Would Google's Wave work for you? It's real time, centralized, and browser based. I say privacy concerns aside, because the protocol is available, and people could build their own servers (such as http://code.google.com/p/pygowave-server/)...
Well, but then we'd need to maintain a meta-meta constitution, and a meta-meta-meta constitution, ed infinium... Pretty soon you'd have Genies to grant meta-amendments, and such.
Well, to understand #2, you have to understand the times. It was written right after the revolutionary war. A war where the people banded together to fight against their government... They used militias as organized fighting units. So, after the war, they put #2 in there to make sure that people always had the right to form their own militia and fight back against their government if they deemed it tyranical or for any other reason. That's the only way #2 would make sense in the context of how and where it was written. And the fact that it was put as the 2nd amendment (right under the freedom of speech) shows how important they felt it was.
Sure, it's my interpretation, but it's an educated interpretation based on why I think someone would have written it in the 1880's...
What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?
We're getting into very precarious situations here. With technology advancing, we're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go, even when it isn't really applicable. Don't forget, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today's world, and start looking into the spirit of the laws.
Quite true. I interpreted the OP as saying warnings for possible disruption. So I replied that the disruption (aka interference) would happen before the warning, hence it's useless... However, taking the ejections into account, I think both arguments (my original, and your original) stand, just under narrowed contexts...
They ARE disrupted by X-Rays, which are part of the spectrum of light... So yes, comms satellites ARE disrupted by LIGHT from the flare. It's the act of these X-Rays hitting the ionosphere that causes the radio interference (hence disrupting the GPS systems that the OP was referring to)...
It was my understanding that the main "effects" of flares were that of X-Rays and other forms of radiation (UV, etc) which do travel at the speed of light... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare Sure, the massive ejections will travel at less than C, but the effects the OP mentions (radio and GPS interferance) are caused by the X-Rays hitting the ionosphere. And that effect would occur "before" the satellite gets a chance to "warn" us... So while my post was incomplete, it's still applicable... Just not for the entire effect of the flare.
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light. So when this satellite learns of the big flare, it has already hit us. (Due to delays in processing and transmission, it'll tell us only after the flare has passed by earth)...
I'm not saying not to tell people that it's a drill. I'm saying not to tell them beforehand. If you tell them beforehand, they get to "study" and mentally prepare for what (they think) is going to happen. While this is good for appearances, it's not good for determining real preparedness. You tell them that it's a drill when the drill actually starts. This is what we used to do at the fire department where I was a member. Every so often (around twice per year, or so), we would get dispatched to an unannounced drill. When the dispatch went out, it started with "This is only a drill, this is only a drill", and ended with "this is only a drill, this is only a drill". That way, you know it's a drill, but don't get to prepare yourself for what's going on any different than if you were responding to an actual emergency.
I think that your point about not learning anything from abject failure is narrow. Sure, the people involved probably won't learn anything, but the people administering the drill will learn a whole lot. They will learn that when unit x fails, it takes down units a, b and c... Then, they can prepare planned drills to address those issues. Once every failure in the first unannounced drill is addressed with training and planned drills, you hold another unplanned drill. And the cycle goes on ad infinum... Learning from each event, and adjusting the response accordingly.
Sure, some events are not "drillable" first hand, but all are simulatable (At least "sections" are). You don't need to shut down the entire airport to do a disaster drill. But you can simulate one by holding several "smaller" drills that each shut down a tiny portion of the airport or at least simulate shutting down a portion (instead of shutting down the control tower, you'd use a mock tower with real employees)...
Yes, during training, you run "planned drills"... Something exercise a specific skill or scenario. But a planned drill does nothing but test that specific skill. Unplanned drills test the entire system... Basically, a planed drill teaches people how to react. An unplanned drill shows how "prepared" you are, and where you need to focus training. Without the baseline provided by an unplanned drill, how do you know how to focus the planned ones? For something like firefighting, you have past experience (both from the organizers, and from others) to tell you how to do a drill and what it should focus on. But for this, there's no past experience...
A "Simulated" attack? So basically people wandering around pretending that power just went out? I understand that holding fire drills is good and all, but why not try lighting a controlled fire and seeing how everyone reacts? And never announce a drill. Otherwise, it's simply not real enough to give you useful information about the response...
News at 10: Australia, the new China... Just with a crapload less people, better living conditions, democracy (well mostly) and well, pretty much everything else...
I wonder if Lucas is going to do what's been happening to most other movie series (James Bond, Batman, Spider Man, Star Trek, etc) and do a ground up restart on the series. Take it back to a darker, rougher and more realistic level...
I'm not saying that's what it needs, but just seems to be the theme of late in Hollywood...
I wonder if this would open up "harassment" as a defense... Considering that they cannot gain any result that's greater than what already was awarded, this third trial could only be seen as an attempt to get the defendant to settle (And thereby agree not to appeal)... If only civil law had the no double jeopardy clause...
Casual distractions are not inevitable. And they are deadly! If someone is driving, and they didn't realize that they just ran a red light, they should not only be fined, but IMHO should have their license suspended. Driving takes concentration and you NEED to pay attention. Blowing a red light can be fatal. There's no two ifs ands or buts about it. Speeding is FAR less dangerous (all things considered) than running a red light. If fining someone doesn't cause them to realize that they need to pay attention to the road, then that person doesn't belong having any responsibilities, yet alone control over a 2 ton hunk of metal going down the road at 100 kph...
There's a big difference between this driving analogy and the real problem with censorship. If you run a red light, you could literally kill me while there's nothing I can do about it (assuming a blind intersection where I don't have time to react). If you produce something that I find obscene, no physical or mental harm will come to me unless I make the choice to view it (Sure, you could shove it in my face, and force me to view it, but then that would be harassment). It's a minor difference, but a critical one. One requires only one party to act whereas the other requires both.
I find it quite ironic that a 16mhz 80286 processor was "too fast" for some programs, and required a cpu scaling program to slow the effective cpu speed to run correctly... It puts things into perspective to think that 16mhz was "too fast" at one point in time...
To ease the transition, we're investing in interoperability between Windows and other operating systems, reaffirming our commitment to 10 years of support for our non-Windows products, and taking concrete steps to help customers plan for the future.
I'm REALLY confused now. So they are dropping *NIX support, to futher their goal of interoperability? WTF? Can someone explain how these 2 are NOT related?
Either that, or the subtext of "reaffirming (their) commitment" by dropping non-win os support sheds some insight on their "commitment" in the first place...
To tell you the truth, the percentage of actual vulnerabilities that it finds mean nothing to me. What matters to me is the rate of false positives. Even better would be the number of actual vulnerabilities found divided by the number of false issues found.
I had a chance to see the outputs of a few of these scanners run against a particular open source content management system. Not one of them found an actual, confirmable vulnerability. But one found over 9,000 false positives. All found a fair number of false positives. Even if could find real vulnerabilities, digging though all those false positives to find a real one is a really daunting task.
What I find works better than these scanners is hand audits by someone who knows what they are looking for. It's most definitely an intensive task, but let me ask you. What's more a better use of time, an expert doing a hand audit who may find vulnerabilities that the scanner didn't), or the expert digging through all 9000 of those "results" trying to figure which, if any, are real? I assert that the best use is going to be a combination of the two. Just don't put your faith in either one...
There's actually a huge difference between the target analogy and the apple situation. The fact of the matter is that you can choose with no lost cost between Walmart and Target. You cannot do that with the App store. Once you own an Apple (iPod/iPhone), you're locked into using their store. So you could say that this is advertising for competing products (will result in lost sales of iPhones), but that's fooey too, since they already have made the sale before you even see this advert. Sure, it cost them customers in the end (users leaving after contracts are up), but banning the discussion or mention of the names of these companies is surely a recipe for disaster (Look up when KROCK sued Howard Stern for talking about on air his going to Sirius after his contract was up in 06... Not only did Howard win the suit, but KROCK is dead).
Show that your product is better... Don't ban the mention of the competing product... It's childish, and shows one thing. Fear...
Ummm... I've never seen a control-alt-delete button in my life. Sure, it may exists, but I've never seen / heard of it... And to say that having a "set of inputs" that causes a restart without UI interaction is a sign of crappy software, well I guess just about every device made is crappy (The iPod classic has one, hold the power button and the center of the wheel at the same time for a few seconds)...
Slashdot Mirror
More news from the Vatican, "spreading the word of Christ" now involves a sledge hammer...
I realized that 5 minutes after I wrote the post, and was waiting for someone else to notice... Over 2 hours, for this crowd... I'm disappointed...
Would Google's Wave work for you? It's real time, centralized, and browser based. I say privacy concerns aside, because the protocol is available, and people could build their own servers (such as http://code.google.com/p/pygowave-server/)...
Well, but then we'd need to maintain a meta-meta constitution, and a meta-meta-meta constitution, ed infinium... Pretty soon you'd have Genies to grant meta-amendments, and such.
In case you missed the reference: http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567
Well, by that notion, where are my hand grenades, C4 and tracer/incendiary rounds?
Well, to understand #2, you have to understand the times. It was written right after the revolutionary war. A war where the people banded together to fight against their government... They used militias as organized fighting units. So, after the war, they put #2 in there to make sure that people always had the right to form their own militia and fight back against their government if they deemed it tyranical or for any other reason. That's the only way #2 would make sense in the context of how and where it was written. And the fact that it was put as the 2nd amendment (right under the freedom of speech) shows how important they felt it was.
Sure, it's my interpretation, but it's an educated interpretation based on why I think someone would have written it in the 1880's...
What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?
We're getting into very precarious situations here. With technology advancing, we're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go, even when it isn't really applicable. Don't forget, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today's world, and start looking into the spirit of the laws.
Quite true. I interpreted the OP as saying warnings for possible disruption. So I replied that the disruption (aka interference) would happen before the warning, hence it's useless... However, taking the ejections into account, I think both arguments (my original, and your original) stand, just under narrowed contexts...
They ARE disrupted by X-Rays, which are part of the spectrum of light... So yes, comms satellites ARE disrupted by LIGHT from the flare. It's the act of these X-Rays hitting the ionosphere that causes the radio interference (hence disrupting the GPS systems that the OP was referring to)...
It was my understanding that the main "effects" of flares were that of X-Rays and other forms of radiation (UV, etc) which do travel at the speed of light... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare Sure, the massive ejections will travel at less than C, but the effects the OP mentions (radio and GPS interferance) are caused by the X-Rays hitting the ionosphere. And that effect would occur "before" the satellite gets a chance to "warn" us... So while my post was incomplete, it's still applicable... Just not for the entire effect of the flare.
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light. So when this satellite learns of the big flare, it has already hit us. (Due to delays in processing and transmission, it'll tell us only after the flare has passed by earth)...
I'm not saying not to tell people that it's a drill. I'm saying not to tell them beforehand. If you tell them beforehand, they get to "study" and mentally prepare for what (they think) is going to happen. While this is good for appearances, it's not good for determining real preparedness. You tell them that it's a drill when the drill actually starts. This is what we used to do at the fire department where I was a member. Every so often (around twice per year, or so), we would get dispatched to an unannounced drill. When the dispatch went out, it started with "This is only a drill, this is only a drill", and ended with "this is only a drill, this is only a drill". That way, you know it's a drill, but don't get to prepare yourself for what's going on any different than if you were responding to an actual emergency.
I think that your point about not learning anything from abject failure is narrow. Sure, the people involved probably won't learn anything, but the people administering the drill will learn a whole lot. They will learn that when unit x fails, it takes down units a, b and c... Then, they can prepare planned drills to address those issues. Once every failure in the first unannounced drill is addressed with training and planned drills, you hold another unplanned drill. And the cycle goes on ad infinum... Learning from each event, and adjusting the response accordingly.
Sure, some events are not "drillable" first hand, but all are simulatable (At least "sections" are). You don't need to shut down the entire airport to do a disaster drill. But you can simulate one by holding several "smaller" drills that each shut down a tiny portion of the airport or at least simulate shutting down a portion (instead of shutting down the control tower, you'd use a mock tower with real employees)...
Yes, during training, you run "planned drills"... Something exercise a specific skill or scenario. But a planned drill does nothing but test that specific skill. Unplanned drills test the entire system... Basically, a planed drill teaches people how to react. An unplanned drill shows how "prepared" you are, and where you need to focus training. Without the baseline provided by an unplanned drill, how do you know how to focus the planned ones? For something like firefighting, you have past experience (both from the organizers, and from others) to tell you how to do a drill and what it should focus on. But for this, there's no past experience...
A "Simulated" attack? So basically people wandering around pretending that power just went out? I understand that holding fire drills is good and all, but why not try lighting a controlled fire and seeing how everyone reacts? And never announce a drill. Otherwise, it's simply not real enough to give you useful information about the response...
News at 10: Australia, the new China... Just with a crapload less people, better living conditions, democracy (well mostly) and well, pretty much everything else...
I wonder if Lucas is going to do what's been happening to most other movie series (James Bond, Batman, Spider Man, Star Trek, etc) and do a ground up restart on the series. Take it back to a darker, rougher and more realistic level...
I'm not saying that's what it needs, but just seems to be the theme of late in Hollywood...
I wonder if this would open up "harassment" as a defense... Considering that they cannot gain any result that's greater than what already was awarded, this third trial could only be seen as an attempt to get the defendant to settle (And thereby agree not to appeal)... If only civil law had the no double jeopardy clause...
Casual distractions are not inevitable. And they are deadly! If someone is driving, and they didn't realize that they just ran a red light, they should not only be fined, but IMHO should have their license suspended. Driving takes concentration and you NEED to pay attention. Blowing a red light can be fatal. There's no two ifs ands or buts about it. Speeding is FAR less dangerous (all things considered) than running a red light. If fining someone doesn't cause them to realize that they need to pay attention to the road, then that person doesn't belong having any responsibilities, yet alone control over a 2 ton hunk of metal going down the road at 100 kph...
There's a big difference between this driving analogy and the real problem with censorship. If you run a red light, you could literally kill me while there's nothing I can do about it (assuming a blind intersection where I don't have time to react). If you produce something that I find obscene, no physical or mental harm will come to me unless I make the choice to view it (Sure, you could shove it in my face, and force me to view it, but then that would be harassment). It's a minor difference, but a critical one. One requires only one party to act whereas the other requires both.
I remember that! The goslow DOS command...
I find it quite ironic that a 16mhz 80286 processor was "too fast" for some programs, and required a cpu scaling program to slow the effective cpu speed to run correctly... It puts things into perspective to think that 16mhz was "too fast" at one point in time...
I'm REALLY confused now. So they are dropping *NIX support, to futher their goal of interoperability? WTF? Can someone explain how these 2 are NOT related?
Either that, or the subtext of "reaffirming (their) commitment" by dropping non-win os support sheds some insight on their "commitment" in the first place...
You can access a specific board? I cannot. The main page will come up, but when I try to go to a specific board, it fails...
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers...
OTOH, I guess that could be applied to both parties as alluded in your post...
To tell you the truth, the percentage of actual vulnerabilities that it finds mean nothing to me. What matters to me is the rate of false positives. Even better would be the number of actual vulnerabilities found divided by the number of false issues found.
I had a chance to see the outputs of a few of these scanners run against a particular open source content management system. Not one of them found an actual, confirmable vulnerability. But one found over 9,000 false positives. All found a fair number of false positives. Even if could find real vulnerabilities, digging though all those false positives to find a real one is a really daunting task.
What I find works better than these scanners is hand audits by someone who knows what they are looking for. It's most definitely an intensive task, but let me ask you. What's more a better use of time, an expert doing a hand audit who may find vulnerabilities that the scanner didn't), or the expert digging through all 9000 of those "results" trying to figure which, if any, are real? I assert that the best use is going to be a combination of the two. Just don't put your faith in either one...
There's actually a huge difference between the target analogy and the apple situation. The fact of the matter is that you can choose with no lost cost between Walmart and Target. You cannot do that with the App store. Once you own an Apple (iPod/iPhone), you're locked into using their store. So you could say that this is advertising for competing products (will result in lost sales of iPhones), but that's fooey too, since they already have made the sale before you even see this advert. Sure, it cost them customers in the end (users leaving after contracts are up), but banning the discussion or mention of the names of these companies is surely a recipe for disaster (Look up when KROCK sued Howard Stern for talking about on air his going to Sirius after his contract was up in 06... Not only did Howard win the suit, but KROCK is dead).
Show that your product is better... Don't ban the mention of the competing product... It's childish, and shows one thing. Fear...
Ummm... I've never seen a control-alt-delete button in my life. Sure, it may exists, but I've never seen / heard of it... And to say that having a "set of inputs" that causes a restart without UI interaction is a sign of crappy software, well I guess just about every device made is crappy (The iPod classic has one, hold the power button and the center of the wheel at the same time for a few seconds)...