Stressful positions, like having your back to the door or world all the time, can make a person paranoid ("Big brother is watching" or "I could be stabbed in the back!"), and such offensive stimulii are called shars , which I think means "poison dart." Feng Shui prescribes remedies, such as having a desk mirror to see who's behind you.
Oh, you mean like inward facing office cubicles and the need for some sort of 'boss detector'?
you buy an Apple because you want style and you dont know shit about substance, if you dont then bully for you but you're about the only one.
Yep, it's true.. Seems like Mac users (yes, all 10 of them) just love to buy into whatever Apple's marketing can generate. They buy into it so much it becomes religious.
Hell, they put Linux and Amiga zealots to shame.
--
Re:I still think this is marketing gibberish
on
Crusoe As Server CPU
·
· Score: 1
Please don't answer web only and think you are safe. I'll let you figure out on your own why that is wrong.
I'm wondering if you mean Linux servers and the fact that that kernel requires an FPU or FPU emulation coded into it.
Although an interesting point, MOST of the work of the server will be with non-FP programs, like web servers and the like. If you're doing math, then yes you need an FPU but otherwise the kernel emulation will do fine.
I think you're trying to be smug but in reality an FPU wouldn't ACTUALLY make that much difference.
I agree with the sentiment. I was going to post about the exact same thing. Sure, company loyalty and even more so friendship is important but if you're going to get stuffed by not making a smart (and in this case obviously better) career move then that's stupid.
You might well be able to recommend your friends to new positions in your new employer's company too. If they're talented like you say, then they should have no problems finding other employment as well.
--
Quantum Communications
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
From the article...
Quantum computers could crank through certain operations vastly faster than existing machines; quantum commmunications could never be eavesdropped upon.
Could NEVER be eavesdropped on?.. I'm not sure I understand this.. if there's a way to transmit something, then there can always be someone/something in the middle that can intercept it. Anyone with any insight into this care to explain or was this a case of the reporter getting carried away?
I've been writing HTML for years now (I think early 1995 was when I did my first home page), and I feel a pride in making any site as HTML compliant as I can (running things past the W3C validator is a good idea), as well as using an editor that supports HTML checking so you can check things like missing table tags.
In my current job we use Netscape company wide, which is great by me, I was using Netscape since before IE existed. I try to create pages that look good and are standards compliant too - it CAN be done.
In a previous job I was appalled at how my fellow 'web designers' who insisted on using IE for their testing of their crappily written HTML would then complain about Netscape not sorting their pages out so it would display 'what they meant'. Just seems the wrong thing to do. I tried pointing out that writing proper HTML can actually HELP you do your job easier and with less stress from things going wrong later, but to no avail.
One of the fundamental differences I think is that I have been a programmer for many years, and many web programmers are not - so they don't hold the idea of correct code so highly. Try writing a C program and getting it to 'interpret' the code so it works - that's the same thing in my mind as this IE crap.
So maybe that's where the distinction lies.. Programmers and non-programmers. --
Yes, I guess the fact the QuantumG's ORIGINAL post (#31) was talking about the SSH clients themselves was why I was responding to the remarks made about windows ssh clients.
I *do* agree that windows machines are not as easy to secure as their Linux counterparts. Linux is the OS of choice for me and I keep all my important information on Linux. I administer a number of Linux machines as I believe they make better servers for efficiency, security and stability than windows machines.
This topic though talks about vulnerabilities of SSH/SSL, and while it may be that programs running under windows MAY be more susceptible to attack and possibly even be suspect themselves, the actual USE OF SSH/SSL (in terms of encrypting network traffic) is not really any different between OS's - windows is no more vulnerable than Linux in that respect I think. Client programs (of ANY kind) being secure is a slightly different problem - it's certainly related! - but it's a different problem.
Following in the same thread as the other two replies above me, I fail to see why using windows ssh clients is INHERENTLY more insecure than using a linux one. Yes, problems may arise if trojan binaries are run.. that danger is also possible if you use Linux as well thought.
Someone with a mind to security would NOT run such unknown programs, I know I don't. I use SSH to talk to different Linux machines on the company network (ethernet, but unencrypted passwords are still BAD to bandy around) and also to my own Linux machine outside of it (for obvious reasons). I don't run Telnet or FTP services on any of the machines I administrate either, because they encourage luser tendencies.
So, how did you burn yourself on a windows box to be so bitter about it?
Initially, each of the chips will accommodate 256MB of data and more with successive generations
That's *per chip* (IF ZDnet are reporting it correctly, which is a big IF). Your average DIMM has a number of individual DRAM chips. So, a couple of gig wouldn't be that bad to fit on a single 'module', whatever they may be.
Yea, I thought that was a daft statement too, especially considering the relative dates of invention of these products too. It takes a number of years to perfect things, and the basic designs of those other products haven't changed all that much in many of those years. Certainly not to the same extent of computers.
Well, that's the real trick with these inkjet printers at least.. you buy the printer and then you have to buy the supplies because the cartridge runs out after 5 pages. Companies that make inkjet (and some cheap laser) printers make BOATLOADS off of the supplies, much more than they made off selling the printers themselves.
They're not going to want to lose that revenue stream any time soon.:>
Of course, if someone made a printer that could take anybody's printer cartridge that would be interesting.. but then you'd see the patent lawyers going crazy too.
I've been using the internet for quite a few years now, since 1994. Quite a lot of other people have been using it that long too. I consider myself to be pretty acceptive of the internet. For me personally, I LIKE to be able to see webpages in full color though, at the sizes in which they were meant to be seen. Wireless is good for what?.. email?.. great, I get enough emails and check it often enough with my cabled connections to not feel the need for it. I'm not an investor yet, so stock quotes don't interest me either. The idea of wireless access to me just isn't appealing in the least.
If I had a laptop, that might be different and it might be something I'd be after, but I think the number of people that are interested enough to want to 'get the internet' (or those that have it already) and of THOSE the ones who are interested in getting *wireless* access for their PDA, laptop etc. is a much smaller margin than 'regular' ISPs target. I myself am very happy with dialup access at home and a T1 at work. I would like to have DSL at home instead of the dialup, but that's not wireless either. Laptops and devices larger than PDAs would have become cheaper and more useful (in terms of battery life) for me to want to consider it.
That's just how I feel about it anyway.. I've never felt the need to change, and I've been playing with the internet for a while now.
Slashdot Mirror
Stressful positions, like having your back to the door or world all the time, can make a person paranoid ("Big brother is watching" or "I could be stabbed in the back!"), and such offensive stimulii are called shars , which I think means "poison dart." Feng Shui prescribes remedies, such as having a desk mirror to see who's behind you.
Oh, you mean like inward facing office cubicles and the need for some sort of 'boss detector'?
I heartily agree!
--
you buy an Apple because you want style and you dont know shit about substance, if you dont then bully for you but you're about the only one.
Yep, it's true.. Seems like Mac users (yes, all 10 of them) just love to buy into whatever Apple's marketing can generate. They buy into it so much it becomes religious.
Hell, they put Linux and Amiga zealots to shame.
--
Please don't answer web only and think you are safe. I'll let you figure out on your own why that is wrong.
I'm wondering if you mean Linux servers and the fact that that kernel requires an FPU or FPU emulation coded into it.
Although an interesting point, MOST of the work of the server will be with non-FP programs, like web servers and the like. If you're doing math, then yes you need an FPU but otherwise the kernel emulation will do fine.
I think you're trying to be smug but in reality an FPU wouldn't ACTUALLY make that much difference.
--
a CPU spends most of its time doing strictly nothing but wait for the rest of the world.
.. time to get some RC5 crunching action happening in those spare cycles.
Indeed
--
I agree with the sentiment. I was going to post about the exact same thing. Sure, company loyalty and even more so friendship is important but if you're going to get stuffed by not making a smart (and in this case obviously better) career move then that's stupid.
You might well be able to recommend your friends to new positions in your new employer's company too. If they're talented like you say, then they should have no problems finding other employment as well.
--
From the article ...
.. I'm not sure I understand this .. if there's a way to transmit something, then there can always be someone/something in the middle that can intercept it. Anyone with any insight into this care to explain or was this a case of the reporter getting carried away?
Quantum computers could crank through certain operations vastly faster than existing machines; quantum commmunications could never be eavesdropped upon.
Could NEVER be eavesdropped on?
--
I agree with your sentiments entirely.
I've been writing HTML for years now (I think early 1995 was when I did my first home page), and I feel a pride in making any site as HTML compliant as I can (running things past the W3C validator is a good idea), as well as using an editor that supports HTML checking so you can check things like missing table tags.
In my current job we use Netscape company wide, which is great by me, I was using Netscape since before IE existed. I try to create pages that look good and are standards compliant too - it CAN be done.
In a previous job I was appalled at how my fellow 'web designers' who insisted on using IE for their testing of their crappily written HTML would then complain about Netscape not sorting their pages out so it would display 'what they meant'. Just seems the wrong thing to do. I tried pointing out that writing proper HTML can actually HELP you do your job easier and with less stress from things going wrong later, but to no avail.
One of the fundamental differences I think is that I have been a programmer for many years, and many web programmers are not - so they don't hold the idea of correct code so highly. Try writing a C program and getting it to 'interpret' the code so it works - that's the same thing in my mind as this IE crap.
So maybe that's where the distinction lies.. Programmers and non-programmers.
--
Yea, I do that when I even so much as *think* of marketing people.
--
Well, it was Dr. Evil who said it.
--
ROTFLMAO!!
I haven't heard that one before.. it's good one though. Funniest post in this article..
--
What about the Dinosaurs?
The Dinosaurs didn't kill *themselves* off.. they just got screwed by a very large rock.
--
A kinda amusing twist. My enemy's enemy is my friend. M$ as a friend... whooda thunk it.
--
And if you got an eyelash in your eye, your accuracy would go WAY down .. blasting at everything around you.. and use up all your ammo.
--
Yes, I guess the fact the QuantumG's ORIGINAL post (#31) was talking about the SSH clients themselves was why I was responding to the remarks made about windows ssh clients.
I *do* agree that windows machines are not as easy to secure as their Linux counterparts. Linux is the OS of choice for me and I keep all my important information on Linux. I administer a number of Linux machines as I believe they make better servers for efficiency, security and stability than windows machines.
This topic though talks about vulnerabilities of SSH/SSL, and while it may be that programs running under windows MAY be more susceptible to attack and possibly even be suspect themselves, the actual USE OF SSH/SSL (in terms of encrypting network traffic) is not really any different between OS's - windows is no more vulnerable than Linux in that respect I think. Client programs (of ANY kind) being secure is a slightly different problem - it's certainly related! - but it's a different problem.
--
Following in the same thread as the other two replies above me, I fail to see why using windows ssh clients is INHERENTLY more insecure than using a linux one. Yes, problems may arise if trojan binaries are run .. that danger is also possible if you use Linux as well thought.
Someone with a mind to security would NOT run such unknown programs, I know I don't. I use SSH to talk to different Linux machines on the company network (ethernet, but unencrypted passwords are still BAD to bandy around) and also to my own Linux machine outside of it (for obvious reasons). I don't run Telnet or FTP services on any of the machines I administrate either, because they encourage luser tendencies.
So, how did you burn yourself on a windows box to be so bitter about it?
--
And something else that will keep RH and Debian people happy (well, mostly RH because of the 7.0 GCC problem):
2.2.18pre12
o Automatically select older compilers for kernel builds on Debian and RH - (Arjan van de Ven)
--
From the article:
Initially, each of the chips will accommodate 256MB of data and more with successive generations
That's *per chip* (IF ZDnet are reporting it correctly, which is a big IF). Your average DIMM has a number of individual DRAM chips. So, a couple of gig wouldn't be that bad to fit on a single 'module', whatever they may be.
--
Nah, it's just because either Bill, Al or George Jr have an Iridium phone that they like using.
--
Yea, I thought that was a daft statement too, especially considering the relative dates of invention of these products too. It takes a number of years to perfect things, and the basic designs of those other products haven't changed all that much in many of those years. Certainly not to the same extent of computers.
--
I know it's a cut-throat industry, but customer satisfaction should be the ultimate goal.
Nope, it's the almighty buck that's the ultimate goal. $$$$$$$$$$$
--
Well, that's the real trick with these inkjet printers at least.. you buy the printer and then you have to buy the supplies because the cartridge runs out after 5 pages. Companies that make inkjet (and some cheap laser) printers make BOATLOADS off of the supplies, much more than they made off selling the printers themselves.
:>
They're not going to want to lose that revenue stream any time soon.
Of course, if someone made a printer that could take anybody's printer cartridge that would be interesting.. but then you'd see the patent lawyers going crazy too.
--
I've been using the internet for quite a few years now, since 1994. Quite a lot of other people have been using it that long too. I consider myself to be pretty acceptive of the internet. For me personally, I LIKE to be able to see webpages in full color though, at the sizes in which they were meant to be seen. Wireless is good for what? .. email? .. great, I get enough emails and check it often enough with my cabled connections to not feel the need for it. I'm not an investor yet, so stock quotes don't interest me either. The idea of wireless access to me just isn't appealing in the least.
If I had a laptop, that might be different and it might be something I'd be after, but I think the number of people that are interested enough to want to 'get the internet' (or those that have it already) and of THOSE the ones who are interested in getting *wireless* access for their PDA, laptop etc. is a much smaller margin than 'regular' ISPs target. I myself am very happy with dialup access at home and a T1 at work. I would like to have DSL at home instead of the dialup, but that's not wireless either. Laptops and devices larger than PDAs would have become cheaper and more useful (in terms of battery life) for me to want to consider it.
That's just how I feel about it anyway.. I've never felt the need to change, and I've been playing with the internet for a while now.
--
.. the perfectly round, one-button mouse.
.. Ah, okay. Stupid bloody design that is .. it doesn't fit your hand at all, at least not adult hands.
Oh, you mean the hockey-puck on a wire?
--
and those who run X just to have multiple X terms.
.. I'd run out of function keys otherwise! :>
But of course!
Plus without X there's nowhere for Netscape to crash^H^H^H^H^Hrun.
--
.. and a CLI
.. a name that I remember from my Amiga past..
:>
.. by 1.3 it was called AmigaShell. Hmm.. It's all in a name..
Ah, the CLI
So, do 'GUI' interfaces have 'CLI's but Linux has 'terminals'?
Actually, thinking of the Amiga
--