I love how people say, "move over to X IM service because Y IM service is evil!" The problem moving to a different IM service is you have to move all your friends to it too. Would I scrap AIM/MSN/etc' for Jabber and/or IRC? Hells yeah, but trying to get everyone else (including your non-geek friends who don't care how it works/who runs it) to follow you? Not so easy.
That is, unless you don't have any friends. In that case, by all means, "complain" all you want.
I found two new 'buddies' on list this morning too. (MovieFone? Sorry AOL, I'll stick with Fandango.) Anyway, after cursing to them for a few minutes to get the politely-offended-bot response of "Is that really how you want to start out our conversation?" I promptly removed them.
You'd be surprised how involved dealing with fiber is. The thing about fiber is there's no way to easily tap a line without interrupting service for more than a few minutes. You basically have to cut the line, pull the PVC jacket and buffer (typically Kevlar strands) back, and strip enough of the cladding off to expose the core itself. Then you'd have to polish the ends, and put them in a butt-splice using something that will split off enough light for you to be able to at least listen in on any communication. I challenge even the best fiber techs to do all that and get the link back up w/o massive attenuation at the splice before somebody notices. Even then, (if you're talking medium to large companies) that's going to leave a mark in the logs.
Is fiber a replacement for good security practices? Not so much. But does it provide much better Layer-1 security than copper? Absolutely.
Then again, you're right that it would just make more sense to get in by software rather than a physical tap.:-P
If a car maker can get away with a cheaper, flimsier [insert part here], save a few cents on each car, and sell millions of cars, they can make a mo'load more profit than if they'd gone with the slightly better quality part on every car. Same thing here only with mobos and capacitors -- nothing new.
As a Christian (and thus, creationist) I totally agree with you. I can believe what I want and parents can teach their kids to believe what they want. It's as simple as that.
A smoking ban was put in place for all public buildings (restaurants, office buildings, bars, etc) in my city a few months ago. Now, I'm not a smoker, and never plan to be. (In fact, both my parents smoke and I find it to be one of the most repulsive things a human being can do.)
However, I think smoking bans are a joke. I like to breathe fresh air just as much as the next guy, and if a local government wants to keep people from smoking in the DMV or the court-house, (which, around here, has always been the case) that's fine. But making it illegal to let customers smoke in a building owned by a private business is, IMNSHO, just a case of government putting it's nose where it doesn't belong. If you don't like second-hand smoke that much, don't frequent a place the allows smoking. If enough people boycott businesses that allow it, one of two things will happen, (1) a market will develop for smoke-free bars, restaurants, etc', or (2) it will be cost-effective for business owners to implement ventilation systems that make "non-smoking sections" really smoke-free.
Which is why what wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.
Holy crap, that's the best idea I've heard on the whole what's-wrong-with-wikipedia argument. I'd be curious to see what RMS (who was the one who really pushed the idea of a free-content encyclopedia) has to say about a stable/unstable implementation of a wiki.
HTML and XML enact a very limited kind of hypertext with great internal complexity.
Then goes on to say:
I propose a different document agenda: I believe we need new electronic documents which are transparent, public, principled, and freed from the traditions of hierarchy and paper.
So basically, he wants a hypertext format that is less complicated than HTML and it's variants but totally scraps the traits current hypertext formats get from their paper-based forefathers? (Okay, a quadriplegic monkey can write a simple hypertext document in HTML, but that's not my point.) Hypertext is based on paper for a reason: We still use paper. It won't be until we all have those little Star Trek-like pads for reading stuff that a truly not-like-paper hypertext format will make sense. Sure, I can put together a pretty sweet hypertext document in Flash where dynamic linking of useful information takes place in real-time, but just try to print it out -- it'd be useless. On the other hand, the only place I can use my Flash document is on a PC, in a Flash enabled browser -- just as useless.
My point is, it's stupid to spend a bunch of time coming up with cool, new, not-like-paper hypertext formats when there's no practical way of making them as portable and accessible as paper. Show me my Star Trek pad and I'll get behind this guy.
TMI functioned exactly as designed in the event of a meltdown
Right, but if you ask Joe Six-Pack about it, he won't give you a glowing testament to how safe it was, he'll tell you how scared shitless he was when he first heard about it. No doubt Three Mile Island was and is safer than most reactors, but it's the images of what could have happened had the safeguards failed that direct public opinion. What we need is a campaign to get people to realize that the likelihood of those safeguards actually failing, and having a catastrophic event in their continuity is near nil when using modern reactor technology.
I agree. I wish this kind of attitude were more common here in the States. Modern reactors are far safer than their more temperamental counterparts of the 70s and 80s (Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?). Unfortunately, this fear of reactors-past generates the not-in-my-backyard mentality among U.S. citizens when it comes to nuclear power. Not only has reactor technology gotten better, but the techniques for dealing with nuclear waste have advanced quite a bit as well.
I, for one, would welcome a nuclear cooling tower on my horizon. Bah, it's a damn shame.
Re:Quake 3 install troll
on
Quake 4 Linux
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Just a side-question: wouldn't H2 powered cars have problems when it gets significantly below freezing outside? I've seen prototypes of them where puddles form under the car as it sits stationary, idling. I mean, as long as the waste-water vapor is warm enough, it won't ice up the exhaust system, but all of it is going to condense, and freeze up all over the road. So during a hard winter, roads traveled heavily by H2 powered cars could become impassible even without any precipitation. Sure, L.A. could see a significant thinning of the smog, and cut way back on gas usage, but anywhere it routinely gets below freezing, not so much.
Can IPv4 and IPv6 coexist?
Yes, in fact they are expected to for around two decades. Can't seem to find the link to the RFC I read it int. Anyone?
When do the root servers transfer over?
The root servers already support name resolution to IPv6 addresses.
There was a/. story about it a while back.
If they can co-exist, what's the motivation for *everyone* to switch?
I guess we'll see. I think it will just be up to the vendors (read: Cisco ^_~) as to when they drop IPv4 support.
What happens to smaller countries that don't have the resources to make hardware changes to keep up to date.
Twenty years is a long time.
From a laymen's perspetive this seems a lot like Y2K in terms of the scope of changes required.
When you look at how much work has to be done, your right, but in this case, there's not a moment that we're approaching when everything will blow up if it's not switched over.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that a GUI text editor is hella easier to learn, but I take issue with the statement, "I disagree that everyone should learn to use vi."
I suppose you're right that vi isn't for everyone, but from a sysadmin's (or even a power-user's) point of view, you'd be stupid to ignore vi. Say a system gets clobbered and your beloved pico (insert other simple text editors here) is shot. What's your boss going think when you tell him you can't fix it because you don't know vi? And it's not that difficult to learn. I decided I wanted to at least get acquainted with vi, so I started taking notes in my Perl class with it. Dorky? Yes, but after a week or two of that, I had basic editing skills down pat. Granted, I don't know vi inside-out, but if I needed to make an emergency edit to a.conf, I could. Being an avid *nix user, and not knowing at least a little vi is like being a Windows admin and not knowing your way around MMC.
Slashdot Mirror
I love how people say, "move over to X IM service because Y IM service is evil!" The problem moving to a different IM service is you have to move all your friends to it too. Would I scrap AIM/MSN/etc' for Jabber and/or IRC? Hells yeah, but trying to get everyone else (including your non-geek friends who don't care how it works/who runs it) to follow you? Not so easy.
That is, unless you don't have any friends.
In that case, by all means, "complain" all you want.
I found two new 'buddies' on list this morning too. (MovieFone? Sorry AOL, I'll stick with Fandango.)
Anyway, after cursing to them for a few minutes to get the politely-offended-bot response of "Is that really how you want to start out our conversation?" I promptly removed them.
Is this just a flavor of BitTorrent, or did they develop it in-house?
You'd be surprised how involved dealing with fiber is. The thing about fiber is there's no way to easily tap a line without interrupting service for more than a few minutes. You basically have to cut the line, pull the PVC jacket and buffer (typically Kevlar strands) back, and strip enough of the cladding off to expose the core itself. Then you'd have to polish the ends, and put them in a butt-splice using something that will split off enough light for you to be able to at least listen in on any communication. I challenge even the best fiber techs to do all that and get the link back up w/o massive attenuation at the splice before somebody notices. Even then, (if you're talking medium to large companies) that's going to leave a mark in the logs.
:-P
Is fiber a replacement for good security practices? Not so much. But does it provide much better Layer-1 security than copper? Absolutely.
Then again, you're right that it would just make more sense to get in by software rather than a physical tap.
If a car maker can get away with a cheaper, flimsier [insert part here], save a few cents on each car, and sell millions of cars, they can make a mo'load more profit than if they'd gone with the slightly better quality part on every car. Same thing here only with mobos and capacitors -- nothing new.
As a Christian (and thus, creationist) I totally agree with you. I can believe what I want and parents can teach their kids to believe what they want. It's as simple as that.
Do I smell another failed biodome-like experiment comming on, or what?
:-P
because smokers are a big part of the reason why insurances are so costly
;)
If we de-socialized our health care system, you wouldn't have to worry about it.
A smoking ban was put in place for all public buildings (restaurants, office buildings, bars, etc) in my city a few months ago. Now, I'm not a smoker, and never plan to be. (In fact, both my parents smoke and I find it to be one of the most repulsive things a human being can do.)
However, I think smoking bans are a joke. I like to breathe fresh air just as much as the next guy, and if a local government wants to keep people from smoking in the DMV or the court-house, (which, around here, has always been the case) that's fine. But making it illegal to let customers smoke in a building owned by a private business is, IMNSHO, just a case of government putting it's nose where it doesn't belong. If you don't like second-hand smoke that much, don't frequent a place the allows smoking. If enough people boycott businesses that allow it, one of two things will happen, (1) a market will develop for smoke-free bars, restaurants, etc', or (2) it will be cost-effective for business owners to implement ventilation systems that make "non-smoking sections" really smoke-free.
Anyway, just my $0.02.
Which is why what wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.
Holy crap, that's the best idea I've heard on the whole what's-wrong-with-wikipedia argument. I'd be curious to see what RMS (who was the one who really pushed the idea of a free-content encyclopedia) has to say about a stable/unstable implementation of a wiki.
...one of those nipple things...
I'll never use a Thinkpad the same way again.
He says:
HTML and XML enact a very limited kind of hypertext with great internal complexity.
Then goes on to say:
I propose a different document agenda: I believe we need new electronic documents which are transparent, public, principled, and freed from the traditions of hierarchy and paper.
So basically, he wants a hypertext format that is less complicated than HTML and it's variants but totally scraps the traits current hypertext formats get from their paper-based forefathers? (Okay, a quadriplegic monkey can write a simple hypertext document in HTML, but that's not my point.) Hypertext is based on paper for a reason: We still use paper. It won't be until we all have those little Star Trek-like pads for reading stuff that a truly not-like-paper hypertext format will make sense. Sure, I can put together a pretty sweet hypertext document in Flash where dynamic linking of useful information takes place in real-time, but just try to print it out -- it'd be useless. On the other hand, the only place I can use my Flash document is on a PC, in a Flash enabled browser -- just as useless.
My point is, it's stupid to spend a bunch of time coming up with cool, new, not-like-paper hypertext formats when there's no practical way of making them as portable and accessible as paper. Show me my Star Trek pad and I'll get behind this guy.
a...hmm...like a....
...massive security exploit waiting to happen. ;)
I'll stick with DOS batch scripts, thank you.
TMI functioned exactly as designed in the event of a meltdown
Right, but if you ask Joe Six-Pack about it, he won't give you a glowing testament to how safe it was, he'll tell you how scared shitless he was when he first heard about it. No doubt Three Mile Island was and is safer than most reactors, but it's the images of what could have happened had the safeguards failed that direct public opinion. What we need is a campaign to get people to realize that the likelihood of those safeguards actually failing, and having a catastrophic event in their continuity is near nil when using modern reactor technology.
My sentiments exactly. :-P
I agree. I wish this kind of attitude were more common here in the States.
Modern reactors are far safer than their more temperamental counterparts of the 70s and 80s (Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?). Unfortunately, this fear of reactors-past generates the not-in-my-backyard mentality among U.S. citizens when it comes to nuclear power. Not only has reactor technology gotten better, but the techniques for dealing with nuclear waste have advanced quite a bit as well.
I, for one, would welcome a nuclear cooling tower on my horizon. Bah, it's a damn shame.
Hey, shutup! I have to type that out every time!
Just a side-question: wouldn't H2 powered cars have problems when it gets significantly below freezing outside? I've seen prototypes of them where puddles form under the car as it sits stationary, idling. I mean, as long as the waste-water vapor is warm enough, it won't ice up the exhaust system, but all of it is going to condense, and freeze up all over the road. So during a hard winter, roads traveled heavily by H2 powered cars could become impassible even without any precipitation. Sure, L.A. could see a significant thinning of the smog, and cut way back on gas usage, but anywhere it routinely gets below freezing, not so much.
Am I wrong here?
As long as Netcraft doens't confirm it, I'll keep coding.
Pfft. My Apple IIe with dual 5.25" floppy drives owns your crappy Windows box!
the only thing that keeps my Windows boxes at home running are dozens of apps that I have accumulated in the last decade
Ah, so Windows doesn't keep the boxes running. Don't worry, that's normal.
:-P
Can IPv4 and IPv6 coexist?
/. story about it a while back.
Yes, in fact they are expected to for around two decades. Can't seem to find the link to the RFC I read it int. Anyone?
When do the root servers transfer over? The root servers already support name resolution to IPv6 addresses. There was a
If they can co-exist, what's the motivation for *everyone* to switch?
I guess we'll see. I think it will just be up to the vendors (read: Cisco ^_~) as to when they drop IPv4 support.
What happens to smaller countries that don't have the resources to make hardware changes to keep up to date.
Twenty years is a long time.
From a laymen's perspetive this seems a lot like Y2K in terms of the scope of changes required.
When you look at how much work has to be done, your right, but in this case, there's not a moment that we're approaching when everything will blow up if it's not switched over.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that a GUI text editor is hella easier to learn, but I take issue with the statement, "I disagree that everyone should learn to use vi." .conf, I could. Being an avid *nix user, and not knowing at least a little vi is like being a Windows admin and not knowing your way around MMC.
I suppose you're right that vi isn't for everyone, but from a sysadmin's (or even a power-user's) point of view, you'd be stupid to ignore vi. Say a system gets clobbered and your beloved pico (insert other simple text editors here) is shot. What's your boss going think when you tell him you can't fix it because you don't know vi? And it's not that difficult to learn. I decided I wanted to at least get acquainted with vi, so I started taking notes in my Perl class with it. Dorky? Yes, but after a week or two of that, I had basic editing skills down pat. Granted, I don't know vi inside-out, but if I needed to make an emergency edit to a
The only cheap and working solutions were the cpu converter sockets, f.ex. from a Pentium II slot to Pentium III socket.
IIRC, those were called 'slockets.' I think after 'dongle,' that's the best A+-cert-guide-glossary term, ever.
Oh crap, I know this one...