Yeah, well, that's what we'd do if this was an isolated instance of the program, but not all of our customers sit the two systems next to each other, and in fact, some of the production systems are Linux and not Windows, so FTP is seen as the best "general" solution for us at present.
I don't see how people don't see such issues. Doesn't anyone here have data centers on each coast?
I certainly have seen it-- but it does seem that many people are either in denial about it or simply resort to "use Rsync." It's my experience that SFTP works just fine as long as you don't have all that much data to transfer.
We're working with a data warehouse system where we nightly need full database exports (multi-GB) transferred from the (Windows-based) production server to the data warehouse system (also Windows-based). The two systems are sitting next to each other with a 1G network connection. SFTP has proven to be 30x slower than FTP. Consequently, we continue to use FTP, as otherwise 2-hour overnight transfers take days.
And every time I look into Rsync, I run into a couple of issues that seem to stall my understanding of it's utility in our case-- 1) limited documentation, especially regarding its use over SSH on Windows systems, and 2) whether its even applicable given we aren't trying to "sync" files that have blocks in common with existing files, but simply need to copy files that are likely to be too different to take advantage of partial-file "sync" operation (on the other hand, depending on how smart it is, it could be a big benefit-- if it uses a diff-like technique rather than a block-by-block comparison it might be of interest). And frankly, the fact there seems to be no native Windows port (everything is cygwin based), doesn't inspire a lot of favor. So, as I said, we still use FTP. I haven't been able to convince anyone here that spending time to develop a custom SSH client for it is time well spent (I disagree, but I don't get to decide-- it seems to me that I'm the only one who seems to either be aware of, or care the slightest about, the fact that FTP sends its data and its passwords in the clear).
I had a stupid shithead company do that to me when I tried to sell my DVD of "Hunt for Red October".
Well, it sure was effective. The thing is, these guys have to file a takedown notice for each individual offence, as eBay won't just start taking these things down automatically. Someone has to complain about an item before eBay will act on it. At which point, eBay doesn't want to get involved in the middle of the dispute, they just remove the controversial item which lets them off the hook in any case. But didn't do the content producer much good in this case I would say...
No, people need to adapt to the technology. As technology gets better and smarter, people need to change their way of thinking and become better and smarter themselves in order to use this much more complicated technology.
Well, if this is what eBay was doing, then fine, but it's not. If eBay was keeping pace with "technology," they'd provide, in addition to their default page designs, an independent API that can be used by end users to customize their experience for various situations-- at no extra charge. Such a feature would be a value added for eBay as well as the users, though eBay is apparently oblivious of that fact, and is that sort of ignorance that is ultimately their Achillies heel for competitors. Can I use it via my cellphone's browser? A custom iPhone app? An automated background job that has no display, only logging? A text browser? A browser for the blind? But eBay's "technology" appears to be about what they think is protecting eBay's interests-- via lock ins, etc., that run counter to the customer's (buyers AND sellers) interests. Special features you must get from them or somehow under their control because otherwise they can't get an extra piece of the action (they're getting their orginal piece anyway, when items are sold). When eBay wakes up and realizes that what makes both buyers and sellers happy creates more buyers and sellers and is ultimately what they (eBay) want for themselves, they're keeping pace. But instead they're looking for ways to nickel and dime everyone and be control freaks about the whole thing. Apple and the cellular companies have been doing the same but are being dragged kicking and screaming into new technologies. They're so worried about making sure they get "a piece" of anything that uses their products in any customized way that they end up themselves being the biggest barrier to progress.
People forget, I guess, that what makes the Internet great is it's ability to accomodate everyones input, preferences, contributions, etc. If the internet was run by eBay, the only web sites there would be, would be eBay operated ones. And of course, if that were the case they'd have no customers at all, since few could justify paying for internet access just for eBay functionality.
The unasked question seems to be, how many mistakes can you tolerate? We all know that "our" government has never executed an innocent person, as they'd never allow for such a mistake to occur, now don't we?
Don't you just love an industry that can solve its waste and health effect problems by applying nonexistent future technologies? Especially since its such problems are very long-term when all the competing technologies problems are short term. Sure, it takes 24000 for the waste to decay to 1/2 its radioactivity, but that just means we have thousands of years to develop a solution! The FUTURE will fix all the problems. How convEENient!
It seems to me that this should be underscored. The heck with gmail, EMAIL is not guaranteed to be sent encrypted or in any way secure. If you're sending credit card info, passwords, personal health information, or ANY info you can't afford to have random strangers read, you SHOULDN'T be using email for it, PERIOD.
I've yet to meet a rental car that can't make LA to Modesto (a route I've been inclined to take regulary), nonstop-- which is about 540KM. Back to the drawing board guys, your still a good 200KM short of the mark.
Is Facebook not using the APIs provided by the webmail providers for this purpose?
I don't know, but it's irrelevant to my point. My point is that Facebook provides this feature through the goodwill of other sites in providing user granted acccess to them via third parties. At the same time, Facebook refuses the same sort of goodwill towards other sites. It seems hypocritical to me.
Seeing as how their "friend finder" asks you for your email login info, it apparently scrapes the names and addresses from your contact list looking for additional friends that you haven't yet entered manually. I haven't used it myself because I don't like the idea, and if yahoo mail or gmail or hotmail decides they don't like it, it will completely nix the automated riend finder at least for people with those email accounts. And in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out it already violates the TOS of some of those sites.
Ok, so, granted it may be legal for such sites to do this, doesn't it just seem a little bit two faced for Facebook to depend on the ability to scrape other sites in order to provide their services, yet prohibit other sites from similarly scraping them? One measure of ethical behavior is what would happen if everyone behaved like that. Facebook's utility would be somewhat impaired if everyone behaved like they do.
If I understand this correctly, what you're saying is email sites like Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc., would, if they so choose, have the right to prohibit Facebook from scraping your contact list even if you give them the login information.
Interesting...
We've done a lot of testing for our data warehouse products over a gigabit link between two quadcore server PCs comparing the transfer of several gigabytes worth of data, between ftp and sftp, and typical times for sftp have been taking about 3 and a half hours, when the same transfer via ftp is taking about 20 minutes. For the clients, we've been using psftp and windows command-line ftp, and for the servers, War-FTP and copssh. HP has a performance patch for OpenSSH (see here), but we have been unable to locate or develop a build for Windows that has this patch. While there may be better tuned SFTP software out there, the readily available open source tools do not compare well with FTP.
FTP is however, more than an order of magnitude faster than SFTP or SCP. If the files are relatively small, SFTP is certainly the more secure solution, but if the files are huge and time is an issue, FTP has the clear performance advantage.
Period. My #1 critera for a digital camera is it must use a standardized battery-- because what good is it a couple of years down the road when the model is discontinued and the manufacturer of the camera doesn't make batteries anymore?
Wouldn't this sort of analysis of the encrypted data potentially provide clues of its nature that would help in the decryption of the data? Seems to me that this new analysis method weakens ALL POSSIBLE encryption techniques...
The real reason the HD disk formats have struggled is because DVD is "good enough" for most people.
It's also "good enough" for a significant amount of popular content. If they ever bother to release "The Love Boat" episodes on Blue-Ray, I doubt anyone will be able to tell much difference between that and the standard DVD release.
Is he really equating the artificial scarcity of the classic media publishing businesses with a "healthy competitive marketplace?" Healthy for a certain insider elite no doubt. Bad rubbish...
The only feature I really want here is smarter call blocking, which my current Vonage phone doesn't supply. I otherwise quite like the Vonage service though-- but rather than use a bolt-on solution like Google Voice would probably choose to change VoIP provider to one that does have better screening features. Temporarily, I've set up an Asterisk server that I'm using to answer my Vonage calls and apply some screening, but I'd rather not have to run my own server 24/7 just for decent blocking. I could use Google Voice instead, but frankly, if the expectation of decent blocking features is raised enough to push Vonage off it's duff on such features, that would work for me as well. The problem with Google Voice is you apparently can't apply number portability to it and have it use an existing phone number (or maybe I'm wrong about that?)-- if that were an option I might consider it.
Also, is there any chance that Google Voice will be able to include non-PSTN phone networks like Skype or Voxalot, bypassing the VoIP to PSTN charges? Or make it available via their own DIY VoIP provider service? If I could 1) port my phone number to Google Voice and 2) point my Linksys ATA at them, that would eliminate several middle-men...
You could use some kind of password management system that changes all your passwords automatically every hour or so. The honest answer would then be that you just don't know your passwords as your computer manages them for you, and even if you did know they would be obsolete in an hour.
Of course your banking site might think something is up and disable your account if you're constantly changing your password like that...
I realize that it's pretty stupid that they would even ask such a thing, but it's also pretty stupid that they are assuming that everyone uses the internet in such a way that the request isn't simply a non-sequitur. And it's not like there aren't plenty of people out there who still aren't even on the internet...
Given how good they've been at filtering SPAM from my hotmail account (about as good as a deranged chimpanzee using a dartboard), I wouldn't go near this thing...
Entering the query "Who is George Bush?" returned the following tidbits among other things:
General Draper was George Bush's guru
Hurricane Katrina is George Bush's Monica Lewinsky
Tony Blair is George Bush's poodle
democratic Iraq is George Bush's formidable legacy
Iraq is George Bush's waterloo
Hillary is the democratic version of good old George W. Bush
blue socks are Critics of George W. Bush
Bruce Bartlett is George W. Bush Bankrupted America
biggest terrorist is George W. Bush
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, well, that's what we'd do if this was an isolated instance of the program, but not all of our customers sit the two systems next to each other, and in fact, some of the production systems are Linux and not Windows, so FTP is seen as the best "general" solution for us at present.
I don't see how people don't see such issues. Doesn't anyone here have data centers on each coast?
I certainly have seen it-- but it does seem that many people are either in denial about it or simply resort to "use Rsync." It's my experience that SFTP works just fine as long as you don't have all that much data to transfer.
We're working with a data warehouse system where we nightly need full database exports (multi-GB) transferred from the (Windows-based) production server to the data warehouse system (also Windows-based). The two systems are sitting next to each other with a 1G network connection. SFTP has proven to be 30x slower than FTP. Consequently, we continue to use FTP, as otherwise 2-hour overnight transfers take days.
And every time I look into Rsync, I run into a couple of issues that seem to stall my understanding of it's utility in our case-- 1) limited documentation, especially regarding its use over SSH on Windows systems, and 2) whether its even applicable given we aren't trying to "sync" files that have blocks in common with existing files, but simply need to copy files that are likely to be too different to take advantage of partial-file "sync" operation (on the other hand, depending on how smart it is, it could be a big benefit-- if it uses a diff-like technique rather than a block-by-block comparison it might be of interest). And frankly, the fact there seems to be no native Windows port (everything is cygwin based), doesn't inspire a lot of favor. So, as I said, we still use FTP. I haven't been able to convince anyone here that spending time to develop a custom SSH client for it is time well spent (I disagree, but I don't get to decide-- it seems to me that I'm the only one who seems to either be aware of, or care the slightest about, the fact that FTP sends its data and its passwords in the clear).
I had a stupid shithead company do that to me when I tried to sell my DVD of "Hunt for Red October".
Well, it sure was effective. The thing is, these guys have to file a takedown notice for each individual offence, as eBay won't just start taking these things down automatically. Someone has to complain about an item before eBay will act on it. At which point, eBay doesn't want to get involved in the middle of the dispute, they just remove the controversial item which lets them off the hook in any case. But didn't do the content producer much good in this case I would say...
No, people need to adapt to the technology. As technology gets better and smarter, people need to change their way of thinking and become better and smarter themselves in order to use this much more complicated technology.
Well, if this is what eBay was doing, then fine, but it's not. If eBay was keeping pace with "technology," they'd provide, in addition to their default page designs, an independent API that can be used by end users to customize their experience for various situations-- at no extra charge. Such a feature would be a value added for eBay as well as the users, though eBay is apparently oblivious of that fact, and is that sort of ignorance that is ultimately their Achillies heel for competitors. Can I use it via my cellphone's browser? A custom iPhone app? An automated background job that has no display, only logging? A text browser? A browser for the blind? But eBay's "technology" appears to be about what they think is protecting eBay's interests-- via lock ins, etc., that run counter to the customer's (buyers AND sellers) interests. Special features you must get from them or somehow under their control because otherwise they can't get an extra piece of the action (they're getting their orginal piece anyway, when items are sold). When eBay wakes up and realizes that what makes both buyers and sellers happy creates more buyers and sellers and is ultimately what they (eBay) want for themselves, they're keeping pace. But instead they're looking for ways to nickel and dime everyone and be control freaks about the whole thing. Apple and the cellular companies have been doing the same but are being dragged kicking and screaming into new technologies. They're so worried about making sure they get "a piece" of anything that uses their products in any customized way that they end up themselves being the biggest barrier to progress.
People forget, I guess, that what makes the Internet great is it's ability to accomodate everyones input, preferences, contributions, etc. If the internet was run by eBay, the only web sites there would be, would be eBay operated ones. And of course, if that were the case they'd have no customers at all, since few could justify paying for internet access just for eBay functionality.
excuse me, >4G files...
What's the problem? >2G files, for one thing.
The unasked question seems to be, how many mistakes can you tolerate? We all know that "our" government has never executed an innocent person, as they'd never allow for such a mistake to occur, now don't we?
Don't you just love an industry that can solve its waste and health effect problems by applying nonexistent future technologies? Especially since its such problems are very long-term when all the competing technologies problems are short term. Sure, it takes 24000 for the waste to decay to 1/2 its radioactivity, but that just means we have thousands of years to develop a solution! The FUTURE will fix all the problems. How convEENient!
It seems to me that this should be underscored. The heck with gmail, EMAIL is not guaranteed to be sent encrypted or in any way secure. If you're sending credit card info, passwords, personal health information, or ANY info you can't afford to have random strangers read, you SHOULDN'T be using email for it, PERIOD.
I've yet to meet a rental car that can't make LA to Modesto (a route I've been inclined to take regulary), nonstop-- which is about 540KM. Back to the drawing board guys, your still a good 200KM short of the mark.
Is Facebook not using the APIs provided by the webmail providers for this purpose?
I don't know, but it's irrelevant to my point. My point is that Facebook provides this feature through the goodwill of other sites in providing user granted acccess to them via third parties. At the same time, Facebook refuses the same sort of goodwill towards other sites. It seems hypocritical to me.
Seeing as how their "friend finder" asks you for your email login info, it apparently scrapes the names and addresses from your contact list looking for additional friends that you haven't yet entered manually. I haven't used it myself because I don't like the idea, and if yahoo mail or gmail or hotmail decides they don't like it, it will completely nix the automated riend finder at least for people with those email accounts. And in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out it already violates the TOS of some of those sites.
Ok, so, granted it may be legal for such sites to do this, doesn't it just seem a little bit two faced for Facebook to depend on the ability to scrape other sites in order to provide their services, yet prohibit other sites from similarly scraping them? One measure of ethical behavior is what would happen if everyone behaved like that. Facebook's utility would be somewhat impaired if everyone behaved like they do.
If I understand this correctly, what you're saying is email sites like Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc., would, if they so choose, have the right to prohibit Facebook from scraping your contact list even if you give them the login information. Interesting...
Thanks for the tip on rsync-- I will definately check it out...
We've done a lot of testing for our data warehouse products over a gigabit link between two quadcore server PCs comparing the transfer of several gigabytes worth of data, between ftp and sftp, and typical times for sftp have been taking about 3 and a half hours, when the same transfer via ftp is taking about 20 minutes. For the clients, we've been using psftp and windows command-line ftp, and for the servers, War-FTP and copssh. HP has a performance patch for OpenSSH (see here), but we have been unable to locate or develop a build for Windows that has this patch. While there may be better tuned SFTP software out there, the readily available open source tools do not compare well with FTP.
FTP is however, more than an order of magnitude faster than SFTP or SCP. If the files are relatively small, SFTP is certainly the more secure solution, but if the files are huge and time is an issue, FTP has the clear performance advantage.
Period. My #1 critera for a digital camera is it must use a standardized battery-- because what good is it a couple of years down the road when the model is discontinued and the manufacturer of the camera doesn't make batteries anymore?
Wouldn't this sort of analysis of the encrypted data potentially provide clues of its nature that would help in the decryption of the data? Seems to me that this new analysis method weakens ALL POSSIBLE encryption techniques...
The real reason the HD disk formats have struggled is because DVD is "good enough" for most people.
It's also "good enough" for a significant amount of popular content . If they ever bother to release "The Love Boat" episodes on Blue-Ray, I doubt anyone will be able to tell much difference between that and the standard DVD release.
Is he really equating the artificial scarcity of the classic media publishing businesses with a "healthy competitive marketplace?" Healthy for a certain insider elite no doubt. Bad rubbish...
The only feature I really want here is smarter call blocking, which my current Vonage phone doesn't supply. I otherwise quite like the Vonage service though-- but rather than use a bolt-on solution like Google Voice would probably choose to change VoIP provider to one that does have better screening features. Temporarily, I've set up an Asterisk server that I'm using to answer my Vonage calls and apply some screening, but I'd rather not have to run my own server 24/7 just for decent blocking. I could use Google Voice instead, but frankly, if the expectation of decent blocking features is raised enough to push Vonage off it's duff on such features, that would work for me as well. The problem with Google Voice is you apparently can't apply number portability to it and have it use an existing phone number (or maybe I'm wrong about that?)-- if that were an option I might consider it.
Also, is there any chance that Google Voice will be able to include non-PSTN phone networks like Skype or Voxalot, bypassing the VoIP to PSTN charges? Or make it available via their own DIY VoIP provider service? If I could 1) port my phone number to Google Voice and 2) point my Linksys ATA at them, that would eliminate several middle-men...
You could use some kind of password management system that changes all your passwords automatically every hour or so. The honest answer would then be that you just don't know your passwords as your computer manages them for you, and even if you did know they would be obsolete in an hour.
Of course your banking site might think something is up and disable your account if you're constantly changing your password like that...
I realize that it's pretty stupid that they would even ask such a thing, but it's also pretty stupid that they are assuming that everyone uses the internet in such a way that the request isn't simply a non-sequitur. And it's not like there aren't plenty of people out there who still aren't even on the internet...
Given how good they've been at filtering SPAM from my hotmail account (about as good as a deranged chimpanzee using a dartboard), I wouldn't go near this thing...
Entering the query "Who is George Bush?" returned the following tidbits among other things:
General Draper was George Bush's guru
Hurricane Katrina is George Bush's Monica Lewinsky
Tony Blair is George Bush's poodle
democratic Iraq is George Bush's formidable legacy
Iraq is George Bush's waterloo
Hillary is the democratic version of good old George W. Bush
blue socks are Critics of George W. Bush
Bruce Bartlett is George W. Bush Bankrupted America
biggest terrorist is George W. Bush