Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So sick of Google This Google That (Score 2) 350

by mlwmohawk (#46806433) Attached to: Google: Better To Be a 'B' CS Grad Than an 'A+' English Grad

From the fate of other 'search' companies (some of which were very good), I'd say the board at FAST were correct - and that you're the idiot.

So, you are saying, two competing companies doing about the same thing. One quits the business, the other goes on to be HUGELY successful, and I'm the idiot for calling the quitting company's manegement idiots? Sorry Bjorn and Larvik screwed the pooch and killed a potentially golden goose.

Google isn't a multi-billion dollar company because they're exceedingly good at search - they're a multi-billion dollar company that's exceedingly good at delivering advertisements (only a fraction of which are on their search pages).

You may have missed what I wrote: "Google sells ads, nothing else even comes close on their books."

Comment: So sick of Google This Google That (Score 5, Insightful) 350

by mlwmohawk (#46804815) Attached to: Google: Better To Be a 'B' CS Grad Than an 'A+' English Grad

In 1999 Fast Search and Transfer was neck and neck with google for speed, volume, and accuracy. The board at FAST were idiots and said there was no money in search and basically stopped trying and let google win.

What I learned in this time is that Google was no better than FAST, and is no better than any other company. They won because viable competition walked away. Google's only real innovation was thier revenue model. Right now, Google has BILLIONS to toss at projects. We hear about a LOT of successful or nearly successful projects, but how many failures are there that we never hear about? Its easy to be innovative when you are grossly profitable.

For any "hiring practice" to be better than any other, you need to *prove* that the cost of labor compared to productivity (innovation, etc.) that is directly related to revenue has a better ratio than that in other companies. Frankly, I don't see it. Google sells ads, nothing else even comes close on their books.

Google is just the Microsoft of the late '80 and early '90s. A pundit's darling, a fictional yardstick by which the ignorant measure what they don't understand.

Comment: Elephant in the room (Score 1) 233

by mlwmohawk (#46667233) Attached to: Most Expensive Aviation Search: $53 Million To Find Flight MH370

OK, lets say it. Bullshit. We all know it didn't crash.

It takes a series of catastrophic failures for a 777 to crash. Sure, it happens, but it is very rare. It is an extremely unlikely event.
Now, we also know that the various telemetry devices on the plane were manually disabled by the flight crew.
We also know from the telemetry they didn't know about (or could shut of, the engine pings) that the engines ran for about 5 hours after other telemetry was turned off.
We know the plane turned "off course" after the last radio contact.

Given all these facts, do you really think it crashed? Of course not. It landed somewhere.

The cruising speed of the plane is about 560 miles/hour. It was in the air for 5 hours after it's last known location, that's a 2800 mile radius. This gives us a 24 million square mile area to search. If we have 1000 crews searching the area, 80 hours a week. If it takes 1 hour to search a square mile, it will take almost 6 years to find it.

Someone or something was on that plane that someone wanted. The plane was stolen, BY THE PILOTS, and landed somewhere. We will not find the black box, well, maybe on ebay.

Comment: Nothing will save you from your own carelessness (Score 0) 983

by mlwmohawk (#46463171) Attached to: How Do You Backup 20TB of Data?

If you set up a RAID6 system and keep tabs on it, replace drives as they come and go, then you'll probably be OK unless you do something stupid, or have a fire, flood, or what ever. The ONLY way to really have backup of important information is geographically separate redundant copies.

Comment: Just eastablish a new fork (Score 2) 119

by mlwmohawk (#46004577) Attached to: Nagios-Plugins Web Site Taken Over By Nagios

Nagios is a stupid name, and now they are acting like a stupid company. You can't buy good will, but you can certainly spend it out of existence. Create an entity sys-monitoring.org, or something, pull a GPL nagios, change trademarks, and point to monitoring-plugins.org. That really is the only way to deal with companies that behave this way.

Then contact Debian, RedHat et. al. they will probably deal with the new fork after this crap.

Comment: Makes perfect sense (Score 4, Informative) 186

by mlwmohawk (#45894587) Attached to: Red Hat To Help Develop CentOS

Its actually about time. We old timers remember when RedHat was free and support was the money maker for RedHat. Then they split to RHEL and Fedora, that was bad and caused a lot of initial distrust of RedHat. Fortunately, RedHat didn't screw everyone and is doing largely the right thing.

The problem with the RHEL/Fedora split was it made two different strategies. If it were not for CentOS, RHEL may have lost a lot of business. Now that Oracle wants to steal RedHat business, keeping CentOS viable keeps the mind-share of people who neither need nor want support using the equivalent of RHEL while RedHat keeps its customers.

Comment: Stored Credentials are bad (Score 1) 341

by mlwmohawk (#45829351) Attached to: Linux Distributions Storing Wi-Fi Passwords In Plain Text

As bad as it sounds, NetworkManager is probably doing almost the right thing. There is no way to safely encrypt a password so that it may be used for access to another system without requiring another password.The only thing that you can do is use the permission structure of the OS to protect the password. (As they have done)

Now, they could have "scrambled" or encrypted the password with a known key. That will prevent the slim chance that a "casual" intruder with root access will get your password, however, any moderately intent intruder who can gain root access will, by design, be able to reverse the password mutation. You can't MD5 or SHA the passwords because you *need* them to gain access to the external system.

I had this fight at a company a while back about accessing Windows servers and storing their credentials, I ended up base64 the creds into a database row or an encrypted database. You needed a password to open the database, so they were safe, but management didn't want to be able to "see" the password once they did. It wasn't real security, but it shut them up.

NetworkManager needs to do something similarly stupid so that stupid people don't say stupid things about a stupid problem. If you can't trust your computer to store your password, then don't trust your computer to store your password. duh!

Comment: Freedom's free ride is over (Score 1) 153

by mlwmohawk (#45828099) Attached to: UK Introduces Warrantless Detention

We hear all the time that freedom is not free it must be paid for periodically. Well, I think the western tradition of freedom is under attack and it is time that the citizens of the USA and the UK band agains their governments becoming like the repressive governments of Hitler and Stallen that they supposidly weren't. My only hope is that we have not built up so much "freedom debt" that we must pay for it with violen revolution.

Does anyone have a viable plan to stop this wholesale nonsense?

Comment: Re:NSA Key (Score 2) 464

by mlwmohawk (#45759131) Attached to: Reuters: RSA Weakened Encryption For $10M From NSA

The wikipedia article you site only re-iterates the fact that no hard explanation was given about the name NSAKEY and we are left to conclude what it really means. And yes, having worked closely with Microsoft on a couple of their products, I am very comfortable with the obviousness of naming a key for the NSA, NSAKEY. The module was not supposed to have the symbols included.

Comment: Denning Mobile Robotics (Score 1) 139

by mlwmohawk (#45575823) Attached to: R2-D2: Mall Cop

Almost 20 years ago I worked on the development of a mobile robot security guard at Denning Mobile Robotics. When we tried to sell to a "large security vendor" we were told that the robot was expensive and if it were destroyed, they would be out capital. If they hire low-wage humans, when they get killed they can hire another one cheaply and insurance (that the human pays for) will take care of the rest. Second, what does the robot cost? If it is patrolling a Walmart, it is likely that the robot is the most valueable thing in the room and will, itself, be the target of theft.

Now, toss a blanket over it and you have completely disabled it.

Comment: Thee is no way the TSA has any hope of efficacy (Score 1) 337

by mlwmohawk (#45431847) Attached to: TSA Screening Barely Working Better Than Chance

(1) They hire idiots
(2) They tools they have won't find shit

Ist, I've flown a bit lately, and lets be honest, abusive and uneducated are the only words I have for TSA. Just assholes with a uniform there to make your life miserable, not to make people safe, but to make people "feel" safe. A prison cell with a locked door is pretty safe too.

2nd, none of the toys and scanners they have can find anything they are looking for because they really don't understand them or their use.

Welcome to the police state where abuse of citizens means an effective police force.

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...