What the heck service did you install on the OpenBSD box to get it hacked?
No need to plan too hard to lock it up. Just set it up as an invisible bridge (no IPs on either interface) and filter the bridged traffic with PF. A nice unhackable firewall.
Which will return the results stated. 0-2% utilization. I have SMP systems. SMP is great for multimedia, but doesn't do much for games right now. Hopefully that will change by the time DOOM4 and Half-Life 3 come out.
Research/Teaching hospitals is where this would first be tried. And this isn't really the type of thing you could easily plan for to get prior consent.
What will most likely happen is a team will learn the procedure, then wait till their ER gets the right candidate for it. "Mrs Smith, your husband was shot multiple times with a shotgun during a robbery and his insides are shredded. It would take hours to repair and he *WILL* bleed out in the meantime. We simply can't pump enough blood in him to keep him alive. We do however have an experimental protocol we could try. We would replace his blood with ice-cold saline and put him into something like a hibernation state while we try to repair the damage, then replace his blood and restart his heart. Do you want us to try?"
Pull up task manager and look at how much CPU usage you have when your machine is just sitting 'idle', not running a game or other CPU intensive app. If you have a higher end CPU, it's probably maybe averaging 1-2%. That's not a lot of stuff to toss on the other CPU. The FX chip will run at much more than 2% faster than the dual-core chips available now, so it's the better option for games (99.9% of which won't take advantage of 2 CPUs). In a couple years when more games are written for SMP systems, then the dual-core will be the way to go.
Because they don't want to blow it into pieces. They just want to blow a hole in part of it to see what it's made of and how solidly it is held togeather. A 5 ton charge is plenty for that.
If they were to send up a vehicle capable of hitting it with 5 megatons, that would either require launching a vehicle of~ 1,000,000 times greather mass (and launching heavy stuff into space is expensive enough, let alone increasig the mass 1 million x), or you would have to send a nuclear bomb rather than a kenetic/chemical charge. I think there are a lot of people on the planet who would be objecting if you wanted to launch a nuclear warhead just for kicks. What if it failed during launch and fell back to earth somewhere, especially somewhere populated.
So really you would be lucky if you get 1% of the price.
So all you would be giving up is enough bandwidth to download 1/10th of an MP3. In exchange for 1% of the purchase price toward a new MP3. You've probably got plenty of spare bandwith, and can just let it accumulate until you get enough for an occasional free song. It doesn't sound that bad to me. Then again, the only thing I ever listen to is the radio, and that's usually NPR, so what do I know.
We had something like this happen in the Cleveland suburb of Lakewood. The Lakewood mayor decided some friends in the building biz really needed some land to put in some pricey condo's. So she declared that buildings were 'blighted' if they:
lacked a two-car attached garage,
had less than two full bathrooms,
hadless than three bedrooms,
were too-small homes (less than 1,400 square feet) and
had too-small yards (less than 5,000 square feet of lot size).
A beautiful little neighborhood of well-kept homes with a magnificent view were so declared 'blighted'. They were then going to give the land to the developer.
Note: Most of the home in the suburb would be 'blighted' by those specifications. The mayors own house lacked an attached garage and was below the minimum size. It would have been classified as 'blighted', but she wasn't getting kicked out of her house.
Thank god the voters got togeather and voted down the developer poject. They then booted the mayor out of office. I suggest we do the same to any office holder who tries this crap. Call your state reps and let them know you don't want this to happen in your state.
WWII handled the situation much better. The Allies pumped a massive amount of money in Germany. And that seems to have worked.
Well, that and the fact that Germany was split in half by the East/West. It's a bit harder to expand and try to take over the world when your country is cut in half with pretty much zero traffic between the halves.
Negotiations are never certain to work, but at some point you have to negotiate, right? Otherwise you'd have perpetual war.
Or you can do exactly as we did in WWII and say "Surrender. No negotiations, no conditions. Surrender or we will destroy you". It seems it sometimes works. There has been no perpetual war with Japan since that I've heard of.
They would probably have surrendered much earlier if the US had accepted a conditional surrender. A conditional surrender in a purely technical sense -- they just wanted to keep the emperor, who had no real political power.
And unconditional surrender was not an option. How do you know exactly what powers they would really have agreed to? The Allies wanted to make sure Japan didn't rise again in a few years like Germany had done. To insure a new goverment was in place that met that criteria, they had to have unconditional control.
Seeing as how Japan has not gone back into Empire mode, trying to take over the world, but has instead become a major economic and tech power, I think it worked out well.
If they had been allowed to keep more of their previous government intact would that be true? I don't know, but I doubt your guess is any better than mine.
It was the right call not to make a serious effort to negotiate a peace with Japan? Hardly. Sure, a serious peace effort might have failed, but it should have been tried.
The war wasn't 'halted' during negotiations. People were dying every day. How long would negotiations have taken? How many more people on both sides would have died? More than died in the two bombings? How much could have failed peace talks cost the families on both sides?
If the had a cease fire during peace talks, then the talks failed, that would have given Japan time to somewhat recover and be more ready to fight. That would have ment more lives lost on our side later.
If they were really ready to surrender before the first nuke was dropped, wouldn't they have surrendered right away afterwords? How about right after the second bomb was dropped instead of waiting another 3 days?
That lends a lot of evidence to the theory that they were not in fact ready to surrender beforehand. There is much less actual evidence that a controlling faction was ready to surrender.
You can only work with the facts as we know them, and there just isn't that much evidence on your side. And that's with '20/20' hindsight, being able to read documentation, etc, after the war. With the much more limited knowledge they had at the time, I'd say they made the right call. Especially since one bomb apparently wasn't enough to convince them to surrender.
Hiroshima wasn't that much of military target, otherwise why was it untouched in the regular bombings
It was a military target. Just not one of the highest priority ones. As the reporter in the artcile noted, several factories producing military equipment in the town HAD been bombed before, although others had not.
Toward the end of the war when they thought they might have nukes to use, Hiroshima was specifically left off the list of targets to hit,even though it had quite a few factories producing weapons the Japanese were using against us. Why? So that they would have a fairly 'clean' target to hit to show Japan what the bomb was capable of. If you hit a target that had already been heavily bombed, it would be hard to decern what was destroyed by the big bomb, vs previous smaller ones. The nuke may have seemed less impressive, and less likely to influence the Japanese to surrender.
They were going to surrender were they? Is that why even after we dropped two atomic bombs on them, some in the military were planning on a kamikaze attack on the signing of the surrender papers? They did not want to surrender. One faction might have been for it, but they had a large faction against it as well. Got any hard numbers to prove one faction would have won? Thought not.
Those people are in the vast minority. Only 7% of members of the National Acadamy of Science have a personal belief in god. Over 72% have a disbelief, and 20.8% doubt or are agnostic. That's 1998 data.
You mean like the several thousand lines of code changes OpenBSD has done to Apache that haven't been taken back up into the main Apache codebase? Sorry, some of it is the same software, but some of it has been cleaned up. A LOT.
You mean like Apple, who does contribute stuff back to BSD? Some will, some won't. It doesn't matter. None of them can steal the original code, it's always there for use.
Other companies are less scared of BSD than Linux because it doesn't come with a 'viral' license. They know they can talk things over with the PHPs and release a little or a lot of their own investment, rather than having to release it all. That makes some less nervous, and some do release stuff for BSDs.
As far as does the BSD crowd get any use out of it when a company uses their stuff without releaseing any changes back? Yes, in a way. The internet is better off if they are using a stable TCP stack than some random one they hack together. Anything they take in that can make their OS more stable and secure is better for the internet as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain how you are going to hack the stealth firewall with no IPs.
No need to plan too hard to lock it up. Just set it up as an invisible bridge (no IPs on either interface) and filter the bridged traffic with PF. A nice unhackable firewall.
Which will return the results stated. 0-2% utilization. I have SMP systems. SMP is great for multimedia, but doesn't do much for games right now. Hopefully that will change by the time DOOM4 and Half-Life 3 come out.
What will most likely happen is a team will learn the procedure, then wait till their ER gets the right candidate for it. "Mrs Smith, your husband was shot multiple times with a shotgun during a robbery and his insides are shredded. It would take hours to repair and he *WILL* bleed out in the meantime. We simply can't pump enough blood in him to keep him alive. We do however have an experimental protocol we could try. We would replace his blood with ice-cold saline and put him into something like a hibernation state while we try to repair the damage, then replace his blood and restart his heart. Do you want us to try?"
Pull up task manager and look at how much CPU usage you have when your machine is just sitting 'idle', not running a game or other CPU intensive app. If you have a higher end CPU, it's probably maybe averaging 1-2%. That's not a lot of stuff to toss on the other CPU. The FX chip will run at much more than 2% faster than the dual-core chips available now, so it's the better option for games (99.9% of which won't take advantage of 2 CPUs). In a couple years when more games are written for SMP systems, then the dual-core will be the way to go.
But this one goes to 11!
So, if it only hits a town of 10,000 in Africa, that's cool with you eh?
If they were to send up a vehicle capable of hitting it with 5 megatons, that would either require launching a vehicle of~ 1,000,000 times greather mass (and launching heavy stuff into space is expensive enough, let alone increasig the mass 1 million x), or you would have to send a nuclear bomb rather than a kenetic/chemical charge. I think there are a lot of people on the planet who would be objecting if you wanted to launch a nuclear warhead just for kicks. What if it failed during launch and fell back to earth somewhere, especially somewhere populated.
Don't forget the Linux Barbarian.
So all you would be giving up is enough bandwidth to download 1/10th of an MP3. In exchange for 1% of the purchase price toward a new MP3. You've probably got plenty of spare bandwith, and can just let it accumulate until you get enough for an occasional free song. It doesn't sound that bad to me. Then again, the only thing I ever listen to is the radio, and that's usually NPR, so what do I know.
We had something like this happen in the Cleveland suburb of Lakewood. The Lakewood mayor decided some friends in the building biz really needed some land to put in some pricey condo's. So she declared that buildings were 'blighted' if they:
lacked a two-car attached garage,
had less than two full bathrooms,
hadless than three bedrooms,
were too-small homes (less than 1,400 square feet) and
had too-small yards (less than 5,000 square feet of lot size).
A beautiful little neighborhood of well-kept homes with a magnificent view were so declared 'blighted'. They were then going to give the land to the developer.
Note: Most of the home in the suburb would be 'blighted' by those specifications. The mayors own house lacked an attached garage and was below the minimum size. It would have been classified as 'blighted', but she wasn't getting kicked out of her house.
Thank god the voters got togeather and voted down the developer poject. They then booted the mayor out of office. I suggest we do the same to any office holder who tries this crap. Call your state reps and let them know you don't want this to happen in your state.
I've got a couple. Fujitsue point510's. The problem? The LCDs on them suck. Bigtime. Maybe some of their newer ones are better.
Well, that and the fact that Germany was split in half by the East/West. It's a bit harder to expand and try to take over the world when your country is cut in half with pretty much zero traffic between the halves.
Or you can do exactly as we did in WWII and say "Surrender. No negotiations, no conditions. Surrender or we will destroy you". It seems it sometimes works. There has been no perpetual war with Japan since that I've heard of.
And unconditional surrender was not an option. How do you know exactly what powers they would really have agreed to? The Allies wanted to make sure Japan didn't rise again in a few years like Germany had done. To insure a new goverment was in place that met that criteria, they had to have unconditional control.
Seeing as how Japan has not gone back into Empire mode, trying to take over the world, but has instead become a major economic and tech power, I think it worked out well.
If they had been allowed to keep more of their previous government intact would that be true? I don't know, but I doubt your guess is any better than mine.
It was the right call not to make a serious effort to negotiate a peace with Japan? Hardly. Sure, a serious peace effort might have failed, but it should have been tried.
The war wasn't 'halted' during negotiations. People were dying every day. How long would negotiations have taken? How many more people on both sides would have died? More than died in the two bombings? How much could have failed peace talks cost the families on both sides?
If the had a cease fire during peace talks, then the talks failed, that would have given Japan time to somewhat recover and be more ready to fight. That would have ment more lives lost on our side later.
That lends a lot of evidence to the theory that they were not in fact ready to surrender beforehand. There is much less actual evidence that a controlling faction was ready to surrender.
You can only work with the facts as we know them, and there just isn't that much evidence on your side. And that's with '20/20' hindsight, being able to read documentation, etc, after the war. With the much more limited knowledge they had at the time, I'd say they made the right call. Especially since one bomb apparently wasn't enough to convince them to surrender.
It was a military target. Just not one of the highest priority ones. As the reporter in the artcile noted, several factories producing military equipment in the town HAD been bombed before, although others had not.
Toward the end of the war when they thought they might have nukes to use, Hiroshima was specifically left off the list of targets to hit,even though it had quite a few factories producing weapons the Japanese were using against us. Why? So that they would have a fairly 'clean' target to hit to show Japan what the bomb was capable of. If you hit a target that had already been heavily bombed, it would be hard to decern what was destroyed by the big bomb, vs previous smaller ones. The nuke may have seemed less impressive, and less likely to influence the Japanese to surrender.
They were going to surrender were they? Is that why even after we dropped two atomic bombs on them, some in the military were planning on a kamikaze attack on the signing of the surrender papers? They did not want to surrender. One faction might have been for it, but they had a large faction against it as well. Got any hard numbers to prove one faction would have won? Thought not.
Make that half of the US citizens. About half of us voted against him. On more than one occasion too. :(
It's a grade 'a' B movie! I think you mistyped "It's a high budget bad grade B movie".
Most likely it will be filled with comments about hot grits, our new x overlords, all your base belong to us, and in Soviet Russia X does Y to YOU!
Those people are in the vast minority. Only 7% of members of the National Acadamy of Science have a personal belief in god. Over 72% have a disbelief, and 20.8% doubt or are agnostic. That's 1998 data.
You mean like the several thousand lines of code changes OpenBSD has done to Apache that haven't been taken back up into the main Apache codebase? Sorry, some of it is the same software, but some of it has been cleaned up. A LOT.
Other companies are less scared of BSD than Linux because it doesn't come with a 'viral' license. They know they can talk things over with the PHPs and release a little or a lot of their own investment, rather than having to release it all. That makes some less nervous, and some do release stuff for BSDs.
As far as does the BSD crowd get any use out of it when a company uses their stuff without releaseing any changes back? Yes, in a way. The internet is better off if they are using a stable TCP stack than some random one they hack together. Anything they take in that can make their OS more stable and secure is better for the internet as a whole.
Cool, does that apply to Stallman as well? If so GNU must be pretty bad.