It doesn't sound like this falls into the offshoring category to me. Since the military is involved I guess they demanded the source to assure themselves that there were no backdoors. It doesn't seem an unreasonable step for any government (even/especially in the US) to take before using your software in a security context.
The fun is in considering what recourse Symantec has. If they didn't have some really expensive penalty clause in the non-dislosure agreement that will have been involved here they'll be kicking themselves right now. They'll also be wishing they gave themselves some way to identify the source of the leak. Their smart move would have been to insert some minor changes, e.g., to indentation or comments, to make each version released to third parties unique and therefore traceable.
I propose that, for the people to trust their democracy, they must be able to understand all aspects of the voting system. This rules out pretty well all automated systems, especially computers with cryptography and hashes. Just go back to people writing on paper and ballot boxes.
Sure counting the ballots by hand is expensive but it's tiny compared to the cost of travel and time for the voters. The risk of serious, undetected fixing of results can't be eliminated with automated systems.
The Christian Science Monitor appears to have been taken in by the hoax posting of a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OfWgu5jk5g) supposedly showing reentry near Okotoks. Looks like the video was posted too early to be legit. UARS is definitely down but nobody seems to know exactly where yet.
I'm guessing that the runway numbers give the magnetic bearings for the runway in both directions in degrees divided by ten. If so they should always add up to 36 so maybe you mean 10-26 became 09-27.
Yes, it happens all the time and satellites get hit way less than the earth because, think about it, their surface area is *way* less. Sadly, hitting satellites will make the orbital debris problem worse since every hit just makes more smaller pieces. Even little pieces are a disaster for other satellites at 10km/second, though they fall out of orbit faster.
Interestingly, the frequency of hits is inversely proportional to mass (weight) of the object. Guessing this thing weighs about a 100 tonnes (probably more) and one hits earth every two years (burning up in the atmosphere). That means a 1000 tonne object will hit about every 20 years and a 10000 tonne object every 200 years, etc.... on average. It also means 1 gram objects (a millionth of a tonne) hit the earth about once a second... making shooting stars.
I have a simple commercial site that uses Google maps but is otherwise trivial. Using Google webmaster tools tells me my average page load time is 19.5 seconds and slower than 99% of sites. Guess how happy I'm going to be using Google maps if it causes my Google page rank to fall?
Personally I see much faster load times with a 1.5Mbps link. To get to 19.5 seconds implies the timings are coming from robots or customers with slow links or computers.
A knighthood is not a peerage. To be an (English) peer one must be a Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount or Baron. Obviously a peerage is a much bigger deal than a knighthood.
Munin is a very useful monitoring tool that can be configured to warn of server issues (full-ish file systems, high load averages, etc.) You can also easily configure a web view that auto-updates at intervals with pretty graphs. You can monitor whatever you want via trivial shell script plugins.
Precisely wrong. The purpose of this filtering _is_ to block kiddie-porn, XXX... all `illegal to possess' content. We wouldn't care if there was an optional porn filter for the kids but what's come out recently is that there will also be a mandatory filter.
Government studies agree that this filtering has false positives, false negatives and a performance impact. They think it's good enough but slashdot types can well imagine that it will be inadequate, ineffective, expensive and slow down and/or break the web for everyone in oz. Our ISPs are against it because they can well imagine how their customers, help desks and ultimately their bottom lines will suffer.
You say "Third, it's not terribly difficult to backup your licenses. It's 3 clicks in Windows Media."
I can't see anywhere where he states what version of Windows Media Player he's using but, given his setup, it's reasonable to assume it's pretty recent. Are you aware that, with Windows Media Player11 and according to Microsoft, `This version of the Player does not permit you to back up your media usage rights.'
So with WMP11, once you lose your licence data or upgrade enough hardware, you need to go around and contact every vendor you bought DRM files from and ask nicely if they'll re-license your content. Ask yourself what your chances are of being able to play your DRMed files in five or ten years.
So you're saying NAT gives security because machines are `completely non-addressable from the internet'. You could use static IP addresses and configure your firewall to achieve exactly the same effect. The firewall doesn't have to do translation any more but it can still remember which connexions have been initiated by your machines and only allow in packets related to those connexions. It's actually slightly simpler. This change should be just about the easiest part of a transition from NATted IPv4 to static IPv6.
Note that I'm not saying that either NAT or the firewall configuration I suggest are especially secure; merely that it's trivial to do at least as well as NAT for static clients. About the only excuse not to do this is that it's probably harder to find examples or off-the-shelf firewall configs as a starting point. The resources required by your firewall will, if anything, be slightly less, especially if it's currently running a dhcpd which is no longer needed.
DHCP may, of course, still be needed for other reasons. It can do things that IPv6 can't do by itself. You can always keep DHCP and have it allocate static addresses. Then you can do things like adding firewall rules to allow incoming connexions for certain port/host combinations, e.g., allow some users to ssh in to some machines. This is harder to do with NAT.
I wonder how your service provider would respond. You've presumably agreed to their terms of service. I guess if anyone using your service is noticed violating those terms then your account will be in jeopardy.
Slashdot Mirror
The fun is in considering what recourse Symantec has. If they didn't have some really expensive penalty clause in the non-dislosure agreement that will have been involved here they'll be kicking themselves right now. They'll also be wishing they gave themselves some way to identify the source of the leak. Their smart move would have been to insert some minor changes, e.g., to indentation or comments, to make each version released to third parties unique and therefore traceable.
I propose that, for the people to trust their democracy, they must be able to understand all aspects of the voting system. This rules out pretty well all automated systems, especially computers with cryptography and hashes. Just go back to people writing on paper and ballot boxes.
Sure counting the ballots by hand is expensive but it's tiny compared to the cost of travel and time for the voters. The risk of serious, undetected fixing of results can't be eliminated with automated systems.
The Christian Science Monitor appears to have been taken in by the hoax posting of a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OfWgu5jk5g) supposedly showing reentry near Okotoks. Looks like the video was posted too early to be legit. UARS is definitely down but nobody seems to know exactly where yet.
I'm guessing that the runway numbers give the magnetic bearings for the runway in both directions in degrees divided by ten. If so they should always add up to 36 so maybe you mean 10-26 became 09-27.
Yes, it happens all the time and satellites get hit way less than the earth because, think about it, their surface area is *way* less. Sadly, hitting satellites will make the orbital debris problem worse since every hit just makes more smaller pieces. Even little pieces are a disaster for other satellites at 10km/second, though they fall out of orbit faster.
Interestingly, the frequency of hits is inversely proportional to mass (weight) of the object. Guessing this thing weighs about a 100 tonnes (probably more) and one hits earth every two years (burning up in the atmosphere). That means a 1000 tonne object will hit about every 20 years and a 10000 tonne object every 200 years, etc. ... on average. It also means 1 gram objects (a millionth of a tonne) hit the earth about once a second ... making shooting stars.
I have a simple commercial site that uses Google maps but is otherwise trivial. Using Google webmaster tools tells me my average page load time is 19.5 seconds and slower than 99% of sites. Guess how happy I'm going to be using Google maps if it causes my Google page rank to fall?
Personally I see much faster load times with a 1.5Mbps link. To get to 19.5 seconds implies the timings are coming from robots or customers with slow links or computers.
A knighthood is not a peerage. To be an (English) peer one must be a Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount or Baron. Obviously a peerage is a much bigger deal than a knighthood.
Correlations don't have a direction. Causality does.
Munin is a very useful monitoring tool that can be configured to warn of server issues (full-ish file systems, high load averages, etc.) You can also easily configure a web view that auto-updates at intervals with pretty graphs. You can monitor whatever you want via trivial shell script plugins.
Precisely wrong. The purpose of this filtering _is_ to block kiddie-porn, XXX ... all `illegal to possess' content. We wouldn't care if there was an optional porn filter for the kids but what's come out recently is that there will also be a mandatory filter.
Government studies agree that this filtering has false positives, false negatives and a performance impact. They think it's good enough but slashdot types can well imagine that it will be inadequate, ineffective, expensive and slow down and/or break the web for everyone in oz. Our ISPs are against it because they can well imagine how their customers, help desks and ultimately their bottom lines will suffer.
I can't see anywhere where he states what version of Windows Media Player he's using but, given his setup, it's reasonable to assume it's pretty recent. Are you aware that, with Windows Media Player11 and according to Microsoft, `This version of the Player does not permit you to back up your media usage rights.'
So with WMP11, once you lose your licence data or upgrade enough hardware, you need to go around and contact every vendor you bought DRM files from and ask nicely if they'll re-license your content. Ask yourself what your chances are of being able to play your DRMed files in five or ten years.
Note that I'm not saying that either NAT or the firewall configuration I suggest are especially secure; merely that it's trivial to do at least as well as NAT for static clients. About the only excuse not to do this is that it's probably harder to find examples or off-the-shelf firewall configs as a starting point. The resources required by your firewall will, if anything, be slightly less, especially if it's currently running a dhcpd which is no longer needed. DHCP may, of course, still be needed for other reasons. It can do things that IPv6 can't do by itself. You can always keep DHCP and have it allocate static addresses. Then you can do things like adding firewall rules to allow incoming connexions for certain port/host combinations, e.g., allow some users to ssh in to some machines. This is harder to do with NAT.
I wonder how your service provider would respond. You've presumably agreed to their terms of service. I guess if anyone using your service is noticed violating those terms then your account will be in jeopardy.