It's a kernel module. Don't like it, don't load it.
I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied. If it's just a module that's fine by me. Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel. I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.
"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to have an opinion? (maybe I pissed you off by using bloat and linux in the same sentence?) Go back and read what I wrote. I did NOT say it was not a useful feature. I said the vast majority of Linux users do not need this feature. Big difference. Or are you suggesting that more than a small fraction of users need HA and clustering capabilities?
Stupid obligatory car analogy, if 1% of the owners smoke it doesn't make sense to equip all the cars with ash trays? No, you simply keep it as an option.
This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel. For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for. It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default. Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.
I've been using this Adblock+ extension in Chromium for a while and it works well and even supports (Firefox) Adblock Plus subscriptions. However, Chromium doesn't yet support content filtering so all this extension does is *hide* ads, it does not stop them from loading...
Men have more variance in IQ, that's why there's more very smart men than very smart women. Of course, there's more very stupid men, which is reflected in crime rates etc.
You got a citation for that, or are you just BSing?
Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.
That's because having a high IQ (a nebulously defined quantity anyway) or being intelligent has no bearing on the ability to lead, being a puppet, or even having the ability to speak without sounding like a chimpanzee. Indeed, I find many charismatic, smooth talkers to be shocking simple-minded.
To put that in perspective, that's a 9.6 kW load or the equivalent of running an electric dryer 24 hours. At the national average of 12cents/kwhr that's around $9.
You fail math. 9.6kW for 24 hours is 230.4kWh. You could charge the Tesla over 4 times with that.
You misinterpreted or maybe I didn't make it obvious enough. Running a 9.6kW load for 8 hours is the equivalent of running typical 3.2 kW dryer for 24 hours.
I based my calculations on Tesla's spec for input current versus charge time. Doing the math of 40-amps for 8 hours, and a 53kWH battery puts the charging process at about 70% efficiency, which is believable considering dc-dc conversion has at least a 5-10% loss, and battery charging itself produces quite a bit of heat. The Tesla web site also says mentions a 5-hour typical charge time for full charge using the 70-amp charger, which puts the efficiency even lower at 63%.
The Tesla FAQ says "It costs most customers roughly 2 cents per mile or $5 to fully recharge their Roadster, although the exact price varies depending on your utility rates and the time of day you charge. By contrast, other premium sports cars cost about $2 per mile."
They appear to be figuring 6.5cents/kwh, or about half of the current national average. I pay 6.5 cents/kwh in a hydro heavy area. You seem to be lucky with cheap power. You've got it rough if you live in Connecticut at 22c/kwh. That's gotta be a typo when they say other premium cars cost $2 per mile. A 35 mph Honda at $2.60 gas is 7.5 cents/mile in fuel cost.
Awwww, not this shit again. The DOE has stated that almost 80% of a US fleet of electric vehicles could be charged from off-peak (night) power generation, without building any additional plants.
There's a few other good gems in there like "When compared with an HEV such as the Prius, the economics of the PHEV are not favorable at high electricity prices and marginally favorable at lower electricity prices". The paper also makes a point of avoiding the topic of residential infrastructure, assuming that "charging a PHEV would be a relatively simple affair with each vehicle plugged into a home circuit" which is certainly not the case.
According to the recent census, only 60% of folks live in single family dwellings. Your time estimate is about 1/2 of what Telsa claims. You need a 240-volt 40-amp draw for 8 hours for a full charge. Most older homes have less than a 100-amp main panel, so 40-amps would be a stretch.
To put that in perspective, that's a 9.6 kW load or the equivalent of running an electric dryer 24 hours. At the national average of 12cents/kwhr that's around $9.
Neighborhood distribution lines will need upgraded if a significant number of homes are suddenly doubling their average load.
Cnosidering the plolution caused by bruning stuff, I don't think bio feuls will slove all your porblems.
The real problem is pumping carbon out of the ground (oil) and then throwing it up in the atmosphere (burning it). Biodiesel and ethanol production take carbon out of the air and later release it when burned. Not nearly the problem as using conventionally produced petroleum.
Sadly - for balance - I can't point at a machine that came with Linux pre installed and had it replaced by Windows.
I can. Remember all those Lindows boxes that Walmart sold? Most of the people I know that bought them installed Windows on them. They either planned to install Windows right away or got fed up with the 'fake windows' that wouldn't run their software and subsequently installed windows. I think Walmart selling crappy low end linux boxes pretending to be Windows boxes did a lot of PR damage to Linux.
I've heard about the extreme poverty too. I'm simply proposing that we up the ante until it's not an acceptable risk. Someone still needs to address the economic conditions in Somalia, but being sympathetic to or lenient on pirates is not the right approach.
That's a bad idea. Typically the pirates don't kill the crew. If you started having hostile crews using lethal force against pirates, you may see the pirates escalate their attack and use more deadly force. In the end everyone loses.
On the other hand, escalating it so the pirates have the potential of a real consequence (death versus sent back to shore with a slap on the wrist) is exactly what needs to happen. It would discourage them from trying to make easy money by being pirates, and put pressure on the vritually non-exist govt of their contries to do something about the problem.
The approach depends on what your program gets used for. If it's a corporate-wide main application, its better to spend the effort at the programming level to make it clean and fast. Otherwise you contribute to the need to upgrade all of the company desktops. Doubling the size of the server to compensate for crappy programming has more than the initial hardware and OS cost. You also have to account for the higher power and cooling costs over its lifetime. When you truly start looking at it from an economic perspective, clean and fast code can make better economic sense.
If it's just a quick-n-dirty widget that rarely gets used, I'll agree that speed doesn't matter. For a corporate internet server, I'm worried about the guy that's so lazy he can't write clean code. That's usually the same guy that doesn't bother checking his code for potential vulnerabilities, doesn't even bother sanitizing all of his inputs, and doesn't document his code worth a crap..
Very similar to Pearl Harbor, no? The administrator knew something was coming, and indirectly wanted it to happen to get public opinion in favor of entering the war. There is even evidence that it was known that Pearl Harbor was the target and the date, as all the high-value ships were conveniently pulled out of port shortly beforehand. All the ships lost were low value ships due to be decommissioned in the near future. There is even evidence that the Japanese coded transmissions had been deciphered so someone knew the plan, and the incoming planes had been spotted on radar (whether this info intentionally not acted on is up for debate).
I have no doubt our govt something was coming, and likely wanted it to happen to get public opinion behind invading the middle east again. Condolezza Rice published a report that predicted airplanes as the weapons.
When asked why they are disabling the XSS protection in IE8, Google responds that IE8 has a undiclosed vulnerability. Anyone here think Google is just mud-slinging to disparrage the main competitor to Chrome?
Depending on how you ask the question, you'll get a different answer. Sensitive data range from a simple copy of the internal phone list, to a valuable dump of the client database. For programmers, I bet 95% would keep copies of minor programs they wrote believing they will be of use for them at a later job. Created on company time and therefore company owned perhaps, but that automatically mean any harm has been done.
The original article was lots of hype and scare tactics. What were they trying to sell again?
This just means the terrorists will simply drive it over the border. It's not hard to smuggle stuff into the US without going through an inspection point. Just look how well 100% inspection is working for curbing the drug traffic. They hide it in coffee beans in shipping containers. Anyone reasonably crafty will just hid the radioactive materials in a lead lined container.
To me this seems more like the NSA'S collaboration on the development of SELinux. Nothing to see here.
Thank you.
One difference with SELinux is that NSA helped develop the initial concept and implementation and then released it to the community to take over. NSA still maintains their own generic Linux hardening and technical implementation guides (which are much thinner than the MS guides).
Honestly I think SELinux has great potential particulary for external servers, but it still needs a lot of work to make the policy writing more intuitive. Turning it on is pointless unless there are policies written for the resources (files, services, etc) that you'd like to protect. For most of my stuff, SELinux gets turned off as it usually ends up interfering with something and I'm working in a pretty safe environment.
All I can say is, if I was a completely amoral security agency specialising in computers, and I got called in to work on the code for the world's most common OS brand - as used by many in the Chinese government - I'd stick a back door in there before I said hello to the dude in the office next to mine.
That might be true, but I think you give the NSA too much credit for being nefarious.
Of course, the Chinese language pack would be a great place to stick a backdoor. My other thought is that Microsoft already has a huge backdoor into any system running automatic updates. It wouldn't be hard to "customize" the WSUS servers to provide a particular patch to one specific computer.
And no one confirmed that every single person or contract working at Microsoft didn't work for the Chinese. Really, who do you trust more - the NSA employees with high security clearances or the dipshits that work at Microsoft?
Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?
Which is exactly why the NSA is contributing. Previously, the NSA would develop their own guide for locking down Windows. With WindowsXP they decided that effort was redundant and instead collaborated with Microsoft on their security guidelines and tools. The NSA also provides penetration and cryptographic expertise.
The NSA has an obvious interest in helping Microsoft produce a secure product as the govt uses it quite heavily. As for backdoors, you don't really need to insert backdoors in the form of undisclosed vulnerabilities. It would not surprise me if the NSA had access to the Microsoft signing keys which would be of great value for compromising a system.
What corporation in its right mind would ever contemplate using Fedora? RHEL, yes, and many are using this. Fedora? Hell no
I've seen quite a few mid-sized companies running Fedora on the desktops. Usually it is the sysadmin who think he/she is fully qualified and doesn't need Redhat support, and therefore using Fedora vice RHEL is a cost savings measure. Personally I disagree with that position simply because Fedora is not nearly as stable and has a very fast refresh cycle, which translates into a higher cost to maintain in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a kernel module. Don't like it, don't load it.
I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied. If it's just a module that's fine by me. Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel. I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.
"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to have an opinion? (maybe I pissed you off by using bloat and linux in the same sentence?) Go back and read what I wrote. I did NOT say it was not a useful feature. I said the vast majority of Linux users do not need this feature. Big difference. Or are you suggesting that more than a small fraction of users need HA and clustering capabilities?
Stupid obligatory car analogy, if 1% of the owners smoke it doesn't make sense to equip all the cars with ash trays? No, you simply keep it as an option.
This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel. For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for. It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default. Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.
I've seen plenty of forms, in particular for security clearances, that ask if you've ever been "charged" with a crime.
I've been using this Adblock+ extension in Chromium for a while and it works well and even supports (Firefox) Adblock Plus subscriptions. However, Chromium doesn't yet support content filtering so all this extension does is *hide* ads, it does not stop them from loading...
So it's not really blocking webbugs then. Hmm.
Men have more variance in IQ, that's why there's more very smart men than very smart women. Of course, there's more very stupid men, which is reflected in crime rates etc.
You got a citation for that, or are you just BSing?
That intelligence != knowledge
I prefer ignorant != stupid. Ignorance can be fixed by gaining knowledge or understanding. Stupid is the inability to learn.
Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.
That's because having a high IQ (a nebulously defined quantity anyway) or being intelligent has no bearing on the ability to lead, being a puppet, or even having the ability to speak without sounding like a chimpanzee. Indeed, I find many charismatic, smooth talkers to be shocking simple-minded.
To put that in perspective, that's a 9.6 kW load or the equivalent of running an electric dryer 24 hours. At the national average of 12cents/kwhr that's around $9.
You fail math. 9.6kW for 24 hours is 230.4kWh. You could charge the Tesla over 4 times with that.
You misinterpreted or maybe I didn't make it obvious enough. Running a 9.6kW load for 8 hours is the equivalent of running typical 3.2 kW dryer for 24 hours.
I based my calculations on Tesla's spec for input current versus charge time. Doing the math of 40-amps for 8 hours, and a 53kWH battery puts the charging process at about 70% efficiency, which is believable considering dc-dc conversion has at least a 5-10% loss, and battery charging itself produces quite a bit of heat. The Tesla web site also says mentions a 5-hour typical charge time for full charge using the 70-amp charger, which puts the efficiency even lower at 63%.
The Tesla FAQ says "It costs most customers roughly 2 cents per mile or $5 to fully recharge their Roadster, although the exact price varies depending on your utility rates and the time of day you charge. By contrast, other premium sports cars cost about $2 per mile."
They appear to be figuring 6.5cents/kwh, or about half of the current national average. I pay 6.5 cents/kwh in a hydro heavy area. You seem to be lucky with cheap power. You've got it rough if you live in Connecticut at 22c/kwh. That's gotta be a typo when they say other premium cars cost $2 per mile. A 35 mph Honda at $2.60 gas is 7.5 cents/mile in fuel cost.
Awwww, not this shit again. The DOE has stated that almost 80% of a US fleet of electric vehicles could be charged from off-peak (night) power generation, without building any additional plants.
Perhaps you should read that study past the first few lines. http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Economic_Analysis_Part2_Final.pdf. Basically all the paper says is that power plants have enough surplus off-peak capacity to accommodate a significant number of PHEVs.
There's a few other good gems in there like "When compared with an HEV such as the Prius, the economics of the PHEV are not favorable at high
electricity prices and marginally favorable at lower electricity prices". The paper also makes a point of avoiding the topic of residential infrastructure, assuming that "charging a PHEV would be a relatively simple affair with each vehicle plugged into a home circuit" which is certainly not the case.
According to the recent census, only 60% of folks live in single family dwellings. Your time estimate is about 1/2 of what Telsa claims. You need a 240-volt 40-amp draw for 8 hours for a full charge. Most older homes have less than a 100-amp main panel, so 40-amps would be a stretch.
To put that in perspective, that's a 9.6 kW load or the equivalent of running an electric dryer 24 hours. At the national average of 12cents/kwhr that's around $9.
Neighborhood distribution lines will need upgraded if a significant number of homes are suddenly doubling their average load.
The capacity is there. The distribution to residential homes is not.
Cnosidering the plolution caused by bruning stuff, I don't think bio feuls will slove all your porblems.
The real problem is pumping carbon out of the ground (oil) and then throwing it up in the atmosphere (burning it). Biodiesel and ethanol production take carbon out of the air and later release it when burned. Not nearly the problem as using conventionally produced petroleum.
Sadly - for balance - I can't point at a machine that came with Linux pre installed and had it replaced by Windows.
I can. Remember all those Lindows boxes that Walmart sold? Most of the people I know that bought them installed Windows on them. They either planned to install Windows right away or got fed up with the 'fake windows' that wouldn't run their software and subsequently installed windows. I think Walmart selling crappy low end linux boxes pretending to be Windows boxes did a lot of PR damage to Linux.
I've heard about the extreme poverty too. I'm simply proposing that we up the ante until it's not an acceptable risk. Someone still needs to address the economic conditions in Somalia, but being sympathetic to or lenient on pirates is not the right approach.
That's a bad idea. Typically the pirates don't kill the crew. If you started having hostile crews using lethal force against pirates, you may see the pirates escalate their attack and use more deadly force. In the end everyone loses.
On the other hand, escalating it so the pirates have the potential of a real consequence (death versus sent back to shore with a slap on the wrist) is exactly what needs to happen. It would discourage them from trying to make easy money by being pirates, and put pressure on the vritually non-exist govt of their contries to do something about the problem.
The approach depends on what your program gets used for. If it's a corporate-wide main application, its better to spend the effort at the programming level to make it clean and fast. Otherwise you contribute to the need to upgrade all of the company desktops. Doubling the size of the server to compensate for crappy programming has more than the initial hardware and OS cost. You also have to account for the higher power and cooling costs over its lifetime. When you truly start looking at it from an economic perspective, clean and fast code can make better economic sense.
If it's just a quick-n-dirty widget that rarely gets used, I'll agree that speed doesn't matter. For a corporate internet server, I'm worried about the guy that's so lazy he can't write clean code. That's usually the same guy that doesn't bother checking his code for potential vulnerabilities, doesn't even bother sanitizing all of his inputs, and doesn't document his code worth a crap..
Very similar to Pearl Harbor, no? The administrator knew something was coming, and indirectly wanted it to happen to get public opinion in favor of entering the war. There is even evidence that it was known that Pearl Harbor was the target and the date, as all the high-value ships were conveniently pulled out of port shortly beforehand. All the ships lost were low value ships due to be decommissioned in the near future. There is even evidence that the Japanese coded transmissions had been deciphered so someone knew the plan, and the incoming planes had been spotted on radar (whether this info intentionally not acted on is up for debate).
I have no doubt our govt something was coming, and likely wanted it to happen to get public opinion behind invading the middle east again. Condolezza Rice published a report that predicted airplanes as the weapons.
When asked why they are disabling the XSS protection in IE8, Google responds that IE8 has a undiclosed vulnerability. Anyone here think Google is just mud-slinging to disparrage the main competitor to Chrome?
Depending on how you ask the question, you'll get a different answer. Sensitive data range from a simple copy of the internal phone list, to a valuable dump of the client database. For programmers, I bet 95% would keep copies of minor programs they wrote believing they will be of use for them at a later job. Created on company time and therefore company owned perhaps, but that automatically mean any harm has been done.
The original article was lots of hype and scare tactics. What were they trying to sell again?
This just means the terrorists will simply drive it over the border. It's not hard to smuggle stuff into the US without going through an inspection point. Just look how well 100% inspection is working for curbing the drug traffic. They hide it in coffee beans in shipping containers. Anyone reasonably crafty will just hid the radioactive materials in a lead lined container.
Excellent comment.
To me this seems more like the NSA'S collaboration on the development of SELinux. Nothing to see here.
Thank you.
One difference with SELinux is that NSA helped develop the initial concept and implementation and then released it to the community to take over. NSA still maintains their own generic Linux hardening and technical implementation guides (which are much thinner than the MS guides).
Honestly I think SELinux has great potential particulary for external servers, but it still needs a lot of work to make the policy writing more intuitive. Turning it on is pointless unless there are policies written for the resources (files, services, etc) that you'd like to protect. For most of my stuff, SELinux gets turned off as it usually ends up interfering with something and I'm working in a pretty safe environment.
All I can say is, if I was a completely amoral security agency specialising in computers, and I got called in to work on the code for the world's most common OS brand - as used by many in the Chinese government - I'd stick a back door in there before I said hello to the dude in the office next to mine.
That might be true, but I think you give the NSA too much credit for being nefarious.
Of course, the Chinese language pack would be a great place to stick a backdoor. My other thought is that Microsoft already has a huge backdoor into any system running automatic updates. It wouldn't be hard to "customize" the WSUS servers to provide a particular patch to one specific computer.
And no one confirmed that every single person or contract working at Microsoft didn't work for the Chinese. Really, who do you trust more - the NSA employees with high security clearances or the dipshits that work at Microsoft?
Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?
Which is exactly why the NSA is contributing. Previously, the NSA would develop their own guide for locking down Windows. With WindowsXP they decided that effort was redundant and instead collaborated with Microsoft on their security guidelines and tools. The NSA also provides penetration and cryptographic expertise.
The NSA has an obvious interest in helping Microsoft produce a secure product as the govt uses it quite heavily. As for backdoors, you don't really need to insert backdoors in the form of undisclosed vulnerabilities. It would not surprise me if the NSA had access to the Microsoft signing keys which would be of great value for compromising a system.
What corporation in its right mind would ever contemplate using Fedora? RHEL, yes, and many are using this. Fedora? Hell no
I've seen quite a few mid-sized companies running Fedora on the desktops. Usually it is the sysadmin who think he/she is fully qualified and doesn't need Redhat support, and therefore using Fedora vice RHEL is a cost savings measure. Personally I disagree with that position simply because Fedora is not nearly as stable and has a very fast refresh cycle, which translates into a higher cost to maintain in the long run.