When did greed become more important than helping someone?
Since importance is purely subjective, this is a pretty pointless question.
If you want to measure usefullnes, rather than significance, self-interest seems to be much more useful than altruism, to the point where there are continuous arguments over whether true altruism exists except with consciousness and some argument whether it exists anywhere.
If it is that important, your insurance company probably will have an opinion on which safe is best.
If no one is allowed to tell them which ones are vulnerable, they only have opinions on which were safe in the past, most of which are out of manufacture now.
Now, safes and locks is a conservative business, so history is not too bad a guide, only occasionally will a completely new attack be found and make a large segment of historical trust worthless (imagine what happened when reasonably stable high explosives became widely available and suddenly not only nutters prepared to carry nitroglycerine into a crime were an explosives risk, but every thief with a match).
IT is not conservative. What has been secure and caused few insurance claims for the past 10 years can be wide open tomorrow, either because of a new form of attack, or because the new version has a security hole.
Regular testing of a machine's ability to reboot will not have any bearing on weather the same machine will come up after a hardware failure.
No, but you will spot the hardware failure earlier and at a time when you have the backup in place and working already, rather at some random time when you are in the middle of updatiung the backup, all the technical staff are busy fighting other fires and the client has a vital product launch tomorrow morning.
In the end, porn really is what drives technology forward.
When archiologists dig up ancient sites, they often find small fired-clay figurines of naked women with exagerated primary and secondary sexual characteristics.
Due, I presume, to the need to be published in sober journals, these are usually described as religious totems etc.
However, ISTM this is the earliest example we have of technology being driven by porn.Just imagine some neolithic teenager making clay wank-material and looking for some way to make them survive his sweaty little grip... And ceramics were born.
If it is an easy fix and it doesn't affect other systems, then I can't see why it wouldn't be fixed.
From comments elsewhere here, it aparently has been. So far as I can see, the complaint was just that the report didn't cause everyone to fly into a panic.
So... rather than ask on the mailing list who is the best person for security submissions relating to whatever bug he found, he emails the top dude (during Christmas holidays no less) and then whines when no answer is forthcoming within his preferred timeline.
I emailed Bill Gates to say that with a tunnelling electron microscope someone could adjust the logic in the CPU and DOS WindowsXP, and he hasn't answered me. Pout!
[that there are easier ways is] a pretty specious argument
No, an important security rule of thumb. Don't waste effort fixing the holes which no one would need to exploit because you are wide open in other places.
Eg, would you worry about people being able to drill into your safe if the safe had no door?
There are special cases where you might (front of safe visible to trusted people 24/7 or something), but generally speaking, priorities are important.
Personally, I make sure I know the answers to that sort of question before ANY changes are made to my production systems.
The time and manpower required to keep an exact mirror of each production system may be larger than the time and effort needed to test the production system.
Additionally, every production machine should be rebooted now and again to make sure it will come back in case of an unplanned reboot.Or, have you never had a machine which went down and then refused to come back because of a hardware issue (or just becaue you left a CD in the drive).
...But one with proper security controls put in place like a good virus scanner/firewall/IE settings/anti spyware and creating a non-admin user for web browsing will not be affected.
And a car with the wheels nailed to the ground, the doors welded and all the windows painted over is pretty safe from theves. When you saw those precautions advised in the manufacturer's literature, would you buy the car?
Israel is completely serious about the peace process...
That is exactly the problem. They (the Israeli government) are serious about the process, while it goes on they keep US public opinion unbalanced and so there is no danger of their cash pipe being shut off. What they aren't serious about is actually moving towards peace and then losing that pipe.
If you were serious about piece with your next door neighbour, you would not build your garden wall 20 feet over their side of the supposedly agreed property line.
Not that Arafat was any different, though he had some excuse in that everyone knew he actually had no control of anything important, and what controls he did have were regularly sabotaged by the Israilis (which probably suited him fine).
Remember, they know who has booked each specific car when. Last person who had the car before it is discoverred trashed gets the bill.
Effectively it is yours for the time you have it, so it doesn't suffer from the tragedy of the commons.
Seems to work well in Edinburgh, which is a very compact city with quite good public transport, and so somewhere where, for many people, a car is something needed occasionally, ot a daily neccessity. I suspect it would also be a good alternative to running a second car for families who just occasionally end up in a flap for lack of a car to pick up the kids from somewhere when someone is late driving back from work etc.
Not making sure that a business critical application keeps pace with expansion (for fifteen years?) is going to cost them at lot
Well, it seems they were about to replace it. If it took a year to get the replacement ready, plus a year before that doing the management dances to make the decision, they may well have been rather more comfortably under the limit when they realised they had a looming problem. It depends on the shape of their growth curve. Eg, 2 years ago they might have been on 500 flights per day, when someone realised that the just proposed expansion plans had IT implications and started running to deal with them.
The low-cost airlines are low cost because they do exactly this kind of tap-dancing on the edge of collapse. E.g. they run the minimum number of aircraft and crew they need to have a very very slim contingency, which is why they so often end up with delays when they have weather or mechanical problems. From here in Scotland to south east England I'd have the choice of BA and EasyJET. The price difference is significant, but if I absolutely had to be down there on time I'd go BA and pay the difference. For a non critical meeting or family visit, I'd take EasyJET and gamble the delay against the saving.
Regardless, having 32767 schedule changes in a month? Must track every flight in the world.
The article says they had 1100 flights on one day. That's 34100 per month. So basicly they seem to have had on average about one crew schedule change per flight.
Now, that is a very bad failure rate, but given that any one crew change probably causes a mass of knock-on changes (Fred misses this flight, so you have to substitute John, and then someone has to take over what John should be doing for the rest of the day, and Fred won't be on the right place to do what he was supposed to do this afternoon, and John has reached his flight-hours limit so you have to get Harry in early and...), a good flu epedemic going around the fleet plus some bad weather delays and technical faults all coming in the same month would probably do it.
The US should realize that we can't count on other countries. For anything.
You're relying on China to prop up your currency and Europe to lend you money to fund that huge deficit.:-)
What you fail to realise is that this is part of Russia putting the squeeze on to extort more money out of the US to build more spacecraft.
If the US had built a launch system which wasn't a gold plated, dollar bill fueled, death trap, they wouldn't be in the position of having to buy space on someone else's launches.
It's not extortion, just good old market economics, the Russians have the ability to provide a service the USA wants that service. The US decided not to develop the ability to provide that service for itself (presumably because doing so would have barrelled less pork than the shuttle), so now they have to buy it in.
[...]when the US embargoes Russian space products.
Sadly, you may be right. Nothing like trade barriers to protect an inefficiant government provider to really fuck up a sector of an economy. It would fit right in with Shrub's other economic `policies'.
[...]like an immigrant taxi driver.
If no one in the US wants to drive taxis and lots of people want to ride in taxis, the result is inevitably going to be either paying foreigners to do it or lots of frustrated travellers. Same whether the taxi is going to the airport or the ISS.
I'm thinking of a thought as the physical process that occurs in our brain as we think.
Then your original claim is more or less circular. (the only content is an assertion that neurons are the relevent bits of the brain). If you define thoughts to be the physical process, then of course they are the physical process.
The normal use of `thought' (as a common noun) is the one which is identical on separate days, and indeed in different people. ``I had that same thought just before you said it''.
If someone can define truth as something other than the agreement between our statements and states of affairs of objects in the world, I'd like to hear it.
Truth is the states of affairs in the presumed `real world'. Agreement of someone statements with some assumed state of affairs is `correctness'.
For an exercise, try thinking of a word that doesn't involve states of affairs in the world, or our intrepretations of the states of our bodies.
``six''
Your thoughts are neurons in your brain
Clearly false. For instance, if you distract me my thoughts of the moment dissapear to be replaced by others, but the neurons don't dissapear:-). Even if I modify the claim to thoughts being the state of the neurons or the changes in the state of neurons, it is false, still a category error. Thought is a subjective experience. It may, and I believe does, reflect from physical activity in the brain, but it is not itself that activity. Eg, I may have the same subjective experience of thinking the same thoughts on two separate days, but the neurons and states involved may be different (eg imagine one of the neurons involved dies overnight, and the load it taken up by two others working in cooperation).
Slashdot Mirror
Since importance is purely subjective, this is a pretty pointless question.
If you want to measure usefullnes, rather than significance, self-interest seems to be much more useful than altruism, to the point where there are continuous arguments over whether true altruism exists except with consciousness and some argument whether it exists anywhere.
If no one is allowed to tell them which ones are vulnerable, they only have opinions on which were safe in the past, most of which are out of manufacture now.
Now, safes and locks is a conservative business, so history is not too bad a guide, only occasionally will a completely new attack be found and make a large segment of historical trust worthless (imagine what happened when reasonably stable high explosives became widely available and suddenly not only nutters prepared to carry nitroglycerine into a crime were an explosives risk, but every thief with a match).
IT is not conservative. What has been secure and caused few insurance claims for the past 10 years can be wide open tomorrow, either because of a new form of attack, or because the new version has a security hole.
Your depleted uranium petition? :-)
No, but you will spot the hardware failure earlier and at a time when you have the backup in place and working already, rather at some random time when you are in the middle of updatiung the backup, all the technical staff are busy fighting other fires and the client has a vital product launch tomorrow morning.
When archiologists dig up ancient sites, they often find small fired-clay figurines of naked women with exagerated primary and secondary sexual characteristics.
Due, I presume, to the need to be published in sober journals, these are usually described as religious totems etc.
However, ISTM this is the earliest example we have of technology being driven by porn.Just imagine some neolithic teenager making clay wank-material and looking for some way to make them survive his sweaty little grip... And ceramics were born.
From comments elsewhere here, it aparently has been. So far as I can see, the complaint was just that the report didn't cause everyone to fly into a panic.
February 30th, surely.
I emailed Bill Gates to say that with a tunnelling electron microscope someone could adjust the logic in the CPU and DOS WindowsXP, and he hasn't answered me. Pout!
No, an important security rule of thumb. Don't waste effort fixing the holes which no one would need to exploit because you are wide open in other places.
Eg, would you worry about people being able to drill into your safe if the safe had no door?
There are special cases where you might (front of safe visible to trusted people 24/7 or something), but generally speaking, priorities are important.
The time and manpower required to keep an exact mirror of each production system may be larger than the time and effort needed to test the production system.
Additionally, every production machine should be rebooted now and again to make sure it will come back in case of an unplanned reboot.Or, have you never had a machine which went down and then refused to come back because of a hardware issue (or just becaue you left a CD in the drive).
Fire? I thought Manchester was still at the `bang the rocks together guys' stage.
Er, what linux box? .
And a car with the wheels nailed to the ground, the doors welded and all the windows painted over is pretty safe from theves. When you saw those precautions advised in the manufacturer's literature, would you buy the car?
That is exactly the problem. They (the Israeli government) are serious about the process, while it goes on they keep US public opinion unbalanced and so there is no danger of their cash pipe being shut off. What they aren't serious about is actually moving towards peace and then losing that pipe.
If you were serious about piece with your next door neighbour, you would not build your garden wall 20 feet over their side of the supposedly agreed property line.
Not that Arafat was any different, though he had some excuse in that everyone knew he actually had no control of anything important, and what controls he did have were regularly sabotaged by the Israilis (which probably suited him fine).
Effectively it is yours for the time you have it, so it doesn't suffer from the tragedy of the commons.
Seems to work well in Edinburgh, which is a very compact city with quite good public transport, and so somewhere where, for many people, a car is something needed occasionally, ot a daily neccessity. I suspect it would also be a good alternative to running a second car for families who just occasionally end up in a flap for lack of a car to pick up the kids from somewhere when someone is late driving back from work etc.
Well, it seems they were about to replace it. If it took a year to get the replacement ready, plus a year before that doing the management dances to make the decision, they may well have been rather more comfortably under the limit when they realised they had a looming problem. It depends on the shape of their growth curve. Eg, 2 years ago they might have been on 500 flights per day, when someone realised that the just proposed expansion plans had IT implications and started running to deal with them.
The low-cost airlines are low cost because they do exactly this kind of tap-dancing on the edge of collapse. E.g. they run the minimum number of aircraft and crew they need to have a very very slim contingency, which is why they so often end up with delays when they have weather or mechanical problems. From here in Scotland to south east England I'd have the choice of BA and EasyJET. The price difference is significant, but if I absolutely had to be down there on time I'd go BA and pay the difference. For a non critical meeting or family visit, I'd take EasyJET and gamble the delay against the saving.
The article says they had 1100 flights on one day. That's 34100 per month. So basicly they seem to have had on average about one crew schedule change per flight.
Now, that is a very bad failure rate, but given that any one crew change probably causes a mass of knock-on changes (Fred misses this flight, so you have to substitute John, and then someone has to take over what John should be doing for the rest of the day, and Fred won't be on the right place to do what he was supposed to do this afternoon, and John has reached his flight-hours limit so you have to get Harry in early and...), a good flu epedemic going around the fleet plus some bad weather delays and technical faults all coming in the same month would probably do it.
You're relying on China to prop up your currency and Europe to lend you money to fund that huge deficit.:-)
What you fail to realise is that this is part of Russia putting the squeeze on to extort more money out of the US to build more spacecraft.
If the US had built a launch system which wasn't a gold plated, dollar bill fueled, death trap, they wouldn't be in the position of having to buy space on someone else's launches.
It's not extortion, just good old market economics, the Russians have the ability to provide a service the USA wants that service. The US decided not to develop the ability to provide that service for itself (presumably because doing so would have barrelled less pork than the shuttle), so now they have to buy it in.
[...]when the US embargoes Russian space products.
Sadly, you may be right. Nothing like trade barriers to protect an inefficiant government provider to really fuck up a sector of an economy. It would fit right in with Shrub's other economic `policies'.
[...]like an immigrant taxi driver.
If no one in the US wants to drive taxis and lots of people want to ride in taxis, the result is inevitably going to be either paying foreigners to do it or lots of frustrated travellers. Same whether the taxi is going to the airport or the ISS.
Why did you get past the title? Would you have if it had been `Discussion on Ford Focus and the Wankle Engine'?
Anyone purporting to compare an operating system with a kernel is either a moron or a marketroid (of course there is a significant overlap).
Aren't there enough spelling errors to make it obvious?
Actually, they should have stuck a $10,000pa charge on .net with a rebate for anyone using it for it's originally defined purpose...
Then your original claim is more or less circular. (the only content is an assertion that neurons are the relevent bits of the brain). If you define thoughts to be the physical process, then of course they are the physical process.
The normal use of `thought' (as a common noun) is the one which is identical on separate days, and indeed in different people. ``I had that same thought just before you said it''.
Umm, nooo...
He's trying for next year's prize.
Truth is the states of affairs in the presumed `real world'. Agreement of someone statements with some assumed state of affairs is `correctness'.
For an exercise, try thinking of a word that doesn't involve states of affairs in the world, or our intrepretations of the states of our bodies.
``six''
Your thoughts are neurons in your brain
Clearly false. For instance, if you distract me my thoughts of the moment dissapear to be replaced by others, but the neurons don't dissapear:-). Even if I modify the claim to thoughts being the state of the neurons or the changes in the state of neurons, it is false, still a category error. Thought is a subjective experience. It may, and I believe does, reflect from physical activity in the brain, but it is not itself that activity. Eg, I may have the same subjective experience of thinking the same thoughts on two separate days, but the neurons and states involved may be different (eg imagine one of the neurons involved dies overnight, and the load it taken up by two others working in cooperation).