Well, according to these folks in this 2003 report, you can get a maximum of 10,000 - 100,000 write/erase cycles out of them. That's with more errors creeping in as you get near that limit.
At one backup per night, that's 27 to 270 years of nightly backups. I think you are probably safe if you swap to a new memory stick every decade;). Your bound to need to increase the size of the memory stick by then anyhow, so it doesn't seem like an issue.
I wouldn't trust it as my only backup for sure, but it sounds like it would be ok to use as one more step.
Yes, some folks travel and may need to put their thumbdrive into an unknown (and possibley hostile) machine.
1) Write protecting your drive prevents any nasty bugs from crawling from the foreign machine onto their thumbdrive (which you will later be inserting back into their own machine).
2) One more step in preventing accidental erasure of files
But the grandparent wasn't talking about buying both. What if you don't want an MP3 player or already have one? He said straight out that the iPod 1 gig was cheaper than the 1 gig flash drives reviewed. That's just flat out wrong.
Don't flash a roll of cash. Pull out individual bills from a wallet. Unless someone is standing over your shoulder, they can't tell if you have one or twenty bills left in your wallet.
The other thing is, how much more reasonable would it seem for Microsoft to want to keep it proprietary if they were giving away MS word for free? And if they weren't a monopoly, and weren't abusing their monopoly power?
Linux gave away Linux for free, and BitMover was giving away BitKeeper for free. There's no monopoly abuse there. There are already lots of other programs like it, it was just best of breed. It was free as in beer already. If you want a free as in speech one, why not show some creativity, do some work, and make a new one from scratch? With a few notable exceptions, most OSS developers have seem to have zero creativity. All most of them can do is copy.
Many times patches break things. Either because the patch is bad, or because some application you relied on explited some hole that it shouldn't have that is now fixed by the patch.
Many of those badly written applications are 3rd party vendors. Many others are custom software written/run in-house in corporate environments. When applications all across a corporate network stop working because of this, it is bad. That's why any reasonable corporate network runs patches on test boxes and confirms that everything still functions properly after being patched, before they roll out the patches to the desktops.
AutoUpdates are fine for grandma, but not for everyone.
I understand your reasoning, but I disagree with your point.
Posting an expolit with no patch is a dream come true for the script-kiddies, spammers, zombie-makers of the world. They will jump on it in a heartbeat.
While you may diligently monitor your severs for the new potential exploint (even though there may be nothing you can do to avoid it except switch the service to a non-MS box temporarily), most wouldn't.
There are a LOT of windows servers out there admin'd by folks who think they know what they are doing, but are really not that good, and there are a LOT of other windows servers out there that were set up once, the admin/consulting-company/whatever left with instructions for the local folks to run windows update regularly or set to download and install updates automatically.
Those boxes will be owned in no time. Bad for them, and bad for all the internet traffic they will generate. And we are talking about servers here, not all the random desktop/workstation machines that also will get hit by exploits. that would be much much worse.
MS knows the customer base. Most of it is fairly clueless. Although the well monitored machines (the vast minority) might be ok, the vast majority of their customers would probably take it in the shorts. Very very bad for MS's security image. Hence they don't report the holes till they have a patch ready to roll out. A much better thing for the internet overall.
1) Bunk. CPU engineers a lot brighter than you have thought about this for a long time and haven't gone that way. There is a reason.
2) This guy started an account yesterday and is pumping out comments like mad that clueless moderaters might consider insightful to pump up karma. Ignore him.
Didn't you read the article? The "day" side would get fried by the gamma burst. The "night" side would be screwed in the coming years by having most of the ozone layer destroyed by the blast.
Half the planet (almost) instantly dead, the other side gets insta-sunburn the moment they walk outdoors for the next few years.
So Tridge, who "doesn't work with BitKeeper" was all hot and bothered to reverse engineer it. So that BK data could be 'more easily' exported than it currently was. No matter that he didn't use it himself...
Now Linus and the Linux core developers DID use it. And they found it extremely useful. Linux development is happening faster than ever with the new BK scheme.
Tridge forced the issue, knowing it was likely to cost the use of BK use to the Linux core. Did he first work to make sure there was a useful open-source replacement for BK so that the Linux developers could move to it? NO.
He forced the issue for an export method. The punchline is, we still have no equivalent OSS software to export to. Wonderful. That's brilliant timing. Make an export routine for some undeveloped new tool, that will cost Linux, etc, the use of their old tool in the meantime. Because he had ants-in-his-pants to prove he could reverse engineer it, he slowed down the development of Linux, and who knows what other projects. Once again, just brilliant.
Linus isn't the one who lost my respect in this one...
If he didn't accept the license, then he shouldn't have been using the software (which he had to do to make interoperable bits).
If you don't like closed stuff, fine. There is CVS, Subversion, etc, etc. There's no reason to use and break the license of commercial stuff just because the current OSS stuff is crap by comparison. Want the OSS stuff to be better? Work on the OSS stuff out there. Don't screw the rest of the linux developers who like a commercial product just because you have different policial views of how their license 'should' be written.
No, this is a lot weaker than a software patent. When you put in a software patent, you actually KNOW HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT. Sony has no idea how to do that.
And if you think it's wrong to have a clause like that in the software, you can simply not use that software. You don't have the right to use it and then go against the license agreement just because you don't think the license should be that way. I think a judge would agree.
Maps exist to ensure that ISPs respond to spam reports in a timely manner to prevent further spam. Part of that response is terminating the offending account. The other part is replying to the complainant, especially if it is a RBL.
An ISP not getting back to a RBL after a complaint, when you know exactly what they are going to do to you if you don't reply..., is incompetence on the part of the ISP.
Why aren't you just as pissed at your ISP, for failing to act quickly enough, as you appear to be at MAPS?
They seem to be at least as guilty. After recieving a spam complaint, you need to respont to the complaitant (especially when it's a RBL!) as well as terminating the offending accounts, and they didn't seem to do it very quickly. If you have 180,000 IP addresses under your control, you really should have someone on top of that stuff...
And normally that's fine and dandy. But can't you imagine a circumstance where a company claims to pay an employee for one thing (shuffling papers) while really paying them to do the work (copying a competitor's software) they are claiming to do in their 'off time'?
Slashdot Mirror
At one backup per night, that's 27 to 270 years of nightly backups. I think you are probably safe if you swap to a new memory stick every decade ;). Your bound to need to increase the size of the memory stick by then anyhow, so it doesn't seem like an issue.
I wouldn't trust it as my only backup for sure, but it sounds like it would be ok to use as one more step.
Yes, some folks travel and may need to put their thumbdrive into an unknown (and possibley hostile) machine. 1) Write protecting your drive prevents any nasty bugs from crawling from the foreign machine onto their thumbdrive (which you will later be inserting back into their own machine). 2) One more step in preventing accidental erasure of files
But the grandparent wasn't talking about buying both. What if you don't want an MP3 player or already have one? He said straight out that the iPod 1 gig was cheaper than the 1 gig flash drives reviewed. That's just flat out wrong.
The iPod shuffle 1 GB is more expensive then every 1 GB drive reviewed.
Don't flash a roll of cash. Pull out individual bills from a wallet. Unless someone is standing over your shoulder, they can't tell if you have one or twenty bills left in your wallet.
What are you talking about? Everyone knows pico is the only editor worth using!
Linux gave away Linux for free, and BitMover was giving away BitKeeper for free. There's no monopoly abuse there. There are already lots of other programs like it, it was just best of breed. It was free as in beer already. If you want a free as in speech one, why not show some creativity, do some work, and make a new one from scratch? With a few notable exceptions, most OSS developers have seem to have zero creativity. All most of them can do is copy.
Calling him clueless was a good hint that I was not agreeing with him.
Many times patches break things. Either because the patch is bad, or because some application you relied on explited some hole that it shouldn't have that is now fixed by the patch.
Many of those badly written applications are 3rd party vendors. Many others are custom software written/run in-house in corporate environments. When applications all across a corporate network stop working because of this, it is bad. That's why any reasonable corporate network runs patches on test boxes and confirms that everything still functions properly after being patched, before they roll out the patches to the desktops.
AutoUpdates are fine for grandma, but not for everyone.
Posting an expolit with no patch is a dream come true for the script-kiddies, spammers, zombie-makers of the world. They will jump on it in a heartbeat.
While you may diligently monitor your severs for the new potential exploint (even though there may be nothing you can do to avoid it except switch the service to a non-MS box temporarily), most wouldn't.
There are a LOT of windows servers out there admin'd by folks who think they know what they are doing, but are really not that good, and there are a LOT of other windows servers out there that were set up once, the admin/consulting-company/whatever left with instructions for the local folks to run windows update regularly or set to download and install updates automatically.
Those boxes will be owned in no time. Bad for them, and bad for all the internet traffic they will generate. And we are talking about servers here, not all the random desktop/workstation machines that also will get hit by exploits. that would be much much worse.
MS knows the customer base. Most of it is fairly clueless. Although the well monitored machines (the vast minority) might be ok, the vast majority of their customers would probably take it in the shorts. Very very bad for MS's security image. Hence they don't report the holes till they have a patch ready to roll out. A much better thing for the internet overall.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/prodtech /sus/secmod198.mspx
or
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/updat eservices/default.mspx
Read up on bugtrack. Apparently Dell OpenManage software has bad issues with it (fixed in version 4.4 that they *just* released, if I recall)
Right.
Every OS releases security patches. MS might need more than others, but the ALL need them.
Security is a process, not an endpoint.
2) This guy started an account yesterday and is pumping out comments like mad that clueless moderaters might consider insightful to pump up karma. Ignore him.
Half the planet (almost) instantly dead, the other side gets insta-sunburn the moment they walk outdoors for the next few years.
Now Linus and the Linux core developers DID use it. And they found it extremely useful. Linux development is happening faster than ever with the new BK scheme.
Tridge forced the issue, knowing it was likely to cost the use of BK use to the Linux core. Did he first work to make sure there was a useful open-source replacement for BK so that the Linux developers could move to it? NO.
He forced the issue for an export method. The punchline is, we still have no equivalent OSS software to export to. Wonderful. That's brilliant timing. Make an export routine for some undeveloped new tool, that will cost Linux, etc, the use of their old tool in the meantime. Because he had ants-in-his-pants to prove he could reverse engineer it, he slowed down the development of Linux, and who knows what other projects. Once again, just brilliant.
Linus isn't the one who lost my respect in this one...
How exactly does success at SAMBA show that someone has good ethics?
If you don't like closed stuff, fine. There is CVS, Subversion, etc, etc. There's no reason to use and break the license of commercial stuff just because the current OSS stuff is crap by comparison. Want the OSS stuff to be better? Work on the OSS stuff out there. Don't screw the rest of the linux developers who like a commercial product just because you have different policial views of how their license 'should' be written.
IMO Tridge is not ethical.
No, this is a lot weaker than a software patent. When you put in a software patent, you actually KNOW HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT. Sony has no idea how to do that.
And if you think it's wrong to have a clause like that in the software, you can simply not use that software. You don't have the right to use it and then go against the license agreement just because you don't think the license should be that way. I think a judge would agree.
An ISP not getting back to a RBL after a complaint, when you know exactly what they are going to do to you if you don't reply..., is incompetence on the part of the ISP.
They seem to be at least as guilty. After recieving a spam complaint, you need to respont to the complaitant (especially when it's a RBL!) as well as terminating the offending accounts, and they didn't seem to do it very quickly. If you have 180,000 IP addresses under your control, you really should have someone on top of that stuff...
Someone posting as an anonymous coward asking someone to come out and say something and stand behind it... oh the irony.
Please read the GPL again. If you break the agreement, you no longer have the right to use the GPL software.
And normally that's fine and dandy. But can't you imagine a circumstance where a company claims to pay an employee for one thing (shuffling papers) while really paying them to do the work (copying a competitor's software) they are claiming to do in their 'off time'?