In suspiciously coincidental news, Steve Jobs has been seen taking chair-throwing lessons.
I'm sure Steve Jobs already has a plan to deal with this. It wouldn't surprise me if he tempted Microsoft into creating an iPod competitor and has some sort of elaborate trap waiting for them. The iPod helped make Apple relevant again, competing with it just gives it even more legitimacy. I'm sure Steve Jobs is pleased and we'll see some more chair throwing soon enough in Redmond when Apple unveils their master plan.
And lastly Wikipedia. Runs with PHP and MySQL! Their servers blow weekly, copious lengths of downtime, search function regularly disabled. Pages are nearly always slow to respond. QED
Wikipedia is the only one listed that is run by a non-profit. All of the others are for-profit (except for the BCC - not sure what they'd qualify as) entities. You didn't mention Yahoo! which has many websites that run on PHP. How reliable are they?
Well, technically it's still owned by the city but it's privately financed. So long as the department can service it's debts, it will remain "owned" by the city the same we you "own" a house that you have a mortgage on.
Could you explain how the city owned ISP came to be? Would it be too expensive to establish the infrastructure for a city like Boston?
Actually, it would probably be cheaper per person in a bigger, more densely populated area. Our city owned ISP is financed in a way that the taxpayers aren't paying for it. Adelphia fought tooth and nail to keep the municipal ISP from being able to provide service. I guess they don't like competition. This is a very small market (40,000 residents) compared to Boston (600,000 residents), so I'm sure the current providers in Boston would put up a big fight against such a service.
First of all, you probably meant, "You damn SOCIALISTS!" because that more closely describes the situation. I consider broadband a utility just like electricity and water. What do you suggest instead, that we let companies have a monopoly and charge ridiculous prices for crappy service? That's what we've got now. The people in this city were sick of getting screwed by these companies so we started our own service. That sounds like a democracy to me, not socialism or communism. The alternative is corporate control of our essential utilities.
I never claimed that my local town planning commission was "perfect". Heck, I never even claimed that democracy was perfect. In fact, I think the current system is very imperfect. Unfortunately, it's the best we've got right now. Money may buy influence but it is still one person, one vote regardless. If everyone actually voted, it would be more difficult to buy influence.
Don't like the way your government is run? Vote to change it. Don't think your voice is being heard? Contact your elected officials and tell them so. Don't think your elected officials are listening to you? Go start a protest. That doesn't work? We can always do what our founding fathers did. We'd most likely die trying, but what ever happened to the concept of "live free or die"?
The probably with this country is that people are too apathetic to do anything about fixing problems with our government. We assume that democracy will continue working fine even if we don't vote or exercise our others rights as citizens. One day will wake up and realize all of our precious freedoms have been stripped away. By then it will be too late. Heck, it may be too late already.
I'd be interested to hear about the costs however, as I'd be afraid that taxpayers overall pay much for for such service, due to government inefficiency.
Actually, the financing is structured in such a way that the taxpayers aren't funding this project. From the "about" page of the link I provided in my original post: "Although we are a City Department, this network is privately financed and clean of any taxpayer contributions."
It's municipal. So it is just like a cooperative . . . except you are forced to cooperate by law.
There's no law that says you have to buy your broadband service from the city. If you didn't want the service to exist in the first place you could have voted against it. This is still a democracy (I hope).
No, it's municipal broadband as my subject line said. That means that the city runs it. We, the people, collectively own the assets of the city since we are the voters and the taxpayers and this is a democracy. Since they only provide service within the city, then everyone that is able to receive service owns the network. We "own" it in the same we that we own the parks and other public spaces.
If I don't like the way the network is run I can vote to change it. Now, you may argue that I can "vote with my dollar" if I am customer of MegaCorp Broadband. The problem with that logic is that not everyone has an equal vote. In a democracy, everyone gets one vote no matter how much money you have. We, the citizens, decided we were tired of getting screwed by MegaCorp Broaband (Adelphia or Verizon as the case may be here and now) and that we would have provide our own service. Now, I can get my Broadband, my electricity (yes, the electric company is run by the city here too), and my water from the city and I can feel confident that I, as a citizen, can have a say in how these services are run regardless of how much money I may have.
Do what the city I live in did and start your (the citizens) own ISP. I get the speed I pay for on a fiber optic connection. Plus they offer TV and telephone service. Better service, cheaper rates, and it's owned by the people that use it.
Actually, my post was the first one to say something other than simply "screw the domain squatters" and provide some alternative suggestions. Look at the time on the comments. You'll see other comments that were posted after mine but appear before mine because they were responses to earlier comments. So, why don't you ask the moderators to mark someone else's comment redundant, eh? I've had my posts marked as "redundant" before when I was the first person to make a particular point because of the way the slashdot threading works.
I refuse to give money to domain squatters. Buy another domain name, be creative. Domain names become less and less important every day. Focus on SEO and other ways of getting people to your website. The domain name just isn't that important unless you're going to do a lot of non web-based advertising (radio, TV, print, etc.). You can pay for a lot of clicks on Google AdWords for $1000.
This smacks of journalists pompously elevating their self-importance to levels higher than they deserve.
Most "leaks" are on purpose to manipulate the press into covering something the administration wants them to cover. It's pretty hypocritical for this same administration to then punish those members of the press who were doing their bidding.
Where I live (Burlington, VT) the city provides both electricity and fiber optic service. It's Interesting that it was more practical to run new fiber optics throughout the city than to use existing power lines, since the city already owns the electric department.
An important piece left out of the summary but mentioned in some of the articles is that the Wii will launch Q4 of 2006. It looks like shoppers this holiday season will be able to pick from all the next-gen consoles.
Bonjour is more than just wireless and DHCP. It automatically discovers and configures printers and other network devices without even needing to use a wizard.
Even if only a small percentage of all web attacks are reported, if that percentage stays stable then a rise in the number reported implies a rise in the total number of attacks.
Let's assume for a second that 1% of all attacks are reported. That would mean that 16 out of 1600 were reported in 2004 and 58 out of 5800 were reported in 2005. Now, let's say that the percentage of reports increased by 1% point in 2005. So, 1% reported in 2004 and 2% reported in 2005. That would mean that 16 out of 1600 were reported in 2004 and 58 out of 2900 were reported in 2005. So, in this scenario what looked look a 362.5% increase in attacks is actually only a 181.25% increase in attacks. So, a small change in the reported percentage could make a huge difference in the apparent increase. These numbers are so ridiculously low to begin with, I wouldn't be surprised if less than 1% of web attacks are reported. I looked through the list and can think of some attacks I know of to some pretty big sites that weren't reported. Plus, some incidents are pretty generic and don't address a specific attack while others do address specific attacks. So, their definition of a "Web hacking attacks" seems to be quite fluid. Basically what I'm saying is that these numbers are absolutely meaningless.
Web hacking attacks numbered 58 in 2005, up from 16 in 2004 and 9 in 2003, according to the Web Application Security Consortium.
And what percentage of "web hacking attacks" are reported to the Web Application Security Consortium? I would venture to guess that a very small number are reported making these numbers statistically meaningless.
Dreamweaver does do some annoying stuff with your code, but not "the moment you hit save". I've been able to get around most of these issues in Dreamweaver MX 2004. What version are you using? Rather than go into specifics, I suggest you use the split code/design window and take note of exactly when Dreamweaver does its crap. Then, you can learn to avoid those traps or at least undo them when you run into them. While still annoying, Dreamweaver is much better than FrontPage when it comes to this crap.
Workers her in the west are going to have to get used to the fact that there will be no such thing as a secure job for life (yes, there are still people who believe in that myth)
It is not entirely a myth, these jobs do exist. I didn't believe it myself until I stumbled onto one. I work for a non-profit where there are IT people and other employees that have been there for years. Believe-it-or-not, the pay is very competitive (hard to believe for a non-profit but it's true) and the organization is financially secure (I won't go into details but their funding model is very different than most non-profits). I won't argue with you that this is an exception and not the rule - but to say it's a myth is simply not true.
Slashdot Mirror
ROTFL
I'm sure Steve Jobs already has a plan to deal with this. It wouldn't surprise me if he tempted Microsoft into creating an iPod competitor and has some sort of elaborate trap waiting for them. The iPod helped make Apple relevant again, competing with it just gives it even more legitimacy. I'm sure Steve Jobs is pleased and we'll see some more chair throwing soon enough in Redmond when Apple unveils their master plan.
Apparently with the occasional break to check Slashdot?
Well, welcome to Burlington then!
LOL, it was a stress test of the cities infrastructure ;-)
Hopefully the sewer system doesn't get slashdotted, now that would be a mess!
Well, technically it's still owned by the city but it's privately financed. So long as the department can service it's debts, it will remain "owned" by the city the same we you "own" a house that you have a mortgage on.
Could you explain how the city owned ISP came to be? Would it be too expensive to establish the infrastructure for a city like Boston?
Actually, it would probably be cheaper per person in a bigger, more densely populated area. Our city owned ISP is financed in a way that the taxpayers aren't paying for it. Adelphia fought tooth and nail to keep the municipal ISP from being able to provide service. I guess they don't like competition. This is a very small market (40,000 residents) compared to Boston (600,000 residents), so I'm sure the current providers in Boston would put up a big fight against such a service.
First of all, you probably meant, "You damn SOCIALISTS!" because that more closely describes the situation. I consider broadband a utility just like electricity and water. What do you suggest instead, that we let companies have a monopoly and charge ridiculous prices for crappy service? That's what we've got now. The people in this city were sick of getting screwed by these companies so we started our own service. That sounds like a democracy to me, not socialism or communism. The alternative is corporate control of our essential utilities.
I never claimed that my local town planning commission was "perfect". Heck, I never even claimed that democracy was perfect. In fact, I think the current system is very imperfect. Unfortunately, it's the best we've got right now. Money may buy influence but it is still one person, one vote regardless. If everyone actually voted, it would be more difficult to buy influence.
Don't like the way your government is run? Vote to change it. Don't think your voice is being heard? Contact your elected officials and tell them so. Don't think your elected officials are listening to you? Go start a protest. That doesn't work? We can always do what our founding fathers did. We'd most likely die trying, but what ever happened to the concept of "live free or die"?
The probably with this country is that people are too apathetic to do anything about fixing problems with our government. We assume that democracy will continue working fine even if we don't vote or exercise our others rights as citizens. One day will wake up and realize all of our precious freedoms have been stripped away. By then it will be too late. Heck, it may be too late already.
I'd be interested to hear about the costs however, as I'd be afraid that taxpayers overall pay much for for such service, due to government inefficiency.
Actually, the financing is structured in such a way that the taxpayers aren't funding this project. From the "about" page of the link I provided in my original post: "Although we are a City Department, this network is privately financed and clean of any taxpayer contributions."
It's municipal. So it is just like a cooperative . . . except you are forced to cooperate by law.
There's no law that says you have to buy your broadband service from the city. If you didn't want the service to exist in the first place you could have voted against it. This is still a democracy (I hope).
It's a cooperative?
No, it's municipal broadband as my subject line said. That means that the city runs it. We, the people, collectively own the assets of the city since we are the voters and the taxpayers and this is a democracy. Since they only provide service within the city, then everyone that is able to receive service owns the network. We "own" it in the same we that we own the parks and other public spaces.
If I don't like the way the network is run I can vote to change it. Now, you may argue that I can "vote with my dollar" if I am customer of MegaCorp Broadband. The problem with that logic is that not everyone has an equal vote. In a democracy, everyone gets one vote no matter how much money you have. We, the citizens, decided we were tired of getting screwed by MegaCorp Broaband (Adelphia or Verizon as the case may be here and now) and that we would have provide our own service. Now, I can get my Broadband, my electricity (yes, the electric company is run by the city here too), and my water from the city and I can feel confident that I, as a citizen, can have a say in how these services are run regardless of how much money I may have.
Do what the city I live in did and start your (the citizens) own ISP. I get the speed I pay for on a fiber optic connection. Plus they offer TV and telephone service. Better service, cheaper rates, and it's owned by the people that use it.
Actually, my post was the first one to say something other than simply "screw the domain squatters" and provide some alternative suggestions. Look at the time on the comments. You'll see other comments that were posted after mine but appear before mine because they were responses to earlier comments. So, why don't you ask the moderators to mark someone else's comment redundant, eh? I've had my posts marked as "redundant" before when I was the first person to make a particular point because of the way the slashdot threading works.
I refuse to give money to domain squatters. Buy another domain name, be creative. Domain names become less and less important every day. Focus on SEO and other ways of getting people to your website. The domain name just isn't that important unless you're going to do a lot of non web-based advertising (radio, TV, print, etc.). You can pay for a lot of clicks on Google AdWords for $1000.
This smacks of journalists pompously elevating their self-importance to levels higher than they deserve.
Most "leaks" are on purpose to manipulate the press into covering something the administration wants them to cover. It's pretty hypocritical for this same administration to then punish those members of the press who were doing their bidding.
Where I live (Burlington, VT) the city provides both electricity and fiber optic service. It's Interesting that it was more practical to run new fiber optics throughout the city than to use existing power lines, since the city already owns the electric department.
An important piece left out of the summary but mentioned in some of the articles is that the Wii will launch Q4 of 2006. It looks like shoppers this holiday season will be able to pick from all the next-gen consoles.
You could always Google "Bonjour" and find this link:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bonjour/
Bonjour is more than just wireless and DHCP. It automatically discovers and configures printers and other network devices without even needing to use a wizard.
Let me be the first to say, "Hello" to our new, uh, wait, never-mind... (ducks)
Even if only a small percentage of all web attacks are reported, if that percentage stays stable then a rise in the number reported implies a rise in the total number of attacks.
Let's assume for a second that 1% of all attacks are reported. That would mean that 16 out of 1600 were reported in 2004 and 58 out of 5800 were reported in 2005. Now, let's say that the percentage of reports increased by 1% point in 2005. So, 1% reported in 2004 and 2% reported in 2005. That would mean that 16 out of 1600 were reported in 2004 and 58 out of 2900 were reported in 2005. So, in this scenario what looked look a 362.5% increase in attacks is actually only a 181.25% increase in attacks. So, a small change in the reported percentage could make a huge difference in the apparent increase. These numbers are so ridiculously low to begin with, I wouldn't be surprised if less than 1% of web attacks are reported. I looked through the list and can think of some attacks I know of to some pretty big sites that weren't reported. Plus, some incidents are pretty generic and don't address a specific attack while others do address specific attacks. So, their definition of a "Web hacking attacks" seems to be quite fluid. Basically what I'm saying is that these numbers are absolutely meaningless.
Web hacking attacks numbered 58 in 2005, up from 16 in 2004 and 9 in 2003, according to the Web Application Security Consortium.
And what percentage of "web hacking attacks" are reported to the Web Application Security Consortium? I would venture to guess that a very small number are reported making these numbers statistically meaningless.
Dreamweaver does do some annoying stuff with your code, but not "the moment you hit save". I've been able to get around most of these issues in Dreamweaver MX 2004. What version are you using? Rather than go into specifics, I suggest you use the split code/design window and take note of exactly when Dreamweaver does its crap. Then, you can learn to avoid those traps or at least undo them when you run into them. While still annoying, Dreamweaver is much better than FrontPage when it comes to this crap.
Workers her in the west are going to have to get used to the fact that there will be no such thing as a secure job for life (yes, there are still people who believe in that myth)
It is not entirely a myth, these jobs do exist. I didn't believe it myself until I stumbled onto one. I work for a non-profit where there are IT people and other employees that have been there for years. Believe-it-or-not, the pay is very competitive (hard to believe for a non-profit but it's true) and the organization is financially secure (I won't go into details but their funding model is very different than most non-profits). I won't argue with you that this is an exception and not the rule - but to say it's a myth is simply not true.