But I find the number of pieces of information that State, Federal, state-funded bodies, and legislative mandates (e.g. corporate information gathering and disclosure pursuant to governmental affirmative action directives) require from you seems to be going up and up. This is rather disturbing.
I don't find it at all disturbing if public corporations are required to operate in full public view.
And, frankly, I think it wouldn't hurt if a lot of "private" information were public as well. For example, why shouldn't everybody's tax returns be a part of the public record?
The Open Source OS world may still be a bit of a mess when competing with the ease of Windows,
You must be kidding. The only thing that's "easier" about Windows is the fact that it's preinstalled; other than that, it's the most messy and tedious desktop OS among the four major ones (Windows, Mac, Linux/Gnome, and Linux/KDE).
what i'm not confident about is the competency of the developers that put together the site i'm browsing.
It doesn't matter how competent/incompetent the banking developers may be, banking sites just don't have uploadable content.
Therefore, the XSS attacks you have to worry about (and the only ones you can control anyway) are the ones that use your browser. Those are real and often go undetected for a while before a patch becomes available.
There are no television fees in the US, and public TV stations don't get a lot of money from the tax payer. The $130/month you pay are probably for cable. I don't know where you live, but (in the US) for $130/month, I get analog and digital cable, high speed internet, Internet phone service, standard cable, and a whole bunch of premium channels, most of them without ads. Oh, and I get the BBC, too.
Oh, don't get me wrong, the BBC is doing good stuff and I think they're worth the money. However, they shouldn't ask people to pay twice for the same content.
And cable is on top of the broadcast fees in the UK, of course.
PS: If you think the BBC broadcast fees are justified, I hope you're donating to your US public TV station, in addition to paying for cable.
IBM is clearly using Linux to get people into UNIX, and then is trying to sell them with "but AIX is more stable/scalable" line. Of course, the notion that AIX is more stable or more scalable is pretty silly. Linux systems can be rock solid if people get the right hardware and software, and the right support.
However, although it would be nicer if IBM just went all-Linux, on balance, this relationship with IBM is probably still good for the Linux community. Companies who are prone to switching to AIX would probably also fall for similar sales pitches from Microsoft's salesdroids, and I'd rather have them switching to AIX for some of their systems (they're probably still using Linux on many others) than to switch to Vista client and Vista server.
I think it's foolish to use your usual account and browser for online banking. Just create a separate account, keep the browser clean, don't browse around with that account, and set up good security. That's good for many reasons, not just XSS.
In other words, this Computer Scientist had never taken a CS class! He was just good at algorithms.
Algorithms, mathematics, and methodology is what a university degree in computer science is primarily about. Programming and practical skills may also be available as part of a CS program, but teaching those are not the goal of a university degree; there wouldn't be enough time anyway. People usually learn those on the job (or in trade schools).
I really don't care what people's motives are for developing open source software as long as they get the licenses right. Any of the common open source licenses will do: GPL, BSD, LGPL, Apache, etc.
The only real problem I occasionally see with commercial open source is dual licensed software, which may be nominally under an open source license, but is usually run as a closed source project and often has unexpected hidden costs.
My first reaction was: why should I provide free hosting for a commercial vendor of video? Let them pay for their own hosting and bandwidth.
But, come to think of it, if a service like this legitimizes large upstream bandwidth, we all win. One of the biggest threats to the Internet is still that upstream bandwidths become limited. So, from that point of view, I'm all for commercial P2P. I can still give its traffic low priority at the router.
Penrose is an excellent mathematician, but he's a crackpot when it comes to biology and the brain.
As for brain simulations, they almost always use randomness in the form of pseudo-random number generators. Physical random number generators are actually available and could be used, but nobody bothers because there is no conceivable way in which that could make a difference.
That is, how did the bipartisan debate commission decide who would run the presidential debate? I'm sure MSNBC wasn't the only network interested in doing it.
I suspect the primaries are arranged by the DNC and RNC, not the bipartisan commission.
The committees and commissions were willing to grant MSNBC complete control in exchange for, probably, some control over what questions are asked, the format of the debate, etc. etc. I don't know the details, but I'd like to know....
I wouldn't jump to conclusions. The first time around, this may simply be an oversight. After all, this is the way things have worked by default in the media. If it still works this way next time around, it's deliberate.
And I think you're wrong to assume that once they actually address this issue, this is some kind of give-and-take. In fact, I think both NBC and the DNC/RNC prefer there to be tight control over video footage from the debates, each for their own reasons. The possibility of having the debates analyzed and picked apart second by second on YouTube must give the DNC/RNC members ulcers.
Even on a big machine, Linux doesn't have to fear comparison with Windows. On a machine like this, it will become evident quickly to users what a pig Windows really is.
However, in addition to the Linux version for kids, if people put a copy of Windows-for-grownups on there, they should probably also put a copy of Linux-for-grownups on there. In fact, I think Ubuntu for OLPC would be a great additional choice.
The when, where, and how of primary and presidential debates are decided by committees. Those committees can negotiate the conditions of the debates and the ownership of the audio/video material.
I suspect that the conditions for the democratic primaries are decided by some committee in the DNC. So, the people to complain to in this case are in the DNC. If the next debates are held and released under the same restrictions, then you have your answer: the DNC either doesn't care or prefers it this way. Same for the RNC.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the DNC and RNC prefer the debate videos to be tightly controlled. The idea of hundreds of debate clips showing up on YouTube and being analyzed and discussed almost certainly scare the political control freaks in those organizations, and this way, they think they have at least some means by which they could stamp out unflattering uses of that video content.
Linux actually has several implementations of this (and has had them for years), but Ubuntu has chosen not to activate them in the distribution. I think that's the right decision for Ubuntu. But if people should come to like this feature, all Ubuntu needs to do is turn it on.
In Europe, the loser generally pays for the legal costs of the prevailing party. So, good luck taking on Microsoft or Nokia in Europe as an individual; they can throw tons of lawyers at this, and you'll be bankrupt first time you lose, which will be rather quick.
My motherboard has a bug that makes using the console unpleasant, so I stopped using virtual consoles a few years ago and I don't miss them anymore.
There are probably a dozen different terminal emulators for X11; I use rxvt, xterm, and gnome-terminal, and they seem pretty much interchangeable to me.
Looks like in the early days of his MPAA presidency, he was fairly reasonable (as reasonable as anybody can be in that job). But he seems to have had a complete inability to comprehend and deal with the realities of 21st century technology. He should probably have stepped down from that job 20 years ago. The fact that the MPAA didn't make him step down 20 years ago tells you how troubled and outdated that organization is itself.
I think since 2.6 has come out, I have lost complete track of kernel versions--it simply doesn't matter anymore to me. I think at this point, people could come in and replace the Linux kernel with BSD, Darwin, or Solaris and I probably wouldn't notice. Kernels have become a commodity.
The problems highlight one of the risks of relying on hosted applications providers, which offer to house software and its data for individuals and organizations
Yeah, because we all know that if you run your own PC, you never lose data, right? Get real.
On average, people are going to be far better off relying on any on-line service than on their own PC, both in terms of reliability and in terms of security.
You create more carbon dioxide emissions by making paper and burying it to get rid of the minute amount of carbon that the tree(s) obtained from its photosynthesis process.
The carbon contained in a piece of paper is 100% captured from atmospheric CO2, just like the carbon contained in a tree is 100% captured from atmospheric CO2. Those amounts are certainly not "minute".
Furthermore, recycling paper probably takes roughly the same amount of energy of making new paper.
Also, by outlawing the recycling of paper, you'll reduce the number of trees that are still alive,
Not at all. Paper can be made from trees grown specifically for that purpose, and a lot of paper is made just that way. Those trees don't grow any faster through recycling.
Slashdot Mirror
But I find the number of pieces of information that State, Federal, state-funded bodies, and legislative mandates (e.g. corporate information gathering and disclosure pursuant to governmental affirmative action directives) require from you seems to be going up and up. This is rather disturbing.
I don't find it at all disturbing if public corporations are required to operate in full public view.
And, frankly, I think it wouldn't hurt if a lot of "private" information were public as well. For example, why shouldn't everybody's tax returns be a part of the public record?
The Open Source OS world may still be a bit of a mess when competing with the ease of Windows,
You must be kidding. The only thing that's "easier" about Windows is the fact that it's preinstalled; other than that, it's the most messy and tedious desktop OS among the four major ones (Windows, Mac, Linux/Gnome, and Linux/KDE).
what i'm not confident about is the competency of the developers that put together the site i'm browsing.
It doesn't matter how competent/incompetent the banking developers may be, banking sites just don't have uploadable content.
Therefore, the XSS attacks you have to worry about (and the only ones you can control anyway) are the ones that use your browser. Those are real and often go undetected for a while before a patch becomes available.
that will only help if it's the client's browser that's vulnerable
Yes, that's the case you need to be concerned about.
not the site itself.
How would the banking sites be vulnerable? They don't allow any kind of user content to be uploaded.
There are no television fees in the US, and public TV stations don't get a lot of money from the tax payer. The $130/month you pay are probably for cable. I don't know where you live, but (in the US) for $130/month, I get analog and digital cable, high speed internet, Internet phone service, standard cable, and a whole bunch of premium channels, most of them without ads. Oh, and I get the BBC, too.
Oh, don't get me wrong, the BBC is doing good stuff and I think they're worth the money. However, they shouldn't ask people to pay twice for the same content.
And cable is on top of the broadcast fees in the UK, of course.
PS: If you think the BBC broadcast fees are justified, I hope you're donating to your US public TV station, in addition to paying for cable.
IBM is clearly using Linux to get people into UNIX, and then is trying to sell them with "but AIX is more stable/scalable" line. Of course, the notion that AIX is more stable or more scalable is pretty silly. Linux systems can be rock solid if people get the right hardware and software, and the right support.
However, although it would be nicer if IBM just went all-Linux, on balance, this relationship with IBM is probably still good for the Linux community. Companies who are prone to switching to AIX would probably also fall for similar sales pitches from Microsoft's salesdroids, and I'd rather have them switching to AIX for some of their systems (they're probably still using Linux on many others) than to switch to Vista client and Vista server.
Nothing that the BBC does is "for free": UK residents pay for the BBC, to the tune of about $6 billion per year (!) or about $250/year/household.
I think it's foolish to use your usual account and browser for online banking. Just create a separate account, keep the browser clean, don't browse around with that account, and set up good security. That's good for many reasons, not just XSS.
In other words, this Computer Scientist had never taken a CS class! He was just good at algorithms.
Algorithms, mathematics, and methodology is what a university degree in computer science is primarily about. Programming and practical skills may also be available as part of a CS program, but teaching those are not the goal of a university degree; there wouldn't be enough time anyway. People usually learn those on the job (or in trade schools).
I really don't care what people's motives are for developing open source software as long as they get the licenses right. Any of the common open source licenses will do: GPL, BSD, LGPL, Apache, etc.
The only real problem I occasionally see with commercial open source is dual licensed software, which may be nominally under an open source license, but is usually run as a closed source project and often has unexpected hidden costs.
My first reaction was: why should I provide free hosting for a commercial vendor of video? Let them pay for their own hosting and bandwidth.
But, come to think of it, if a service like this legitimizes large upstream bandwidth, we all win. One of the biggest threats to the Internet is still that upstream bandwidths become limited. So, from that point of view, I'm all for commercial P2P. I can still give its traffic low priority at the router.
Penrose is an excellent mathematician, but he's a crackpot when it comes to biology and the brain.
As for brain simulations, they almost always use randomness in the form of pseudo-random number generators. Physical random number generators are actually available and could be used, but nobody bothers because there is no conceivable way in which that could make a difference.
That is, how did the bipartisan debate commission decide who would run the presidential debate? I'm sure MSNBC wasn't the only network interested in doing it.
I suspect the primaries are arranged by the DNC and RNC, not the bipartisan commission.
The committees and commissions were willing to grant MSNBC complete control in exchange for, probably, some control over what questions are asked, the format of the debate, etc. etc. I don't know the details, but I'd like to know....
I wouldn't jump to conclusions. The first time around, this may simply be an oversight. After all, this is the way things have worked by default in the media. If it still works this way next time around, it's deliberate.
And I think you're wrong to assume that once they actually address this issue, this is some kind of give-and-take. In fact, I think both NBC and the DNC/RNC prefer there to be tight control over video footage from the debates, each for their own reasons. The possibility of having the debates analyzed and picked apart second by second on YouTube must give the DNC/RNC members ulcers.
Even on a big machine, Linux doesn't have to fear comparison with Windows. On a machine like this, it will become evident quickly to users what a pig Windows really is.
However, in addition to the Linux version for kids, if people put a copy of Windows-for-grownups on there, they should probably also put a copy of Linux-for-grownups on there. In fact, I think Ubuntu for OLPC would be a great additional choice.
The when, where, and how of primary and presidential debates are decided by committees. Those committees can negotiate the conditions of the debates and the ownership of the audio/video material.
I suspect that the conditions for the democratic primaries are decided by some committee in the DNC. So, the people to complain to in this case are in the DNC. If the next debates are held and released under the same restrictions, then you have your answer: the DNC either doesn't care or prefers it this way. Same for the RNC.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the DNC and RNC prefer the debate videos to be tightly controlled. The idea of hundreds of debate clips showing up on YouTube and being analyzed and discussed almost certainly scare the political control freaks in those organizations, and this way, they think they have at least some means by which they could stamp out unflattering uses of that video content.
If they have this extreme level of control that basically means they *paid* for it, somehow, and outbid everyone else.
It's not a sports event, you know. I mean, who do you think they "paid" for the rights?
Or did they just ask all the candidates nicely?
Presidential debates are decided on by a bipartisan debate commission. Primaries probably by a committee in each party.
Linux actually has several implementations of this (and has had them for years), but Ubuntu has chosen not to activate them in the distribution. I think that's the right decision for Ubuntu. But if people should come to like this feature, all Ubuntu needs to do is turn it on.
In Europe, the loser generally pays for the legal costs of the prevailing party. So, good luck taking on Microsoft or Nokia in Europe as an individual; they can throw tons of lawyers at this, and you'll be bankrupt first time you lose, which will be rather quick.
ntelligent Design has its merits,
Hold on, let me think... nope, can't think of any.
My motherboard has a bug that makes using the console unpleasant, so I stopped using virtual consoles a few years ago and I don't miss them anymore.
There are probably a dozen different terminal emulators for X11; I use rxvt, xterm, and gnome-terminal, and they seem pretty much interchangeable to me.
Looks like in the early days of his MPAA presidency, he was fairly reasonable (as reasonable as anybody can be in that job). But he seems to have had a complete inability to comprehend and deal with the realities of 21st century technology. He should probably have stepped down from that job 20 years ago. The fact that the MPAA didn't make him step down 20 years ago tells you how troubled and outdated that organization is itself.
I think since 2.6 has come out, I have lost complete track of kernel versions--it simply doesn't matter anymore to me. I think at this point, people could come in and replace the Linux kernel with BSD, Darwin, or Solaris and I probably wouldn't notice. Kernels have become a commodity.
The problems highlight one of the risks of relying on hosted applications providers, which offer to house software and its data for individuals and organizations
Yeah, because we all know that if you run your own PC, you never lose data, right? Get real.
On average, people are going to be far better off relying on any on-line service than on their own PC, both in terms of reliability and in terms of security.
There's a simple market-driven solution:
(1) restrict international shipping of timber and timber products
(2) eliminate all cutting of old-growth forests
The market will take care of the rest; people will do tree farming or switch away from paper as necessary.
You create more carbon dioxide emissions by making paper and burying it to get rid of the minute amount of carbon that the tree(s) obtained from its photosynthesis process.
The carbon contained in a piece of paper is 100% captured from atmospheric CO2, just like the carbon contained in a tree is 100% captured from atmospheric CO2. Those amounts are certainly not "minute".
Furthermore, recycling paper probably takes roughly the same amount of energy of making new paper.
Also, by outlawing the recycling of paper, you'll reduce the number of trees that are still alive,
Not at all. Paper can be made from trees grown specifically for that purpose, and a lot of paper is made just that way. Those trees don't grow any faster through recycling.