It is better to drive the sticks 12 inches and leave the holes open when you pull them out (or if you really want them plugged, because you don't like breathing, just leave them in).
And a garbage bag full of snow makes a great door to keep the wind out.
If your ideas are really good, sell them to your manager [. ..]
I think that this gets at the crux of the frustration. Why would you hire someone for their technical skills and knowledge and then make them freaking beg you to listen to their technical advice.
To be even more specific, people who directly manage technical people like to micro-manage them in a way they would never want to be micro-managed. The same guy that gets royally pissed when his boss micro-manages him has no problem telling Joe, "Yeah, you are the Architect, but here is how you are going to design it."
Anyway, the bottom line is that managers get to choose to either 1. trust their people or fire them and hire ones they can trust, or 2. deal with a constant struggle of us-vs.-them and never get to play golf or read Forbes or whatever the fuck these types do when everything is running smoothly.
I've had two really good managers. One was highly technical (he is a co-author of an O'Reilly book) the other . . . wasn't. What they both had in common was that all they did (from my point of view) was 1. give me the tools I needed to do my job, 2. insulate me from higher levels of management and 3. say the fuck out of my way. Easy. But almost no one can do it:-(
If you are doing multiple backups and are limited on space/time you may as well use dump/restore, which supports 9 (or more?) levels of incremenatals.
You can still tar+compression.
Also consider that rsync is network aware, and works great over ssh, so you can trivially do your backups to a faster system with more storage. Even over 10base ethernet nightly backups will probably only take a few minutes with rsync, since it only copies the changes.
Now, you say "no where in my post did I even mention security, as that wasn't the point" but you were replying to my post about the use of the word security.
To repeat myself (which I REALLY hate having to do, and really affects my opinion of your reading comprehension skills and/or intelligence) ANY analogy is "faulty" if applied in an overly general way. So, as you admit, my analogy holds just fine on the topic for which I created it.
You go on to say "but I was defending WHY ms's decision to do this is a completely legitimate and legal practice." I defy you to show how this is relevant in any way to the thread.
This brings us to the fundamental point, which is that it would be nice if you would try to figure out what "reply" means and what a "thread" is. (Here's a hint, if you keep changing the subject line you are fucking up the thread.)
Hey, thanks for asking a question that is specifically answered in the FAQ.
My day isn't complete until I read a post that took longer to write that it would have taken to actually read the linked article, and never would have been written if the poster had done so.
Technology like clustering would be better in Windows than Linux eventually, said Ballmer: "We will beat Linux on clusters. We can't beat them on price, but we have to add value."
How do those tail lights look, Steve?
Microsoft is considering extending its shared-source initiative, currently limited to large users such as governments and universities, to MVPs. This would give them smart-card access to much of the Windows source code, he said. There will be a decision on this in the next couple of months, said Lori Moore, vice president of product support services at Microsoft. "There are many options on the table," she said. "There are many ways to be more open, and we are reviewing ideas."
Does this have some value or purpose that I just don't see? Letting people look at your source code doesn't have any magical effect.
Do they think people will squash bugs for them? Make other improvements? Finally start using some of those undocumented APIs that don't exist?
... security means only letting the owner use the system as he sees fit.
This means "security consists of one thing alone: ensuring that the owner can use the system however he wants." It forbids anyone on the planet from preventing the owner from doing what he wants with his system.
Wouldn't that be "security only means letting the owner use the system as he sees fit?"
So I guess my way is ambiguous . . . but I already said I like AC's way better!
The main reason why it's security is to try to cut back on the pirating of the games that go along with having a modded X-Box so they can start to make back the initial investment of the hardware.
Huh? In what way does this address anything I said in my post?
Anti-piracy != security. That was my whole point. You haven't addressed that point in the least.
My gas cap can't be accessed without mangling the flap or hitting a lever inside the car. This effectively prevents people from siphoning my gas or putting stuff in my tank.
That's security.
If Honda sold me the car at a loss, but I could only fill up with a special, patented nozzle, only available at connocco that would not be security.
Yes it's your product you bought, but when it's being used to screw with another market, i.e. console prices, then steps should be taken to prevent this as much as possible. I don't want to buy a 500 dollar console just because someone decided they wanted to run Linux on the Box as it's only use.
In what way does that bear the slightest relevance to my assertion that we aren't talking about security?
I don't see this happening with 802.11a. The range for a is MUCH shorter than the range for b, and even b is rather short.
This seems to be the conventional wisdom, but the technical specs indicate that at a given range a is faster, and that they both drop off at roughly the same range.
Can anyone point out any docs that show why a should have a shorter range in practice? Is it just because 5GHz is not as effective at penetrating barriers?
To illustrate: You have one of these cards. It doesn't output anything, i.e. it is a passive device. I "borrow" your card, put it through a reader and learn what the "correct" output of your card is. I then construct a card that looks more-or-less like a legitimate card, but it is actually an active device that emits YOUR 2D pattern whenever it is scanned.
In other words, I can't fake the 3D structure of the card, but I am not at all convinced that I'd have to in order to make charges on your account.
No, you just have to create a card that absorbs the input laser and outputs the "correct" 2D pattern (and maybe looks good enough to get past the genius working the register).
Who is trying to stop you from providing free wireless access? Not me. I live in South Denver. No one provides residential broadband here . . . would you set up free wireless access here, please?
My comments has "commercial components," but the question is ultimately about setting up a commercial LAN . . . so that seems perfecly appropriate to me.
You are quite mistaken about "perverting the structure of the internet." I'm not proposing any alterations to the structure of the internet, only the structure of HIS OWN NETWORK. If you don't like how someone structures their LAN (wireless or otherwise) you are surely free to NOT USE IT.
1. Prepare for a constant arms race. They will block your ads.
2. You might get some love on local ads, from businesses that normally wouldn't use internet ads. Like a local sub shop or bookstore. Your one advantage will be genuine geotargeting. (Sorry, OSDN.)
3. Figure out some reasonable way to do traffic shaping first or some yahoo will put you out of business by sucking up all your bandwidth. I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but maybe withholding TCP ACKs from abusers as a throttle would help.
Actually, hydro plants emit butchered fish and change the cycle of fresh water entering the oceans.
I am quite concerned with the affect large-scale wind power generation would have on world weather patterns. Windmills slow down the wind . . . maybe that wind is doing something important.
It's only bad news to them if they can't adapt to changing market conditions.
If I have my history right, SUN really ate into IBM's dominance by being a fleet-footed young company that was able to deliver "Open Systems" while the Goliath IBM was still convinced that everything other than mainframes was a fad.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard that the first "Earth Day" was intended to raise awareness of the issue of global cooling. Can anyone confirm or debunk this?
.
I tried writing the Earth Day Network (http://www.earthday.net/) about this about a year ago, but they never replied . .
-Peter
This is called a "quincy."
It is better to drive the sticks 12 inches and leave the holes open when you pull them out (or if you really want them plugged, because you don't like breathing, just leave them in).
And a garbage bag full of snow makes a great door to keep the wind out.
-Peter
I think that this gets at the crux of the frustration. Why would you hire someone for their technical skills and knowledge and then make them freaking beg you to listen to their technical advice.
To be even more specific, people who directly manage technical people like to micro-manage them in a way they would never want to be micro-managed. The same guy that gets royally pissed when his boss micro-manages him has no problem telling Joe, "Yeah, you are the Architect, but here is how you are going to design it."
Anyway, the bottom line is that managers get to choose to either 1. trust their people or fire them and hire ones they can trust, or 2. deal with a constant struggle of us-vs.-them and never get to play golf or read Forbes or whatever the fuck these types do when everything is running smoothly.
I've had two really good managers. One was highly technical (he is a co-author of an O'Reilly book) the other . . . wasn't. What they both had in common was that all they did (from my point of view) was 1. give me the tools I needed to do my job, 2. insulate me from higher levels of management and 3. say the fuck out of my way. Easy. But almost no one can do it
-Peter
If you are doing multiple backups and are limited on space/time you may as well use dump/restore, which supports 9 (or more?) levels of incremenatals.
You can still tar+compression.
Also consider that rsync is network aware, and works great over ssh, so you can trivially do your backups to a faster system with more storage. Even over 10base ethernet nightly backups will probably only take a few minutes with rsync, since it only copies the changes.
-Peter
First, I'm the original poster.
Now, you say "no where in my post did I even mention security, as that wasn't the point" but you were replying to my post about the use of the word security.
To repeat myself (which I REALLY hate having to do, and really affects my opinion of your reading comprehension skills and/or intelligence) ANY analogy is "faulty" if applied in an overly general way. So, as you admit, my analogy holds just fine on the topic for which I created it.
You go on to say "but I was defending WHY ms's decision to do this is a completely legitimate and legal practice." I defy you to show how this is relevant in any way to the thread.
This brings us to the fundamental point, which is that it would be nice if you would try to figure out what "reply" means and what a "thread" is. (Here's a hint, if you keep changing the subject line you are fucking up the thread.)
-Peter
Instead of using tar consider using rsync. You can easily exclude files and you will get MUCH faster backups, especially on an old, slow box.
This has the added advantage of being able to simply cp files back over if need be.
-Peter
Hey, thanks for asking a question that is specifically answered in the FAQ.
My day isn't complete until I read a post that took longer to write that it would have taken to actually read the linked article, and never would have been written if the poster had done so.
Thanks again.
-Peter
Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
Finding out that I can only buy gas at connocco before vs. after the sale has ZERO bearing on wether or not it is a security feature.
I know it is hard to keep your simple mind from wandering when reading a 30+ word post.
The analogy isn't faulty. No situation is 100% analogous to any other, and if you totally miss the fucking point any analogy is likely to fall apart.
-Peter
How do those tail lights look, Steve?
Does this have some value or purpose that I just don't see? Letting people look at your source code doesn't have any magical effect.
Do they think people will squash bugs for them? Make other improvements? Finally start using some of those undocumented APIs that don't exist?
What's the deal?
-Peter
Wouldn't that be "security only means letting the owner use the system as he sees fit?"
So I guess my way is ambiguous . . . but I already said I like AC's way better!
-Peter
Huh? In what way does this address anything I said in my post?
Anti-piracy != security. That was my whole point. You haven't addressed that point in the least.
My gas cap can't be accessed without mangling the flap or hitting a lever inside the car. This effectively prevents people from siphoning my gas or putting stuff in my tank.
That's security.
If Honda sold me the car at a loss, but I could only fill up with a special, patented nozzle, only available at connocco that would not be security.
In what way does that bear the slightest relevance to my assertion that we aren't talking about security?
-Peter
What is the functional difference between the two statements?
I think your way sounds better, but I don't see any difference in meaning.
-Peter
I really don't like the way the word "security" is being used to mean "preventing the owner of the system from using it as he sees fit."
In my mind security means only letting the owner use the system as he sees fit.
-Peter
Clever boy, why, it is tortises all the way down!
((mis-)Quoted from memory, but the idea is intact.)
-Peter
This seems to be the conventional wisdom, but the technical specs indicate that at a given range a is faster, and that they both drop off at roughly the same range.
Can anyone point out any docs that show why a should have a shorter range in practice? Is it just because 5GHz is not as effective at penetrating barriers?
-Peter
In all seriousness you should work on your reading for comprehension skills.
Why would I need a holo-emitter to project a 2D image?
I won't waste any more time on you.
-Peter
Your ability to miss the point is astounding.
To illustrate: You have one of these cards. It doesn't output anything, i.e. it is a passive device. I "borrow" your card, put it through a reader and learn what the "correct" output of your card is. I then construct a card that looks more-or-less like a legitimate card, but it is actually an active device that emits YOUR 2D pattern whenever it is scanned.
In other words, I can't fake the 3D structure of the card, but I am not at all convinced that I'd have to in order to make charges on your account.
Is that spelled out clearly enough for you?
-Peter
No, you just have to create a card that absorbs the input laser and outputs the "correct" 2D pattern (and maybe looks good enough to get past the genius working the register).
Oops.
-Peter
Brilliant comment.
Someone please mod me down off topic and mod the AC above up!
-Peter
Who is trying to stop you from providing free wireless access? Not me. I live in South Denver. No one provides residential broadband here . . . would you set up free wireless access here, please?
My comments has "commercial components," but the question is ultimately about setting up a commercial LAN . . . so that seems perfecly appropriate to me.
You are quite mistaken about "perverting the structure of the internet." I'm not proposing any alterations to the structure of the internet, only the structure of HIS OWN NETWORK. If you don't like how someone structures their LAN (wireless or otherwise) you are surely free to NOT USE IT.
-Peter
What does "reply" mean on planet Erris?
On earth it implies that your statement has something to do with the one you are replying to.
-Peter
*cough* OS/2 *cough*
And before that DR-DOS.
-Peter
1. Prepare for a constant arms race. They will block your ads.
2. You might get some love on local ads, from businesses that normally wouldn't use internet ads. Like a local sub shop or bookstore. Your one advantage will be genuine geotargeting. (Sorry, OSDN.)
3. Figure out some reasonable way to do traffic shaping first or some yahoo will put you out of business by sucking up all your bandwidth. I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but maybe withholding TCP ACKs from abusers as a throttle would help.
4. Let us know how it works out!
-Peter
Actually, hydro plants emit butchered fish and change the cycle of fresh water entering the oceans.
I am quite concerned with the affect large-scale wind power generation would have on world weather patterns. Windmills slow down the wind . . . maybe that wind is doing something important.
-Peter
It's only bad news to them if they can't adapt to changing market conditions.
If I have my history right, SUN really ate into IBM's dominance by being a fleet-footed young company that was able to deliver "Open Systems" while the Goliath IBM was still convinced that everything other than mainframes was a fad.
You could cut the irony with a knife.
-Peter