I suppose the argument the ISP's use is that their throttling service *is* unlimited, because they never cap how much you can download. They just change how fast you can download it at. You can never download an "unlimited" amount of data in a finite time, because you're always limited by your connection speed.
For example, on an 8Mbit connection, ignoring overheads, you can get 1MB per second. Or 2.592TB per month. All the ISP will claim they're doing is changing that figure, which is how fast you can pull data down. A "limited" connection would be one in which you're only allowed xGB per month (which is what I use in the UK - I pay Zen £35 per month for 50GB and get no throttling or anything crap like that - if I exceed 50GB, I pay per GB).
I'm not saying it's right, but it's how I've seen it argued.
Exactly. This is crap. The sooner that people learn that biometrics are largely unique, but rarely private (I can take a picture of you in the street, or lift your fingerprint from anything you touch), the sooner we'll stop trying to build security systems around it.
Add to that the whole non-revocation of credentials bit inherent in biometrics, and suddenly smart cards and passwords seem a whole lot more practical. Guess they're just not sexy enough any more.
My point was: why pay for a 1280x800 monitor when you're only going to use it at 1024x600? The replys below indicate that increasing the dpi of the fonts should be able to make the font physically large enough, whilst making use of the high resolution, which I accept.
I was thinking back to when I used HP's UMPC 2133 which has a similar resolution (iirc). It was running vista, and no matter how much I tweaked it, it was practically unreadable.
I don't know about anyone else, but 1280x800 on a screen that small is going to be practically unreadable for my eyes, and I'm not exactly old. At some point, things can get a bit *too* small...
The more we criminalize the behaviour of those who try to reverse-engineer or break security features, the more we are saying "we give up" to those looking to capitalize on breaking them, and the less secure we'll become.
Well, if I shoot my foot with a gun, I get a hole in my foot. If I use SELinux, I end up with a pretty secure OS. These are different things.
Now, if you have information that may be able to give me a secure OS using a gun, or perhaps more interestingly a hole in my foot using SELinux, feel free to enlighten me:)
Oh, FWIW, paranoia is great up until the point it becomes easily confused with irrationality. Irrational paranoia is usually reserved for the domain of the mentally ill.
If you do that, then that proves that you got the letter.
These particular guys are a joke. If you were really sent a "give us money or we're going to court", you can be damn sure that it'll go via courier or special delivery. They're not going to drop it in the mail and hope.
This is mail-and-pray. People who get these letters should just drop them in the bin and forget about them.
So pay for it then. Plenty of companies out there will take money off you for supporting linux.
In fact, if you pay for linux support, you're in a better position than if you pay for Microsoft support, as you have the resiliance of choice in the market. You don't like what Oracle are doing, pay Redhat instead. You don't like what Microsoft are doing? Tough.
"Phone Sun" I believe is a reasonable answer to your last point. I also believe they're not the only people who do support.
But you're right - anyone who picks MySQL or Postgres to power a super-resiliant mission-critical service is an idiot. And anyone who uses Oracle to power a non-resiliant low to medium load webservice is also usually an idiot.
Yes they are. You can pay them so much a month and they will provide you with broadband down your phone line. Fits the definition of "Internet Service Provider" I think. Just because they happen to own all the phone lines / exchanges / equipment as well doesn't mean they don't provide the internet...
What panel are you using? When I play with non-Gnome/KDE wms, I always struggle to find a panel I like that works and is reasonably stable. The themes and stuff in that screenshot look pretty good as well:)
I feel a better way would be to run the tests consecutively rather than concurrently.
So you take your room of hackers, and you let them loose at a Vista box. Once that's cracked, you end that test. Then you let them loose at a Mac. Rinse, repeat.
The "Winner" would be the group that managed the fastest crack overall.
Some would argue that latency is a good reason. Unless you can offload the SSL using some sort of special hardware, and latency is *really* important to you, you wouldn't use HTTPS.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose the argument the ISP's use is that their throttling service *is* unlimited, because they never cap how much you can download. They just change how fast you can download it at. You can never download an "unlimited" amount of data in a finite time, because you're always limited by your connection speed.
For example, on an 8Mbit connection, ignoring overheads, you can get 1MB per second. Or 2.592TB per month. All the ISP will claim they're doing is changing that figure, which is how fast you can pull data down. A "limited" connection would be one in which you're only allowed xGB per month (which is what I use in the UK - I pay Zen £35 per month for 50GB and get no throttling or anything crap like that - if I exceed 50GB, I pay per GB).
I'm not saying it's right, but it's how I've seen it argued.
Exactly. This is crap. The sooner that people learn that biometrics are largely unique, but rarely private (I can take a picture of you in the street, or lift your fingerprint from anything you touch), the sooner we'll stop trying to build security systems around it.
Add to that the whole non-revocation of credentials bit inherent in biometrics, and suddenly smart cards and passwords seem a whole lot more practical. Guess they're just not sexy enough any more.
Maybe the band had a choice of what shots to use, which is a luxury the police rarely get?
My point was: why pay for a 1280x800 monitor when you're only going to use it at 1024x600? The replys below indicate that increasing the dpi of the fonts should be able to make the font physically large enough, whilst making use of the high resolution, which I accept.
I was thinking back to when I used HP's UMPC 2133 which has a similar resolution (iirc). It was running vista, and no matter how much I tweaked it, it was practically unreadable.
Great, so I'm paying for something I'm not going to use?
I don't know about anyone else, but 1280x800 on a screen that small is going to be practically unreadable for my eyes, and I'm not exactly old. At some point, things can get a bit *too* small...
Of course. They have government-paid employees to spread terror for them. It's the ultimate victory.
The more we criminalize the behaviour of those who try to reverse-engineer or break security features, the more we are saying "we give up" to those looking to capitalize on breaking them, and the less secure we'll become.
Well, if I shoot my foot with a gun, I get a hole in my foot. If I use SELinux, I end up with a pretty secure OS. These are different things.
Now, if you have information that may be able to give me a secure OS using a gun, or perhaps more interestingly a hole in my foot using SELinux, feel free to enlighten me :)
Oh, FWIW, paranoia is great up until the point it becomes easily confused with irrationality. Irrational paranoia is usually reserved for the domain of the mentally ill.
The other, easier, option is just to forget about it. From what I gather, Davenport Lyons have a 100% not-following-up-on-people-who-don't-pay record.
If you do that, then that proves that you got the letter.
These particular guys are a joke. If you were really sent a "give us money or we're going to court", you can be damn sure that it'll go via courier or special delivery. They're not going to drop it in the mail and hope.
This is mail-and-pray. People who get these letters should just drop them in the bin and forget about them.
Microsoft Word Viewer - it's free.
So pay for it then. Plenty of companies out there will take money off you for supporting linux.
In fact, if you pay for linux support, you're in a better position than if you pay for Microsoft support, as you have the resiliance of choice in the market. You don't like what Oracle are doing, pay Redhat instead. You don't like what Microsoft are doing? Tough.
"Phone Sun" I believe is a reasonable answer to your last point. I also believe they're not the only people who do support.
But you're right - anyone who picks MySQL or Postgres to power a super-resiliant mission-critical service is an idiot. And anyone who uses Oracle to power a non-resiliant low to medium load webservice is also usually an idiot.
Tools for the jobs people, tools for the jobs.
Fair dos.
Yes they are. You can pay them so much a month and they will provide you with broadband down your phone line. Fits the definition of "Internet Service Provider" I think. Just because they happen to own all the phone lines / exchanges / equipment as well doesn't mean they don't provide the internet...
Completely off-topic I know...
:)
What panel are you using? When I play with non-Gnome/KDE wms, I always struggle to find a panel I like that works and is reasonably stable. The themes and stuff in that screenshot look pretty good as well
I feel a better way would be to run the tests consecutively rather than concurrently.
So you take your room of hackers, and you let them loose at a Vista box. Once that's cracked, you end that test. Then you let them loose at a Mac. Rinse, repeat.
The "Winner" would be the group that managed the fastest crack overall.
I firewall ipv6 very nicely, thank you very much.
And you're last comment proves you're not a net admin.
WTF? That's something *completely different*.
It's called redundancy! .
On windows, I enjoy the bliss of right-click drag-drop. :-)
To me, spanish is gibberish. Doesn't mean it is though. Just means I can't be arsed to learn it.
Everyone, lets all hold hands and repeat now:
Firewalling and NAT are different things...
Firewalling and NAT are different things...
Firewalling and NAT are different things...
Some would argue that latency is a good reason. Unless you can offload the SSL using some sort of special hardware, and latency is *really* important to you, you wouldn't use HTTPS.