Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It IS a new machine, but that's the wrong quest (Score 1) 160

The whole point of a turing complete machine (within the limits of finite amounts of memory) is that it isn't a different machine for a different program. The appeal is that one machine can run a variety of different programs; in theory, perform any calculation for which it has enough memory.

So no, no matter what software you have loaded, you haven't made it a different machine. Not even if you load different microcode. Only if you are burning fuses or proms (real proms, or at least some kind you can't erase for one reason or another) are you making it something in particular.

Comment: Re:Do snails produce 'mucus?' (Score 2) 41

by drinkypoo (#43777611) Attached to: Viruses In Mucus Protect From Infection

For one thing, it's the reason I will never [consciously] eat snails. In fact, snails in my culture, are regarded as 'dirty' creatures.

Wild snails are dirty. That's why you feed them corn meal for a while until you eat them. I don't know how you can tell when they're done, but I've never really given too much thought to inspecting snail shit.

Comment: Re:Dell should have declared bankruptcy (Score 1) 42

by evilviper (#43777075) Attached to: Dell Dumps Its Public Cloud Offerings

Compaq used to sell insanely expensive and over-engineered PCs. I seem to remember my company paying $30k for a desktop PC from Compaq in the early '90s.

Compaq had very good WORKSTATIONS and SERVERS, but their PCs have always been cheap. I distinctly recall their later 90's PCs, which were non-standard over-sized motherboards, with all (cheap junk) components integrated onto them. They were right along side companies like Packard Bell in the race to the bottom.

Their workstations and servers, however, were always very nice. They used large fans, with plastic ducting, multiple thermal zones, etc, decades ago. They got the benefit of all that DEC engineering expertise and experience when they bought up the remnants of the company.

The same should be said of HP as well. Their desktop PCs were junk, but their workstations were heavily over-engineered and well-designed. I remember late 90's ~200MHz HP Workstations with numerous slots for memory, and a riser card that gave 6 PCI slots, as well as 2 ISA slots, which kept those PCs expandable and relevant far after their expected shelf life. Little touches like only two levers to pull to completely remove the case made them a pleasure to work with, as well.

And to Compaq and HP's credit, when HP bough the company, they dropped their own Netserver line, and rebranded the Compaq Proliant as the HP Proliant server, and that has now become the best selling x86 server brand out there, so they did something right. Though I'm still fairly annoyed at the licensing, limitations and clumsy proprietary tools to interface with their iLo out-of-band management.

Comment: They couldn't get a good price on servers... (Score 2) 42

by evilviper (#43776979) Attached to: Dell Dumps Its Public Cloud Offerings

Could it be that Dell discovered the hard way that their servers are, in-fact, too expensive? Companies like Dell and HP are seeing declining server sales due to projects like OpenCompute that are bypassing 1st tier vendors and going straight to ODMs for simpler, cheaper servers. Some of the companies buying these cheap servers include cloud service providers like Amazon.

Obviously Dell can't do that with their own in-house offerings, so perhaps they just couldn't compete with vendors running on cheaper servers.

Comment: WGET? The Devil's Tool! (Score 5, Funny) 76

Lee added that the Scripps Hackers eventually used Wget to find and download "the Companies' confidential files." (Wget was the same tool used by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg in the film The Social Network to collect student photos from various Harvard University directories.) The rest of the letter pretty much blamed the "Scripps Hackers" for the cost of breach notifications, demanded Scripps hand over all evidence as well as the identity and intentions of the hackers, before warning that Scripps will be sued.

Folks, there was a big bad security breach. Now, *adjusts his massive belt buckle* we're investigating this like we would any other serious crime. And right now we're just trying to identify weapons used in this heinous attack. Now, we've discovered that the hackers were using a very vicious mechanism in this attack. In a murder, you might find a revolver used to put two bullets into the back of a poor old defenseless lady's skull in order to get all her coupons and a couple of Indian head pennies out of her purse. Or perhaps in a pedophile case, you'll find the "secret candy" that was used to lure the children into a white panel van with painted over windows.

*expels a long tortured sigh*

Well, I gotta say, in my thirty years on the force, I wish we were only dealing with something like that today, honest to God Almighty I really do. Instead this artifact was discovered at the scene of the crime. Now, I'm not asking you to understand that -- hell, I'd warn you against even openin' up your browser to the devil's toolbox. But let me, a trained law enforcement professional, take the time to explain the gruesome evidence just one HTTP request away from you and your chillun'. The page is black. Black as a moonless night sky when raptors swoop from the murky inky nothing to take your kids and livestock back up with them silently. On it is a bunch of white text that makes no sense to any God fearun' man on this here Earth. That's what they call a "man page" probably because it is the ultimate culmination of man's sin and lo and behold it displays a guide to exact torture on innocent web servers across this great and holy internet.

Even if you want to use this "man page" for WGET to learn how to use Satan's server scythe, you would have to read through almost twenty pages of incomprehensible technobabble like what that kraut over in Cali -- the one who took his wife's life -- spoke. And if you want to just see an example, it's not at the top! No, why, it's all the way down at the bottom. For this one, they don't even have examples. Just enough options to kill a man. Probably gave Steve Jobs cancer, they never proved all these options in these pages didn't. Buried in the mud of a thousand evils lie more evils.

And why, oh why are we even wasting taxpayer money on these Scripps Journos? Who needs a trial when the evidence is in the tools they used? Folks, I think it's time we WGET one last thing, I'll WGET a rope and you WGET your pitchforks and torches ... let's go down to Scripps and put all this computer business behind us. Okay?

Comment: I Guess This Is Allowed Now? (Score 3, Informative) 36

by eldavojohn (#43776433) Attached to: Book Review: Locked Down: Information Security For Lawyers
Sorry to respond to my own comment but for Ben Rothke it looks like he just reposts his Amazon reviews here:

Book Review: The Plateau Effect: Getting From Stuck To Success is identical to this Amazon review.

Book Review: The Death of the Internet is identical to this Amazon review.

Book Review: Everyday Cryptography is identical to this Amazon review.

Book Review: Liars and Outliers is identical to this Amazon Review.

It just keeps going ...

Comment: Also a Violation of the /. Book Review Guidelines (Score 3) 36

by eldavojohn (#43776361) Attached to: Book Review: Locked Down: Information Security For Lawyers

I post this having not read a single page of this book. I was interested in getting this book for my attorney wife. When looking at it on AMAZON.COM, I noticed that the post here is a copy of only ONE of TWO reviews the book has on Amazon.com. The other review is HORRIBLE. http://www.amazon.com/Locked-Down-Information-Security-Lawyers/product-reviews/1614383642/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0 Read/order with caution.

As someone who occasionally writes reviews for Slashdot (and usually reads all of the ones posted), this is a clear violation of the book review guidelines:

First, an important one: by submitting your review to Slashdot, you represent that the review is your own work, that it is original to Slashdot, and that it is unencumbered by any existing or anticipated contractual relationship; further, you are granting Slashdot permission to publish your review, including any editing the Slashdot editorial team finds necessary and appropriate. (Major edits will involve consultation by email or other means.) If you've reviewed the book elsewhere anywhere besides a personal home page (for instance, on Amazon) please be sure that your review for Slashdot is substantially different.

(emphasis mine) There is no difference that I can see ...

The plot was designed in a light vein that somehow became varicose. -- David Lardner

Working...