I've cooked up a little monitoring script in Perl that graphs the availability/ping response time of www.sco.com. Now you can watch Mydoom in action. Check this out.
For what it's worth, yesterday I tried to access www.sco.com, and when I found that I couldn't I attempted a traceroute to the site. The traceroute died in the innards of alter.net.
For what it's worth.
We've got a long way to go before this "becomes a real issue". Computers are machines -- we made them, they have no more rights than your ten year-old refrigerator. What's described in this article is a fanciful dream.
The global population deserves a commercially resilient and robust network and the supporting services underneath it; because of the way it grew up over the last 20 to 25 years, the Internet has pockets where that is not the case.
--- I'm not suggesting that any one entity own them. Like we did with ISPs (Internet service providers) that went commercial with backbone build-outs, we need to do something similar on the Internet.
And the insinuation is that:
(1) The Internet in its current state cannot be deemed "commercially resilient and robust" as a whole.
(2) The global population "deserves" a glitch-free network that has no security vulnerabilities.
His solution? Commercialize the Internet. Get it out of the hands of the academics -- they don't know first things first about running the it. Heck, we do; we invented Site Finder after all, improving the lives of millions of Internet users. Let us and other companies like us make the crucial decisions, and everything will be hunky-dory.
My response? I think we're focusing on the wrong problem here. Look at Microsoft, and how they consistently flop Windows security, and then ask yourself if we need big companies like that controlling/running the Internet. Not a pretty picture. Sure, the Internet needs to be secure, needs to scale with the times, but handing it over to a bunch of corporations is the wrong way to effect those changes.
I need to study up on CPU architecture. Multi-core CPU's sound awesome, but I'm not sure what it means performance and price-wise. Anyone know of any good resources on processor architecture?
I don't care if the government is pushing the God Of The Bible, the God Of The Torah, the God of the Koran, or Thetans Of Scientology. The government should NEVER get involved in religion. Period. They shouldn't do it with the Right Religion and they shouldn't do it with the Wrong Religion.
So which god do the words "under God" happen to be pushing?
If the politicians believe their claims that "under God" is just "ceremonial" and in NO WAY promoting the Christian God, then why do they even care to include?
If you're trying to imply that I just said anything that you just said, you're wrong, because I didn't.
It comes down to this: the "Christian God" you and so many other folks know is not the God of the Bible. Don't freak out about the God the politicians are pushing (for lack of a better word) at you, because he's not based on the Bible. ie. Most politicians today do not even correctly represent the God of the Bible. But again, figure this out for yourself. Pick a Bible and read.
If you think that the government is telling you how to have a good relationship with your deity through the two words "under God," I would be interested in hearing the logic behind that belief. You've already made the assumption that the God referred to in the prepositional phrase "under God" is the same God that millions of Americans pay lip service to and yet refuse to associate with in any other way.
Actually, in 1954, Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance (see this), and it is doubtful that everyone involved in that decision believed in any deity at all, much less the same God you're picturing the government as promoting. If you're worried that the government is promoting the God of the Bible, rest assured -- they aren't. Perhaps they were (collectively) when the two words were first added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps.
If you really want to know God, go to the source. Pick up a Bible, and make your own decision.
Hey, I still get a kick out of Commander Keen, Airborne Ranger, and Wheel Of Fortune. They are some really great games!
The oldest system I've ever used was probably a "portable" Kaypro running CP/M. It was actually a fun machine. A year before that, in '92, I messed around with an old Radio Shack TRS-80. It's all good.
Slashdot Mirror
If you would like to watch MyDoom's effect on www.sco.com as we near February 1, have a look at a little tool I cooked up.
I've cooked up a little monitoring script in Perl that graphs the availability/ping response time of www.sco.com. Now you can watch Mydoom in action. Check this out.
For what it's worth, yesterday I tried to access www.sco.com, and when I found that I couldn't I attempted a traceroute to the site. The traceroute died in the innards of alter.net. For what it's worth.
We've got a long way to go before this "becomes a real issue". Computers are machines -- we made them, they have no more rights than your ten year-old refrigerator. What's described in this article is a fanciful dream.
So we're going to attack the authors instead of answering their arguments. However, you can't argure with the facts they present. Or can you?
Isn't permitted to conflict with the belief that there is no God? It does so quite regularly. In any case, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
First of all it pushes that there is a god, this clearly conficts with the belief that there is no god.
Ooh, wouldn't want to do that.
Second it pushes that there is exactly one god. This clearly conficts with any polytheistic religion, incuding Native Americans.
Who are wrong. Take up the cries of "intolerance!"
From the interview:
The global population deserves a commercially resilient and robust network and the supporting services underneath it; because of the way it grew up over the last 20 to 25 years, the Internet has pockets where that is not the case.
---
I'm not suggesting that any one entity own them. Like we did with ISPs (Internet service providers) that went commercial with backbone build-outs, we need to do something similar on the Internet.
And the insinuation is that:
(1) The Internet in its current state cannot be deemed "commercially resilient and robust" as a whole.
(2) The global population "deserves" a glitch-free network that has no security vulnerabilities.
His solution? Commercialize the Internet. Get it out of the hands of the academics -- they don't know first things first about running the it. Heck, we do; we invented Site Finder after all, improving the lives of millions of Internet users. Let us and other companies like us make the crucial decisions, and everything will be hunky-dory.
My response? I think we're focusing on the wrong problem here. Look at Microsoft, and how they consistently flop Windows security, and then ask yourself if we need big companies like that controlling/running the Internet. Not a pretty picture. Sure, the Internet needs to be secure, needs to scale with the times, but handing it over to a bunch of corporations is the wrong way to effect those changes.
I need to study up on CPU architecture. Multi-core CPU's sound awesome, but I'm not sure what it means performance and price-wise. Anyone know of any good resources on processor architecture?
I don't care if the government is pushing the God Of The Bible, the God Of The Torah, the God of the Koran, or Thetans Of Scientology. The government should NEVER get involved in religion. Period. They shouldn't do it with the Right Religion and they shouldn't do it with the Wrong Religion.
So which god do the words "under God" happen to be pushing?
If the politicians believe their claims that "under God" is just "ceremonial" and in NO WAY promoting the Christian God, then why do they even care to include?
If you're trying to imply that I just said anything that you just said, you're wrong, because I didn't.
It comes down to this: the "Christian God" you and so many other folks know is not the God of the Bible. Don't freak out about the God the politicians are pushing (for lack of a better word) at you, because he's not based on the Bible. ie. Most politicians today do not even correctly represent the God of the Bible. But again, figure this out for yourself. Pick a Bible and read.
If you think that the government is telling you how to have a good relationship with your deity through the two words "under God," I would be interested in hearing the logic behind that belief. You've already made the assumption that the God referred to in the prepositional phrase "under God" is the same God that millions of Americans pay lip service to and yet refuse to associate with in any other way.
Actually, in 1954, Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance (see this), and it is doubtful that everyone involved in that decision believed in any deity at all, much less the same God you're picturing the government as promoting. If you're worried that the government is promoting the God of the Bible, rest assured -- they aren't. Perhaps they were (collectively) when the two words were first added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps.
If you really want to know God, go to the source. Pick up a Bible, and make your own decision.
Hey, I still get a kick out of Commander Keen, Airborne Ranger, and Wheel Of Fortune. They are some really great games! The oldest system I've ever used was probably a "portable" Kaypro running CP/M. It was actually a fun machine. A year before that, in '92, I messed around with an old Radio Shack TRS-80. It's all good.
I've been using the Zebra F-301 pen for at least a year, and I really like it. Performance, price, and style!
Just wait until someone like Verisign gets a hold of this. Utter chaos!
Since when is googlefs new? I've been using it for ages on my FreeBSD box.
/dev/ad0s1a on / (googlefs, local) /dev (devfs, local)
/dev/ad0s1e on /tmp (googlefs, local)
/dev/ad0s1f on /usr (googlefs, local)
/dev/ad0s1d on /var (googlefs, local)
$ mount
devfs on
$