Capacitors in computer generally do not have plates. They are electrolytic. If they sing, it's because the case is flexing and poping back as bubbles of gas form in the goo, and then get re-absorbed. Or perhaps just due to heating and cooling.
Most notably on a Sun UltraSparc from which you could hear a hiss coming from the case (not the monitor) when scrolling a large body of text through an xterm. There were no speakers on the machine. I could cat a large file and hear the memory chips hiss. I think it was the memory chips from the location on the front right side of the case.
This was very repeatable, and could be demonstrated to anyone. I've had similar noises from other machines, but the fan usually drowns it out to where most people can't hear it and you aren't sure.
I can't resolve pop.freeshell.org from my machine, but I can resolve it from the shell on sdf.lonestar.org, so I presume that is a DNS propagation thing.
I took the IP address as found on sdf and put it in my/etc/hosts file, and just retrieved my accumulated email. I'm sure SDF will be under strain as people catch up today and tomorrow, so I'll refrain from bogging things down.
Woohoo !
I'll be checking the bboard later to see what this has cost SDF, and see if I should be sending them a little bit more money.
The current rate of failure is high enough to count as "fundamentally flawed" for manned flight. I'd rather ride a hydrogen filled deridgeable. The long term issue is not that they can easily fix this particular problem, but that they have twice allowed such issues to destroy a mission and lives inspite of all NASA's vaunted review and safety checking bureaucracy.
As far as funding increasing substantially, do you think it is a long term feasible solution to sacrifice seven people every decade or so to whip up support ? How long do you think you can keep the suckers paying ?
Even if they roboticize it and use it as a reusable cargo transporter, well, there are cheaper methods than the shuttle, even methods which involve no re-use of any components.
Face it, it's a failure that cost 14 people their lives and who knows how many billions of dollars. Time to revive the real single-stage to orbit reusable vehicle. Right now, I wouldn't even fund that, at least not through NASA.
The "filter outgoing at border" mantra may apply to much of the current vandalism on the internet, but it's not going to stop it when administrators finally wise up and deal with it.
Here's a few links to the next level of annoyances:
Every 3 years buy two new harddrives whose capacity is each twice the sum of all drives you have ever bought previously, and copy everything to it, and set the old ones aside on the shelf to be accessed in should both of the new ones fail.
To clarify, I posted that comment before I realized I was walking into a mod-war. Can you children please mod each other down and leave me out of it ? And I'd like to encourage the annonymous poster to leave more details. You don't have to reveal yourself of course, or post information that could be used to track you down, but with the little you posted I can't even start a good rumour ! Throw me a bone here ! Was the data known bad at time of publication ? Maybe it was discovered bad later and the retraction is just slow in coming out ? Or was is purposely faked ?
A better analogy would be that a whole crowd of kids come, mixed in with the normal wanting icecream kids so you can't tell the difference, only when these kids get up to the counter they move very slowly, argue, take napkins one at a time, change their request of which flavor, so that soon you are serving 1 kid every two minutes instead of 1 kid every ten seconds.
Is there any way we can make a filesharing protocol based on this, and have gateway machines that mirror files that are behind facist firewalls that block gnutella ports to gnutella ? A kind of really long latency email server ?
You can do this to resecue data from some types of dying hard drives, I've heard people say they regularly do it with Western Digitals that have gone into that clicking mode which means they are about to fail. Basically, quit smoking and sweep dust off your desk, hook it up, take the cover off, and boot -- when it starts trying to spin "jump start" it by flicking the platter hard (with a clean hand). You can run it in air long enough to suck all the data off if you are quick -- have your empty space ready. You can watch the color change as the platter oxidizes. Sometimes you can run it like that longer, a week or two even, to impress your friends.
Re:what we call these....
on
When Users Attack
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
When are you moving to Belieze so we don't have to listen to you any more ?
Why would the C compiler be written in crush ? No platform is an island, you don't have to write it in crush just to get it on there in the first place. It sounds like you are visualizing the Brix/crush as the only system out there, and think this restriction on address access can be permanently wired in so it replicates itself in every new version.
The world doesn't work that way. If the OS itself doesn't prevent applications from accessing any address, then someone will write the exploit by hand in assembly; if it's big, they will work on a Linux machine with gcc and put a new backend on gcc to produce code that will run on Brix. After all, if they were simply porting gcc then that's what they would do, until they had a gcc good enough to compile itself for Brix, and then move over to Brix for development and keep progressing.
Having a knoppix and a demolinux and the run-from-cd slackware would be neat. People could fiddle around, decide what they liked, and install something to the harddrive later.
A better way to do it would be for employers to simply disclaim false statements from a low level employee as just that, false statements from a low level employee. But because we impose no cost on them for being extremist censors and gag-artists, they push the boundaries as far as possible.
Don't be coddling these management practices. While you are right that some of them wouldn't have been invented if employees used a bit of common sense occasionally in terms of speculating about what they didn't know, spreading rumours, etc, that doesn't mean these practices are detrimental to society and weaken the organization itself in the long run.
If the management of the European Patent Office is trully acting in good faith, then we should shortly see the interview released after having been looked over by a few people; and we should expect the bureaucrat who made this decision to be willing to answer his own set of questions.
I don't have a lackadaisical attitude towards software licensing. I read the licenses, and I have downloaded and read Title 17.
You are playing up a small and improbable threat, urging us to pay the possibly high costs of mucking around with working licenses and associating ourselves with the unwholesome world of click-through "contracts", for an unsure gaurd against it. Your threat is small and the armour your offer us encumbers us without stopping the threat.
However, when you cry wolf against this vague and unproven warranty threat, you are using up your credibility, and unfortunately, the credibility of those associated with you -- to the end of spreading FUD as nastily as Microsoft.
Maybe even the GPL can be considered a contract in some way; you could say the act of re-distribution was the initiation of the contractual obligations. And it's true that one had to think about the real world of legal matters in regards to many things. And it's possible that providing third party use may be a use that should trigger the GPL requirements of providing source code.
But, regardless of your dreams and nightmares, if you endorse or associate yourself with click-through licenses your movement will be shooting itself in the foot.
On opensource.org, one of the first sentences is:
"Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software certification mark and program."
If the Open Source Definition comes to include click-through nonsense, your organization will not be able to acheive it's goals "for the good of the community." I think you need to step back, pay attention to the real world and reconsider things. If you loose the ability to enforce a license or two in a case here and there it's not a disaster, in fact it can be political victory -- mostly it will mean that the software reverts to a public domain or BSD license state. But if you allow your OSI stamp of approval to just mean that that you click "I Agree" to a different set of unread conditions, then you have thrown your hard work up to this point in the garbage.
The click-wrap issue deals with assent to a contract, not use.
Why would you want your organization's stamp on anything that required a contract ? Why do you want to offer anything to those who "may prefer to rely on contract rather than copyright law" ? The primary differences are that the contract is weaker and allows more restrictions on freedom.
There is a separate discussion on license-discuss@opensource.org that is focusing on "use" issues.
Excuse me, but how can their be any "discussion of use issues" ? Is anyone in your organization seriously considering in any way endorsing restrictions on software use ? This is "opensource.org" we are talking about, right ? Have you been infiltrated ?
As to your "name of mud" comment, please don't resort to ad hominem arguments. Stick to the issues.
The "name of mud" wasn't just an off-the-cuff insult. It is directly related to the issues. Like the Better Business Bureau or Underwriter's Laboratories, you are in the business of providing a "stamp" that assures some characteristic, as a means of influencing society towards a goal. If you put that stamp on crap, you blow your accumulated equity in good public opinion. As your goals and mine are probably largely the same, in terms of the software world and freedom, I'm naturally unhappy to see you considering this path.
You need to be careful not to consider yourself to be in the business of selling stamps to companies that need them. The primary entity here is the public; if you bend over at the public's expense to accomodate a software publisher, then you might as well go into business as a software publisher's PR firm. But if your goals are to change the world, then the public's perception of you has to be foremost in your mind, not the convience of some software publisher who has bad legal advice.
I found the Specht v. Netscape case on google: pdf of ruling
It hardly seems as frightening as you put it. Some people downloaded some spyware, were not required to click the license to get it, sued because it was spyware, and the court didn't put the case in the jurisdiction that the click-license mandated. If you don't go demanding all kinds of stuff that goes beyound what you are explicitly allowed to control in Title 17, then none of that click-through stuff is necessary.
The warranty situation also isn't that simplistic. For some warranties, you need a sale. If you are giving away something for free, the only warranty needed may be that the product is no more malicious than an ordinary person would presume. The party who is providing the warranty may not be the author or the licensor, but the distributor.
Your alarmist tone in this slashdot piece has significantly reduced my opinion of your organization. Your statements remind me of an anti-virus company's announcements on the latest vague virus threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Capacitors in computer generally do not have plates. They are electrolytic. If they sing, it's because the case is flexing and poping back as bubbles of gas form in the goo, and then get re-absorbed. Or perhaps just due to heating and cooling.
Most notably on a Sun UltraSparc from which you could hear a hiss coming from the case (not the monitor) when scrolling a large body of text through an xterm. There were no speakers on the machine. I could cat a large file and hear the memory chips hiss. I think it was the memory chips from the location on the front right side of the case.
This was very repeatable, and could be demonstrated to anyone. I've had similar noises from other machines, but the fan usually drowns it out to where most people can't hear it and you aren't sure.
I can ssh to sdf.lonestar.org.
/etc/hosts file, and just retrieved my accumulated email. I'm sure SDF will be under strain as people catch up today and tomorrow, so I'll refrain from bogging things down.
I can't resolve pop.freeshell.org from my machine, but I can resolve it from the shell on sdf.lonestar.org, so I presume that is a DNS propagation thing.
I took the IP address as found on sdf and put it in my
Woohoo !
I'll be checking the bboard later to see what this has cost SDF, and see if I should be sending them a little bit more money.
The current rate of failure is high enough to count as "fundamentally flawed" for manned flight. I'd rather ride a hydrogen filled deridgeable. The long term issue is not that they can easily fix this particular problem, but that they have twice allowed such issues to destroy a mission and lives inspite of all NASA's vaunted review and safety checking bureaucracy.
As far as funding increasing substantially, do you think it is a long term feasible solution to sacrifice seven people every decade or so to whip up support ? How long do you think you can keep the suckers paying ?
Even if they roboticize it and use it as a reusable cargo transporter, well, there are cheaper methods than the shuttle, even methods which involve no re-use of any components.
Face it, it's a failure that cost 14 people their lives and who knows how many billions of dollars. Time to revive the real single-stage to orbit reusable vehicle. Right now, I wouldn't even fund that, at least not through NASA.
Here's a few links to the next level of annoyances:
-
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/cdc.web/
-
http://blanu.net/curious_yellow.html
-
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/warhol.html
There will be no tracking back from a single trojaned box.You back up your data to other harddrives.
Every 3 years buy two new harddrives whose capacity is each twice the sum of all drives you have ever bought previously, and copy everything to it, and set the old ones aside on the shelf to be accessed in should both of the new ones fail.
This is the funniest post I have seen on slashdot in several months.
the need for strict tracking of stapler ownership in the modern office environment.
That wasn't off topic.
To clarify, I posted that comment before I realized I was walking into a mod-war. Can you children please mod each other down and leave me out of it ? And I'd like to encourage the annonymous poster to leave more details. You don't have to reveal yourself of course, or post information that could be used to track you down, but with the little you posted I can't even start a good rumour ! Throw me a bone here ! Was the data known bad at time of publication ? Maybe it was discovered bad later and the retraction is just slow in coming out ? Or was is purposely faked ?
I don't understand why the parent post is modded down.
A better analogy would be that a whole crowd of kids come, mixed in with the normal wanting icecream kids so you can't tell the difference, only when these kids get up to the counter they move very slowly, argue, take napkins one at a time, change their request of which flavor, so that soon you are serving 1 kid every two minutes instead of 1 kid every ten seconds.
Is there any way we can make a filesharing protocol based on this, and have gateway machines that mirror files that are behind facist firewalls that block gnutella ports to gnutella ? A kind of really long latency email server ?
You can do this to resecue data from some types of dying hard drives, I've heard people say they regularly do it with Western Digitals that have gone into that clicking mode which means they are about to fail. Basically, quit smoking and sweep dust off your desk, hook it up, take the cover off, and boot -- when it starts trying to spin "jump start" it by flicking the platter hard (with a clean hand). You can run it in air long enough to suck all the data off if you are quick -- have your empty space ready. You can watch the color change as the platter oxidizes. Sometimes you can run it like that longer, a week or two even, to impress your friends.
When are you moving to Belieze so we don't have to listen to you any more ?
I hope every airline (except for maybe SouthWest) goes bankrupt, and then we can start the airline industry all over.
The world doesn't work that way. If the OS itself doesn't prevent applications from accessing any address, then someone will write the exploit by hand in assembly; if it's big, they will work on a Linux machine with gcc and put a new backend on gcc to produce code that will run on Brix. After all, if they were simply porting gcc then that's what they would do, until they had a gcc good enough to compile itself for Brix, and then move over to Brix for development and keep progressing.
FreeDOS is released under the GPL, as you can see here.
Having a knoppix and a demolinux and the run-from-cd slackware would be neat. People could fiddle around, decide what they liked, and install something to the harddrive later.
Care to expand on that, my friend ? How about some links ?
A better way to do it would be for employers to simply disclaim false statements from a low level employee as just that, false statements from a low level employee. But because we impose no cost on them for being extremist censors and gag-artists, they push the boundaries as far as possible.
Don't be coddling these management practices. While you are right that some of them wouldn't have been invented if employees used a bit of common sense occasionally in terms of speculating about what they didn't know, spreading rumours, etc, that doesn't mean these practices are detrimental to society and weaken the organization itself in the long run.
If the management of the European Patent Office is trully acting in good faith, then we should shortly see the interview released after having been looked over by a few people; and we should expect the bureaucrat who made this decision to be willing to answer his own set of questions.
You are playing up a small and improbable threat, urging us to pay the possibly high costs of mucking around with working licenses and associating ourselves with the unwholesome world of click-through "contracts", for an unsure gaurd against it. Your threat is small and the armour your offer us encumbers us without stopping the threat.
However, when you cry wolf against this vague and unproven warranty threat, you are using up your credibility, and unfortunately, the credibility of those associated with you -- to the end of spreading FUD as nastily as Microsoft.
But, regardless of your dreams and nightmares, if you endorse or associate yourself with click-through licenses your movement will be shooting itself in the foot.
On opensource.org, one of the first sentences is:
"Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software certification mark and program."
If the Open Source Definition comes to include click-through nonsense, your organization will not be able to acheive it's goals "for the good of the community." I think you need to step back, pay attention to the real world and reconsider things. If you loose the ability to enforce a license or two in a case here and there it's not a disaster, in fact it can be political victory -- mostly it will mean that the software reverts to a public domain or BSD license state. But if you allow your OSI stamp of approval to just mean that that you click "I Agree" to a different set of unread conditions, then you have thrown your hard work up to this point in the garbage.
Why would you want your organization's stamp on anything that required a contract ? Why do you want to offer anything to those who "may prefer to rely on contract rather than copyright law" ? The primary differences are that the contract is weaker and allows more restrictions on freedom.
There is a separate discussion on license-discuss@opensource.org that is focusing on "use" issues.
Excuse me, but how can their be any "discussion of use issues" ? Is anyone in your organization seriously considering in any way endorsing restrictions on software use ? This is "opensource.org" we are talking about, right ? Have you been infiltrated ?
As to your "name of mud" comment, please don't resort to ad hominem arguments. Stick to the issues.
The "name of mud" wasn't just an off-the-cuff insult. It is directly related to the issues. Like the Better Business Bureau or Underwriter's Laboratories, you are in the business of providing a "stamp" that assures some characteristic, as a means of influencing society towards a goal. If you put that stamp on crap, you blow your accumulated equity in good public opinion. As your goals and mine are probably largely the same, in terms of the software world and freedom, I'm naturally unhappy to see you considering this path.
You need to be careful not to consider yourself to be in the business of selling stamps to companies that need them. The primary entity here is the public; if you bend over at the public's expense to accomodate a software publisher, then you might as well go into business as a software publisher's PR firm. But if your goals are to change the world, then the public's perception of you has to be foremost in your mind, not the convience of some software publisher who has bad legal advice.
pdf of ruling
It hardly seems as frightening as you put it. Some people downloaded some spyware, were not required to click the license to get it, sued because it was spyware, and the court didn't put the case in the jurisdiction that the click-license mandated. If you don't go demanding all kinds of stuff that goes beyound what you are explicitly allowed to control in Title 17, then none of that click-through stuff is necessary.
The warranty situation also isn't that simplistic. For some warranties, you need a sale. If you are giving away something for free, the only warranty needed may be that the product is no more malicious than an ordinary person would presume. The party who is providing the warranty may not be the author or the licensor, but the distributor.
Your alarmist tone in this slashdot piece has significantly reduced my opinion of your organization. Your statements remind me of an anti-virus company's announcements on the latest vague virus threat.