You could also block *.swf, and the domains of a *few* very prolific ad serving companies.
My only wish would be that Adblock became part of stock firefox. When installing or maintaining 1000+ desktop machines, it's a pain not to have Adblock in the basic browser.
Look at the wonderfulness that is the X.400/X.500 email/directory infrastructure, and the OSI protocol stack (take a look through the BSD source code for the remanants of it). Those were real winners.
Yeah! X.400 was horrible to admin (I was in charge of a set of X.400 to RFC822 gateways
and it was not a pretty task by any means) and
X.500's shortcomings still show thru LDAP. Ouch!
we can shell out $75 to $250 a copy
You're quite optimistic! Remember how many thousands of dollars had to be paid on ISO standards just a few years ago? That's okay for software companies, but not for the typical developer of internet software.
ITU-T doesn't have the grass-roots culture and attitude of the IETF.
No. You would still need IP addresses, and some authority to manage the IP address space on a global scale.
I'm hating a UN takeover of the Internet just as anybody else, but consider what happened to (POTS) telephone numbers: they are globally unique, and ITU-T did a great job at delegating that to national bodies. Had the IP address space been allocated in a similar sensible way (it has, but not consistenly enough), today's routing would have been much easier.
But, again, I'm strongly against a UN-controlled IANA or ICANN. The Internet has always been driven by technical innovation, and burocracies like the UN tend to stiffle innovation wherever they can.
a record of successfully implementating technical solutions worldwide over the last 140 years
That may be true for many technlogies (ITU-T is not that bad), but the Internet is certainly not their domain of expertise! What about OSI protocols? Methinks each time ITU starts meddling with computer communication protocols, they inevitably create technical monstrosities.
Meanwhile, Sudan is waging an ethnic war in its Darfur region against christian and animist peoples.
Yes, Sudan is waging war against christians and animist people in the south. But in Darfur, they are going after (non-arab) muslims.
That's not the only reason to reject the UN as the Internet governing body. They are such an overbloated, inaccessible burocracy (inaccessible to technical people, not lobbying supercorps, that is). That one of their committees would be in charge of the highly dynamic internet is a scary thought!
The solution, if there is one, is either a server room (work remotely)
Yes, indeed. But you'll still need a silent X-term or a diskless fanless workstation on your desk. Or a set of two KVM switches with fiber, Ethernet or RF link inbetween to connect your monitor, keyboard and mouse to the server in the basement or server room:)
having your PC on without two whirring hard drives certainly reduces the noise level.
Not very much actually. I'm using a mini-ITX fanless board (including fanless DC power spply) with a regular IDE in some places. Unless the disk is very old, you won't notice much difference anyway. You could use a 2.5" laptop disk that is even quieter, though some of them generate nasty clicks from time to time.
I'm using VIA EPIA 5000 boards with Eden (Via C3) processors. Completely fanless. Add to this a fanless 12 V DC-DC ATX Converter and a AC-DC 12 V 60W fanless or 100W (with a small fan that's nearly 100% silent) brick transformer and you're set.
Such fanless systems are the most silent (and cost effective) solution, if you don't need raw horsepower. It is even more silent if you run it diskless off a NFS server; but attaching a 2.5" or regular HDD won't add much to the noise, unless the disk were *very* old.
Another great site effect is reduced power consumption. An EPIA 5000 with 512 MB RAM, and a 2.5" HDD doesn't use more than 16 Watt or so at full load.
Something that comes without a license is not 100% free, it is 100% copyrighted by default. Without a licence, you may not use reproduce it etc... Copyright laws are fairly restrictive; and a license grants you rights you wouldn't otherwise have.
Putting it this way, GPL grants you more right than no-license; LGPL grants you even more rights than GPL and BSD grants you almost all rights. The most liberal license is public domain; though it is not a license in technical/legal terms.
A whole class of attacks?
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Everytime the crypto community hears about a new kind of attack, that's very big news. The reason for this is that one attack is often just a member of a whole new class of related attacks.
Any cryptanalyst or cryptographer reading about this should be really worried; until the community finds out how big this class really is.
SHA-1 is just a hash algorithm; breaking it would probably affect programs that use it; but that's not such a big deal in practical life. OTOH in theory and within the crypto community, it's utterly important.
Re:SHA-1 is alien to me.
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
If the war in Iraq didn't teach you that the government doesn't have uberalien teck then nothing will.
If someone or a group had access to alien tech, that would certainly not be the Government: it would have leaked that information a long time agg.
Re:Thats why i use RSA 2048 bits!
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
SHA-1 is a digest algorithm. It has nothing to do with encryption.
I never heard of them either and I couldn't care less. They are not the only one to have stupid TOS. Who knows who drafted this utter piece of legaleze crap for them anyway? They may not even be aware of the sheer stupidity of it. Poor fellows.
And what do you think runs on this hardware? Right, IOS or a simlar OS. Now go scan for IOS vulnerabilities and enjoy! There's no such thing as "hardware security."
That's indeed a good point. Considering that neural nets consist of zillion of cells that all compute the same function, a few of those cells returning bogus results (because they are unpredictable) wouldn't really pose much of a problem w.r.t. the final results.
Of course, every program out there would have to be rewritten as a neural net. Regular von-Neumann programs would not stand a chance in systems without error-correcting codes.
Don't try this! A lot of chemicals from the mobo and cables would diffuse chemicals in the pure water, and sooner than later, the water will conduct enough current.
I tried NetBSD 2.0 on my EPIA 5000 Eden board, but was promptly bitten by kern/26007, so no luck here:-(. FreeBSD 5.3 worked like a charm; with disks and later even in a complete diskless setup. So NetBSD doesn't run everywhere, despite the hype.
As a matter of fact, IE is not the only app that naturally comes with this feature. Many other places are thinkable where a default search engine could be hardcoded.
5% overhead for running a system that has all the features in reliability alone has got to be well worth it.
5% overhead in the system calls only. In their own timeslice, threads run without any performance penalty, up to the point where they need to IPC some server task like a file server or so.
So it depends if your application is more I/O or compute bound.
But you're right: 5% is next to nothing, even on low-end embedded platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
You could also block *.swf, and the domains of a *few* very prolific ad serving companies.
My only wish would be that Adblock became part of stock firefox. When installing or maintaining 1000+ desktop machines, it's a pain not to have Adblock in the basic browser.
Look at the wonderfulness that is the X.400/X.500 email/directory infrastructure, and the OSI protocol stack (take a look through the BSD source code for the remanants of it). Those were real winners.
Yeah! X.400 was horrible to admin (I was in charge of a set of X.400 to RFC822 gateways and it was not a pretty task by any means) and X.500's shortcomings still show thru LDAP. Ouch!
we can shell out $75 to $250 a copy
You're quite optimistic! Remember how many thousands of dollars had to be paid on ISO standards just a few years ago? That's okay for software companies, but not for the typical developer of internet software.
ITU-T doesn't have the grass-roots culture and attitude of the IETF.
No. You would still need IP addresses, and some authority to manage the IP address space on a global scale.
I'm hating a UN takeover of the Internet just as anybody else, but consider what happened to (POTS) telephone numbers: they are globally unique, and ITU-T did a great job at delegating that to national bodies. Had the IP address space been allocated in a similar sensible way (it has, but not consistenly enough), today's routing would have been much easier.
But, again, I'm strongly against a UN-controlled IANA or ICANN. The Internet has always been driven by technical innovation, and burocracies like the UN tend to stiffle innovation wherever they can.
a record of successfully implementating technical solutions worldwide over the last 140 years
That may be true for many technlogies (ITU-T is not that bad), but the Internet is certainly not their domain of expertise! What about OSI protocols? Methinks each time ITU starts meddling with computer communication protocols, they inevitably create technical monstrosities.
Meanwhile, Sudan is waging an ethnic war in its Darfur region against christian and animist peoples.
Yes, Sudan is waging war against christians and animist people in the south. But in Darfur, they are going after (non-arab) muslims.
That's not the only reason to reject the UN as the Internet governing body. They are such an overbloated, inaccessible burocracy (inaccessible to technical people, not lobbying supercorps, that is). That one of their committees would be in charge of the highly dynamic internet is a scary thought!
The solution, if there is one, is either a server room (work remotely)
Yes, indeed. But you'll still need a silent X-term or a diskless fanless workstation on your desk. Or a set of two KVM switches with fiber, Ethernet or RF link inbetween to connect your monitor, keyboard and mouse to the server in the basement or server room :)
having your PC on without two whirring hard drives certainly reduces the noise level.
Not very much actually. I'm using a mini-ITX fanless board (including fanless DC power spply) with a regular IDE in some places. Unless the disk is very old, you won't notice much difference anyway. You could use a 2.5" laptop disk that is even quieter, though some of them generate nasty clicks from time to time.
I'm using VIA EPIA 5000 boards with Eden (Via C3) processors. Completely fanless. Add to this a fanless 12 V DC-DC ATX Converter and a AC-DC 12 V 60W fanless or 100W (with a small fan that's nearly 100% silent) brick transformer and you're set.
Such fanless systems are the most silent (and cost effective) solution, if you don't need raw horsepower. It is even more silent if you run it diskless off a NFS server; but attaching a 2.5" or regular HDD won't add much to the noise, unless the disk were *very* old.
Another great site effect is reduced power consumption. An EPIA 5000 with 512 MB RAM, and a 2.5" HDD doesn't use more than 16 Watt or so at full load.
Something that comes without a license is not 100% free, it is 100% copyrighted by default. Without a licence, you may not use reproduce it etc... Copyright laws are fairly restrictive; and a license grants you rights you wouldn't otherwise have.
Putting it this way, GPL grants you more right than no-license; LGPL grants you even more rights than GPL and BSD grants you almost all rights. The most liberal license is public domain; though it is not a license in technical/legal terms.
Everytime the crypto community hears about a new kind of attack, that's very big news. The reason for this is that one attack is often just a member of a whole new class of related attacks.
Any cryptanalyst or cryptographer reading about this should be really worried; until the community finds out how big this class really is.
SHA-1 is just a hash algorithm; breaking it would probably affect programs that use it; but that's not such a big deal in practical life. OTOH in theory and within the crypto community, it's utterly important.
If the war in Iraq didn't teach you that the government doesn't have uberalien teck then nothing will.
If someone or a group had access to alien tech, that would certainly not be the Government: it would have leaked that information a long time agg.
SHA-1 is a digest algorithm. It has nothing to do with encryption.
It's still February.
They're just giving Google and other search engines some time to purge them from their indexes.
By March 12th, they expect to be a link island (noone linking to them).
I never heard of them either and I couldn't care less. They are not the only one to have stupid TOS. Who knows who drafted this utter piece of legaleze crap for them anyway? They may not even be aware of the sheer stupidity of it. Poor fellows.
hardware firewall router
And what do you think runs on this hardware? Right, IOS or a simlar OS. Now go scan for IOS vulnerabilities and enjoy! There's no such thing as "hardware security."
reminds me of a neural net
That's indeed a good point. Considering that neural nets consist of zillion of cells that all compute the same function, a few of those cells returning bogus results (because they are unpredictable) wouldn't really pose much of a problem w.r.t. the final results.
Of course, every program out there would have to be rewritten as a neural net. Regular von-Neumann programs would not stand a chance in systems without error-correcting codes.
King Roland, finally telling the air shield combination: one ... two ... three ... four ... five! *sigh*
Don't try this! A lot of chemicals from the mobo and cables would diffuse chemicals in the pure water, and sooner than later, the water will conduct enough current.
Sorry, it was not kern/26007, but port-i386/26007; though it's a show-stopper nonetheless.
I welcome everyone to actually try NetBSD!
I tried NetBSD 2.0 on my EPIA 5000 Eden board, but was promptly bitten by kern/26007, so no luck here :-(. FreeBSD 5.3 worked like a charm; with disks and later even in a complete diskless setup. So NetBSD doesn't run everywhere, despite the hype.
have you not used IE lately?
As a matter of fact, IE is not the only app that naturally comes with this feature. Many other places are thinkable where a default search engine could be hardcoded.
Linux too is able to run on top of a version of L4 from the University of Dresden: L4Linux. There's more to L4 than we may think of at first glance!
they should now start rewriting Apache from scratch?
Why should they? thttpd fits a tiny microkernel very well!
5% overhead for running a system that has all the features in reliability alone has got to be well worth it.
5% overhead in the system calls only. In their own timeslice, threads run without any performance penalty, up to the point where they need to IPC some server task like a file server or so.
So it depends if your application is more I/O or compute bound.
But you're right: 5% is next to nothing, even on low-end embedded platforms.