If you study biology, you will learn that the most succesful parasites are those that don't overly weaken their hosts. Parasites that suck the life out of a host kill the host, then they have to look elsewhere. Such parasites are more likely to die off.
A lesson the RIAA (and MPAA) have not yet learned....
Beleive me, I was not out in the storm by choice - it took me be surprise, and I was trying to get HOME just as fast and safely as I could.
And were I to "chase" a storm, I would be doing it under the auspices of RACES and the National Weather service, not merely for kicks. As a licensed amatuer radio operator, I get just as angry with these rubbernecking yahoos as you do. They put OUR lives in danger when we have to go help coordinate rescue efforts.
For the horizontal force of wind to equal the weight of the tank the surface area normal to the wind times the stagnation pressure of the wind must be greater than the weight of the tank, or 65 tons. Consider a 20 foot by 6 foot rectangle - smaller than an Abrams. Thats 120 square feet, or 17280 square inches. Now, for that area to have more than 65 tons of force, you need a stagnation pressure of 7.5 pounds per square inch. Now, what is the stagnation pressure of a 300 mile per hour wind? (I honestly don't know off the top of my head - I'm an EE, not a ME or AE).
Also realize this: once that tank starts to tip, then the wind is going to get a much better grip on it.
Being in the eye of a tornado is much like being next to a very large explosion, save that an explosion doesn't keep going on for several seconds.
True, once you started to move with the winds in the eye, the forces go down quite a bit. But would you REALLY try it? I mean, an Abrams might survive being hit with a anti-tank round, does that mean you would go seek them out? How would an Abrams fare against a half-ton telephone pole at 150 miles per hour? Just the momentum transfer would give you a mile per hour of velocity.
Also, would you want to deal with the pressure drop? I know a tank is reasonably air tight, but just how air tight is it? And how would your turbine fare with the air loss.
Not knocking the M1A1 - they are an impressive piece of engineering. But I STILL would run from a tornado...
The guy who wanted to drive a fortified SUV INTO a tornado shouldn't be allowed to breed. We will be hearing more about him in the Darwin awards, rest assured.
Look, I live in Tornado alley, and up to a few months ago lived in "pre-fabricated housing", a.k.a. a trailer home (a.k.a. "tornado bait"). I'm a part-time storm spotter, and I've seen the damage a "little" F-1 gustnado can cause, let alone an F-5 monster. An F-5 will quite literally suck the asphalt off a highway.
If I were out tooling around in, say, an M1A1 Abrahms Tank, and I saw a tornado coming, I would turn tail and run (at right angles to the path of the tornado) as fast as that tank's treads would take me. Wind speeds in the vortex of a tornado have been measured at OVER 300 miles per hour with Doppler radar. Even a tank will be blown over.
This fool, in his SUV, will be waking up wondering what all these midgets are doing around him. Either that, or wondering where all the harp music is coming from.
I just dodged around a storm last night trying to get home. By local standards it wasn't anything much, but it left the roads covered in hail, dropped over an inch of rain in thirty minutes, and had 60 MPH sustained winds. I was driving, listening to the two local storm spotter nets on 2 meters, and trying to spot the rain and hail shafts in the lightning. It wasn't fun.
I've seen the shows about tourists coming to the US to see a tornado - they spend 2 weeks driving from Texas to South Dakota to see a storm, covering over 3000 miles! Word of advice folks: just come over in the spring, and plan a normal vacation. Seethe sights and enjoy yourselves. The tornados will find you. Trust me.
I agree. And the most annoying thing is the intro and exit "trailers". Look, I want to watch your stuff, just bloody well stream it to me!
Last but not least, all of the other animated crap on the screen - banner ads, other flash things that just loop through an animation sequence for no good reason - GAGH!
Look, I understand having the banner ads - a man's got to pay for his bandwidth (especially when being/.'ed), but all the OTHER crap on the screen is just a waste of CPU. Tell your story, tell it well, and tell it with as little BS as possible.
Besides - "... double barreled lightsabres..." ?!?!?! Considering one of the characters is a Darth Maul parody, it should have been "... double bladed lightsabres..."
Those who do not study Amateur radio are doomed to reinvent it.
We've had this "location beaming" capability for some time - it's called APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System).
We've also had interference problems, a**holes on the bands, and repeaters causing interference. That's why we have licenses and are held accountable by the FCC - so that if somebody starts doing this, they get hit with a $8000 fine.
Just look at Children's Band (CB) - one big heterodyne squeal from end to end. Why did this happen? Because the FCC allowed anybody to use CB without a license, and stopped enforcing the law there. Now Chicken Band is like reading at -1.
If they want to stop this, the FCC needs to enforce the law. Go after anybody causing interference, require radio manufacturers to show their nifty new features don't cause harm, etc.
Otherwise, FRS will be CB at a higher frequency.
(And personally, I'm glad there's a place for these morons to play that isn't where I am trying to communicate.)
(Of course, many BPOFs (brass pounding old farts) will say the same about me, since I am a DSNCT (dirty stinking no-code tech).)
Re:CSI - Crummy Science for Idiots
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 2
And when I watch Angel or Buffy the Vampire Slayer I don't hold them responsible for the science. However, a show like CSI has made the deliberate effort to tie themselves to "science", so they bloody well can take the time to make it accurate, especially when that time is NILL! One of the funniest episodes of Thugs on Film was when they reviewed Jurrasic Park II, and Stubby was going on about how they could just as easily got it right as wrong.
It's the same thing here - they could just as easily get it right as wrong, it would not cost dollar one more to make, nor would it take any longer, and they would not lose the suspension of disbelief as they do now.
Re:CSI - Crummy Science for Idiots
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, I never said a car was a perfect Faraday cage - I just said that it was the conductivity of the car, not the alleged insulation of the tires, that provides the protection.
And a Faraday cage is a conductive enclosure, period. It doesn't have to be mesh, or solid metal. I don't care what you call it, a closed conductive enclosure is a Faraday cage, be it mesh or solid.
An ideal Faraday cage would have to be superconducting so that the skin effect depth was zero for all frequencies. However, in practice the idea is to provide enough attenuation that the harmful effects of the signals of interest are mitigated.
And to reply to some of the other poster's questions - yes, you would get a shock if you were touching two points of the interior of the car - steel isn't a superconductor, there will be a definite I*R drop across the metal. However, you are a DAMN sight better off letting the car take 99% of the current than YOU taking 100% of it.
Re:CSI - Crummy Science for Idiots
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 1
Thanks - I knew there was another science groaner in that episode, but couldn't remember it.
Yes, calling 9.8 m/(sec^2) "terminal velocity" was pretty bad - almost as bad as doing the Kessel run in 12 parsecs...
CSI - Crummy Science for Idiots
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
When I watch a show like CSI, I cannot help but compare it to Quincy, M.E.. On Quincy, the forensic science was, to the best of my ability to judge, accurate. Furthermore, Quincy frequently went after "larger issues" like Tourette's Syndrome, illegal waste dumping laws, and so on.
Now, CSI almost never goes after any thing "larger" - it's almost always just some guy offing some other guy. Also, the science is almost as atrocious as Taco's spelling. On one show they made the following bloopers:
Asserting that the rubber tires on your car are what protect you from lightning (wrong: it is the fact that the car's metal body provides a Faraday cage to shunt the strike around you rather than through you)
Asserting that the iron in blood makes it conductive (wrong - the iron is safely sequestered within the hemoglobin molecule. It is the presense of ions like sodium and chlorine that make blood conductive)
Asserting that electrocution with normal 100V powerline current would create a "fern-like" pattern on the body.
In none of the above cases was the error necessary to the plot - in fact the lightning goof would have been far better played out had Grissom said, "No, actually that is a common misbelief. What protects you is the shielding action of the metal car body. If lightning can jump thousands of feet of air gap, what makes you thing an inch of rubber WITH METAL WIRES IN IT would stop it?"
Furthurmore, the show has to have this BS conflict between Grissom and the sherrif (after all, one rule of modern TV is that ALL AUTHORITY FIGURES ARE ASSHOLES). Again, on Quincy, the chief of police and the head of the M.E. department all were foursquare behind Quincy.
Plus, do we have to have all these stupid shots of what the investigators think happened? "Hmmm. The bullet came through this window and hit him in the head " (CUT: blue-tinged shot of fake bullet breaking fake glass and impacting on fake head).
How about adding a user pref to allow adding/subtracting a fixed amount to a comment's level based on subscription status? That way, I could knock 2 off anybody who's not a paid subscriber, and probably eliminate 90% of the crap on/. - it might even make reading at <3 bearable again.
Also, I'd like to be able to selectively ignore the moderations of [paid subscribers|freeloaders] - once again, I'd ignore the moderations of anybody too cheap to pay, and probably remove 90% of the bad moderations.
Of course only blocking incoming connections is only a part of a security policy.
However, both the examples you gave in your message required you to be able to connect to the target machine via HTTP and issue an HTTP GET request - therefor you had inbound connectivity to the target, just not inbound connectivity to J. Random Port.
There is NO inbound port available to you. Not 80, not 22, not 25, nothing. The only inbound ports would be when I am FTPing down a file, if I am not running passive mode. However, since the firewall only allows traffic from the FTP server, you would either have to spoof that (and then all you would do is corrupt the file I am downloading) or hack the FTP server (same problem).
And as to the other people who pointed out that I could use a site-local address: Of course, what do you think 10.200.120.4 is? However, NAT for IPv4 is very well tested, so my "unroutable" 10.x.x.x address is still able to get to/. (as this very post bears witness to). Would my IPv6 site-local address be able to do the same - in other words, is the state of NAT for IPv6 anywhere near IPv4? Considering the common opinion is that NAT is unneeded in IPv6, I very much doubt it.
The great thing about my workstation being unroutable is that, should I be stupid enough to get a Trojan that announces itself to the 'net and says "I am at $address $port, come abuse me", if $address is not routable, this does very little good for the script kiddie - even if the system reports a traceroute so that he can follow it back, he STILL cannot route a packet to it.
(now, this does not stop the Trojan from connecting to an [icq|http|SOAP|...] server and pulling its commands down, but as I stated at the first of this post, no one aspect of securing a system is sufficient - security is a journey, not a destination).
OK, I am about to say something that will make many of you who are knowledgable about IPV6 cringe, so take a deep breath and get over it now.
When IPV6 is deployed, how do I prevent the machines on the inside of my firewall from being routable?
Right now, my personal computer is on the inside of a NAT firewall. There is no way you can route a packet to it - go ahead, try to telnet to 10.200.120.4, I dare you.
Now, I know there are those who say NAT CONSIDERED HARMFUL, and I agree in the general case it does break the essential peer to peer nature of TCP/IP.
But what if I want to break it?
How well tested are the Linux kernel modules for firewalling IPv6? Can I still protect my internal machines from the slings and arrows of outragous 5|<197 |<!66!3Z?
I've instructed Mozilla to warn me before accepting any cookies, and anytime a banner ad tries to set a cookie on my system, it gets denied and that banner ad site gets added to my filters.
I don't quite understand why Mozilla doesn't honor the "only from originating site" flag, but in a way I appreciate it - a banner ad that tries to set a cookie is like a houseguest who smokes...
We are already under a strict "No Contact" ban in the Galactic Confederation - we go shooting NSync members into space and we will downgraded from "Not ready for contact" to "Dangerous - destroy immediately".
It's scary how well the story captured my own feelings about work.
I thing the major reason tech companies are like this is the environment they "grew up" in. Consider:
Most tech companies started in the 1960's to 1980's. While there were some downturns during this time, the overall pattern was growth growth growth. So, no matter how incompetent the company management, many companies survived just because the environment wouldn't let them fail.
Now, your typical manager will feel that all successes were due to his decisions (and, by the way, so will the average tech, or indeed the average human). So, consider a company that is still around today - the manager will feel that he must be doing something right.
Now, consider the rate of change in the tech field. It is almost impossible to have any foresight in this biz without a GREAT DEAL of technical knowledge. Being able to see the 3-5 years down the road to be able to make good plans is just about beyond the average manager. Instead, they focus on making plans 6-12 months down the road.
When times are good, this is enough.
Times are less than good now.
So, companies that have been able to survive are starting to die off. The managers are frantic - get me something NOW, OR ELSE!
It's like animals - when times are good, even the sick, lame and stupid can survive, can get enough to eat and avoid being eaten in turn.
Then the drought hits. The animals ALL get frantic about finding food.
Wait until after the drought, then look for the survivors that are healthy. Work for them.
I have an old Multia, that I've been trying to resurrect with RH7.1, but everytime I do an install I get file system corruption (ext2) when I start doing anything serious.
I've tried swapping the memory with another machine (my SGI Indy) to no avail. I am wondering if perhaps the SCSI hard drive is dying, or if the machine is just dead.
I'd use Debian if this problem were a RHism, but I'm not going to pull down yet another ISO and waste an evening installing it if not.
Alexandre posted the results of his survey to the Winedev newsgroup this morning (in my timezone).
Of people who expressed an opinion and who had contributed code, the results were roughly 2 to 1 in favor of moving to the LGPL.
Of people who expressed an opinion and who had NOT contributed code, the numbers were more favorable to remaining with the X11 style license. <opinion source="me"> People who code prefer LGPL, people who bitch don't. </opinion>
But, there is no mention of what the standard will DO with that "unique key" - no description of region locking of the drives, no description of CSS or anything like it.
That is the point I am making - they have a chance to slip in "fixes" to all the "shortcomings" of DVD, and they are not talking about that.
Curious by its absence is any mention of DRM. Since I doubt that this new format will lack DRM, I would assume this ommision is because this new format will be locked down tighter than the Windows XP sourcecode repository against the states' representatives.
What do you want to bet this time the "CSS" is designed so that it cannot be brute-forced, and that the manufacturer keys are better locked down?
Lastly, I see lots of discusson on the Matsushita site about digital video, but none about raw data storage - I hope they didn't make the same mistake the CD folks did and not consider data storage up front.
I feel the same about this "Sunrise" stuff as a vampire would - I regard it's coming with a deep and unabiding dread, as I know it will be a bad thing.
Consider the "old", location-based, heirarchical system for.us. Under that system, I could register "foo.ks.us", and you could register "foo.ok.us", and there would be no conflict. If I didn't have a presense in Oklahoma, I had no ability to register a.ok.us domain.
Now, you WILL have "microsoft.us", "sony.us", etc. If I had a small business specializing in fixing Sony TV's, I won't be able to register "wowbaggers_sony.ks.us".
Considering where I plan on spending my weeking, a thought occurs to me.
They say there are about 20 theaters with digital projection equipment in the US. Theaters are having problems getting enough money to buy the gear. Perhaps the digital movement it targeting the wrong forum?
What if IMAX/Omnimax theaters were to go digital? Granted, I'd want at least a 4x improvement in spatial resolution before throwing it up on a big screen like that, but consider the cost of Imax films WRT normal theatrical releases. Perhaps that would be the place to start?
Now, what I'd really like to see is a standard by which a film could be set up for ether Imax or Omnimax - that way you'd avoid the distortion of the Imax to Omnimax lens Omnimax theaters have to use.
Also, I too would like to see an increase from 24 fps to about 60.
Yes, you'd need BIG HONKING harddrives to store all that information (looks down at his computer, with 210G of local storage). Check.
Slashdot Mirror
If you study biology, you will learn that the most succesful parasites are those that don't overly weaken their hosts. Parasites that suck the life out of a host kill the host, then they have to look elsewhere. Such parasites are more likely to die off.
A lesson the RIAA (and MPAA) have not yet learned....
Beleive me, I was not out in the storm by choice - it took me be surprise, and I was trying to get HOME just as fast and safely as I could.
And were I to "chase" a storm, I would be doing it under the auspices of RACES and the National Weather service, not merely for kicks. As a licensed amatuer radio operator, I get just as angry with these rubbernecking yahoos as you do. They put OUR lives in danger when we have to go help coordinate rescue efforts.
Figure it like this:
For the horizontal force of wind to equal the weight of the tank the surface area normal to the wind times the stagnation pressure of the wind must be greater than the weight of the tank, or 65 tons. Consider a 20 foot by 6 foot rectangle - smaller than an Abrams. Thats 120 square feet, or
17280 square inches. Now, for that area to have more than 65 tons of force, you need a stagnation pressure of 7.5 pounds per square inch. Now, what is the stagnation pressure of a 300 mile per hour wind? (I honestly don't know off the top of my head - I'm an EE, not a ME or AE).
Also realize this: once that tank starts to tip, then the wind is going to get a much better grip on it.
Being in the eye of a tornado is much like being next to a very large explosion, save that an explosion doesn't keep going on for several seconds.
True, once you started to move with the winds in the eye, the forces go down quite a bit. But would you REALLY try it? I mean, an Abrams might survive being hit with a anti-tank round, does that mean you would go seek them out? How would an Abrams fare against a half-ton telephone pole at 150 miles per hour? Just the momentum transfer would give you a mile per hour of velocity.
Also, would you want to deal with the pressure drop? I know a tank is reasonably air tight, but just how air tight is it? And how would your turbine fare with the air loss.
Not knocking the M1A1 - they are an impressive piece of engineering. But I STILL would run from a tornado...
The guy who wanted to drive a fortified SUV INTO a tornado shouldn't be allowed to breed. We will be hearing more about him in the Darwin awards, rest assured.
Look, I live in Tornado alley, and up to a few months ago lived in "pre-fabricated housing", a.k.a. a trailer home (a.k.a. "tornado bait"). I'm a part-time storm spotter, and I've seen the damage a "little" F-1 gustnado can cause, let alone an F-5 monster. An F-5 will quite literally suck the asphalt off a highway.
If I were out tooling around in, say, an M1A1 Abrahms Tank, and I saw a tornado coming, I would turn tail and run (at right angles to the path of the tornado) as fast as that tank's treads would take me. Wind speeds in the vortex of a tornado have been measured at OVER 300 miles per hour with Doppler radar. Even a tank will be blown over.
This fool, in his SUV, will be waking up wondering what all these midgets are doing around him. Either that, or wondering where all the harp music is coming from.
I just dodged around a storm last night trying to get home. By local standards it wasn't anything much, but it left the roads covered in hail, dropped over an inch of rain in thirty minutes, and had 60 MPH sustained winds. I was driving, listening to the two local storm spotter nets on 2 meters, and trying to spot the rain and hail shafts in the lightning. It wasn't fun.
I've seen the shows about tourists coming to the US to see a tornado - they spend 2 weeks driving from Texas to South Dakota to see a storm, covering over 3000 miles! Word of advice folks: just come over in the spring, and plan a normal vacation. See the
sights and enjoy yourselves. The tornados will find you. Trust me.
I agree. And the most annoying thing is the intro and exit "trailers". Look, I want to watch your stuff, just bloody well stream it to me!
/.'ed), but all the OTHER crap on the screen is just a waste of CPU. Tell your story, tell it well, and tell it with as little BS as possible.
..."
Last but not least, all of the other animated crap on the screen - banner ads, other flash things that just loop through an animation sequence for no good reason - GAGH!
Look, I understand having the banner ads - a man's got to pay for his bandwidth (especially when being
Besides - "... double barreled lightsabres..." ?!?!?! Considering one of the characters is a Darth Maul parody, it should have been
"... double bladed lightsabres
This reminds me of the old joke:
What's the difference betweeen a mistress, a prostitute, and a wife?
The mistress says, "Are you done ALREADY?!?"
The prostitute says, "Arey you done YET?"
The wife says, "Beige. I think I'll paint the ceiling beige..."
Sorry, but MacroMedia's flash plugin for Linux bites rocks - sync between audio and video lacks, and the frame rate is glacial, even on a 700 MHz P3.
Does anybody have a pointer to a GOOD flash player?
Those who do not study Amateur radio are doomed to reinvent it.
We've had this "location beaming" capability for some time - it's called
APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System).
We've also had interference problems, a**holes on the bands, and repeaters causing interference. That's why we have licenses and are held accountable by the FCC - so that if somebody starts doing this, they get hit with a $8000 fine.
Just look at Children's Band (CB) - one big heterodyne squeal from end to end. Why did this happen? Because the FCC allowed anybody to use CB without a license, and stopped enforcing the law there. Now Chicken Band is like reading at -1.
If they want to stop this, the FCC needs to enforce the law. Go after anybody causing interference, require radio manufacturers to show their nifty new features don't cause harm, etc.
Otherwise, FRS will be CB at a higher frequency.
(And personally, I'm glad there's a place for these morons to play that isn't where I am trying to communicate.)
(Of course, many BPOFs (brass pounding old farts) will say the same about me, since I am a DSNCT (dirty stinking no-code tech).)
And when I watch Angel or Buffy the Vampire Slayer I don't hold them responsible for the science. However, a show like CSI has made the deliberate effort to tie themselves to "science", so they bloody well can take the time to make it accurate, especially when that time is NILL! One of the funniest episodes of Thugs on Film was when they reviewed Jurrasic Park II, and Stubby was going on about how they could just as easily got it right as wrong.
It's the same thing here - they could just as easily get it right as wrong, it would not cost dollar one more to make, nor would it take any longer, and they would not lose the suspension of disbelief as they do now.
Actually, I never said a car was a perfect Faraday cage - I just said that it was the conductivity of the car, not the alleged insulation of the tires, that provides the protection.
And a Faraday cage is a conductive enclosure, period. It doesn't have to be mesh, or solid metal. I don't care what you call it, a closed conductive enclosure is a Faraday cage, be it mesh or solid.
An ideal Faraday cage would have to be superconducting so that the skin effect depth was zero for all frequencies. However, in practice the idea is to provide enough attenuation that the harmful effects of the signals of interest are mitigated.
And to reply to some of the other poster's questions - yes, you would get a shock if you were touching two points of the interior of the car - steel isn't a superconductor, there will be a definite I*R drop across the metal. However, you are a DAMN sight better off letting the car take 99% of the current than YOU taking 100% of it.
Thanks - I knew there was another science groaner in that episode, but couldn't remember it.
Yes, calling 9.8 m/(sec^2) "terminal velocity" was pretty bad - almost as bad as doing the Kessel run in 12 parsecs...
Now, CSI almost never goes after any thing "larger" - it's almost always just some guy offing some other guy. Also, the science is almost as atrocious as Taco's spelling. On one show they made the following bloopers:
In none of the above cases was the error necessary to the plot - in fact the lightning goof would have been far better played out had Grissom said, "No, actually that is a common misbelief. What protects you is the shielding action of the metal car body. If lightning can jump thousands of feet of air gap, what makes you thing an inch of rubber WITH METAL WIRES IN IT would stop it?"
Furthurmore, the show has to have this BS conflict between Grissom and the sherrif (after all, one rule of modern TV is that ALL AUTHORITY FIGURES ARE ASSHOLES). Again, on Quincy, the chief of police and the head of the M.E. department all were foursquare behind Quincy.
Plus, do we have to have all these stupid shots of what the investigators think happened? "Hmmm. The bullet came through this window and hit him in the head " (CUT: blue-tinged shot of fake bullet breaking fake glass and impacting on fake head).
How about adding a user pref to allow adding/subtracting a fixed amount to a comment's level based on subscription status? That way, I could knock 2 off anybody who's not a paid subscriber, and probably eliminate 90% of the crap on /. - it might even make reading at <3 bearable again.
Also, I'd like to be able to selectively ignore the moderations of [paid subscribers|freeloaders] - once again, I'd ignore the moderations of anybody too cheap to pay, and probably remove 90% of the bad moderations.
I'd buy that for a dollar (or $20).
Of course only blocking incoming connections is only a part of a security policy.
/. (as this very post bears witness to). Would my IPv6 site-local address be able to do the same - in other words, is the state of NAT for IPv6 anywhere near IPv4? Considering the common opinion is that NAT is unneeded in IPv6, I very much doubt it.
However, both the examples you gave in your message required you to be able to connect to the target machine via HTTP and issue an HTTP GET request - therefor you had inbound connectivity to the target, just not inbound connectivity to J. Random Port.
There is NO inbound port available to you. Not 80, not 22, not 25, nothing. The only inbound ports would be when I am FTPing down a file, if I am not running passive mode. However, since the firewall only allows traffic from the FTP server, you would either have to spoof that (and then all you would do is corrupt the file I am downloading) or hack the FTP server (same problem).
And as to the other people who pointed out that I could use a site-local address: Of course, what do you think 10.200.120.4 is? However, NAT for IPv4 is very well tested, so my "unroutable" 10.x.x.x address is still able to get to
The great thing about my workstation being unroutable is that, should I be stupid enough to get a Trojan that announces itself to the 'net and says "I am at $address $port, come abuse me", if $address is not routable, this does very little good for the script kiddie - even if the system reports a traceroute so that he can follow it back, he STILL cannot route a packet to it.
(now, this does not stop the Trojan from connecting to an [icq|http|SOAP|...] server and pulling its commands down, but as I stated at the first of this post, no one aspect of securing a system is sufficient - security is a journey, not a destination).
OK, I am about to say something that will make many of you who are knowledgable about IPV6 cringe, so take a deep breath and get over it now.
When IPV6 is deployed, how do I prevent the machines on the inside of my firewall from being routable?
Right now, my personal computer is on the inside of a NAT firewall. There is no way you can route a packet to it - go ahead, try to telnet to 10.200.120.4, I dare you.
Now, I know there are those who say NAT CONSIDERED HARMFUL, and I agree in the general case it does break the essential peer to peer nature of TCP/IP.
But what if I want to break it?
How well tested are the Linux kernel modules for firewalling IPv6? Can I still protect my internal machines from the slings and arrows of outragous 5|<197 |<!66!3Z?
I've instructed Mozilla to warn me before accepting any cookies, and anytime a banner ad tries to set a cookie on my system, it gets denied and that banner ad site gets added to my filters.
I don't quite understand why Mozilla doesn't honor the "only from originating site" flag, but in a way I appreciate it - a banner ad that tries to set a cookie is like a houseguest who smokes...
Come on people, think this one through!
We are already under a strict "No Contact" ban in the Galactic Confederation - we go shooting NSync members into space and we will downgraded from "Not ready for contact" to "Dangerous - destroy immediately".
It's scary how well the story captured my own feelings about work.
I thing the major reason tech companies are like this is the environment they "grew up" in. Consider:
Most tech companies started in the 1960's to 1980's. While there were some downturns during this time, the overall pattern was growth growth growth. So, no matter how incompetent the company management, many companies survived just because the environment wouldn't let them fail.
Now, your typical manager will feel that all successes were due to his decisions (and, by the way, so will the average tech, or indeed the average human). So, consider a company that is still around today - the manager will feel that he must be doing something right.
Now, consider the rate of change in the tech field. It is almost impossible to have any foresight in this biz without a GREAT DEAL of technical knowledge. Being able to see the 3-5 years down the road to be able to make good plans is just about beyond the average manager. Instead, they focus on making plans 6-12 months down the road.
When times are good, this is enough.
Times are less than good now.
So, companies that have been able to survive are starting to die off. The managers are frantic - get me something NOW, OR ELSE!
It's like animals - when times are good, even the sick, lame and stupid can survive, can get enough to eat and avoid being eaten in turn.
Then the drought hits. The animals ALL get frantic about finding food.
Wait until after the drought, then look for the survivors that are healthy. Work for them.
I have an old Multia, that I've been trying to resurrect with RH7.1, but everytime I do an install I get file system corruption (ext2) when I start doing anything serious.
I've tried swapping the memory with another machine (my SGI Indy) to no avail. I am wondering if perhaps the SCSI hard drive is dying, or if the machine is just dead.
I'd use Debian if this problem were a RHism, but I'm not going to pull down yet another ISO and waste an evening installing it if not.
Anybody else seen this sort of symptom?
Alexandre posted the results of his survey to the Winedev newsgroup this morning (in my timezone).
Of people who expressed an opinion and who had contributed code, the results were roughly 2 to 1 in favor of moving to the LGPL.
Of people who expressed an opinion and who had NOT contributed code, the numbers were more favorable to remaining with the X11 style license.
<opinion source="me">
People who code prefer LGPL, people who bitch don't.
</opinion>
But, there is no mention of what the standard will DO with that "unique key" - no description of region locking of the drives, no description of CSS or anything like it.
That is the point I am making - they have a chance to slip in "fixes" to all the "shortcomings" of DVD, and they are not talking about that.
Curious by its absence is any mention of DRM. Since I doubt that this new format will lack DRM, I would assume this ommision is because this new format will be locked down tighter than the Windows XP sourcecode repository against the states' representatives.
What do you want to bet this time the "CSS" is designed so that it cannot be brute-forced, and that the manufacturer keys are better locked down?
Lastly, I see lots of discusson on the Matsushita site about digital video, but none about raw data storage - I hope they didn't make the same mistake the CD folks did and not consider data storage up front.
I feel the same about this "Sunrise" stuff as a vampire would - I regard it's coming with a deep and unabiding dread, as I know it will be a bad thing.
.us. Under that system, I could register "foo.ks.us", and you could register "foo.ok.us", and there would be no conflict. If I didn't have a presense in Oklahoma, I had no ability to register a .ok.us domain.
Consider the "old", location-based, heirarchical system for
Now, you WILL have "microsoft.us", "sony.us", etc. If I had a small business specializing in fixing Sony TV's, I won't be able to register "wowbaggers_sony.ks.us".
How does this help small businesses?
Considering where I plan on spending my weeking, a thought occurs to me.
They say there are about 20 theaters with digital projection equipment in the US. Theaters are having problems getting enough money to buy the gear. Perhaps the digital movement it targeting the wrong forum?
What if IMAX/Omnimax theaters were to go digital? Granted, I'd want at least a 4x improvement in spatial resolution before throwing it up on a big screen like that, but consider the cost of Imax films WRT normal theatrical releases. Perhaps that would be the place to start?
Now, what I'd really like to see is a standard by which a film could be set up for ether Imax or Omnimax - that way you'd avoid the distortion of the Imax to Omnimax lens Omnimax theaters have to use.
Also, I too would like to see an increase from 24 fps to about 60.
Yes, you'd need BIG HONKING harddrives to store all that information (looks down at his computer, with 210G of local storage). Check.
You do realize, of course, that you must record the wedding and post it as a special episode of "Geeks In Space".
In Ogg Tarkin format, natch.