The servers fast SMP/RAID machines in a carrier-class above.net datacenter (east coast). The server hardware is shared, of course (it's a virtual server after all), but Linux VServer will always give you notably better performance than User-Mode Linux VPS. Speed-wise Virtuozzo-based hosters may give you similar peroformance, but they usually clamp down resources very low and do you really want to support a proprietary software company that is likely violating the GPL?
or other apps like FTP, bittorrent(legal of course)?
We don't care what apps you run, we provide a virtual server, you install/compile/run what you like. bittorent will surely run up a large bandwidth bill though;-)
BTW, many people don't realize how web hosting companies work and how they're able to offer dirt-cheap hosting. Most of the very cheap hosts are a kind of a ponzi scheme - they run an unsustainable business, but because people prepay for a year of service, they get pretty good revenue for as long as new customers are signing up.
Thus it's in their interest to get you to pay upfront, then they could not care less about you. Most of these companies are operated by similar type of people who send spam - the make-a-quick-buck-on-the-internet crowd.
Back when I used to work for a large ISP, we had a few customers that simply dissapeared - they were running these cheap hosting companies, and when they felt they had enough money in the bank they just abandoned their colocated servers in the racks, stopped paying the bills, disconnected their phone, etc. Which is probably what happened to the original poster's hosting service.
[Warning, below is a shameless plug, but that's what the question was].
Well, in one of our OpenVPS based
accounts, you'd do something like:
$ ssh myaccount.user.openhosting.com $ su - # service httpd stop # chkconfig httpd off # ^D $ ^D
And viola - just mail and no web for about $27/month. There is no
limit on how many accounts you host, host a million if you want for as
long as you pay the bandwidth. AND there is no restriction on what mail server
you run - if you prefer qmail or exim over sendmail, just go ahead and
install it, same is true for any server-side spam control you prefer or just about any (legal) software for that matter.
How do we remember the past? There are many answers to this question,
depending on whether you are an historian, artist or scientist. As a
scientist I have wanted to know where in the brain memories are stored
and how they are storedthe genetic and neural mechanisms. Although
neuroscientists have made tremendous progress in uncovering neural
mechanisms for learning, I believe, but cannot prove, that we are all
looking in the wrong place for long-term memory.
I have been puzzled by my ability to remember my childhood, despite
the fact that most of the molecules in my body today are not the same
ones I had as a childin particular, the molecules that make up my
brain are constantly turning over, being replaced with newly minted
molecules. Perhaps memories only seem to be stable. Rehearsal
strengthens memories, and can even alter them. However, I have
detailed memories of specific places where I lived 50 years ago that I
doubt I ever rehearsed but can be easily verified, so the stability of
long-term memories is a real problem.
Textbooks in neuroscience, including one that I coauthored, say that
memories are stored at synapses between neurons in the brain, of which
there are many. In neural network models of memory, information can be
stored by selectively altering the strengths of the synapses, and
"spike-time dependent plasticity" at synapses in the cerebral cortex
has been found with these properties. This is a hot area of research,
but all we need to know here is that patterns of neural activity can
indeed modify a lot of molecular machinery inside a neuron.
If memories are stored as changes to molecules inside cells, which are
constantly being replaced, how can a memory remain stable over 50
years? My hunch is that everyone is looking in the wrong place: that
the substrate of really old memories is located not inside cells, but
outside cells, in the extracellular space. The space between cells is
not empty, but filled with a matrix of tough material that is
difficult to dissolve and turns over very slowly if at all. The
extracellular matrix connects cells and maintains the shape of the cell mass. This is why scars on your body haven't changed much after
decades of slougare contained in the endoskeleton that connects cells
to each other. The intracellular machinery holds memories temporarily
and decides what to permanently store in the matrix, perhaps while you
are sleeping. It might be possible someday to stain this memory
endoskeleton and see what memories look like.what makes you a unique
individualhing off skin cells.
My intuition is based on a set of classic experiments on the
neuromuscular junction between a motor neuron and a muscle cell, a
giant synapse that activates the muscle. The specialized extracellular
matrix at the neuromuscular junction, called the basal lamina,
consists of proteoglycans, glycoproteins, including collagen, and
adhesion molecules such as laminin and fibronectin. If the nerve that
activates a muscle is crushed, the nerve fiber grows back to the
junction and forms a specialized nerve terminal ending. This occurs
even if the muscle cell is also killed. The memory of the contact is
preserved by the basal lamina at the junction. Similar material exists
at synapses in the brain, which could permanently maintain overall
connectivity despite the coming and going of molecules inside neurons.
How could we prove that the extracellular matrix really is responsible
for long-term memories? One way to disprove it would be to disrupt the
extracellular matrix and see if the memories remain. This can be done
with enzymes or by knocking out one or more key molecules with
techniques from molecular genetics. If I am right, then all of your
memories
As an aside, I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the U.S.'s lack of pioneering in alternative energies as it is. While I realize that there is good profit to be made in beating the shit out of people aroun the globe to monopolize their oil supply, it simply isn't sustainable.
My theory on this is that they will avoid innovation to leverage the maximum possible return out of existing investment. It's the same reason we still use CD's, even though DVD's are better and have been around for a really long time now. Same reason why the pretty much obsoleted HDTV is being mass-marketed as the best thing out there.
So once fuel prices become significant enough for the consumer to look at alternative energy sources, those things will take off. It's the consumer who drives innovation, not the industry. I have no clue when this may happen, may be 3, may be 193 years from now.
And right-on, air quality is a real significant problem (pick any large city in any country outside of G8), not that "we will all be extinct".
The companies that get awarded contracts like this are primarily good at writing proposals, great Power Point presentations, holding long meetings (at remote locations), performing requirements definition, alternatives analysis, white papers, security accreditation, various data gathering, data modeling, blah, blah, etc, etc. But rarely are they also good at the actual matter at hand. But I doubt there is anything a govt agency can do about this, since they require all that luggage to show accountabiity to the taxpayer...
How many government officials here in America could you actually convince to launch a campaign promoting free software? Not many, if any.
Such a capmain has already been launched, take a look at eGovOS.
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I would not be surprised if the American government money has sponsored more open source code and standards than any other country if not all of them combined.
Not sure I see how dictatorships issuing decrees regarding FOSS amounts to victory for Open Source. AFAICT this story has zero implications for the OSS community. It's probably just a ploy to get a better deal out of M$ on Windows licenses.
but the only governments that got interested in anti-Wi-Fi paint were from the Middle East.
This is because at least in the US (and probably in most civilized countries) buildings with sensitive information are already shielded and have been for decades. I've been in a couple of those by virtue of living in the DC area - sucks when your cell phone doesn't work.
The recently released Apache Software License (ASL) 2.0 already includes a patent clause. To the best of my understanding the ASL does not have anything in it against patents per se, but ASL's patent clause is only triggered when actual patent litigation occurs. This, as well as an interpretation of the current GPL patent stance is explained in great detail here.
Trusted Solaris has been around a long time, since the mid-1990's.
The questions is (to which I don't know the answer, I'm simply asking because I would like to know the truth) - did Trusted Solaris support separation based on introduction of an id in the process/task structure (known as jid in FreeBSD, xid in VServer and zone id in Solaris). This id is the key thing, and as far as I could tell the FreeBSD folks were the first to use it.
I'm a little ticked off that news like this makes the front page, yet release of mod_perl 2.0 years in the making, on Dec 12, is yet to be mentioned. I am more than certain that someone must have submitted a story on it in the Apache section.
I should probably be noted that PHP used to be an official Apache Software Foundation project until it was mutually agreed to end this relationship. I have no clue as to what the underlying reasons were and as an ASF member myself would rather not speculate on this. See ASF Board Meeting Minutes for Feb 2004 (section 5.G).
P.S. Apache 2.0 is great and there is no reason not to use it IMO.
I have recently attended a talk at our local NOVA (Northern Virginia) LUG by Harry Foxwell focused on Solaris 10. And while Harry is a respected scientist and a great presenter, I couldn't help noticing some things that were not exactly in the Open Source spirit if you will. The talk was 90% about Solaris Containers (aka Zones or N1 Grid Containers), and being a believer of giving credit where credit is due, I was somewhat disheartened not to hear ony mention of FreeBSD jails and several statements about how Solaris Zones are primarily based not on any OSS work, but rather prior Sun work on Trusted Solaris. While I believe the Trusted Solaris stuff was partly true (in Linux this is called capabilities, BTW (POSIX 1003.1e/1003.2c)), it wouldn't hurt to briefly mention the origins of the concept of separation, FreeBSD jails, and the fact the Linux Vserver provides the same functionality for Linux (Linux Vserver was mentioned, followed by some condescending analogy of Linux and transformer robots and how Linux developers can "transform" Linux into supporting anything.) The truth of the matter is that FreeBSD jails appeared in 1999, Linux Vserver in September of 2001 and Solaris Zones in 2002. The talk could also use less of "Solaris is for real, Linux is not" comments, especially considering this is a talk at a Linux User Group.
The bottom line is - I salute Sun open sourcing Solaris, but they still need to work on improving the attitude towards other open source OS's, particularly Linux and FreeBSD. The strategy of insisting that Solaris is just better, isn't going to get Sun very far, simply because it isn't true in many respects.
Isn't that pretty much the same as saying, "That's the thing I like about Gentoo, there are no distros?"
No it wouldn't be, because Gentoo is not ultimately responsible for Linux kernel development or the GNU tools. In FreeBSD, the same entity is responsible for (and owns the copyright to) both kernel and userland, whereas in Linux, kernel, userland and packaging and distribution of either is controlled by different entities.
Actually, each distro has its own little additions and, consequently, quirks. Writing an application to work reliably under all variations is not a slam-dunk.
IMHO, this is one great advantage that the FreeBSD project has - there are no "distros".
Looks like Rosegarden can export to Lilypond, which is by far the best music notation program AFAIAC. For years in our choir there were sheets made using Finale, and when I remade one using Lilypond people were asking me where is the book that this came from, it just looks so professional. They have a great paper on this .
When a company gives [stock options] away, they create a liability to the shareholds and dilute the value of a company.
This seems like the crux of the matter. When a company grants stock options, shouldn't it at that time make sure that it owns a sufficient number of shares so that the option may be honored? Or in other words, are options granted in consideration of issued (and company owned) shares (1), or is it usually the plan to issue them later as needed (therefore diluting share value) (2)?
But in either case I still don't get how this affects earnings. In the scenario (2) it seems to affect future value of a share, and in (1) seems to lock out any appreciation of the shares that a company owns (the shares against which options are granted will never grow in value ).... Anyway, I'm glad I'm not an accountant.
Slashdot Mirror
The servers fast SMP/RAID machines in a carrier-class above.net datacenter (east coast). The server hardware is shared, of course (it's a virtual server after all), but Linux VServer will always give you notably better performance than User-Mode Linux VPS. Speed-wise Virtuozzo-based hosters may give you similar peroformance, but they usually clamp down resources very low and do you really want to support a proprietary software company that is likely violating the GPL?
or other apps like FTP, bittorrent(legal of course)?
We don't care what apps you run, we provide a virtual server, you install/compile/run what you like. bittorent will surely run up a large bandwidth bill though ;-)
BTW, many people don't realize how web hosting companies work and how they're able to offer dirt-cheap hosting. Most of the very cheap hosts are a kind of a ponzi scheme - they run an unsustainable business, but because people prepay for a year of service, they get pretty good revenue for as long as new customers are signing up.
Thus it's in their interest to get you to pay upfront, then they could not care less about you. Most of these companies are operated by similar type of people who send spam - the make-a-quick-buck-on-the-internet crowd.
Back when I used to work for a large ISP, we had a few customers that simply dissapeared - they were running these cheap hosting companies, and when they felt they had enough money in the bank they just abandoned their colocated servers in the racks, stopped paying the bills, disconnected their phone, etc. Which is probably what happened to the original poster's hosting service.
[Warning, below is a shameless plug, but that's what the question was].
Well, in one of our OpenVPS based accounts, you'd do something like:
$ ssh myaccount.user.openhosting.com
$ su -
# service httpd stop
# chkconfig httpd off
# ^D
$ ^D
And viola - just mail and no web for about $27/month. There is no limit on how many accounts you host, host a million if you want for as long as you pay the bandwidth. AND there is no restriction on what mail server you run - if you prefer qmail or exim over sendmail, just go ahead and install it, same is true for any server-side spam control you prefer or just about any (legal) software for that matter.
Interestingly, their graphs looks very similar to mine.
Ah, nm, it did, i just wasn't paying attention...
I'm a bit surprised Sony didn't make it to the list.
From the recently noted on slashdot Edge poll What do You believe is true even though you cannot prove it, I remember this bit by Terrence Sejnowski caught my attention (I'm pasting it here cause I can't figure out how to link to that specific part of the page):
As an aside, I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the U.S.'s lack of pioneering in alternative energies as it is. While I realize that there is good profit to be made in beating the shit out of people aroun the globe to monopolize their oil supply, it simply isn't sustainable.
My theory on this is that they will avoid innovation to leverage the maximum possible return out of existing investment. It's the same reason we still use CD's, even though DVD's are better and have been around for a really long time now. Same reason why the pretty much obsoleted HDTV is being mass-marketed as the best thing out there.
So once fuel prices become significant enough for the consumer to look at alternative energy sources, those things will take off. It's the consumer who drives innovation, not the industry. I have no clue when this may happen, may be 3, may be 193 years from now.
And right-on, air quality is a real significant problem (pick any large city in any country outside of G8), not that "we will all be extinct".
The companies that get awarded contracts like this are primarily good at writing proposals, great Power Point presentations, holding long meetings (at remote locations), performing requirements definition, alternatives analysis, white papers, security accreditation, various data gathering, data modeling, blah, blah, etc, etc. But rarely are they also good at the actual matter at hand. But I doubt there is anything a govt agency can do about this, since they require all that luggage to show accountabiity to the taxpayer...
almighty web power they are
dunno... the link seems slashdotted to me...
China has developed and demonstrated its first high-performance network core router based on the next-generation Internet standard
China? Are they public yet? What's their ticker, I can't find it??
How many government officials here in America could you actually convince to launch a campaign promoting free software? Not many, if any.
Such a capmain has already been launched, take a look at eGovOS.
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I would not be surprised if the American government money has sponsored more open source code and standards than any other country if not all of them combined.
Quite right, this is a victory for Open Source
Not sure I see how dictatorships issuing decrees regarding FOSS amounts to victory for Open Source. AFAICT this story has zero implications for the OSS community. It's probably just a ploy to get a better deal out of M$ on Windows licenses.
but the only governments that got interested in anti-Wi-Fi paint were from the Middle East.
This is because at least in the US (and probably in most civilized countries) buildings with sensitive information are already shielded and have been for decades. I've been in a couple of those by virtue of living in the DC area - sucks when your cell phone doesn't work.
How long will it be till it's labeled a terrorist tool and banned?
It's not a transmitter as far as I understand.
The recently released Apache Software License (ASL) 2.0 already includes a patent clause. To the best of my understanding the ASL does not have anything in it against patents per se, but ASL's patent clause is only triggered when actual patent litigation occurs. This, as well as an interpretation of the current GPL patent stance is explained in great detail here.
Yep, which makes me think that all is well on the engineering side, but the marketroid side of Sun needs adjustment. :-)
The questions is (to which I don't know the answer, I'm simply asking because I would like to know the truth) - did Trusted Solaris support separation based on introduction of an id in the process/task structure (known as jid in FreeBSD, xid in VServer and zone id in Solaris). This id is the key thing, and as far as I could tell the FreeBSD folks were the first to use it.
I'm a little ticked off that news like this makes the front page, yet release of mod_perl 2.0 years in the making, on Dec 12, is yet to be mentioned. I am more than certain that someone must have submitted a story on it in the Apache section.
I should probably be noted that PHP used to be an official Apache Software Foundation project until it was mutually agreed to end this relationship. I have no clue as to what the underlying reasons were and as an ASF member myself would rather not speculate on this. See ASF Board Meeting Minutes for Feb 2004 (section 5.G).
P.S. Apache 2.0 is great and there is no reason not to use it IMO.
I have recently attended a talk at our local NOVA (Northern Virginia) LUG by Harry Foxwell focused on Solaris 10. And while Harry is a respected scientist and a great presenter, I couldn't help noticing some things that were not exactly in the Open Source spirit if you will. The talk was 90% about Solaris Containers (aka Zones or N1 Grid Containers), and being a believer of giving credit where credit is due, I was somewhat disheartened not to hear ony mention of FreeBSD jails and several statements about how Solaris Zones are primarily based not on any OSS work, but rather prior Sun work on Trusted Solaris. While I believe the Trusted Solaris stuff was partly true (in Linux this is called capabilities, BTW (POSIX 1003.1e/1003.2c)), it wouldn't hurt to briefly mention the origins of the concept of separation, FreeBSD jails, and the fact the Linux Vserver provides the same functionality for Linux (Linux Vserver was mentioned, followed by some condescending analogy of Linux and transformer robots and how Linux developers can "transform" Linux into supporting anything.) The truth of the matter is that FreeBSD jails appeared in 1999, Linux Vserver in September of 2001 and Solaris Zones in 2002. The talk could also use less of "Solaris is for real, Linux is not" comments, especially considering this is a talk at a Linux User Group.
The bottom line is - I salute Sun open sourcing Solaris, but they still need to work on improving the attitude towards other open source OS's, particularly Linux and FreeBSD. The strategy of insisting that Solaris is just better, isn't going to get Sun very far, simply because it isn't true in many respects.
Isn't that pretty much the same as saying, "That's the thing I like about Gentoo, there are no distros?"
No it wouldn't be, because Gentoo is not ultimately responsible for Linux kernel development or the GNU tools. In FreeBSD, the same entity is responsible for (and owns the copyright to) both kernel and userland, whereas in Linux, kernel, userland and packaging and distribution of either is controlled by different entities.
Actually, each distro has its own little additions and, consequently, quirks. Writing an application to work reliably under all variations is not a slam-dunk.
IMHO, this is one great advantage that the FreeBSD project has - there are no "distros".
Looks like Rosegarden can export to Lilypond, which is by far the best music notation program AFAIAC. For years in our choir there were sheets made using Finale, and when I remade one using Lilypond people were asking me where is the book that this came from, it just looks so professional. They have a great paper on this .
This seems like the crux of the matter. When a company grants stock options, shouldn't it at that time make sure that it owns a sufficient number of shares so that the option may be honored? Or in other words, are options granted in consideration of issued (and company owned) shares (1), or is it usually the plan to issue them later as needed (therefore diluting share value) (2)?
But in either case I still don't get how this affects earnings. In the scenario (2) it seems to affect future value of a share, and in (1) seems to lock out any appreciation of the shares that a company owns (the shares against which options are granted will never grow in value ).... Anyway, I'm glad I'm not an accountant.