Thank you. logorrhea helps solve the whole index and searching thing as far by individual name, but that doesn't solve my main most problem of grouping chatrooms seperately.
GPG support would indeed be nice, but it looks like they're going to be using SSL, so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Personally, I love iChat, but it does a few things I find very annoying. 1) There's no ability to log to an open format. No txt, html, or rtf support. iChat logs to a format you can only open with iChat. This is a PITA. 2) Poorly chosen naming convention. One thing I like about gaim is it's logging. Logs are stored in folders based on the name of the person you are talking to for two person conversations. For full chats, logs are stored via the chatroom name. iChat logs them all as "Chatting with So And So $TIME". In the case of chatrooms, it logs them based on one of the participates names. This makes it very difficult to search back for that chat a few of my friends had several months ago because I don't remember the exact date and time, and have to grep through the binaries to try to locate it.
If Apple fixed just the second of these two my problems with iChat would be greatly lessened. Solve both and I will worship at the altar of iChat.
Use a vaccuum and an air compressor (forget those little bottles of "canned air")
This isn't always a good idea. If you're like me and live in an area where the humidty is extremely high, it's a good idea to only use an air compressor that removes the water vapor from the air before spitting it out.
That isn't always feasible, so make sure you use an air compressor that was recently empty. Water vapor will condense inside a compressor and become water, and you definately don't want to be hitting your electronics with water under pressure.
And now for the slow paintfull demise of Slashdot.
I think you're a good bit too late. Slashdot has been slowly dying for some time now as a news and discussion sight for technology and geek related news. A lot can be said for the occasional thread on things like the PATRIOT act or the DMCA, but slashdot seems to be nothing now but a sight for trolls and liberals (read: mostly young college kids) to bitch about whatever happens to be their fancy. The audience here is very liberal for the most part, and I think a large reason for that is the youthful ideas most people here have about how priviliaged people must be wicked and that they can (indeed should) somehow change the world.
Yup, so let's see... there's a bunch of Germans and Swedish people bitching about a President they can not elect nor vote against.
To that I'd like to add uninformed as an adjective. Most people here "discussing" politics (indeed anything) are largely uninformed. They spout off only what they've heard other people say without doing an in depth intelligent analysis of the issues. You can tell it by the tone they write in, that aggresive "I'm right and you're ignorant" genre, and by the repetition among the posters. They all have the same thing to say in a juvenile confrontational way, and if you disagree then you're just plain wrong and usually get modded down by slightly more intelligent people who realize their argument isn't strong enough to refute your points.
It's sad, but I think this is the logical conclusion of a site like Slashdot that was once so focused on linux that it largely attracted only hard core geeks, the kind of people who will do their homework on a subject and know what they are talking about. Today's linux user is more mainstream though. They're script kiddies and windows users who want to be 1337 by using Mandrake. I participate in a mailing list that is populated by people both very conservative and very liberal. We have some serious knock-down drag out flame wars from time to time, but no one takes it to heart. We respect other people's opinions because everyone there is a real geek and as such, mature enough to realize that his/her opinion isn't the only one, and isn't necessarily always right.
About the only interesting threads on Slashdot anymore from a discussion perspective are those concerning astronomy.
The original iMac, G4 cube and even the last iMac (to a certain extent) were elegant.
I can't say with any certainty about the cube or original iMac, but the previous iMac was an expensive beast to manufacture with that movable arm. Getting rid of it likely reduced a large chunk of the most to make an iMac.
Also, from a marketing standpoint, they completely missed the fall school schedule.
That's certainly something Apple regrets make no mistake about it, but it wasn't something they had a lot of choice over. The G5 iMac just couldn't be produced in large enough quantities for a release until IBM could get the G5 chips made. So this isn't really a marketing blunder, but a production blunder from a third party vendor. What are you gonna do?
Finding good and useful information in a library is way more efficient than searching the web
That depends on your query of course. Libraries tend to be great sources of information about all things old, but I dare say I would never go to a library to look up anything about computers, certainly not this error message I keep getting in my mail logs.
what's the problem with having a wide open network if you've got your computer all patched up and are encrypting your e-mail, etc?
Security isn't something you attain; it's something you do. Think of security as an onion. There are layers stacked atop layers. Some layers are thinner than others, some thicker. You are talking about removing every layer but the very last one. Instead of forcing a cracker to break through layer after layer after layer, you are handing him a free pass to the very last level of the game. That's lunacy.
Really, the best thing is to secure individual machines rather than entire networks.
Oh come on. While this may be practical for those people who only have a handful of computers, for other people that simply isn't practical. It's one thing to have a firewall like ZoneAlarm running on every Windows PC and have all your patches up to date, but antoher thing to have up to date patches and be behind a strong firewall with encrypted wifi connections.
Relying on clients for security is always a recipe for disaster. There are too many extenuating circumstances, too many little changes, too many random errors or problems to trust some one's desktop or workstation to secure itself. Having a single point that all network traffic must come through and placing checks on that single point is much easier and more effective. For one thing, it allows you to control the outbound traffic from said workstations in addition to filtering inbound traffic to the network.
If this guy was really going to live up to his name as the Governator he should be insisting on Open Source and cutting budgets of non-compliant branches of government.
I'm not from California, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
It's my understanding that California isn't in what one might call the best financial shape. They're scraping to have money for electricity and the basics. Software migrations cost money, often a lot of it, and while the long-term benefits might be worth it, if the government can't come up with the money short-term they shouldn't be saddling the tax payers with a larger deficit.
Putting linux or BSD in place for new deployments is ok. Replacing an aged web server or something with an open source alternative is one thing. Taking a working software system that is bought and paid for and forcing some one to migrate to an oepn platform is another. In the first two, you're migrating anyhow. In the last, you just blow a lot of money.
- Raise the application fee so that the patent office can do a decent job.
I must dissagree on this count. Raising the application fee puts patenting solely in the domain of the corporate r+d labs. It would keep garage inventors and other small time inventors out of the process.
Well I disagree to your disgreement. Raising patent costs won't stop garage investors from getting a patent on something worth investing in. Say $1,000 to file for a patent. If your idea is worth patenting, it's worht paying a grand to get that patent. That might not be enough to stop all frivilous patents, but it might stop some of them. I think it's worth a shot.
You've hit the nail on the head. TV repairmen (at least in my neck of the woods) are really struggling. TV sets cost so little these days, and parts for them are so high, that repairing them isn't really feasible anymore. Most TV sets are cheaply made, and cheaply priced. 19 inch TVs with built-in DVD players sell for less than $200.
That may be changing soon though. There are a lot of pricey very high-end TV sets that might need skilled technitions to repair. Plasma screens come to mind as they are both expensive, and not very servicable. You simply wouldn't want to replace them. However, I don't see how this will at all be related to computer repair.
Let's leave that alone for a moment, and assume that plasma screen TV set repair will be like computer repair, with user servicable parts mostly made to fit in predetermined slots. The only tools needed are a flat and a phillips head screwdriver. Why would you tehn be required to be licensed? The hardware work is basically monkey replaces the parts stuff. We're not soldering onto motherboards and testing things with multi-meters after all.
Lyons did his job as a paid shill for SCO and made sure the stock got pumped today.
While I won't attempt to speak for Lyon, I will say that it is a little much to assume he has ulterior motives here. Stock prices change for many reasons. Another thing to consider is just how many shares are out on float right now. Many (most?) of the people buying shares are covering floats.
My G4-800 iBook has lasted at least six hours, perhaps longer.
While I won't go so far as to say that my iBook G4 lasts that long, it always lasts a minimum of 4 hours of continuous use on a single battery. I have the older 800 Mhz 12" model with 640 MB of RAM (fully loaded, keeps hard disk activity down). Things light as a feather, snappy, and rarely gives me any problems.
Like the OP I'm a linux user (Slackware), but I love this little iBook. It does anything I need (I've got all my typical linux tools (like ethereal, snort, nmap, ncftp, screen, etc) compiled and running on it flawlessly. At this point, I might as well be running GNU/Darwin with a Quartz window manager.:^)
I suppose the summary is referring to not hiring crackers that have done illegal stuff, but that's moronic -- if the NSA would reject someone for a job breaking into things BECAUSE they know how to break into things, we are all in big trouble.
Your argument includes a non-sequitor. Basically you state that it is stupid to restrict recruiting people into the NSA if they have committed a crime. I think this is a good thing, and here's why.
The people in the NSA are (supposed to be) the brightest and most dedicated staff of cryptographists. Just cracking into some machine doesn't prove that you're capable of joining their team. Even if it is an elegant, non-trivial intrusion doesn't necessarily mean you have the desired skills.
Furthermore black hats particularly may possess qualities that the NSA most definately does not want in their employees. Among those are lack of self control, disrespect for the law, and hubris. The first is a show stopper in any sensitive situation. The second is always a show stopper in a government agency for good reason. The third makes working with others a huge pain in an organization where co-operation is vital.
The specific example the parent to your comment cited was sending a string to a UDP port. I believe he understands the advantages of port knocking
I don't, and I don't think you appreciate it either. The OP said that if one could sniff the traffic going to your node on the net that port knocking was trivial to get around. All arguments of that aside, how does having an open UDP port listening for some traffic make things any better? A good UDP scan will turn up your listening daemon (which may be vulnerable to some attack, thus making everything you've done a complete waste of time) and the attacker can sniff the traffic on that one udp port. This results in a lot less traffic that the attacker has to sort through to determine the keys to open your blocked port(s).
I can hear what you're saying already. Use a means of speaking to that UDP daemon that makes use of encryption. I'm not going to go very in depth as to why I think this is a less than ideal solution, except to say that port knocking works, and it doesn't require the complications and overhead of what you're suggesting.
Does this mean a return to the 2.4.x type of problem where no-one could agree on which virtual memory management to use and the stable series ended up being, well unstable, until it reached about 2.4.19 (or thereabouts)?
That's exactly what it means. Reguardless of what people say, the even numberes kernels aren't stable until a couple of even numbered releases *after* the next odd kernel is created. Anyone who tells you different is a fool. Don't trust 2.6 for production machines. For your personal desktop it's fine (great even), but if you need something that really is stable, 2.4 is where it's at.
With the BSD license, code tends to slowly drift into closed projects, as the old code becomes unnmaintained and unpatched. With the GPL, this is avoided -- once code is open source, it stays open source, and folks that fix bugs, and keep the code from being obsolete need to contribute their patches back to the open source codebase, which keeps it alive. This makes the GPL more free in the long term.
Oh bull shit. You have failed to think critically on the subject and just listened to some one else's BS, then repeated it. You say that with the GPL once code is open sourced it is always that way, implying that the BSD license doesn't do that. That is simply wrong. The original code in either case is always open source.
Tell me something, if I place some code under the BSD license and publish it on Usenet for all to see, how can a company come along later and un-open source the work I did? What the BSD license says is "here's my code, you can use it however you want, just make sure you attribute it to me". Even if some one comes along and includes that code in a closed source project, the original work I did is still open source.
The difference is that the GPL was written by RMS to further his agenda of making the entire software world open source. If you plublish something under the GPL, your original work is always open for all to use, it jsut can't be included in a proprietary product that wishes to extend your work without open sourcing its extensions under the GPL.
In either case, the work you do is always open. The difference is that the BSD license doesn't mind sharing its code with anyone for any purpose, while the GPL believes in sharing unless the code is going to be extended into some one's corporate product.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. logorrhea helps solve the whole index and searching thing as far by individual name, but that doesn't solve my main most problem of grouping chatrooms seperately.
GPG support would indeed be nice, but it looks like they're going to be using SSL, so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Personally, I love iChat, but it does a few things I find very annoying.
1) There's no ability to log to an open format. No txt, html, or rtf support. iChat logs to a format you can only open with iChat. This is a PITA.
2) Poorly chosen naming convention. One thing I like about gaim is it's logging. Logs are stored in folders based on the name of the person you are talking to for two person conversations. For full chats, logs are stored via the chatroom name. iChat logs them all as "Chatting with So And So $TIME". In the case of chatrooms, it logs them based on one of the participates names. This makes it very difficult to search back for that chat a few of my friends had several months ago because I don't remember the exact date and time, and have to grep through the binaries to try to locate it.
If Apple fixed just the second of these two my problems with iChat would be greatly lessened. Solve both and I will worship at the altar of iChat.
This isn't always a good idea. If you're like me and live in an area where the humidty is extremely high, it's a good idea to only use an air compressor that removes the water vapor from the air before spitting it out.
That isn't always feasible, so make sure you use an air compressor that was recently empty. Water vapor will condense inside a compressor and become water, and you definately don't want to be hitting your electronics with water under pressure.
I think you're a good bit too late. Slashdot has been slowly dying for some time now as a news and discussion sight for technology and geek related news. A lot can be said for the occasional thread on things like the PATRIOT act or the DMCA, but slashdot seems to be nothing now but a sight for trolls and liberals (read: mostly young college kids) to bitch about whatever happens to be their fancy. The audience here is very liberal for the most part, and I think a large reason for that is the youthful ideas most people here have about how priviliaged people must be wicked and that they can (indeed should) somehow change the world.
To that I'd like to add uninformed as an adjective. Most people here "discussing" politics (indeed anything) are largely uninformed. They spout off only what they've heard other people say without doing an in depth intelligent analysis of the issues. You can tell it by the tone they write in, that aggresive "I'm right and you're ignorant" genre, and by the repetition among the posters. They all have the same thing to say in a juvenile confrontational way, and if you disagree then you're just plain wrong and usually get modded down by slightly more intelligent people who realize their argument isn't strong enough to refute your points.
It's sad, but I think this is the logical conclusion of a site like Slashdot that was once so focused on linux that it largely attracted only hard core geeks, the kind of people who will do their homework on a subject and know what they are talking about. Today's linux user is more mainstream though. They're script kiddies and windows users who want to be 1337 by using Mandrake. I participate in a mailing list that is populated by people both very conservative and very liberal. We have some serious knock-down drag out flame wars from time to time, but no one takes it to heart. We respect other people's opinions because everyone there is a real geek and as such, mature enough to realize that his/her opinion isn't the only one, and isn't necessarily always right.
About the only interesting threads on Slashdot anymore from a discussion perspective are those concerning astronomy.
How about a powerbook? You've got thirty minutes.
I can't say with any certainty about the cube or original iMac, but the previous iMac was an expensive beast to manufacture with that movable arm. Getting rid of it likely reduced a large chunk of the most to make an iMac.
That's certainly something Apple regrets make no mistake about it, but it wasn't something they had a lot of choice over. The G5 iMac just couldn't be produced in large enough quantities for a release until IBM could get the G5 chips made. So this isn't really a marketing blunder, but a production blunder from a third party vendor. What are you gonna do?
No ./'er reads SPAM!
But what would you do with Mrs. Howell? I assume you wouldn't have to do anything. Time and laziness would see to her starvation all on their own.
Note that the G5 iMac is using a SATA drive instead of IDE as well.
That depends on your query of course. Libraries tend to be great sources of information about all things old, but I dare say I would never go to a library to look up anything about computers, certainly not this error message I keep getting in my mail logs.
GAFC. There are many many attacks that a decent cracker could do on your W-LAN. Four little words: Man in the middle.
Security isn't something you attain; it's something you do. Think of security as an onion. There are layers stacked atop layers. Some layers are thinner than others, some thicker. You are talking about removing every layer but the very last one. Instead of forcing a cracker to break through layer after layer after layer, you are handing him a free pass to the very last level of the game. That's lunacy.
Oh come on. While this may be practical for those people who only have a handful of computers, for other people that simply isn't practical. It's one thing to have a firewall like ZoneAlarm running on every Windows PC and have all your patches up to date, but antoher thing to have up to date patches and be behind a strong firewall with encrypted wifi connections.
Relying on clients for security is always a recipe for disaster. There are too many extenuating circumstances, too many little changes, too many random errors or problems to trust some one's desktop or workstation to secure itself. Having a single point that all network traffic must come through and placing checks on that single point is much easier and more effective. For one thing, it allows you to control the outbound traffic from said workstations in addition to filtering inbound traffic to the network.
I'm not from California, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
It's my understanding that California isn't in what one might call the best financial shape. They're scraping to have money for electricity and the basics. Software migrations cost money, often a lot of it, and while the long-term benefits might be worth it, if the government can't come up with the money short-term they shouldn't be saddling the tax payers with a larger deficit.
Putting linux or BSD in place for new deployments is ok. Replacing an aged web server or something with an open source alternative is one thing. Taking a working software system that is bought and paid for and forcing some one to migrate to an oepn platform is another. In the first two, you're migrating anyhow. In the last, you just blow a lot of money.
I think it's time they added a "-1 Just Plain Wrong".
Well I disagree to your disgreement. Raising patent costs won't stop garage investors from getting a patent on something worth investing in. Say $1,000 to file for a patent. If your idea is worth patenting, it's worht paying a grand to get that patent. That might not be enough to stop all frivilous patents, but it might stop some of them. I think it's worth a shot.
You've hit the nail on the head. TV repairmen (at least in my neck of the woods) are really struggling. TV sets cost so little these days, and parts for them are so high, that repairing them isn't really feasible anymore. Most TV sets are cheaply made, and cheaply priced. 19 inch TVs with built-in DVD players sell for less than $200.
That may be changing soon though. There are a lot of pricey very high-end TV sets that might need skilled technitions to repair. Plasma screens come to mind as they are both expensive, and not very servicable. You simply wouldn't want to replace them. However, I don't see how this will at all be related to computer repair.
Let's leave that alone for a moment, and assume that plasma screen TV set repair will be like computer repair, with user servicable parts mostly made to fit in predetermined slots. The only tools needed are a flat and a phillips head screwdriver. Why would you tehn be required to be licensed? The hardware work is basically monkey replaces the parts stuff. We're not soldering onto motherboards and testing things with multi-meters after all.
While I won't attempt to speak for Lyon, I will say that it is a little much to assume he has ulterior motives here. Stock prices change for many reasons. Another thing to consider is just how many shares are out on float right now. Many (most?) of the people buying shares are covering floats.
While I won't go so far as to say that my iBook G4 lasts that long, it always lasts a minimum of 4 hours of continuous use on a single battery. I have the older 800 Mhz 12" model with 640 MB of RAM (fully loaded, keeps hard disk activity down). Things light as a feather, snappy, and rarely gives me any problems.
Like the OP I'm a linux user (Slackware), but I love this little iBook. It does anything I need (I've got all my typical linux tools (like ethereal, snort, nmap, ncftp, screen, etc) compiled and running on it flawlessly. At this point, I might as well be running GNU/Darwin with a Quartz window manager. :^)
Your argument includes a non-sequitor. Basically you state that it is stupid to restrict recruiting people into the NSA if they have committed a crime. I think this is a good thing, and here's why.
The people in the NSA are (supposed to be) the brightest and most dedicated staff of cryptographists. Just cracking into some machine doesn't prove that you're capable of joining their team. Even if it is an elegant, non-trivial intrusion doesn't necessarily mean you have the desired skills.
Furthermore black hats particularly may possess qualities that the NSA most definately does not want in their employees. Among those are lack of self control, disrespect for the law, and hubris. The first is a show stopper in any sensitive situation. The second is always a show stopper in a government agency for good reason. The third makes working with others a huge pain in an organization where co-operation is vital.
Put a notch in Safarii too. I've been getting 503 errors on an off, though a simple reload a few minutes later usually fixes it.
I don't, and I don't think you appreciate it either. The OP said that if one could sniff the traffic going to your node on the net that port knocking was trivial to get around. All arguments of that aside, how does having an open UDP port listening for some traffic make things any better? A good UDP scan will turn up your listening daemon (which may be vulnerable to some attack, thus making everything you've done a complete waste of time) and the attacker can sniff the traffic on that one udp port. This results in a lot less traffic that the attacker has to sort through to determine the keys to open your blocked port(s).
I can hear what you're saying already. Use a means of speaking to that UDP daemon that makes use of encryption. I'm not going to go very in depth as to why I think this is a less than ideal solution, except to say that port knocking works, and it doesn't require the complications and overhead of what you're suggesting.
The last one was in 1999, when we had blue moons in Jannuary and March. Incidently, the one in January was colored almost blood red.
That's exactly what it means. Reguardless of what people say, the even numberes kernels aren't stable until a couple of even numbered releases *after* the next odd kernel is created. Anyone who tells you different is a fool. Don't trust 2.6 for production machines. For your personal desktop it's fine (great even), but if you need something that really is stable, 2.4 is where it's at.
Oh bull shit. You have failed to think critically on the subject and just listened to some one else's BS, then repeated it. You say that with the GPL once code is open sourced it is always that way, implying that the BSD license doesn't do that. That is simply wrong. The original code in either case is always open source.
Tell me something, if I place some code under the BSD license and publish it on Usenet for all to see, how can a company come along later and un-open source the work I did? What the BSD license says is "here's my code, you can use it however you want, just make sure you attribute it to me". Even if some one comes along and includes that code in a closed source project, the original work I did is still open source.
The difference is that the GPL was written by RMS to further his agenda of making the entire software world open source. If you plublish something under the GPL, your original work is always open for all to use, it jsut can't be included in a proprietary product that wishes to extend your work without open sourcing its extensions under the GPL.
In either case, the work you do is always open. The difference is that the BSD license doesn't mind sharing its code with anyone for any purpose, while the GPL believes in sharing unless the code is going to be extended into some one's corporate product.