I still have a hard time keeping a straight face when I read "superior product" in anything describing x86 CPUs.
Yeah, yeah, I know about the theoretical implications of turing completeness, but that's only if you have infinite memory and infinite time.
We would be so much further ahead, software-wise, if the industry hadn't been hobbled by the necessity of all the standard tools maintaining compatibility with the x86 runtime. I mean, software still isn't really an engineering discipline because of the run-time limitations of the x86. Speed, speed at all costs, to hide the limits of the CPU.
I can remember when a marketing ploy like "intel inside" would have gotten intel laughed out of the industry. I remember similar marketing slogans in the mid-80s that were generally viewed as, and mostly proved to be swan songs.
Blatantly tooting your own horn is usually detrimental to market share.
(Except in pro wrestling, where the market is not really interested in anything meaningful.)
Had we seen fair market pressure, I'm tending to think that the 8086 would have died the death a long time ago.
In fact, I'm tending to agree with the idea that intel's need to sell processors is the only remaining reason for the continued existence of the desktop PC.
So, no, the female human sex organ is no more of a biological oddity than the male human sex organ. Very much the usual thing in the biological universe.
It's only our ideals that have issues with the supposed oddities of the biological world.
Microsoft doesn't have any real business interest in secure machines.
Their reputation is secure among the believers no matter what they do, and their reputation is un-redeemable among those who are not Microsoft believers. They have enough money to buy the hype necessary to cover anything up, relative to the people who spend the most on Microsoft software.
Shoot, the, "I can't be such a fool!" syndrome helps Microsoft's bottom line when people have to pay to fix Microsoft's bugs.
No, this makes no sense. Saying that you don't need to look in place X is just telling the virus and malware writers, "X marks the spot."
Of course, it is really difficult to design a machine to examine itself when the engineer admits there is no safe place to examine from.
Somehow, I get the impression that they didn't want DECAF to be taken seriously.
From the start, even.
As for the thing about salvation and Jesus, well, for example, Jesus said (paraphrased), "You should learn the truth. Learning the truth will make you free." Putting that into context for you, truth is about reality, and COFEE was/is not about reality, and their DECAF was an unreal response to security snake-oil.
Poorly implemented, perhaps, but I read the message as something like, "You're not free if you trust someone whose primary purpose is to sell you more and more software to do things that really can't be done."
Maybe I'm reading things into it, but then I never downloaded DECAF, and I don't have any Microsoft software at all on my computers anyway.
"Don't keep buying the snake-oil when you know it's snake-oil." seems to be a really difficult message to get across.
Some people think Jesus Christ was the first true libertarian.
There is no word a person motivated by the desire for self-justification can't twist.
Anyway, questions of particular religions aside, when we can find a way to get past the false concept that atheism and agnosticism are somehow morally above religion, we'll discover that there is no way to keep religion out of a conversation.
Refraining from using religion to troll is another matter, but there may even be an appropriate place and time for using religion to troll.
Because today's phone is tomorrow's remote terminal.
You'd better believe I sometimes wish I could log into my personal server remotely from my phone to check the logs or something.
Now, I may not now need to log into my phone via sshd, but, actually, yes I do. Simple stuff. The phone company's mail software and user input stink. But that's trying to fix a different problem, really.
Somebody posted a list of user names being tried above. Take a look at it for a little education on what not to use as a user name. No simple first names, no matter how romantic or aesthetic it feels. No names of servers (mysql, etc), especially not unadorned. "admin", of course, but also "manager" are out.
So, make the user names harder to guess. Root, of course, do not allow root to log in, period. Definitely not over the net, anyway. If you must log in as root, change the root user name, or add a synonym -- rename the root something obscure. Maybe the name of your favorite vegetable with some leetspeak thrown in, or turned backwards, or scrambled, or, think of you own way to make it obscure.
Use initials instead of single names. Or, better, use initials in combination with simple names, or job titles in combination with something like the first name and an initial. Or multiple names.
(If you might have someone specifically targeting your servers for something valuable, don't use names or initials or job titles at all, of course. Sometimes, you might even want to generate the usernames randomly, or at least partially randomly.)
In fact, if you disable, or just don't have root or admin or pguser or web, etc., you can be really, really sure that an attempt to log in with such names indicates someone who really shouldn't be allowed to even try to log in.
The point is, it's much harder to brute-force a system when the attacker doesn't even know what user names to start with, whether hail mary or machine-gun.
And then you make the password reasonably long and obscure, and you're pretty safe.
(User names, at least, usually won't need to be changed every six months.)
Just in case you didn't get it from what the other guys said. Copyright is not the law that protects ID information.
And people who can be blackmailed are not free, just in case you really didn't understand that there are two kinds of privacy. You have secret "sheep sex" photos, or some other embarrassment? Own up to it to the people who you are most scared would find out, get it behind you, get yourself free. But it's a different kind of private information than identifying information. (It can be used as ID, but rumors really aren't good for society in general.)
I could care less if Steven King had trouble making a living. In fact, if the only way he could make a living is writing the junk he writes, I'd just as soon contribute part of my sub-standard wages to pay him a welfare check. (There are lots of people getting by on welfare checks with much more interesting stories to tell.)
Professional creative class? Classed society is a good thing?
Ideas are valuable?
Ideas are valuable???
Okay, tell me. If Ideas are so valuable, why can't I get on the train, daydream on my way home from work, and find a big wad of money in my bank account when I get home?
Why is it that, a month or a year or decade later, someone who managed to copyright or patent the idea that I had a long time ago is making big bucks on the stupidest ideas that I ever threw away -- deliberately did not write down when I got off the train?
There have been many points like this in history. There is always some swelled head telling everyone else that HIS ideas take precedence. He has lots of arguments that sound good and logical (until you look at them for more than a moment). Patronage is exactly what is going on here.
Sorry about the steam. I don't like your arguments.
But I do agree with the conclusion. The true problem is that copyright is not being honored.
1. There is more to being human than just a focus on the material, monetary valuation, or the world itself.
2. What motivates the mercenary? What motivates the free-lancer?
3. Money is not the only profit.
And, as far as self-interest goes, when self interest exceeds certain bounds (ergo, when it becomes a euphemism for greed), if it ever was enlightened, it has become entirely unenlightened. Adam Smith knew this, and was focusing on two ways of looking at things to get the reader to engage his mind on the question of what, ultimately, benefits us.
Enlightened self interest understands and embraces benevolence.
People. These are real people. After an assassination, things are gory, including blood and internal organs (brains in this case).
And the emotional state of people is not going to be all that much cleaner, either.
Presidents and vice presidents, and their family, are real people. When we expect them to be superhuman, we've already lost any war that's important, including metaphorical wars with the undead.
And if it's just the gore itself that's so scary, well, again, welcome to reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do astroturfers like to work by moonlight?
I dunno.
"Search engines" sounds more like search to me than "providers".
I still have a hard time keeping a straight face when I read "superior product" in anything describing x86 CPUs.
Yeah, yeah, I know about the theoretical implications of turing completeness, but that's only if you have infinite memory and infinite time.
We would be so much further ahead, software-wise, if the industry hadn't been hobbled by the necessity of all the standard tools maintaining compatibility with the x86 runtime. I mean, software still isn't really an engineering discipline because of the run-time limitations of the x86. Speed, speed at all costs, to hide the limits of the CPU.
I can remember when a marketing ploy like "intel inside" would have gotten intel laughed out of the industry. I remember similar marketing slogans in the mid-80s that were generally viewed as, and mostly proved to be swan songs.
Blatantly tooting your own horn is usually detrimental to market share.
(Except in pro wrestling, where the market is not really interested in anything meaningful.)
Sure it had somewhat to do with production capacity.
What was your argument?
Actually, my impression is that running a business is not at odds with maintaining healthy competition.
Smart businessmen actually prefer a healthy economic environment.
Government takeover of intel is a great idea!
Best way possible of seeing to it that the 8086 line could disappear like it should have decades ago.
Had we seen fair market pressure, I'm tending to think that the 8086 would have died the death a long time ago.
In fact, I'm tending to agree with the idea that intel's need to sell processors is the only remaining reason for the continued existence of the desktop PC.
Yeah, there were way too many red herrings in that barrel to have anything to do with the actual case.
(Nail that barrel shut before the gulls get to it.)
So, no, the female human sex organ is no more of a biological oddity than the male human sex organ. Very much the usual thing in the biological universe.
It's only our ideals that have issues with the supposed oddities of the biological world.
I don't think holes being punched in human flesh are the concern.
Less than a minute?
Shrug.
Microsoft doesn't have any real business interest in secure machines.
Their reputation is secure among the believers no matter what they do, and their reputation is un-redeemable among those who are not Microsoft believers. They have enough money to buy the hype necessary to cover anything up, relative to the people who spend the most on Microsoft software.
Shoot, the, "I can't be such a fool!" syndrome helps Microsoft's bottom line when people have to pay to fix Microsoft's bugs.
No, this makes no sense. Saying that you don't need to look in place X is just telling the virus and malware writers, "X marks the spot."
Of course, it is really difficult to design a machine to examine itself when the engineer admits there is no safe place to examine from.
Somehow, I get the impression that they didn't want DECAF to be taken seriously.
From the start, even.
As for the thing about salvation and Jesus, well, for example, Jesus said (paraphrased), "You should learn the truth. Learning the truth will make you free." Putting that into context for you, truth is about reality, and COFEE was/is not about reality, and their DECAF was an unreal response to security snake-oil.
Poorly implemented, perhaps, but I read the message as something like, "You're not free if you trust someone whose primary purpose is to sell you more and more software to do things that really can't be done."
Maybe I'm reading things into it, but then I never downloaded DECAF, and I don't have any Microsoft software at all on my computers anyway.
"Don't keep buying the snake-oil when you know it's snake-oil." seems to be a really difficult message to get across.
Some people think Jesus Christ was the first true libertarian.
There is no word a person motivated by the desire for self-justification can't twist.
Anyway, questions of particular religions aside, when we can find a way to get past the false concept that atheism and agnosticism are somehow morally above religion, we'll discover that there is no way to keep religion out of a conversation.
Refraining from using religion to troll is another matter, but there may even be an appropriate place and time for using religion to troll.
Your biases are showing.
Do the timers in Freescale or TI (or IBM) processors have problems like this?
Because today's phone is tomorrow's remote terminal.
You'd better believe I sometimes wish I could log into my personal server remotely from my phone to check the logs or something.
Now, I may not now need to log into my phone via sshd, but, actually, yes I do. Simple stuff. The phone company's mail software and user input stink. But that's trying to fix a different problem, really.
Get off the default ports, too.
tarpit port 22, just for fun.
Somebody posted a list of user names being tried above. Take a look at it for a little education on what not to use as a user name. No simple first names, no matter how romantic or aesthetic it feels. No names of servers (mysql, etc), especially not unadorned. "admin", of course, but also "manager" are out.
So, make the user names harder to guess. Root, of course, do not allow root to log in, period. Definitely not over the net, anyway. If you must log in as root, change the root user name, or add a synonym -- rename the root something obscure. Maybe the name of your favorite vegetable with some leetspeak thrown in, or turned backwards, or scrambled, or, think of you own way to make it obscure.
Use initials instead of single names. Or, better, use initials in combination with simple names, or job titles in combination with something like the first name and an initial. Or multiple names.
(If you might have someone specifically targeting your servers for something valuable, don't use names or initials or job titles at all, of course. Sometimes, you might even want to generate the usernames randomly, or at least partially randomly.)
In fact, if you disable, or just don't have root or admin or pguser or web, etc., you can be really, really sure that an attempt to log in with such names indicates someone who really shouldn't be allowed to even try to log in.
The point is, it's much harder to brute-force a system when the attacker doesn't even know what user names to start with, whether hail mary or machine-gun.
And then you make the password reasonably long and obscure, and you're pretty safe.
(User names, at least, usually won't need to be changed every six months.)
Electronic balloting machines should be used only where necessary, for people who physically need help.
And they should simply print a bubble sheet like the ballots everyone else uses.
A ballot recorded only electronically is too hard to observe in a meaningful way.
Nothing to do with copyright. (Bears repeating.)
Just in case you didn't get it from what the other guys said. Copyright is not the law that protects ID information.
And people who can be blackmailed are not free, just in case you really didn't understand that there are two kinds of privacy. You have secret "sheep sex" photos, or some other embarrassment? Own up to it to the people who you are most scared would find out, get it behind you, get yourself free. But it's a different kind of private information than identifying information. (It can be used as ID, but rumors really aren't good for society in general.)
Why do we need to monetize ideas?
I could care less if Steven King had trouble making a living. In fact, if the only way he could make a living is writing the junk he writes, I'd just as soon contribute part of my sub-standard wages to pay him a welfare check. (There are lots of people getting by on welfare checks with much more interesting stories to tell.)
Professional creative class? Classed society is a good thing?
Ideas are valuable?
Ideas are valuable???
Okay, tell me. If Ideas are so valuable, why can't I get on the train, daydream on my way home from work, and find a big wad of money in my bank account when I get home?
Why is it that, a month or a year or decade later, someone who managed to copyright or patent the idea that I had a long time ago is making big bucks on the stupidest ideas that I ever threw away -- deliberately did not write down when I got off the train?
There have been many points like this in history. There is always some swelled head telling everyone else that HIS ideas take precedence. He has lots of arguments that sound good and logical (until you look at them for more than a moment). Patronage is exactly what is going on here.
Sorry about the steam. I don't like your arguments.
But I do agree with the conclusion. The true problem is that copyright is not being honored.
Just don't like your arguments.
Great idea, unless they license it under an open (hardware?) license.
1. There is more to being human than just a focus on the material, monetary valuation, or the world itself.
2. What motivates the mercenary? What motivates the free-lancer?
3. Money is not the only profit.
And, as far as self-interest goes, when self interest exceeds certain bounds (ergo, when it becomes a euphemism for greed), if it ever was enlightened, it has become entirely unenlightened. Adam Smith knew this, and was focusing on two ways of looking at things to get the reader to engage his mind on the question of what, ultimately, benefits us.
Enlightened self interest understands and embraces benevolence.
People. These are real people. After an assassination, things are gory, including blood and internal organs (brains in this case).
And the emotional state of people is not going to be all that much cleaner, either.
Presidents and vice presidents, and their family, are real people. When we expect them to be superhuman, we've already lost any war that's important, including metaphorical wars with the undead.
And if it's just the gore itself that's so scary, well, again, welcome to reality.