Sheesh, everybody else already knows the IIS is hopelessly bugridden and the very definition of security hole.
You might as well allow telnet access to your machine via the guest account and give the guest account administrative privlages... ok that wouldn't be quite as insecure, but you might get close if you posted the fact you did this as an article on slashdot and invited everyone to tear up your stuff, putting it in writing that you have 12million credit card numbers on the box, the exact path, and expressly point out that nobody will be doing anything illegal since you are inviting them.
But hey, NASA is government, they've probably known that IIS was insecure for awhile now, it's just taken 7 or 8yrs for the paperwork to go through.
nah, the voting system produces a paper tape stream that goes directly into the box, cuting the voter out of the physical process, the code on the slip is scanned as it passes into the box and the value read FROM THE PHYSICAL SLIP is what is used to actually tally the votes.
An immediate lockdown of the machine and backup (with CRC checksums, or something to that effect) of the untallied vote and all tallied votes should occur if there is an error reading the code. Since the feed and scan are at a fixed rate you could basically eliminate all the normal need of rescanning that is required with normal barcode reading systems like those used in retail outlets. Of course the first thing the system does is verify it's internal and backup CRC's, if they conflict it rewinds the tape and rescans the physical vote records, then request that the last vote be resubmitted.
This way it's insured that:
No vote can possibly be counted without a paper equivelent going into the box.
Only the most recent vote would be lost in the event of a hardware failure, and 99% of hardware failures wouldn't result in even that one vote being lost. The data is verified using the checksum, ensuring nothing was corrupted.
If the database is corrupted the system will automatically recount the hard copy votes, still eliminating the need for handcounting.
The tapes can be produced in such a way that an overall recount still would not actually mean someone having to sit and physically count and interpret anything, All the tapes can be fed into readers which can process them in parallel.
Just the first thing that came to mind, I'm sure there would be a better way of handling this.
The label's expenses to record, mix, produce cd's etc don't come out of their cut, they come out of the artist's cut.
On top of that, the label's often own the studio etc, and charge a premium for recording time. If the artist bombs it doesn't cost the label nearly so much because it's their own studio and the artist will be in debt for life. If the artist succeeds the studio gets their extremely high cut, plus profits on the "expenses".
The record companies have a lockin on radio insuring the only way to get played is to go through them, THAT is why no bank would risk that kind of money on an unsigned artist.
"Re:Lot's of sales... No profit... Re:Lot's of sales... No profit... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20, @07:32PM (#7265230) 80 cents to the record companies who have done essentially NOTHING except allow a form of sales that requires them to produce no physical product.
Well, that plus also, you know, record the fucking music and whatnot.
As said by another poster in this story: it takes more to make music than a guy with a guitar. Without a record label, Jack Johnson or whoever would be selling CD's out of the back of his mom's Taurus.
The record companies are just as corrupt as ever.
Yes. They're corrupt because they front the cash and take the risk and therefore demand the lion's share of the rewards. The record labels are, in short, entrepreneurs."
The label takes highly calculated investment risks and basically gives loans. They expect the artist to pay this back OUT OF THEIR OWN ROYALTIES, and the label's own royalties are nothing but pure profit on top of it. Their profit isn't 80% minus expenses, it's 80% plus markup on the services they paid themselves for at a handsome profit to perform for the artists.
Except that the artist is required to pay all those expenses out of their royalties. In the end, the label ends up with ZERO expenses. All the label does is act as a loan shark, but they can't admit that here in the states because their interest rates are far beyond what is illegal.
The difference is easy there, evil corp produced the gadgets. The labels don't produce anything. They are merely loan sharks and if they admitted as much the interest rates they charge would be FAR FAR beyond what is legal.
The artists have to pay back ALL the expenses and apple foots the bill for the distribution. The artist Produces the music, and pays all the related costs, hands it to the label, which in turn hands it directly to apple who distributes and sells it.
Obviously the label who does nothing but deliver the package from the artist to apple deserves the 80% cut in this transaction.
Your analogy is a broken because the label plays the part of UPS in this transaction, handling the delivery between the artist and apple. And in this case UPS is getting 80%!
It costs me less than $0.30 per disc to produce cd's in my home and buying the cd's in quantities of 100.
Now call me crazy but somehow I think it costs the labels who buy their discs in millions a wee bit less to do it, add power bills and salaries for employee's etc (although this could and should be a damn near fully automated process, 3 employees and a shipping crew could do everything to produce the discs for thousands of artists in a week), and let's say that cuts the margin to more like $0.20/disc for them. Now they sell them for $15-20 a cd. Somehow I don't think cd production is their biggest problem, and it's not like they have to look for retailers/distributors either.
Sad though, add the artist's $0.15 to that and it costs the studio $0.15 since the artist is charged for the production costs... most likely charged $0.35/cd, so make it $0 for the studio to produce cd's. Hmmm... I really don't see how the studios care about this one way or the other;)
Artists hardly make any money off albums because the labels get it all! They are taking a chunk of the concerts and other publicity events as well. Believe me, the labels make more off the albums alone in the first year than the artist will make in their lifetime.
So your saying in short "Be smart, bribe them over the table not under it."
The problem is that the bribes happen, not whether they are legal or not.
There should be a fixed $50,000 grant for congressional candidates, no private contributions allowed and as for tv, blow it all on infomercials or hit up CSPAN. These legal bribes need to be eliminated.
I dunno, I can't give the name of the congressman or the bill in question, but if I remember right microsoft bought one for a mere $50,000. If microsoft only pays $50,000 it would only take 6 of us coughing up $10k to top it.
He's not saying the best buy is X, he's merely saying that a scsi drive is in fact faster than an IDE drive inherently.
His point is this and nothing more, if you take two drives with identical specs, one scsi and one ide, the scsi drive is faster. Therefore scsi is faster than IDE. Consider this as well, if controllers were standardied on motherboards, and scsi drives were produced in the quantities that ide drives are, how much more expensive do you really think they'd be? SCSI is intentionally kept expensive.
he gave the buffer, it was actually 2mb for ide, and 4mb for the scsi. In every other respect the specs on the ide drive trumped or equaled the scsi drive, and the machine the ide drive was in MASSIVELY trumped the system the scsi drive was in.
Not really, this was a test for top dog, not which is best at an affordable price. If you do want to factor in price (and remember, the price of scsi won't even be noticed by the accountant at places that need it), consider the extra $400-500 the system with the ide drive in it had in terms of hardware value than the other (assuming they both had quality components).
If you want a real test, get a bottom of the line scsi drive, and bottom of the line IDE, and top of the line scsi and top of the line IDE and throw a SATA drive in as well, then compare, with small (500mb) datasets. The computers they are in should be identical in every respect, use top of the line controller cards in all cases rather than crappy onboard.
Now you have a full test, want to try to scrap it up out of your existing equipment the way this guy did?
true, it was also a cheap scsi drive used in the initial comparison. Hell that would even be relevant if this were a price/performance ratio comparison, but it's not, ide wins that.
The question is whether ide is as fast or faster than scsi... So if you want to compare a high end IDE drive or a SATA drive then you better be ready to butt heads against the fastest scsi drive i can find at any price. Those with enough money to be interested in the real questions being asked here don't generally CARE about the petty sums disk drives cost... they care about what will give them the fastest and most reliable performance, and that's scsi hands down.
he was comparing drives of nearly equal specs, and doing the best comparison he could with the crap he already had since his wife wouldn't let him shell out cash until he had run a comparison.
The question isn't price/performance ratio, the question is which is faster when the price of disk drives is not really an issue. If you want top of line IDE you'll need to compare it to a 15k rpm 8mb cache ultra320 drive on a good controller.
Sure so long as he compares it to the fastest scsi drive out there I'd say that would be fair. Hell, even his 10k rpm drive would be fair if given the same 8mb cache.
yes it's true, how horrid to not require me to script to perform an operation recursively and making it a simple switch instead (while not removing the capability to use the script). yeah your right, they really fucked up big time with that. And making these additional features open and free, instead of closed, prorietary and expensive. How dare they?
"Solaris users, sysadmins, and developers never cease to tell me how great Solaris is, for its scalability and features that Linux has yet to catch up on."
Linux users, sysadmins, and developers never cease to tell me how great linux is, for it's scalability, features, applications, free availbility of sourcecode and speed that Solaris has yet to catch up on.
"Sun isn't the leader in the Unix industry for no reason."
Linux isn't the overall leader when all computing markets are added up for no reason.
Gee this is a real revelation, we've determined that those who like solaris say it rules, and those who like linux say it rules;)
start multiplying by 2 (solaris base speed), now start multiplying by 3 (linux base speed). It won't take long before you see it would take a pretty serious scaling loss to compensate for the fact that you start with a lower base number.
2 and 3 of course are meaningless numbers pulled out of my arse, just something to plug in and see what kind of difference it can make being faster per processor even if you lose slightly more of your base speed for each processor added.
ok, let me rephrase and fix the technically incorrect statement I made.
OVERALL MacOS has been more stable than windows. Each version of MacOS has typically been more stable the windows release that was out at the time. Not all versions of MacOS have been more stable than windows 2000 specifically.
As for your personal experience, there are too many additional factors that have to be considered for it to be anything but meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh, everybody else already knows the IIS is hopelessly bugridden and the very definition of security hole.
You might as well allow telnet access to your machine via the guest account and give the guest account administrative privlages... ok that wouldn't be quite as insecure, but you might get close if you posted the fact you did this as an article on slashdot and invited everyone to tear up your stuff, putting it in writing that you have 12million credit card numbers on the box, the exact path, and expressly point out that nobody will be doing anything illegal since you are inviting them.
But hey, NASA is government, they've probably known that IIS was insecure for awhile now, it's just taken 7 or 8yrs for the paperwork to go through.
nah, the voting system produces a paper tape stream that goes directly into the box, cuting the voter out of the physical process, the code on the slip is scanned as it passes into the box and the value read FROM THE PHYSICAL SLIP is what is used to actually tally the votes.
An immediate lockdown of the machine and backup (with CRC checksums, or something to that effect) of the untallied vote and all tallied votes should occur if there is an error reading the code. Since the feed and scan are at a fixed rate you could basically eliminate all the normal need of rescanning that is required with normal barcode reading systems like those used in retail outlets. Of course the first thing the system does is verify it's internal and backup CRC's, if they conflict it rewinds the tape and rescans the physical vote records, then request that the last vote be resubmitted.
This way it's insured that:
No vote can possibly be counted without a paper equivelent going into the box.
Only the most recent vote would be lost in the event of a hardware failure, and 99% of hardware failures wouldn't result in even that one vote being lost. The data is verified using the checksum, ensuring nothing was corrupted.
If the database is corrupted the system will automatically recount the hard copy votes, still eliminating the need for handcounting.
The tapes can be produced in such a way that an overall recount still would not actually mean someone having to sit and physically count and interpret anything, All the tapes can be fed into readers which can process them in parallel.
Just the first thing that came to mind, I'm sure there would be a better way of handling this.
The label's expenses to record, mix, produce cd's etc don't come out of their cut, they come out of the artist's cut.
On top of that, the label's often own the studio etc, and charge a premium for recording time. If the artist bombs it doesn't cost the label nearly so much because it's their own studio and the artist will be in debt for life. If the artist succeeds the studio gets their extremely high cut, plus profits on the "expenses".
The record companies have a lockin on radio insuring the only way to get played is to go through them, THAT is why no bank would risk that kind of money on an unsigned artist.
"Re:Lot's of sales... No profit...
Re:Lot's of sales... No profit... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20, @07:32PM (#7265230)
80 cents to the record companies who have done essentially NOTHING except allow a form of sales that requires them to produce no physical product.
Well, that plus also, you know, record the fucking music and whatnot.
As said by another poster in this story: it takes more to make music than a guy with a guitar. Without a record label, Jack Johnson or whoever would be selling CD's out of the back of his mom's Taurus.
The record companies are just as corrupt as ever.
Yes. They're corrupt because they front the cash and take the risk and therefore demand the lion's share of the rewards. The record labels are, in short, entrepreneurs."
The label takes highly calculated investment risks and basically gives loans. They expect the artist to pay this back OUT OF THEIR OWN ROYALTIES, and the label's own royalties are nothing but pure profit on top of it. Their profit isn't 80% minus expenses, it's 80% plus markup on the services they paid themselves for at a handsome profit to perform for the artists.
Except that the artist is required to pay all those expenses out of their royalties. In the end, the label ends up with ZERO expenses. All the label does is act as a loan shark, but they can't admit that here in the states because their interest rates are far beyond what is illegal.
The difference is easy there, evil corp produced the gadgets. The labels don't produce anything. They are merely loan sharks and if they admitted as much the interest rates they charge would be FAR FAR beyond what is legal.
The artists have to pay back ALL the expenses and apple foots the bill for the distribution. The artist Produces the music, and pays all the related costs, hands it to the label, which in turn hands it directly to apple who distributes and sells it.
Obviously the label who does nothing but deliver the package from the artist to apple deserves the 80% cut in this transaction.
Your analogy is a broken because the label plays the part of UPS in this transaction, handling the delivery between the artist and apple. And in this case UPS is getting 80%!
It costs me less than $0.30 per disc to produce cd's in my home and buying the cd's in quantities of 100.
;)
Now call me crazy but somehow I think it costs the labels who buy their discs in millions a wee bit less to do it, add power bills and salaries for employee's etc (although this could and should be a damn near fully automated process, 3 employees and a shipping crew could do everything to produce the discs for thousands of artists in a week), and let's say that cuts the margin to more like $0.20/disc for them. Now they sell them for $15-20 a cd. Somehow I don't think cd production is their biggest problem, and it's not like they have to look for retailers/distributors either.
Sad though, add the artist's $0.15 to that and it costs the studio $0.15 since the artist is charged for the production costs... most likely charged $0.35/cd, so make it $0 for the studio to produce cd's. Hmmm... I really don't see how the studios care about this one way or the other
Artists hardly make any money off albums because the labels get it all! They are taking a chunk of the concerts and other publicity events as well. Believe me, the labels make more off the albums alone in the first year than the artist will make in their lifetime.
Actually my experience has been that web based mapping sites generally ignore one way streets anyway, so have at it!
So your saying in short "Be smart, bribe them over the table not under it."
The problem is that the bribes happen, not whether they are legal or not.
There should be a fixed $50,000 grant for congressional candidates, no private contributions allowed and as for tv, blow it all on infomercials or hit up CSPAN. These legal bribes need to be eliminated.
I dunno, I can't give the name of the congressman or the bill in question, but if I remember right microsoft bought one for a mere $50,000. If microsoft only pays $50,000 it would only take 6 of us coughing up $10k to top it.
He's not saying the best buy is X, he's merely saying that a scsi drive is in fact faster than an IDE drive inherently.
His point is this and nothing more, if you take two drives with identical specs, one scsi and one ide, the scsi drive is faster. Therefore scsi is faster than IDE. Consider this as well, if controllers were standardied on motherboards, and scsi drives were produced in the quantities that ide drives are, how much more expensive do you really think they'd be? SCSI is intentionally kept expensive.
He didn't exactly test a high end SCSI drive either. And he didn't test a SATA drive at all.
he gave the buffer, it was actually 2mb for ide, and 4mb for the scsi. In every other respect the specs on the ide drive trumped or equaled the scsi drive, and the machine the ide drive was in MASSIVELY trumped the system the scsi drive was in.
he was comparing IDE to SCSI, not SATA to scsi, SATA is it's own beast even it is intended to replace IDE.
"He mentions that the IDE system had a faster processor. What was it? How much faster?"
Well if you read the WHOLE article you'd know the ide drive was in a 2.2ghz system and the scsi in a 750mhz (or was it 950mhz? I'm too lazy to look).
Not really, this was a test for top dog, not which is best at an affordable price. If you do want to factor in price (and remember, the price of scsi won't even be noticed by the accountant at places that need it), consider the extra $400-500 the system with the ide drive in it had in terms of hardware value than the other (assuming they both had quality components).
If you want a real test, get a bottom of the line scsi drive, and bottom of the line IDE, and top of the line scsi and top of the line IDE and throw a SATA drive in as well, then compare, with small (500mb) datasets. The computers they are in should be identical in every respect, use top of the line controller cards in all cases rather than crappy onboard.
Now you have a full test, want to try to scrap it up out of your existing equipment the way this guy did?
true, it was also a cheap scsi drive used in the initial comparison. Hell that would even be relevant if this were a price/performance ratio comparison, but it's not, ide wins that.
The question is whether ide is as fast or faster than scsi... So if you want to compare a high end IDE drive or a SATA drive then you better be ready to butt heads against the fastest scsi drive i can find at any price. Those with enough money to be interested in the real questions being asked here don't generally CARE about the petty sums disk drives cost... they care about what will give them the fastest and most reliable performance, and that's scsi hands down.
he was comparing drives of nearly equal specs, and doing the best comparison he could with the crap he already had since his wife wouldn't let him shell out cash until he had run a comparison.
The question isn't price/performance ratio, the question is which is faster when the price of disk drives is not really an issue. If you want top of line IDE you'll need to compare it to a 15k rpm 8mb cache ultra320 drive on a good controller.
Sure so long as he compares it to the fastest scsi drive out there I'd say that would be fair. Hell, even his 10k rpm drive would be fair if given the same 8mb cache.
yes it's true, how horrid to not require me to script to perform an operation recursively and making it a simple switch instead (while not removing the capability to use the script). yeah your right, they really fucked up big time with that. And making these additional features open and free, instead of closed, prorietary and expensive. How dare they?
"Solaris users, sysadmins, and developers never cease to tell me how great Solaris is, for its scalability and features that Linux has yet to catch up on."
;)
Linux users, sysadmins, and developers never cease to tell me how great linux is, for it's scalability, features, applications, free availbility of sourcecode and speed that Solaris has yet to catch up on.
"Sun isn't the leader in the Unix industry for no reason."
Linux isn't the overall leader when all computing markets are added up for no reason.
Gee this is a real revelation, we've determined that those who like solaris say it rules, and those who like linux say it rules
start multiplying by 2 (solaris base speed), now start multiplying by 3 (linux base speed). It won't take long before you see it would take a pretty serious scaling loss to compensate for the fact that you start with a lower base number.
2 and 3 of course are meaningless numbers pulled out of my arse, just something to plug in and see what kind of difference it can make being faster per processor even if you lose slightly more of your base speed for each processor added.
ok, let me rephrase and fix the technically incorrect statement I made.
OVERALL MacOS has been more stable than windows. Each version of MacOS has typically been more stable the windows release that was out at the time. Not all versions of MacOS have been more stable than windows 2000 specifically.
As for your personal experience, there are too many additional factors that have to be considered for it to be anything but meaningless.