A fair point. I've set up on our production servers two lists for ipset, one each for China and Korea. Bullshit accesses to SSH and HTTP dropped way way off once I did that.

With 719 unique CIDR blocks for China and 430 for Korea, we get a lot less garbage traffic to our servers. Worth the hour it took to set up, too.

Likewise - I use fail2ban with iptables to drop any packets from someone who fails auth about 5 times in a few minutes. I've toyed with the idea of adding them to a global blacklist for all servers in all locations, but in reality this solution works just fine.

Except that the largely prevailing attitude in the US judicial system seems to be that of the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. The trend is that if there's a loophole, you exploit it, and if the law says it's ok, then it's ok.

The US needs to shift in the opposite direction, that of intending to do the right thing and punishing those who don't. The spirit of the law, in American legal culture, is meaningless. Until that changes, loopholes will be created and exploited at every opportunity.

The term for this is the Streisand Effect

I've always found it amusing that in the US, you get taxed on things you win, whereas in socialist Canada, where our tax rates are *so high*, prize winnings are considered windfall income and are non-taxable. Thus, if you won this contest in Canada, you wouldn't pay any tax.

If my system gets rooted, I take backups of whatever data I need that hasn't been backed up already, wipe the machine, and reinstall.

With this, I now have to throw the entire mainboard out and replace it. Pretty significant change.

'Non-system disk or disk error? What the f**k does that mean?'

This is the sort of thing I like about Apple's 'Grand Central'. The idea behind is that instead of assigning a task to a processor, it breaks up a task into discrete compute units that can be assigned wherever. When doing processing in a loop, for example, if each iteration is independent, you could make each iteration a separate 'unit', like a packet of computation.

The end result is that the system can then more efficiently dole out these 'packets' without the programmer having to know about the target machine or vice-versa. For some computation, you could use all manner of different hardware - two dual-core CPUs and your programmable GPU, for example - because again, you don't need to know what it's running on. The system routes computation packets to wherever they can go, and then receives the results.

Instead of looking at a program as a series of discrete threads, each representing a concurrent task, it breaks up a program's computation into discrete chunks, and manages them accordingly. Some might have a higher priority and thus get processed first (think QoS in networking), without having to prioritize or deprioritize an entire process. If a specific packet needs to wait on I/O, then it can be put on hold until the I/O is done, and the CPU can be put back to work on another packet in the meantime.

What you get in the end is a far more granular, more practical way of thinking about computation that would scale far better as the number of processing units and tasks increases.

Ignoring the fact that the article from AppleInsider was reporting on the actual story (adding their own spin on it)? AppleInsider posted it because it was relevant, and is biased towards Apple, but they didn't write the analysis, they just reported on it. The original article (also linked from the summary) says the exact same thing.

Couple that with the fact that the more 'pious' people that I've met are generally the worst Christians. They're judgmental, opinionated, closed-minded, bigoted, and full of hate. The most laid-back Christians I know are more liberal and open-minded, and follow the teachings of Christ a lot better.

Perhaps when faced with their impending death, some of them realize just how much of assholes they've been, and how badly that's going to look come judgement.

Yes, it's accounting rules. The iPhone is accounted for differently (subscription) vs. the iPod Touch (sale). Because of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules, Apple is able to provide updates to the iPhone as part of the subscription, but not the iPod touch.

Essentially, if Apple shipped an update to the iPod Touch, then it would have to record all the revenue from the sale of that iPod Touch in the quarter in which the update was applied. If you buy one in Q1 and then eight months later in Q3 update it to 3.0, then Apple has to record the sale in Q3... Until next time you update. And so on.

This is the same accounting practice that requires that Apple record the sales of the iPhone over a year, so of all the money they made by selling iPhones in July, they can only record 1/4 of it in that quarter, 1/4 in the next quarter, and so on. This is why in analyses of Apple's financials and revenue lately, there's been a lot of talk of the numbers Apple is providing vs. the actual amount of money they have.

Is this a real TV show? Please link to torrent, thanks.

This is definitely true. As someone who was around making websites (not especially professionally, mind you) on a 14.4 modem, I can vouch for this. This is the reasoning behind the LOWSRC attribute. <IMG SRC="image.jpeg" LOWSRC="image.gif"> would load the (presumably low-res) GIF, then load the high-res JPEG. People on 14.4 kbaud modems would get to load the 'whole' page sooner, then load the 'enhanced' bits extra. It was a compromise that allowed pages to use images, yet still be usable for modem users.

I suspect someone did something naughty, because now the entire site is down. I guess whoever designed it doesn't know that much about security after all.

I've always thought of evolution as the furtherance of a species through gradual genetic mutations over time. What is described here I've always thought of more as 'natural selection', whereby a specific trait produces an advantage in nature that leads to a higher rate of survival for those that possess the trait.

The difference being that natural selection is one aspect of how evolution occurs, but it's not required; a specific mutation may not directly provide a benefit in the environment; it may take several different mutations to interact before there's a tangible benefit to organisms possessing it, but each one is a part of the organism's evolution as a whole.

That said, maybe I've been thinking of them wrong, but that's how they make the most sense to me.