Yes, because you don't have to spend any of your valuable time supporting paid-for operating systems.
Yes indedy. If you're on a commercial OS, you can use your valuable time waiting for return calls from the vendor's "help desk", learning to understand what passes for English in whatever fungal third-world nation the "help desk" is in this week, and writing long and desperate correspondence to various level of your management explaining why you haven't solved the problem yet.
Thanks, no thanks, I'd just as soon be able to examine the kernel source myself. And I speak as a professional admin of two different closed-source unixes at a military technical facility. It's all fun and games until someone puts a production server out.
Please tell me, what aren't weapons? I suppose "My Little Pony" and Care Bears are good hand-to-hand weapons too.
The weapon isn't in the artifact, but in the use. If I suffocate you with a Care Bear, I suspect the prosecution at my murder trial would hold out the bear (Friend Bear, in this case) as a weapon. And my defense team would make absolutely no headway against such an accusation by saying "That's not a weapon!"
A telescope becomes a sniper's scope. A steak knife becomes a bayonet. Binoculars, used by an Air Force combat controller, becomes part of an air strike system which puts 500 pound bombs on target. The bomb can't kill as effectively without the airplane, or the pilot's poopey suit, or the mechanic's wrench, or those binoculars.
Everything's a weapon. Ask the ghost of Abel next time you look at a rock in the garden.
Creating defenses for investments in space and our nation is entirely different from us stating "We own space, piss off."
Read the last version of the USAF Space Weapons doctrine.
And quite rightly. No armed force states doctrine in terms of "We establish dominance so that we can be nice to everybody." (Except maybe the "Hello Kitty" Air Force.)
There's a reason it's called a "force". Read Clausewitz. The only real way to measure the value of a military is by its effectiveness--how often it wins, sometimes by nothing more than the threat of its use. The moral value of a military comes from the motivation and direction of its application, and that comes from the leadership of the government wielding that military.
Don't forget the motto of the truly effective armed force: "'Fair' means I win. Period." Any student of arms who states otherwise is deluding either the listener or the speaker.
Another problem is what I'll call "fan articles", their are lots of obscure people, bands, artists and so on making their way into Wikipedia, that have absolutly no Encyclopedic interest
Well, not exactly "no interest". Someone had to be interested enough to create the article, yes?
Do you mean "No interest to me, and to other right-thinking people like me?" Do you mean "No interest to the overwhelming majority of the reader base?"
Yeah, generally, i vote "delete" in the inevitable "Vote for Deletion" calls on vanity pages and the like. But it bugs me that minority opinions are getting quashed because they aren't widely held. There's a fine line between "maintaining quality for the sake of credibility" and "maintaining conformity for the sake of the groupthink." Sometimes the voices of the crackpot are useful and, even occaisionally, right.
If the disks are in a RAID-1 configuration, just break the LVM mirror and hot-swap the backup copy out. Voila, a frozen snapshot of the volume up to the moment you broke the mirror, with no downtime. Plug in fresh disks and restore mirroring onto them, and no significant hiccup in your reliability measures either.
If you're using good hardware and software, that is. Cheapo hardware RAID doesn't let you do that on the fly, does it?
I guess admining IBM pSeries big iron spoils ya. What's the market like for bitty boxes with RAID-1 capability?
Never, ever, EVER, EVER do business with Rackspace.
Putzes.
This is probably akin to trolling, or at least more properaly an "Ask Slashdot", but any youze/.ers have any recommendations for a hoster that won't roll over and wet itself in eagerness when the Gestapo roll up?
What am I missing here? A honeypot attracts would-be attackers with a false target to allow them to try their every wile against the honeypot while the pot's admins record every move.
How do you honeypot Google? I'm fairly sure the nice folks at GoogleCorp aren't going to let you stick your honeypot in the way of the real thing. If the hacks in question are just malicious queries, how do you get the 1334 hax0rs to use your oh-so-attractive honeypot when every schmoe can type "www.google.com" into their attack script?
Where's the flaw in my thinking? If you're not honeypotting the search, what's left?
You may be getting fooled by the fact that the item summary page displays the a few reviews, and pretty often they'll be raves because most customers wind up happy with their product (or give a pass to a marginal one). Even if the item you're looking at has 94 reviews, the item's catalog page may only display 3-5 of them, and odds are pretty good that the reviews will be positive. (The psychology of amateur reviewers and all.)
There will also be a link saying "Read more reviews", and by looking at 100 reviews per page you can scan for less-than-glowing ones if you want to rather quickly. Also, the "Average rating" value on the item catalog page might give you a hint that there may have been a few bad reviews.
I don't see much signs of an editorial conspiracy, since a few of the reviews I've seen are definitely in the realm of "very angry constructive criticism". I didn't see any obvious trollage (the kinds of stuff that gets modded to -1 here), which is the kind of stuff you sort of hope editors will remove. Unless you're the kind of person who reads here at -1, which is to say, easily amused.
As long as you're commenting the _real_ effect of the instruction, and not just mindlessly repeating what the mnemonic already tells the reader.
Or worse yet, lying.
One pre-paleolithic piece of mainframe assembler I (and my colleagues) once worked with was an intricate sequence of shift operations designed to isolate a 5-bit segment in the middle of a 36-bit word in one of the accumulators. It was documented with a breathtakingly detailed block of comments, complete with little pictures of the contents of the register at each step in the process (composed of dashes and vertical bars and everything--ASCII documentation art).
The code wasn't working, but there was absolutely no way that it was the code's fault. It was just FM (F'ing Magic) that it was broke. We were convinced of this. That is, until one of my supervisors, a crusty old communications sergeant, actually studied the instruction string of the segement of code in question and noticed that in the last step, the actual answer was being shifted the wrong direction--right out of the register and into the bit bucket.
If only we could have compiled the comments...
This, then, is Johnson's Postulate on Documentation: "Read the source code, too."
Sorry, I thought we were talking about network intrusion here: surely someone trying to subvert a service (like getting a working shell account, snooping on a Windows box or perusing an intranet) would need a valid IP to do that.
Sometimes it's not about you.
We're not talking about preventing DDOSs against you; we're talking about provoking your system into initiating a DOS on some other unfortunate victim by poking at your watchdog (junkyard dog?) software with packet probes that have forged source addresses--the addresses the blackhats want DOSed.
In other words, bad guys poke at you, you fire back and hit the wrong guy. Lather, rinse, repeat.
[H]is knowledge and ability to save the ship in a jam would eventually lead to his reputation aboard the Enterprise of that of a 'miracle worker'. This was brought about by his reputation for being able to effect starship repairs in much shorter time periods than were generally accepted as being required. Scott later admitted that he often padded his stated times needed for repairs by a factor of four, in order to appear that much faster.
In other words, make a good-faith estimate, then double it, because that's the pad to get it done "faster" than you project. Then double it again, because your good-faith estimate is always optimistic.
I hate responding to myself, but I hit submit before getting through my rant.
Java is a great programming language for teaching object methodology and basic programming. It doesn't easily allow the teaching of the abtruse and hairy realities of a computer, such as bits and memory mapping and registers, but most colleges CSCI programs have a "computer architecture" or "organization" classes that are supposed to handle that.
I'm a bitter old mainframe programmer, so I'd maliciously prefer that the first programming language you kids learn is mainframe machine code, just so you know and appreciate how good you've got it now.
Anyways, Java. If you're gonna teach basic modern software development theory and practice, why don't you use a language that maybe a future employer of your student will need that employee to know? C++ has a production following, that's true, but Java does too, and in heterogenous enterprise settings I'd bet it's bigger.
C++ is a much better choice for learning, particularly at the University level. It's Object Oriented, and it's actually useful in the real world.
Talk to us about it after you join the real world.
A great deal of transactional realtime production code is being written RIGHT NOW in the military technical center in which I work. They're porting 30-year-old mainframe FORTRAN into Java 5 and running it on a variety of workstation, server, and (dare I say it) mainframe systems, under about 6 different operating systems, and IT WORKS. It runs faster than the compiled native-code (FORTRAN and C) intermediate versions they were running 5 years ago and had to throw away because they couldn't recompile and use the code under anything besides Solaris. (Yeah, it's probably faster because of newer hardware. But the Java "performance penalty" isn't materializing.) And newer object-based replacements for some major subsystems are allowing types of interconnection, data sharing, and research that the old code and databases couldn't.
Don't get paranoid; we're talking meteorology here, not spies-r-us.
Java can work. C++ would have been much harder to port across new platforms, and good acquisition practice dictates avoiding lock-in to one platform just because you chose the wronge coding language.
I can't tell if you're trolling, being ineffectively sarcastic, or actually believe the bilge you're spewing.
There's some evidence that the cell phones used in the Madrid bombings were actually used as timing devices. Blocking cell service wouldn't have interfered at all. It would have prevented anyone who spotted a bomb from calling out to report it, though. Can you say "counterproductive?"
I just with we were doing more to kick these psycho-muslims in the balls.
No, I changed my mind. You're a troll, and an inarticulate and confused one at that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes indedy. If you're on a commercial OS, you can use your valuable time waiting for return calls from the vendor's "help desk", learning to understand what passes for English in whatever fungal third-world nation the "help desk" is in this week, and writing long and desperate correspondence to various level of your management explaining why you haven't solved the problem yet.
Thanks, no thanks, I'd just as soon be able to examine the kernel source myself. And I speak as a professional admin of two different closed-source unixes at a military technical facility. It's all fun and games until someone puts a production server out.
The weapon isn't in the artifact, but in the use. If I suffocate you with a Care Bear, I suspect the prosecution at my murder trial would hold out the bear (Friend Bear, in this case) as a weapon. And my defense team would make absolutely no headway against such an accusation by saying "That's not a weapon!"
A telescope becomes a sniper's scope. A steak knife becomes a bayonet. Binoculars, used by an Air Force combat controller, becomes part of an air strike system which puts 500 pound bombs on target. The bomb can't kill as effectively without the airplane, or the pilot's poopey suit, or the mechanic's wrench, or those binoculars.
Everything's a weapon. Ask the ghost of Abel next time you look at a rock in the garden.
Read the last version of the USAF Space Weapons doctrine.
And quite rightly. No armed force states doctrine in terms of "We establish dominance so that we can be nice to everybody." (Except maybe the "Hello Kitty" Air Force.)
There's a reason it's called a "force". Read Clausewitz. The only real way to measure the value of a military is by its effectiveness--how often it wins, sometimes by nothing more than the threat of its use. The moral value of a military comes from the motivation and direction of its application, and that comes from the leadership of the government wielding that military.
Don't forget the motto of the truly effective armed force: "'Fair' means I win. Period." Any student of arms who states otherwise is deluding either the listener or the speaker.
Well, not exactly "no interest". Someone had to be interested enough to create the article, yes?
Do you mean "No interest to me, and to other right-thinking people like me?" Do you mean "No interest to the overwhelming majority of the reader base?"
Yeah, generally, i vote "delete" in the inevitable "Vote for Deletion" calls on vanity pages and the like. But it bugs me that minority opinions are getting quashed because they aren't widely held. There's a fine line between "maintaining quality for the sake of credibility" and "maintaining conformity for the sake of the groupthink." Sometimes the voices of the crackpot are useful and, even occaisionally, right.
"Do not taunt Happy Fun Slashdot."
Somebody's in trouble, oh-yeee-ah!
If you're using good hardware and software, that is. Cheapo hardware RAID doesn't let you do that on the fly, does it?
I guess admining IBM pSeries big iron spoils ya. What's the market like for bitty boxes with RAID-1 capability?
Putzes.
This is probably akin to trolling, or at least more properaly an "Ask Slashdot", but any youze /.ers have any recommendations for a hoster that won't roll over and wet itself in eagerness when the Gestapo roll up?
How do you honeypot Google? I'm fairly sure the nice folks at GoogleCorp aren't going to let you stick your honeypot in the way of the real thing. If the hacks in question are just malicious queries, how do you get the 1334 hax0rs to use your oh-so-attractive honeypot when every schmoe can type "www.google.com" into their attack script?
Where's the flaw in my thinking? If you're not honeypotting the search, what's left?
There will also be a link saying "Read more reviews", and by looking at 100 reviews per page you can scan for less-than-glowing ones if you want to rather quickly. Also, the "Average rating" value on the item catalog page might give you a hint that there may have been a few bad reviews.
I don't see much signs of an editorial conspiracy, since a few of the reviews I've seen are definitely in the realm of "very angry constructive criticism". I didn't see any obvious trollage (the kinds of stuff that gets modded to -1 here), which is the kind of stuff you sort of hope editors will remove. Unless you're the kind of person who reads here at -1, which is to say, easily amused.
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die. -- Mel Brooks
Thanks. Now I'm never again going to hear the phrase "enter the hull" or the word "re-entry" without that damn visual.
Bastard.
The W3C? How many divisions do they have?
I don't mean to be an Insensitive Grammar Clod, but did this mean that ep 2 made you want to eat until your eyeballs popped out of their sockets?
What an eye-popping mental image.
<pedant>Perchance you meant "gouge"?</pedant>
Or worse yet, lying.
One pre-paleolithic piece of mainframe assembler I (and my colleagues) once worked with was an intricate sequence of shift operations designed to isolate a 5-bit segment in the middle of a 36-bit word in one of the accumulators. It was documented with a breathtakingly detailed block of comments, complete with little pictures of the contents of the register at each step in the process (composed of dashes and vertical bars and everything--ASCII documentation art).
The code wasn't working, but there was absolutely no way that it was the code's fault. It was just FM (F'ing Magic) that it was broke. We were convinced of this. That is, until one of my supervisors, a crusty old communications sergeant, actually studied the instruction string of the segement of code in question and noticed that in the last step, the actual answer was being shifted the wrong direction--right out of the register and into the bit bucket.
If only we could have compiled the comments...
This, then, is Johnson's Postulate on Documentation: "Read the source code, too."
I'd rather be feared than loved. Where's my "AIMFight" that shows how much I inspire fear and loating in my IM circle?
It's even worse... a first post about goatse is on-topic and gets upmodded. Sigh. The world can end now.
Sometimes it's not about you.
We're not talking about preventing DDOSs against you; we're talking about provoking your system into initiating a DOS on some other unfortunate victim by poking at your watchdog (junkyard dog?) software with packet probes that have forged source addresses--the addresses the blackhats want DOSed.
In other words, bad guys poke at you, you fire back and hit the wrong guy. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
In other words, make a good-faith estimate, then double it, because that's the pad to get it done "faster" than you project. Then double it again, because your good-faith estimate is always optimistic.
RIP, Captain Scott, and clear subspace.
Java is a great programming language for teaching object methodology and basic programming. It doesn't easily allow the teaching of the abtruse and hairy realities of a computer, such as bits and memory mapping and registers, but most colleges CSCI programs have a "computer architecture" or "organization" classes that are supposed to handle that.
I'm a bitter old mainframe programmer, so I'd maliciously prefer that the first programming language you kids learn is mainframe machine code, just so you know and appreciate how good you've got it now.
Anyways, Java. If you're gonna teach basic modern software development theory and practice, why don't you use a language that maybe a future employer of your student will need that employee to know? C++ has a production following, that's true, but Java does too, and in heterogenous enterprise settings I'd bet it's bigger.
Why, yes,I do have a grey beard.
Talk to us about it after you join the real world.
A great deal of transactional realtime production code is being written RIGHT NOW in the military technical center in which I work. They're porting 30-year-old mainframe FORTRAN into Java 5 and running it on a variety of workstation, server, and (dare I say it) mainframe systems, under about 6 different operating systems, and IT WORKS. It runs faster than the compiled native-code (FORTRAN and C) intermediate versions they were running 5 years ago and had to throw away because they couldn't recompile and use the code under anything besides Solaris. (Yeah, it's probably faster because of newer hardware. But the Java "performance penalty" isn't materializing.) And newer object-based replacements for some major subsystems are allowing types of interconnection, data sharing, and research that the old code and databases couldn't.
Don't get paranoid; we're talking meteorology here, not spies-r-us.
Java can work. C++ would have been much harder to port across new platforms, and good acquisition practice dictates avoiding lock-in to one platform just because you chose the wronge coding language.
Quantos heisenberg 2 6
root@heisenberg # uptime
uncertainty violation at 0x43c4df30
kernel panic dumping core
Yeah, but you wouldn't believe the size of my MTU.
And I always set the "Do not fragment" bit.
I can't tell if you're trolling, being ineffectively sarcastic, or actually believe the bilge you're spewing.
There's some evidence that the cell phones used in the Madrid bombings were actually used as timing devices. Blocking cell service wouldn't have interfered at all. It would have prevented anyone who spotted a bomb from calling out to report it, though. Can you say "counterproductive?"
I just with we were doing more to kick these psycho-muslims in the balls.
No, I changed my mind. You're a troll, and an inarticulate and confused one at that.
You ignorant troll.
Geez, Don't even JOKE like that! That craps' SCARY!