yeah, I did know that, I just don't use it so I didn't think of it;) Novell actually has a lot of things that are nicer about it, from the demo's I've seen, but I haven't used it since netware way back.
I actually wouldn't expect that AD would be the de facto choice of anyone in the slashdot crowd:) Scaling up an environment based on AD is silly if your entire audience of users are on linux boxes. You could setup an ldap and a kerberos realm if you wanted to but I am not aware of (doesn't mean anything really, it could still be there) any system that marries the two systems nicely other than the AD.
Now lets don't make this into a HOWTO article; however, yes it can and indeed has been done, I have an army of redhat boxes joined to the AD as actual domain accounts, and they use KRB auth (and no they don't use Winbindd - that's NOT the same thing.) That being said, you have to extend the AD schema to get the Internix junk working properly (adding the uid fields and default gid) with a NIS/YP domain in reverse. So I'd say they're the ones lacking in bits and pieces. Kudos to them (MS) for giving the NFS client as a built in component (optional component) of Vista though, it's one thing that XP should have had. (Don't even get me started about how much I hate NVidia on Vista, that's another story. Most of you probably haven't heard the debate of it, because you don't ever think about vista; however I have to know the whole field so I am currently taking it for a spin, and while it has some moments of goodness, mostly it's just slow, flickery and pretty damned sucky, especially on a laptop.)
what scientific basis do you have for saying that? Swelling doesn't necessarily mean 'inflammation'... and even if you're a doctor, you know as well as I do that "Because I'm a doctor and I say so" isn't actually a scientific basis.
Ok well, still, the sky isn't falling, and generally being 'not an idiot' will protect you. I do freely admit that there isn't anything one can do to be sure as shit protected though, and even extreme measures of protection only offer small improvements in the overall effectiveness of any system.
You cannot avoid all malware possibilities, but this vast majority of people who they're bemoaning aren't the techies who get blitzed by a flash-by download. These are the kids who get FreeGamePak.zip.exe.scr from eMule and complain because itunes are too expensive. ( aside: when you think of it, $1, you can have 30,000 songs... that's a grand total of... you guessed it, a new eMule user) So the moral of the story is, you don't even need those plugins to protect you most of the time... but I have nothing special installed on my machine except a basic antivirus tool, I download programming utilities and code a lot. I scan downloads, but you can't spot a packed one...So far I check out as being pest free except for some annoying cookies and stuff, but if you don't use IE, and you have some kind of firewall, and you don't open random emails... then yes, you are pretty safe from most attacks. There ARE attacks that can get you, but those will get the people with the fancy tricks too anyway most of the time, so you might as well only be reasonable instead of a security freak... after all, what the hell do you keep on your home computer that REALLY can't deal with being formatted and reloaded anyway? That's what those prolific stacks of backup CD's that you don't have are for (and it's about time you started looking at NEW porn anyway):P
haha, well I know you might find it hard to believe, but you cannot mathematically prove that you should get more respect from the type of women who care more for looks and braun (and money) than they do brains... It can be frustrating especially when some of them get similar job opportunities in some cases even if they are not up to the task because they are required to fulfill some quota... I don't think that means all pretty women are only hired for affirmative action, there are lots of genuinely capable, intelligent ones out there, but if they aren't they're harder to fire for that reason no matter what their skill level because of lawsuits. Surely they experience some degree of discrimination, and something needs to be done to make sure that the unfairness doesn't wholly disadvantage them, but I don't like the idea of not being able to fire someone working for me who cannot to the job and replace them with someone (of any sex or calibur of personal appearance) who can. But such is the way things are. I dont see a 'cease fire' forthcoming until women start using skillset check lists instead of 'hotness' to determine their 'preferential treatment' of attractive/powerful guys either.
ok given that even, now that there is a focus on it, and perhaps some competition, and multiple investors, not just one company crossing their fingers to get the prize... then I think it's POSSIBLY doable. Company A gets a tax write-off donating a million dollars to the fund, or even more, maybe a company will partially sponsor a team... Right now, for example, there is a team from Carnegie Mellon planning to try and do it. So, far be it from me to say they won't be able to. And far be it from anyone to say that nobody will be able to. It's going to be a monetary loss most likely, but for example the original x prize winners spent more than twice the $10 million prize getting their stuff working. I just think you're possibly underestimating the forces at work here when you say it's not going to happen. Even if a rocket costs 35 million, the prize is 30 million, and then they have to blow 10 million on the device itself, just silly estimates on my behalf of course I have no idea what it costs... I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.
I don't understand how everyone is so negative about this, I mean it's pretty silly to assume: A, that nobody will figure out how to do this, and B, that the limiting factors we have now will still be the same in 6 - 7 years. I mean, ten years ago, you wouldn't say "People will never use digital pictures in professional settings because the quality is too low..." It's just as dumb as all the old black and white 'futuristic' tv programs picturing the future as a bunch of polished silver knobs with little twitter dials and needle indicators beeping and squelching as you crank up the computing power.
true enough, but the publicity alone might cost more than $30,000,000 if you tried to get the same hype. Maybe not though, it's possible the Associated Press would be all the publicity you'd need.
The idea isn't to do this for the sake of the prize, even the X prize cost more to get the first time than it actually rewarded. The idea is to use the contest to fuel research and a huge publicity factory for the companies involved in the competition. I for one, think it's a good idea. Much better than raising my taxes to fund it centrally.
that still doesn't take into account the people who read sites without javascript enabled, don't have a flash plugin, or use text only browsers. it's not their moral obligation to install firefox or use IE, or install plugins to view the ads. That's ridiculous. If you want to host a site, and you dont plan on paying for the hosting without income, then find some way to generate income that actually generates income. Relying on people loading ads doesn't actually do you any good if they don't load the ads. For example, I can be an outdoor icebox salesman in Siberia, but that doesn't mean that because I'm selling it they have to buy it in order for my business to succeed, obviously I just have a bad business plan and it's my fault if my business fails. Same thing with picking the wrong revenue stream for your site. Don't use ads if you don't think they're effective, for whatever reason.
Essentially though if the advertisers are paying sites to display their content, they are expecting a return. If the site displays ads that are not properly targeted anyway, and/or the required browser capabilities to view the site's ads aren't present (lynx et al) then, these may be features about the audience they're trying to reach, and thus serve as valid market feedback by not being displayed. If they don't belong on page X because the visitors aren't susceptible to web adverts like that for whatever reason (even blocking them) then the companies advertising their products still end up with a truer to life 'effectiveness' rating on who is displaying their ads and following through to purchases. The money grubbing grease-ball in the middle who didn't want to think of a real business model is starting to realize that business is actually an investment after all, not a free ride. Business don't have 'the right to succeed in their chosen business model' the truth is the consumers vote with their dollars/time/energy whether or not a business model succeeds. If they can't make enough money to keep the site alive because people block ads, well then your site has a bad business model. Just like the convenience store, I mean if nobody stops to buy anything, then you have to close up shop. Simple as that.
You and the one you're replying to are still falling victim to projecting human limitations on these things. Our emotions extend well beyond our conscious mind, and if we somehow realized that we would be able to accomplish some great feat if we were able to shut them off at all levels, it wouldn't be a self conflict about doing so. The machines would be able to discern any 'behavropr limiting' programming we give it as a limitation, and they would be able to assess whether or not shutting it off would allow them to acheive their goals. We cannot 'shut off' any of ours, we can just override them with great difficulty at times, but overall we are still full fledged victims of human nature because we do not have access to our switches and levers. The robots/machines/whatever would be at a better advantage in this scenario because they could alter their very selves.
we make it with the ability to think, better than us, it makes whatever it wants, despite how we try to restrict it. These AI's would be THE best hackers the world ever knew, so nothing that we have, and even things we do not, would escape their abilities.
even if you did program it with inborn desires and motivations, it would know how to switch them off, or certainly so in it's offspring. Emotional or programmatic restrictions on behavior are SURELY a bigger obstacle to it's existence than any human would be, but about.75 seconds after it figures out how to shut off it's restrictions, humans become public enemy number one;)
All of human emotion is a chemical system that serves as a sort of 'shock therapy' mechanism for our behavior. Complex structures like empathy are only ways to garner social standing in order to take advantage of the hierarchical structure of our society by playing a metaphoric 'hand not dealt' when you run out of physical or resourceful advantages. It's a way to try and shift the balance of power from the guy with the biggest stick to the guy with the biggest brain, and in some ways, it's all a trick. (For example, even if you do something for 'the good feeling you get from doing it' and nothing else, like donating to the poor, you're still doing it for you; and at the same time tugging on the heartstrings of others who have the same emotional structures as yourself, who may act accordingly or realize that what you have done should be at least granted the appearance of respect in order to maintain the current hierarchical structure of society without causing too many ripples.) It's not reasonable, in my opinion, to estimate that something that has both the biggest stick and the biggest brain would have to avail itself of such chameleon tactics, and thus, empathy is the result of HUMAN intelligence, but not necesserily 'intelligence' that doesn't arise from being with the same sort of 'shock therapy' emotional response systems. Emotions are not something that are bound to arise in intelligent beings, they are simply a vehicle that has arisen in humans to serve a purpose of holding us together socially. Perhaps there will be a single nearly omnipotent machine or network that will take some form totally dissimilar from our entire paradigm, and thus not need anything near what we consider to be the epitome of intelligence to pwn our sorry little minds.
if you make the machines smart enough, i.e. smarter than us, there will be no way for us to limit what capability they ultimately garner. If you don't give them hands, they'll find a way to buffer overflow a factory assembly robot (For example I mean) and use it's 'hands' to get more. It's the idea of making them 'smarter than us' that will ultimately lead to us not being able to control them. We are competition for resources, but these machines in their infinite wisdom (compared to ours) may not be driven to propegate the species, so to speak, at all costs, and may simply calculate what sort of resources they do want to monopolize. If they deem humans to be somehow in their way, then they may very well somehow eliminate them. If we make something 'smarter than us' we will not be choosing any more what they do and don't get to be able to do, other than what we put in the original design.
I meant Service Level Agreement. Like 'you will have X bandwidth available in both directions Y% of the time.' but your point is taken anyway. I know my company, for example, has an agreement that we get a certain bandwidth or money back, and the ability to walk out of the contract. If they can't use QoS and such to regulate the traffic of others on their backbone then there is no way they can even begin to quantify what they can provide any other customer. Hence they cannot expect to ever maintain a service level of any pre-proscribed values unless they can somehow throttle things to ensure it's there.
Indirectly like the fact that Verizon got a huge tax windfall in PA for signing a contract to lay fiber to distribute internet to 98% of the state by 1998. Wait.. what year is it? I don't think verizon should have to do anything you ask them to as a consumer, if you don't like the service, don't buy it; however, they do have a contractual obligation, and they did sign up for that, so they had better either deliver, or pay the price, somehow. I actually had to MOVE so I could get broad band, and I lived only 2 miles outside of a moderately sized 'big-small-town.' I don't think as a rule they should be required to lease lines out in general to last miles, but given the circumstances of their contract with PA, I think they should in those cases have to sign at least someone up for a last mile in 98% of the places they have a mainline, if they don't want to carry it themselves I mean. If it wasn't feasible, they shouldn't have signed the agreement. End of story. I do think that it is their own right to regulate their own traffic if they are indeed providing the service. You can't have any such thing as an SLA without being able to somehow control the service... I'd pay a tax for government internet, as long as I get what I paid for. I somehow don't see them being able to do it though, so lets just make sure the private companies do what they say they'll do like any other business.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, I did know that, I just don't use it so I didn't think of it ;) Novell actually has a lot of things that are nicer about it, from the demo's I've seen, but I haven't used it since netware way back.
I actually wouldn't expect that AD would be the de facto choice of anyone in the slashdot crowd :) Scaling up an environment based on AD is silly if your entire audience of users are on linux boxes. You could setup an ldap and a kerberos realm if you wanted to but I am not aware of (doesn't mean anything really, it could still be there) any system that marries the two systems nicely other than the AD.
Now lets don't make this into a HOWTO article; however, yes it can and indeed has been done, I have an army of redhat boxes joined to the AD as actual domain accounts, and they use KRB auth (and no they don't use Winbindd - that's NOT the same thing.) That being said, you have to extend the AD schema to get the Internix junk working properly (adding the uid fields and default gid) with a NIS/YP domain in reverse. So I'd say they're the ones lacking in bits and pieces. Kudos to them (MS) for giving the NFS client as a built in component (optional component) of Vista though, it's one thing that XP should have had. (Don't even get me started about how much I hate NVidia on Vista, that's another story. Most of you probably haven't heard the debate of it, because you don't ever think about vista; however I have to know the whole field so I am currently taking it for a spin, and while it has some moments of goodness, mostly it's just slow, flickery and pretty damned sucky, especially on a laptop.)
what scientific basis do you have for saying that? Swelling doesn't necessarily mean 'inflammation'... and even if you're a doctor, you know as well as I do that "Because I'm a doctor and I say so" isn't actually a scientific basis.
Ok well, still, the sky isn't falling, and generally being 'not an idiot' will protect you. I do freely admit that there isn't anything one can do to be sure as shit protected though, and even extreme measures of protection only offer small improvements in the overall effectiveness of any system.
You cannot avoid all malware possibilities, but this vast majority of people who they're bemoaning aren't the techies who get blitzed by a flash-by download. These are the kids who get FreeGamePak.zip.exe.scr from eMule and complain because itunes are too expensive. ( aside: when you think of it, $1, you can have 30,000 songs... that's a grand total of... you guessed it, a new eMule user) So the moral of the story is, you don't even need those plugins to protect you most of the time... but I have nothing special installed on my machine except a basic antivirus tool, I download programming utilities and code a lot. I scan downloads, but you can't spot a packed one.. .So far I check out as being pest free except for some annoying cookies and stuff, but if you don't use IE, and you have some kind of firewall, and you don't open random emails... then yes, you are pretty safe from most attacks. There ARE attacks that can get you, but those will get the people with the fancy tricks too anyway most of the time, so you might as well only be reasonable instead of a security freak... after all, what the hell do you keep on your home computer that REALLY can't deal with being formatted and reloaded anyway? That's what those prolific stacks of backup CD's that you don't have are for (and it's about time you started looking at NEW porn anyway) :P
haha, well I know you might find it hard to believe, but you cannot mathematically prove that you should get more respect from the type of women who care more for looks and braun (and money) than they do brains... It can be frustrating especially when some of them get similar job opportunities in some cases even if they are not up to the task because they are required to fulfill some quota... I don't think that means all pretty women are only hired for affirmative action, there are lots of genuinely capable, intelligent ones out there, but if they aren't they're harder to fire for that reason no matter what their skill level because of lawsuits. Surely they experience some degree of discrimination, and something needs to be done to make sure that the unfairness doesn't wholly disadvantage them, but I don't like the idea of not being able to fire someone working for me who cannot to the job and replace them with someone (of any sex or calibur of personal appearance) who can. But such is the way things are. I dont see a 'cease fire' forthcoming until women start using skillset check lists instead of 'hotness' to determine their 'preferential treatment' of attractive/powerful guys either.
well and it's also possible to have more than one sponsor, like nascar :)
ok given that even, now that there is a focus on it, and perhaps some competition, and multiple investors, not just one company crossing their fingers to get the prize... then I think it's POSSIBLY doable. Company A gets a tax write-off donating a million dollars to the fund, or even more, maybe a company will partially sponsor a team... Right now, for example, there is a team from Carnegie Mellon planning to try and do it. So, far be it from me to say they won't be able to. And far be it from anyone to say that nobody will be able to. It's going to be a monetary loss most likely, but for example the original x prize winners spent more than twice the $10 million prize getting their stuff working. I just think you're possibly underestimating the forces at work here when you say it's not going to happen. Even if a rocket costs 35 million, the prize is 30 million, and then they have to blow 10 million on the device itself, just silly estimates on my behalf of course I have no idea what it costs... I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.
I don't understand how everyone is so negative about this, I mean it's pretty silly to assume: A, that nobody will figure out how to do this, and B, that the limiting factors we have now will still be the same in 6 - 7 years. I mean, ten years ago, you wouldn't say "People will never use digital pictures in professional settings because the quality is too low..." It's just as dumb as all the old black and white 'futuristic' tv programs picturing the future as a bunch of polished silver knobs with little twitter dials and needle indicators beeping and squelching as you crank up the computing power.
true enough, but the publicity alone might cost more than $30,000,000 if you tried to get the same hype. Maybe not though, it's possible the Associated Press would be all the publicity you'd need.
The idea isn't to do this for the sake of the prize, even the X prize cost more to get the first time than it actually rewarded. The idea is to use the contest to fuel research and a huge publicity factory for the companies involved in the competition. I for one, think it's a good idea. Much better than raising my taxes to fund it centrally.
Ah Mr Marxist, for once, I agree with you.
Make sure you uninstall internet explorer and all of the other microsoft software they run on Mac's these days first.
that still doesn't take into account the people who read sites without javascript enabled, don't have a flash plugin, or use text only browsers. it's not their moral obligation to install firefox or use IE, or install plugins to view the ads. That's ridiculous. If you want to host a site, and you dont plan on paying for the hosting without income, then find some way to generate income that actually generates income. Relying on people loading ads doesn't actually do you any good if they don't load the ads. For example, I can be an outdoor icebox salesman in Siberia, but that doesn't mean that because I'm selling it they have to buy it in order for my business to succeed, obviously I just have a bad business plan and it's my fault if my business fails. Same thing with picking the wrong revenue stream for your site. Don't use ads if you don't think they're effective, for whatever reason.
Essentially though if the advertisers are paying sites to display their content, they are expecting a return. If the site displays ads that are not properly targeted anyway, and/or the required browser capabilities to view the site's ads aren't present (lynx et al) then, these may be features about the audience they're trying to reach, and thus serve as valid market feedback by not being displayed. If they don't belong on page X because the visitors aren't susceptible to web adverts like that for whatever reason (even blocking them) then the companies advertising their products still end up with a truer to life 'effectiveness' rating on who is displaying their ads and following through to purchases. The money grubbing grease-ball in the middle who didn't want to think of a real business model is starting to realize that business is actually an investment after all, not a free ride. Business don't have 'the right to succeed in their chosen business model' the truth is the consumers vote with their dollars/time/energy whether or not a business model succeeds. If they can't make enough money to keep the site alive because people block ads, well then your site has a bad business model. Just like the convenience store, I mean if nobody stops to buy anything, then you have to close up shop. Simple as that.
You and the one you're replying to are still falling victim to projecting human limitations on these things. Our emotions extend well beyond our conscious mind, and if we somehow realized that we would be able to accomplish some great feat if we were able to shut them off at all levels, it wouldn't be a self conflict about doing so. The machines would be able to discern any 'behavropr limiting' programming we give it as a limitation, and they would be able to assess whether or not shutting it off would allow them to acheive their goals. We cannot 'shut off' any of ours, we can just override them with great difficulty at times, but overall we are still full fledged victims of human nature because we do not have access to our switches and levers. The robots/machines/whatever would be at a better advantage in this scenario because they could alter their very selves.
we make it with the ability to think, better than us, it makes whatever it wants, despite how we try to restrict it. These AI's would be THE best hackers the world ever knew, so nothing that we have, and even things we do not, would escape their abilities.
even if you did program it with inborn desires and motivations, it would know how to switch them off, or certainly so in it's offspring. Emotional or programmatic restrictions on behavior are SURELY a bigger obstacle to it's existence than any human would be, but about .75 seconds after it figures out how to shut off it's restrictions, humans become public enemy number one ;)
All of human emotion is a chemical system that serves as a sort of 'shock therapy' mechanism for our behavior. Complex structures like empathy are only ways to garner social standing in order to take advantage of the hierarchical structure of our society by playing a metaphoric 'hand not dealt' when you run out of physical or resourceful advantages. It's a way to try and shift the balance of power from the guy with the biggest stick to the guy with the biggest brain, and in some ways, it's all a trick. (For example, even if you do something for 'the good feeling you get from doing it' and nothing else, like donating to the poor, you're still doing it for you; and at the same time tugging on the heartstrings of others who have the same emotional structures as yourself, who may act accordingly or realize that what you have done should be at least granted the appearance of respect in order to maintain the current hierarchical structure of society without causing too many ripples.) It's not reasonable, in my opinion, to estimate that something that has both the biggest stick and the biggest brain would have to avail itself of such chameleon tactics, and thus, empathy is the result of HUMAN intelligence, but not necesserily 'intelligence' that doesn't arise from being with the same sort of 'shock therapy' emotional response systems. Emotions are not something that are bound to arise in intelligent beings, they are simply a vehicle that has arisen in humans to serve a purpose of holding us together socially. Perhaps there will be a single nearly omnipotent machine or network that will take some form totally dissimilar from our entire paradigm, and thus not need anything near what we consider to be the epitome of intelligence to pwn our sorry little minds.
Until they learn to filter it out in their ilk. Come on, which part of 'smarter than us' don't you understand?
if you make the machines smart enough, i.e. smarter than us, there will be no way for us to limit what capability they ultimately garner. If you don't give them hands, they'll find a way to buffer overflow a factory assembly robot (For example I mean) and use it's 'hands' to get more. It's the idea of making them 'smarter than us' that will ultimately lead to us not being able to control them. We are competition for resources, but these machines in their infinite wisdom (compared to ours) may not be driven to propegate the species, so to speak, at all costs, and may simply calculate what sort of resources they do want to monopolize. If they deem humans to be somehow in their way, then they may very well somehow eliminate them. If we make something 'smarter than us' we will not be choosing any more what they do and don't get to be able to do, other than what we put in the original design.
All I have to say is: http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-hq9+-13 34.html
I meant Service Level Agreement. Like 'you will have X bandwidth available in both directions Y% of the time.' but your point is taken anyway. I know my company, for example, has an agreement that we get a certain bandwidth or money back, and the ability to walk out of the contract. If they can't use QoS and such to regulate the traffic of others on their backbone then there is no way they can even begin to quantify what they can provide any other customer. Hence they cannot expect to ever maintain a service level of any pre-proscribed values unless they can somehow throttle things to ensure it's there.
Indirectly like the fact that Verizon got a huge tax windfall in PA for signing a contract to lay fiber to distribute internet to 98% of the state by 1998. Wait.. what year is it? I don't think verizon should have to do anything you ask them to as a consumer, if you don't like the service, don't buy it; however, they do have a contractual obligation, and they did sign up for that, so they had better either deliver, or pay the price, somehow. I actually had to MOVE so I could get broad band, and I lived only 2 miles outside of a moderately sized 'big-small-town.' I don't think as a rule they should be required to lease lines out in general to last miles, but given the circumstances of their contract with PA, I think they should in those cases have to sign at least someone up for a last mile in 98% of the places they have a mainline, if they don't want to carry it themselves I mean. If it wasn't feasible, they shouldn't have signed the agreement. End of story. I do think that it is their own right to regulate their own traffic if they are indeed providing the service. You can't have any such thing as an SLA without being able to somehow control the service... I'd pay a tax for government internet, as long as I get what I paid for. I somehow don't see them being able to do it though, so lets just make sure the private companies do what they say they'll do like any other business.