought we were primarily talking about individuals, who, as you said, are far too ignorant/stupid/uneducated to take the simple step of turning off ActiveX. And part of the point of what I said originally is that in my experience, yes, Firefox DOES solve their security woes. Well, until they try to watch streaming media, realize I haven't installed anything that lets them do it, and cunningly open IE despite the deleted shortcuts.
Up to this point, I suspect unpatched Firefox probably has been safer than patched IE.
"I have seen unpatched Firefox installs all over the place." And I have seen spyware-laden-to-hell boxes using IE all over the place. You may well have a point that better/faster/more efficient/more automatic patching would make Firefox better, but unless I'm very much mistaken, they're working on it, and they're still doing better than IE in the meantime.
The specific response: It's already patched. A released exploit that's already had a patch released for it is nowhere near as scary as one that hasn't.
The general response: As always with open source, if the Mozilla guys drop the ball and you know what you're doing, you can patch it yourself. With closed source, you're kinda at the mercy of the makers (usually Microsoft).
Anecdotal evidence: Yes, this is in the past, but I let two total newbies use a box of mine for about a year, with the only relevant modifications being: Installed Firefox, Deleted shortcuts to IE, Spybot's resident protection, Spyware Blaster, Windows autoupdates on, and Nod32 (not even a firewall). They never had ANY problem until they figured out how to open IE, at which point they managed to get a bit of spyware in.
I would assume the answer is yes. More interestingly, though I'm generally fairly into privacy, I think this way of doing it is probably good.
1. I have no problem with expressing my preferences to marketers. 2. Most people won't have problems doing that if it's done in a way that doesn't collect personal information, and 3. Unlike spyware, it doesn't use your computer's resources to do any of it.
Basically companies will make more things I want, advertising will be more likely to be for things I want, and thus annoy me less, and companies will subsidize a useful service with advertising money to accomplish all this.
Um, the point is not that the criminal will use illegal techniques to gather evidence.
The point is that the criminal will be more comfortable with the illegal techniques others use, and be able to explain those techniques, expose whatever weaknesses to legal evidence-gathering they may have, and harden security against them.
I'm not saying it always makes sense to hire a criminal for a security job, but I can certainly see the advantages.
And let's not forget Turkmenistan, whose leader, "The father of all Turkmen", renamed the months of the year after family members and anything else he liked. Not that he messed with the actual times or anything, but it's still freakish.
Personally, I'd be happy if the Linux kernel had a driver for my onboard Via SATA RAID controller, which I'm using for *gasp* RAID 0. Thing is, since Via has taken their sweet ass time providing drivers, I can't easily install Windows and Linux together on the RAID. Boo.
What *I* don't get is how it could be feasible for corporations but not cities. I don't see the costs and benefits being different depending on who provides it (except of course that ideally municipal wifi wouldn't try to profit). And I doubt that the initial costs are too expensive for a city. Am I missing something here?
Well... Call me pathetic, but after waiting 2 weeks for the net when I moved into my last house, I was exhibiting a little bit of withdrawal. Plus I think the only thing that stops me from checking my e-mail on the hour is the wondrous invention of e-mail notifiers.
Slashdot Mirror
From Cogent's side, as linked in the summary:
"Cogent will offer any Level 3 customer, who is single homed to the Level 3 network as of October 5, 2005,
one year of full Internet transit free of charge at the same bandwidth currently being supplied by Level 3.
Cogent will provide this connectivity in over 1,000 locations throughout North America and Europe."
Not that I really know what that means, or whether their claim that Level3 cut things off really makes Level3 the bad guys. Anyone want to explain for those of us that don't get it?
Despite what the summary says, the Full House support is ravingly sarcastic.
Perhaps they aren't that concerned with paying a little bit but don't want to hire an admin, and hope that tech support for Linux becomes more mainstream so that there's competition to drive prices down?
Signed up for an account, but there doesn't appear to be any e-mail access. Shrug.
1. It was a joke emphasizing the silliness of the game.
2. Try the links. The review is plenty coherent.
3. Even blabbering into the void may have its place from time to time.
Heh. Incoherence is kinda a prerequisite for reviewing this particular game.
Yeah. Over the last few years, when getting to know girls, they've found out about things like my penchant for Linux or my occasional game of Magic, and I'll somewhat sheepishly say something like "Yeah, I'm a huge nerd". Somehow, it seems to work in my favour now, where years ago it brought only disdain... Shrug. Can't complain. :)
There are a few different ways of downloading torrents without uploading. They'll probably go slower, but they'll still download. THAT'S how the protocol works.
Yes, but it has limited functionality by comparison.
The new Google toolbar is neat, but it can't compete with the open source Googlebar (which Google, to their credit, offers a link to on the Google toolbar download page). Many more features like the use of Google Maps, and so forth.
The difference is so great that my browsing is significantly less efficient when browsing at someone else's computer, even if they're using Firefox.
Pretty much everyone has 100 invites these days. I got the impression that the invite system was designed to keep the percentage of completely clueless users low in the early days when they actually wanted to hear from the users... Possibly also as a tool to keep growth of the system manageable so they don't suddenly need 1 billion 2 GB mail accounts in a week. It probably also helps limit automated signups. I could also be wrong though.
I thought we were primarily talking about individuals, who, as you said, are far too ignorant/stupid/uneducated to take the simple step of turning off ActiveX. And part of the point of what I said originally is that in my experience, yes, Firefox DOES solve their security woes. Well, until they try to watch streaming media, realize I haven't installed anything that lets them do it, and cunningly open IE despite the deleted shortcuts.
Up to this point, I suspect unpatched Firefox probably has been safer than patched IE.
"I have seen unpatched Firefox installs all over the place."
And I have seen spyware-laden-to-hell boxes using IE all over the place. You may well have a point that better/faster/more efficient/more automatic patching would make Firefox better, but unless I'm very much mistaken, they're working on it, and they're still doing better than IE in the meantime.
The specific response: It's already patched. A released exploit that's already had a patch released for it is nowhere near as scary as one that hasn't.
The general response: As always with open source, if the Mozilla guys drop the ball and you know what you're doing, you can patch it yourself. With closed source, you're kinda at the mercy of the makers (usually Microsoft).
Anecdotal evidence: Yes, this is in the past, but I let two total newbies use a box of mine for about a year, with the only relevant modifications being: Installed Firefox, Deleted shortcuts to IE, Spybot's resident protection, Spyware Blaster, Windows autoupdates on, and Nod32 (not even a firewall). They never had ANY problem until they figured out how to open IE, at which point they managed to get a bit of spyware in.
I would assume the answer is yes. More interestingly, though I'm generally fairly into privacy, I think this way of doing it is probably good.
1. I have no problem with expressing my preferences to marketers.
2. Most people won't have problems doing that if it's done in a way that doesn't collect personal information, and
3. Unlike spyware, it doesn't use your computer's resources to do any of it.
Basically companies will make more things I want, advertising will be more likely to be for things I want, and thus annoy me less, and companies will subsidize a useful service with advertising money to accomplish all this.
Seems to me everyone wins here.
Um, the point is not that the criminal will use illegal techniques to gather evidence.
The point is that the criminal will be more comfortable with the illegal techniques others use, and be able to explain those techniques, expose whatever weaknesses to legal evidence-gathering they may have, and harden security against them.
I'm not saying it always makes sense to hire a criminal for a security job, but I can certainly see the advantages.
It's DOCTOR gonzo, he didn't spend 6 years in gonzo medical school to be called MISTER, thank you very much!
Whoever modded this offtopic is an idiot.
Well, if it's easy to misuse the system to track people, at least you'll know where to find the people responsible. ;)
And let's not forget Turkmenistan, whose leader, "The father of all Turkmen", renamed the months of the year after family members and anything else he liked. Not that he messed with the actual times or anything, but it's still freakish.
Personally, I'd be happy if the Linux kernel had a driver for my onboard Via SATA RAID controller, which I'm using for *gasp* RAID 0. Thing is, since Via has taken their sweet ass time providing drivers, I can't easily install Windows and Linux together on the RAID. Boo.
Correction: You guys are just kidding yourselves if you think that MS has enough combined talent to execute a publically known vulnerability. ;)
Okay, okay, so I took it from the "MS is evil" angle to the "MS is incompetent" angle. Still fun though.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/24/msn_drivin g_instructions/
What *I* don't get is how it could be feasible for corporations but not cities. I don't see the costs and benefits being different depending on who provides it (except of course that ideally municipal wifi wouldn't try to profit). And I doubt that the initial costs are too expensive for a city. Am I missing something here?
Or three times in a single post? ;)
Well... Call me pathetic, but after waiting 2 weeks for the net when I moved into my last house, I was exhibiting a little bit of withdrawal. Plus I think the only thing that stops me from checking my e-mail on the hour is the wondrous invention of e-mail notifiers.
Of course, I could just be a freak.