No, it won't convince any of the idiots who think we never landed on the moon. No amount of evidence ever will.
Sorry - did you have any evidence? Was the behavior of the federal government at that time so trustworthy that their word is acceptable?
I believed the moon landing was real until I found out about the loss of these tapes and the subsequent "recovery" which turns out to be another copy made at the same time.
The goal of the people behind the moon landing was to prove to the USSR that we had the technological ability to obliterate the world quickly and thoroughly. Why are those people given the benefit of the doubt?
chroot is not a jail, its a hack to make shitty software work in a specially constructed enviroment. It does not in any way prevent a malicious program from breaking out of the chroot, it just makes a poorly written one have the option of working in a special section of the filesystem where you can put specific versions of files without effecting the entire system.
FTP without a chroot is not really any different than ssh without a chroot. If you're just depending on the authors of your ftp daemon to protect you then your an idiot.
Let me say this one more time since no one ever gets it an every year we see a new slashdot article about it.
CHROOT IS NOT A FUCKING SECURITY FENCE, NOT INTENDED TO BE, DOESN'T ACT LIKE ONE, WILL NEVER BE ONE.
Wait, so depending on the daemon to protect you is idiocy. But also chroot is not useful for security.
So you'd like another, unstated solution? Love to hear it.
SFTP isn't useful if you want to jail users to a certain directory. Setting up SFTP to work that way is a huge pain in the ass. Most FTP(S) servers were designed with this in mind.
Exactly.
Whether you choose SFTP or FTPS, you get bitten by one problem or the other.
That's only a problem if the FTPS server doesn't use the PASV data mode.
PASV mode requires a new connection to be allowed. It's still a problem if the FTP server sits behind a firewall that isn't allowing connections over the Internet to a huge block of ports.
You can get by if you limit the port range to 100 or so and allow those. But any alternative now looks much better, if you're required to poke huge holes in the firewall just due to a historically silly protocol that was extended in an unuseful way.
Sometimes it might work. It can't work when there are two reasonably strict NAT gateways / firewalls - one on each end.
FTPS does make the problem FAR worse. That's a fact. Firewalls look at the data of the FTP control connection to know what to allow or what translation to do. FTPS deprives them of this and provides no other mechanism to help the situation.
What does the hacker ethic have to do maintainability? The hacker ethic is about testing boundaries, making things because you can, breaking things because you can, and bring out the full potential of technology. It has nothing to do with coding styles and what effect they may or may not have on maintainability.
I think the hacker ethic could strongly influence someone involved in software development in their choice of how maintainable to write code. But I think it influences some people to write unmaintainable code thinking that they're being "clever", and other people to write highly maintainable code because they know that it is indeed clever.
Also someone who thinks in terms of such passion for the art will be much more productive than others. So they can write maintainable code simply by having more time available (by being able to solve problems faster). Especially since the influence from management is never to make code maintainable, it's to produce it as fast as possible to satisfy some "business need". Writing maintainable code is an act of rebellion in most environments.
And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable'...
Flamebait. The article goes on to say that Americans are all prima donnas who are out of touch with reality and want to start with 80K a year and whatnot. Besides that being a bad stereotype and not always true
That's barely a living wage in most of the cities where a programmer has a likelyhood of making a living. i.e. there are more than a few hundred companies that employ people in software development.
My observation is that good American programmers can produce software that is -vastly- more maintainable, efficient, understandable. Easier to modify or extend.
Mostly this is because they're combining a lifelong passion for programming with some education (formal or not) about software design practices. Foreign programmers on work visas are primarily concerned with making a better life for their family, altering their condition from one of near-poverty to significant wealth. They rarely have a passion for the work, and their only requirement is that they can accomplish enough to get and keep a job, not to excel.
Foreign programmers who could not get a work visa to come to the US, but work for US businesses remotely for a reduced rate due to the discrepancy in cost of living are usually of the same mindset. But usually they weren't good enough to get a job in the US! More recently, their standard of living can be equal or greater by staying in their country.
I simply don't know where the Indian or Chinese workers are that have significant skill or a real passion for programming, or computers in general. I have never met ONE in my life, despite working with countless dozens of foreign works on work visas. I have met some from other countries, but usually it is not places that are so poor that huge numbers of people are coming to the US to get a job that changes their standard of living. The exception is the former Soviet states. People from the former Soviet states often bring a passion for computing with them. Probably because they weren't poor in the same sense as someone of comparable income in India.
Sadly, I saw Ruby and Ruby On Rails refused for multiple projects because of catastrophically poor benchmark results. I mean that Java, PHP, and Perl were all totally acceptable, and Ruby disqualified itself in performance. (thousands of times difference).
The thing about MJ wasn't really that he died but rather the fact that he just randomly died. He was arguably one of the most popular musicians with the general crowd to die since Elvis. Many people got texts, twitter updates, Facebook updates and wondered what exactly was going on. While no one thought MJ was in amazing health, he didn't have cancer or a long illness so many assumed it was a prank so they Googled it to get the info from a reliable source.
That's the right answer.
The story is exactly relevant enough and questionable enough that it needs verification. So -everyone- verifies it.
The question should be - what about Michael Jackson's life leads people to believe that news of his death is so likely to be a prank that it must be immediately verified?
To be fair, most of the systems I have seen that have secret question type security don't let you in on the basis of the secret question, they email a replacement password to you, and only use the secret question to reduce DOS attacks and minimise the sending of plain-text passwords. Surely in that case it's only an issue if the cracker has already compromised your email account?
I've rarely seen that setup. The security questions usually just allow you access to the account instead of the normal password. Sometimes they are randomly asked even though you already know the real password.
It does seem quite random and to change frequently on most sites.
Uh, data like this shouldn't even be on a computer with a physical link to the internet at all. Classified data should stay on classified networks. Period.
The article never said it was classified data. They said it was blueprints for a helicopter - practically public information. The dozens of companies involved in the manufacture of the helicopter will all have copies, anyone who does maintenance for one, anyone who owns one, the FAA.
It said the data might be sensitive. That's the level we're at. They admit they don't know how sensitive the data is.
Important datacenters like those found in stock exchanges / etc are similar. The datacenter is secured, network access is very carefully controlled, and to do anything important you need to have physical access to a room with cameras pointed everywhere and every task involves two people at the keyboard at all times.
Really. You don't say? This is very interesting. I'd like to hear more about how this works. What do you mean two people at the keyboard at all times? Do they sit on each other's lap? Or does one watch what the other types and say "ok, you can hit enter"?
Cameras pointed everywhere? All real datacenters have cameras pointed at the doors. What does "everywhere" mean?
Why do you think that stock exchanges have more secure datacenters and computing environments in general than anyone else? Do you even know what a stock exchange actually is?
Nope. Everyone is assuming this is a torrent because it is the most popular form of file sharing.
Most popular by what criteria? Number of users? Surely http wins. Bytes transferred? That's certainly between NFS, CIFS, and ISCSI, although HTTP wins if you count Internet-only.
As I've said before, spam is an economic problem. It won't go away until you remove the economic incentive to send it. Spam is sent out because people can make money by sending it, plain and simple. If something meaningful was done to remove the incentive to send spam, then it would go away.
Given that a lot of spam is blasted out by infected PCs, if ISPs implemented a pay-per-bandwidth scheme it might have the side effect of motivating end users to be more conscientious about security. Suddenly getting stuck with a $200 monthly bill might wake some people up.
This doesn't do anything to dismantle the economic incentive to send spam; it just might increase the difficulty of assembling large bot nets.
If I fill a 16GB memory card with my digital camera, and make an offsite backup, should that be as costly as sending 16 million 1kB emails?
I would contend that for the average user, spam is essentially a non-issue nowadays. IT departments still have to do quite a bit of work, but all that work means that the average amount of spam a user sees is nearing zero.
I agree with this both as an IT worker and an email user. Email that reaches our site is approx 99% spam (up from ~95% a few years ago). That's what is filtered by our email gateway, and has a virtually zero false-positive rate (I have never caught a false positive).
Unfortunately, so much spam slips through that I have to send all Internet mail to a spam folder I can't ever check because it gets too much mail. So my work email is for internal work email only, with the occasional whitelisted vendor. People who know me can IM me.
So yes, spam is a non-issue. At the moderately sized company I work at, we have one person dedicated to dealing with protecting us from it, and I still can barely use my email account for Internet mail.
We've had one former IT guy show up on the local most wanted list and noticed that a lot of unused equipment disappeared about the same time he was fired.
That's not nearly as funny as places that do background checks *months* after an employee has started. That leads to really interesting situations, where newly valuable employees have to face the possibility of being fired. The decision is completely random and is partially based on an HR person's reading of a background check report that they do not really understand. The employee's boss can also help them out if they want (but not every time, it's basically random depending on how it looked in the database and whether that particular hr person and that particular boss have a good relationship or not).
The win was a programmer forced to work from home, deemed too dangerous to allow into the office.
I don't get it. Security isn't like "egg-sexing" (determining the gender of unhatched eggs by feel) where no one knows how you do it, you get a recruit to watch you, then do it randomly while you correct them, and finally be able to sex chickens as well as you do. All the while no one knows (including you) how you do what you do.
Instead, it is a set of actions and processes we follow that can be described easily, simply. If someone knows the technologies and vocabulary, you can direct them over the phone.
With this in mind, why COULDN'T you have a set of checkboxes?
You deliberately exclude checkboxes such as "There should not be a + in/etc/hosts.equiv". If it's a checklist, it has to be pretty specific, and there's room to flood it with insignificant trivia so that no one has time to read it all.
I am aware of one publicly traded financial company that has an audit group verify information security. This is done by writing a series of general guidelines, specific policies, and then basically by a checklist. The checklist might include significant detail instead of just a check in a box. For example, the whole/etc/sudoers.
If you have an application that accepts connections from perhaps a dozen internal applications without authentication, and allows them to engage in a transaction that involves real money, how do you handle a security audit? You tell the auditor exactly what's going on, and explain that to fix it you would have to figure out who's connecting, why they connect, what addresses they might connect from, maintain a list of users and modify the protocol to require the authentication data, and then force a dozen different application groups to modify their code to present authentication. The auditor has to really be the one to force those groups to make the changes. If it is an external auditor, you may need to remind them that they'll
The easiest solution for everyone involved, including and especially the auditor, is to make sure the checklist includes a whole lot of detail that does not touch upon the fact that there's just no authentication.
I've seen such detail as including/etc/passwd and/etc/shadow in an audit report but not mentioning that everyone knows the password to the most important system account.
I'm relatively young, so I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but my best friend knows all the personal account names and passwords I use for everything.
Ouch. I know you're serious. Wow. It's like seeing a child about to touch a hot stove for the first time. You know to yell "no, that's hot" at him. But you also know the warning will be ignored, and that there are no words that can be said fast enough to keep him from getting burned.
The tragedy is that in your case, odds are it will be weeks, months, or even years, before you are burned. And we don't get to all slowly watch you reach for the hot stove.
Luckily this post will be around for longer than that, to remind you of the sweet, sweet irony. Please remind us when it happens! Make the news if you can. Let us know how it goes.
It is electrically insulating and is commonly used for cooling electronics (think Cray supercomputers).
It is commonly used for cooling Cray systems? I can't find a model made since the 80s that uses Fluorinert. The Cray systems mentioned on their website are all air or water cooled.
I'm not sure why this position is popular in these kinds of sports. Maybe it's the whole "humans should be judged by humans and not machines" aspect. Or maybe it's because having a Review Comission in front of CCTV monitors be judging every little move just feels too 1984-rish for spectators and players alike. Or maybe its something else. But this is a rather popular feeling.
Must it really be any more than just wanting to have something to argue about in the pub?
Watching the entirety of soccer and boxing matches and paying attention, the first times for both, I was completely shocked at the referee's control over the outcome of the game. They can basically arbitrarily decide the outcome.
But without these events, large groups of drunk men would have had nothing to talk about for an entire night. Each outrageous event is also good for a 15-minute debate every 3 months for the rest of your life.
Soccer provides a lot more chance for these debates than boxing. Of course Baseball provides for some. But on the average, the rest of the world has more time to spend doing nothing than Americans. So they need sports that are more arbitrary, and provide more situations for debate.
On my Fedora Core 7 system, with a 2.5ghz CPU, running "vmstat 1" causes the X server to use 5% CPU. (It is an nvidia graphics card, but I don't use their binary-only driver).
Typing in this firefox-2 text window gives a CPU usage of about 30%.
Opening a new tab causes 60% CPU utilization for 2 seconds.
I think it's time to give up on Linux on the desktop.
Vigorous mouse movement causes about 35% CPU utilization.
I'd love for them to be close to my house because it would mean that the jets would have to fly further away. Windmill = quiet power. Jet = noise pollution.
Layne
I guess you've never seen a windmill before. They are quite loud.
Having them out of sight hopefully also means that they are far enough away that you can't hear them.
For many applications, what matters is price per IO operations per second. Sometimes price per IO operations per second per U of rack space or per watt is what matters.
Flash will beat hard drives there much sooner than it will beat hard drives in simple $/GB.
Flash has fast reads and slow writes. Sun is promising flash drives with 25% of the space reserved for bad block remapping, and a huge amount of supercapacitor-backed write cache. They are promising to release this in SFF HD form factor with a SAS interface, and SO-DIMM form factor with a presumably proprietary interface.
Even if Sun breaks its promise, as is typical for them, someone else will come out with the product.
In my opinion, there is a very strong need for regulation of the credit agencies. If they didn't allow for CDOs and MBSs to get AAA ratings, this credit crunch and likely recession wouldn't have occurred. First of all, we are not in a recession by any documented definition of the word "recession".
However, if this recession was averted, you are saying what - a future of permanent economic growth, or a recession delayed by a few months?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it won't convince any of the idiots who think we never landed on the moon. No amount of evidence ever will.
Sorry - did you have any evidence? Was the behavior of the federal government at that time so trustworthy that their word is acceptable?
I believed the moon landing was real until I found out about the loss of these tapes and the subsequent "recovery" which turns out to be another copy made at the same time.
The goal of the people behind the moon landing was to prove to the USSR that we had the technological ability to obliterate the world quickly and thoroughly. Why are those people given the benefit of the doubt?
So many reasons why this post is silly:
chroot is not a jail, its a hack to make shitty software work in a specially constructed enviroment. It does not in any way prevent a malicious program from breaking out of the chroot, it just makes a poorly written one have the option of working in a special section of the filesystem where you can put specific versions of files without effecting the entire system.
FTP without a chroot is not really any different than ssh without a chroot. If you're just depending on the authors of your ftp daemon to protect you then your an idiot.
Let me say this one more time since no one ever gets it an every year we see a new slashdot article about it.
CHROOT IS NOT A FUCKING SECURITY FENCE, NOT INTENDED TO BE, DOESN'T ACT LIKE ONE, WILL NEVER BE ONE.
Wait, so depending on the daemon to protect you is idiocy. But also chroot is not useful for security.
So you'd like another, unstated solution? Love to hear it.
SFTP isn't useful if you want to jail users to a certain directory. Setting up SFTP to work that way is a huge pain in the ass. Most FTP(S) servers were designed with this in mind.
Exactly.
Whether you choose SFTP or FTPS, you get bitten by one problem or the other.
That's only a problem if the FTPS server doesn't use the PASV data mode.
PASV mode requires a new connection to be allowed. It's still a problem if the FTP server sits behind a firewall that isn't allowing connections over the Internet to a huge block of ports.
You can get by if you limit the port range to 100 or so and allow those. But any alternative now looks much better, if you're required to poke huge holes in the firewall just due to a historically silly protocol that was extended in an unuseful way.
Sometimes it might work. It can't work when there are two reasonably strict NAT gateways / firewalls - one on each end.
FTPS does make the problem FAR worse. That's a fact. Firewalls look at the data of the FTP control connection to know what to allow or what translation to do. FTPS deprives them of this and provides no other mechanism to help the situation.
What does the hacker ethic have to do maintainability? The hacker ethic is about testing boundaries, making things because you can, breaking things because you can, and bring out the full potential of technology. It has nothing to do with coding styles and what effect they may or may not have on maintainability.
I think the hacker ethic could strongly influence someone involved in software development in their choice of how maintainable to write code. But I think it influences some people to write unmaintainable code thinking that they're being "clever", and other people to write highly maintainable code because they know that it is indeed clever.
Also someone who thinks in terms of such passion for the art will be much more productive than others. So they can write maintainable code simply by having more time available (by being able to solve problems faster). Especially since the influence from management is never to make code maintainable, it's to produce it as fast as possible to satisfy some "business need". Writing maintainable code is an act of rebellion in most environments.
And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable'...
Flamebait. The article goes on to say that Americans are all prima donnas who are out of touch with reality and want to start with 80K a year and whatnot. Besides that being a bad stereotype and not always true
That's barely a living wage in most of the cities where a programmer has a likelyhood of making a living. i.e. there are more than a few hundred companies that employ people in software development.
My observation is that good American programmers can produce software that is -vastly- more maintainable, efficient, understandable. Easier to modify or extend.
Mostly this is because they're combining a lifelong passion for programming with some education (formal or not) about software design practices. Foreign programmers on work visas are primarily concerned with making a better life for their family, altering their condition from one of near-poverty to significant wealth. They rarely have a passion for the work, and their only requirement is that they can accomplish enough to get and keep a job, not to excel.
Foreign programmers who could not get a work visa to come to the US, but work for US businesses remotely for a reduced rate due to the discrepancy in cost of living are usually of the same mindset. But usually they weren't good enough to get a job in the US! More recently, their standard of living can be equal or greater by staying in their country.
I simply don't know where the Indian or Chinese workers are that have significant skill or a real passion for programming, or computers in general. I have never met ONE in my life, despite working with countless dozens of foreign works on work visas. I have met some from other countries, but usually it is not places that are so poor that huge numbers of people are coming to the US to get a job that changes their standard of living. The exception is the former Soviet states. People from the former Soviet states often bring a passion for computing with them. Probably because they weren't poor in the same sense as someone of comparable income in India.
Sadly, I saw Ruby and Ruby On Rails refused for multiple projects because of catastrophically poor benchmark results. I mean that Java, PHP, and Perl were all totally acceptable, and Ruby disqualified itself in performance. (thousands of times difference).
Glad I never wasted time learning it.
The thing about MJ wasn't really that he died but rather the fact that he just randomly died. He was arguably one of the most popular musicians with the general crowd to die since Elvis. Many people got texts, twitter updates, Facebook updates and wondered what exactly was going on. While no one thought MJ was in amazing health, he didn't have cancer or a long illness so many assumed it was a prank so they Googled it to get the info from a reliable source.
That's the right answer.
The story is exactly relevant enough and questionable enough that it needs verification. So -everyone- verifies it.
The question should be - what about Michael Jackson's life leads people to believe that news of his death is so likely to be a prank that it must be immediately verified?
To be fair, most of the systems I have seen that have secret question type security don't let you in on the basis of the secret question, they email a replacement password to you, and only use the secret question to reduce DOS attacks and minimise the sending of plain-text passwords. Surely in that case it's only an issue if the cracker has already compromised your email account?
I've rarely seen that setup. The security questions usually just allow you access to the account instead of the normal password. Sometimes they are randomly asked even though you already know the real password.
It does seem quite random and to change frequently on most sites.
Uh, data like this shouldn't even be on a computer with a physical link to the internet at all. Classified data should stay on classified networks. Period.
The article never said it was classified data. They said it was blueprints for a helicopter - practically public information. The dozens of companies involved in the manufacture of the helicopter will all have copies, anyone who does maintenance for one, anyone who owns one, the FAA.
It said the data might be sensitive. That's the level we're at. They admit they don't know how sensitive the data is.
Important datacenters like those found in stock exchanges / etc are similar. The datacenter is secured, network access is very carefully controlled, and to do anything important you need to have physical access to a room with cameras pointed everywhere and every task involves two people at the keyboard at all times.
Really. You don't say? This is very interesting. I'd like to hear more about how this works. What do you mean two people at the keyboard at all times? Do they sit on each other's lap? Or does one watch what the other types and say "ok, you can hit enter"?
Cameras pointed everywhere? All real datacenters have cameras pointed at the doors. What does "everywhere" mean?
Why do you think that stock exchanges have more secure datacenters and computing environments in general than anyone else? Do you even know what a stock exchange actually is?
Nope. Everyone is assuming this is a torrent because it is the most popular form of file sharing.
Most popular by what criteria? Number of users? Surely http wins. Bytes transferred? That's certainly between NFS, CIFS, and ISCSI, although HTTP wins if you count Internet-only.
This makes me wonder - what is exactly the absolute best small flashlight in the world?
I would define "small" as fitting in your pocket comfortably.
Given that a lot of spam is blasted out by infected PCs, if ISPs implemented a pay-per-bandwidth scheme it might have the side effect of motivating end users to be more conscientious about security. Suddenly getting stuck with a $200 monthly bill might wake some people up.
This doesn't do anything to dismantle the economic incentive to send spam; it just might increase the difficulty of assembling large bot nets.
If I fill a 16GB memory card with my digital camera, and make an offsite backup, should that be as costly as sending 16 million 1kB emails?
I would contend that for the average user, spam is essentially a non-issue nowadays. IT departments still have to do quite a bit of work, but all that work means that the average amount of spam a user sees is nearing zero.
I agree with this both as an IT worker and an email user. Email that reaches our site is approx 99% spam (up from ~95% a few years ago). That's what is filtered by our email gateway, and has a virtually zero false-positive rate (I have never caught a false positive).
Unfortunately, so much spam slips through that I have to send all Internet mail to a spam folder I can't ever check because it gets too much mail. So my work email is for internal work email only, with the occasional whitelisted vendor. People who know me can IM me.
So yes, spam is a non-issue. At the moderately sized company I work at, we have one person dedicated to dealing with protecting us from it, and I still can barely use my email account for Internet mail.
We've had one former IT guy show up on the local most wanted list and noticed that a lot of unused equipment disappeared about the same time he was fired.
That's not nearly as funny as places that do background checks *months* after an employee has started. That leads to really interesting situations, where newly valuable employees have to face the possibility of being fired. The decision is completely random and is partially based on an HR person's reading of a background check report that they do not really understand. The employee's boss can also help them out if they want (but not every time, it's basically random depending on how it looked in the database and whether that particular hr person and that particular boss have a good relationship or not).
The win was a programmer forced to work from home, deemed too dangerous to allow into the office.
I don't get it. Security isn't like "egg-sexing" (determining the gender of unhatched eggs by feel) where no one knows how you do it, you get a recruit to watch you, then do it randomly while you correct them, and finally be able to sex chickens as well as you do. All the while no one knows (including you) how you do what you do.
Instead, it is a set of actions and processes we follow that can be described easily, simply. If someone knows the technologies and vocabulary, you can direct them over the phone.
With this in mind, why COULDN'T you have a set of checkboxes?
You deliberately exclude checkboxes such as "There should not be a + in /etc/hosts.equiv". If it's a checklist, it has to be pretty specific, and there's room to flood it with insignificant trivia so that no one has time to read it all.
I am aware of one publicly traded financial company that has an audit group verify information security. This is done by writing a series of general guidelines, specific policies, and then basically by a checklist. The checklist might include significant detail instead of just a check in a box. For example, the whole /etc/sudoers.
If you have an application that accepts connections from perhaps a dozen internal applications without authentication, and allows them to engage in a transaction that involves real money, how do you handle a security audit? You tell the auditor exactly what's going on, and explain that to fix it you would have to figure out who's connecting, why they connect, what addresses they might connect from, maintain a list of users and modify the protocol to require the authentication data, and then force a dozen different application groups to modify their code to present authentication. The auditor has to really be the one to force those groups to make the changes. If it is an external auditor, you may need to remind them that they'll
The easiest solution for everyone involved, including and especially the auditor, is to make sure the checklist includes a whole lot of detail that does not touch upon the fact that there's just no authentication.
I've seen such detail as including /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow in an audit report but not mentioning that everyone knows the password to the most important system account.
I'm relatively young, so I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but my best friend knows all the personal account names and passwords I use for everything.
Ouch. I know you're serious. Wow. It's like seeing a child about to touch a hot stove for the first time. You know to yell "no, that's hot" at him. But you also know the warning will be ignored, and that there are no words that can be said fast enough to keep him from getting burned.
The tragedy is that in your case, odds are it will be weeks, months, or even years, before you are burned. And we don't get to all slowly watch you reach for the hot stove.
Luckily this post will be around for longer than that, to remind you of the sweet, sweet irony. Please remind us when it happens! Make the news if you can. Let us know how it goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorinert
It is electrically insulating and is commonly used for cooling electronics (think Cray supercomputers).
It is commonly used for cooling Cray systems? I can't find a model made since the 80s that uses Fluorinert. The Cray systems mentioned on their website are all air or water cooled.
I'm not sure why this position is popular in these kinds of sports. Maybe it's the whole "humans should be judged by humans and not machines" aspect. Or maybe it's because having a Review Comission in front of CCTV monitors be judging every little move just feels too 1984-rish for spectators and players alike. Or maybe its something else. But this is a rather popular feeling.
Must it really be any more than just wanting to have something to argue about in the pub?
Watching the entirety of soccer and boxing matches and paying attention, the first times for both, I was completely shocked at the referee's control over the outcome of the game. They can basically arbitrarily decide the outcome.
But without these events, large groups of drunk men would have had nothing to talk about for an entire night. Each outrageous event is also good for a 15-minute debate every 3 months for the rest of your life.
Soccer provides a lot more chance for these debates than boxing. Of course Baseball provides for some. But on the average, the rest of the world has more time to spend doing nothing than Americans. So they need sports that are more arbitrary, and provide more situations for debate.
On my Fedora Core 7 system, with a 2.5ghz CPU, running "vmstat 1" causes the X server to use 5% CPU. (It is an nvidia graphics card, but I don't use their binary-only driver).
Typing in this firefox-2 text window gives a CPU usage of about 30%.
Opening a new tab causes 60% CPU utilization for 2 seconds.
I think it's time to give up on Linux on the desktop.
Vigorous mouse movement causes about 35% CPU utilization.
I'd love for them to be close to my house because it would mean that the jets would have to fly further away. Windmill = quiet power. Jet = noise pollution.
Layne
I guess you've never seen a windmill before. They are quite loud.Having them out of sight hopefully also means that they are far enough away that you can't hear them.
For many applications, what matters is price per IO operations per second. Sometimes price per IO operations per second per U of rack space or per watt is what matters.
Flash will beat hard drives there much sooner than it will beat hard drives in simple $/GB.
Flash has fast reads and slow writes. Sun is promising flash drives with 25% of the space reserved for bad block remapping, and a huge amount of supercapacitor-backed write cache. They are promising to release this in SFF HD form factor with a SAS interface, and SO-DIMM form factor with a presumably proprietary interface.
Even if Sun breaks its promise, as is typical for them, someone else will come out with the product.
However, if this recession was averted, you are saying what - a future of permanent economic growth, or a recession delayed by a few months?