If you required that he match the apps/categories, then he wouldn't be able to match aircraft software to any Open Source project. Without the highly tested, life-critical proprietary apps, his case would collapse.
Which is why he only differentiates based upon "proprietary" or "open".
He's comparing "bugs" in a project such as Apache with "bugs" in the software controlling a jet engine on an airplane.
He refuses to accept that different projects have different requirements. When the project results in people dying if it fails, you spend a LOT more money and time finding all the "bugs".
When the worst that happens is that you don't see a web page, your money/time requirements are not so high.
Even so, from his finding, Open Source is, on average, better than the closed source projects (not counting the closed source projects that result in loss-of-life in the event of a failure).
He's an idiot for confusing the different requirements.
As many people will surely say, many of the countries targeted by this initiative don't have as many problems as you think they do.
If that was so, they would not need us to supply the laptops.
Of course the people aren't going to eat the laptops, but access to them and faster ways of spreading and accessing information helps with virtually everything... At the very least, it will make them more educated and capable of solving their country's problems...
No, because the laptops only solve the "problem" of not having laptops.
At the basis it is always about having enough food. Without enough food, you end up with war and starvation.
Then it is about enough shelter/clothing.
Then it is about medicine.
If they have sufficient quantities of those, then they can work for everything else. If they do not have enough food/shelter/clothing/medicine, then giving them a laptop won't help them at all.
Or maybe... Just maybe... They could volunteer their own time and expertise to do something in their own field to help,...
"...to help..." with what? Specifically?
The problem is not that these kids don't have laptops. The problem is not that these kids are losing data files.
The problem is that these kids live in an unstable (politically/economically) environment. And no amount of laptops will change that. The laptops will not protect them. The laptops will not end a drought. The laptops will not bring in more crops.
They are not specialists in genetic engineering. Oh, and they are not economists, and do not have a lot of political affairs experience. Come to think of it, they also do not have the skills needed to do pharmaceutical research either.
And that is the problem. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Instead of focusing on getting laptops to these kids, why not work on actually understanding the problems and mitigating them?
Well, then, what are they good for? I suppose they should just sign over a portion of their paycheck to a non-profit group that might one day help. That is the American way, right? Donating money to resolve guilt about all of the world's problems?
That is exactly what this is about. They're putting a lot of effort and money into getting these laptops to the kids. And they will feel good about it. But it will not solve a single problem that those kids face every day.
But they will feel really good about "helping" those kids who don't have laptops.
We still have "investigative reporting" (e.g. Bob Woodward et al).
Woodward was part of the Watergate coverage. That was over 30 years ago. The closest we have now is The Daily Show.
My point is most average joes would not normally have the kind of clout with the press that a Woodward-type has, but scandals like the guard memos and such have elevated bloggers to the point where the major cable outlets regularly devote segments to "the blogosphere."
And my point is that the "bloggers" have not ascended, but that what now passes for "investigative reporting" has declined to the point where it isn't any better than those "bloggers".
My favorite crossover is when the beat reporters get into the blog game - even getting their blogs promoted by the major media outlets (as is the case with my local paper's website, philly.com). Some of the reporter blogs are extremely readable, providing better coverage where the regular constraints of daily publication are not applied.
That is my point. The "old media" is not publishing/supporting the reporters any more. Instead, we get whatever they can find on some guy's website. Whether it is factual or not is not an issue.
The issue is whether it is getting a lot of page hits. Popularity vs insight. And popularity is winning.
Many of the first generation of new media platforms, including Limbaugh's show and Drudge's Web site, first flourished because of a conviction among conservatives that old media were unfair.
Limbaugh runs a radio show. A RADIO show. People might want to look up "Tokyo Rose" from 60 years ago.
The "change" isn't to a "new media".
The real change is that the existing media (newspapers, TV and radio) have abandoned most of the investigative reporting.
Now they just sit back and report on the "story" that website X is getting a lot of hits from a posting about a video clip about some politician you've never heard of.
The "old media" is "reporting" on what the current buzz is. That's all.
The fact that the buzz on such a story is able to start at the grassroots and eventually affect national media coverage is tremendous, and not something that was seen as recently as a decade ago.
Sure it would have. We used to see that all the time in newspapers and on television and the radio. A local group does some digging and finds something and it becomes a nation-wide sensation.
"Regular news programming" probably would've taken a pass on SR Sidarth's tape had it not been viewed tens of thousands of times on YouTube prior to landing on their desk or showing up in some of the higher-profile blogs out there.
But that is more about the current state of "news programming" (it sucks) than about "new media".
We used to have "investigative reporting" and such. Think back to Watergate.
Former congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) ended his political career over sexually charged e-mails to former House pages. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) stumbled over his puzzling use of the word "macaca" and his clumsy response to revelations about his Jewish ancestry. Former president Bill Clinton had a televised temper fit when an interviewer challenged his terrorism record.
Two of those three "examples" happened on television. During regular news programming.
The tree comment is not about the falling but whether "sound" exists without someone to hear it. The disturbance of the air exists, that is easy. But is that disturbance "sound" if no one can hear it?
So, if someone taps your phone, your phone has been tapped.
The question you are asking should be "if no one requests that tap be used, have your Rights been violated".
Once that tap has been used, and data collected, whether any person sees that data is irrelevant. The tap has been used, the information has been collected. The tree has fallen, the sound has been heard.
A driver's tech fantasy fully realized: an in-dash computer with a keyboard built into the steering wheel and a full-screen heads-up display projected on the windshield.
So drivers can read email while driving.
That's just fucking retarded. People have trouble driving while "reading" the road and traffic conditions. Why split their concentration any more?
I've had to call Microsoft about WinXP activation a few times... and we lease all our machines from HP. The activation code is on a sticker on the machine. There should not be ANY problems with our activation. Particularly with me because we have two other people who do desktop support. And we have just over 100 desktops.
But between key generators and lazy co-workers who use the wrong codes on the wrong machines, I've had to call Microsoft to straighten this out a few times.
And I'm in a small company.
Microsoft's stated plan depends too much (entirely) upon the honesty/skill of my co-workers and the failure of key generators.
No fucking way, dude. Why should I waste MY time (emphasis on the fact that it is MY fucking time) because Microsoft is too lazy/stupid to figure out a better way of doing this?
Novell, way back when, used to link their licenses to specific companies and you could call them and they would tell you every license you had registered with them. If you lost a license disk, they would replace it.
Microsoft refuses to do the same. Even with the improved technology that we have today. They would rather put the burden on ME to: a. Make sure that nothing does go wrong. and b. Call them when something does go wrong.
Total all the "hours" spent surfing junk sites... for 100,000 employees... and even at 6 minutes a day you'd have 600,000 minutes = 10,000 hours = 416 hours = 52 employees working 8 hour shifts.
Now, for 50,000 employees, they'd have to spend 12 minutes out of an 8 hour day to get those numbers.
25,000 employees would require 24 minutes out of an 8 hour day.
And so forth. These "statistics" are meaningless without knowing how many TOTAL employees there are and what the mean and median are. Are there 10,000 employees and 5 of them spend 10 hours a day surfing junk while everyone thinks they're working? And the rest of the "hours" are people surfing junk sites during lunch?
So appearantly the mortgage example asked for personal information but was just Spam? I'm a bit confused.
"Spam" is in the eye of the beholder.
But this could also be phishing if the phisher is building a database linking email addresses to real names / physical addresses / phone numbers.
The more pieces of information they can get, the easier it is for them to get the missing pieces. Remember HP's "pretexting" story?
What is the minimum amount of info you need to "steal" someone's identify? Name, Social Security number (if USA) and address? Can it be done with less?
If I were criminally inclined, I would be building a database with all that information on every person I could get it on. I'd be aiming for "identity theft" in a major way. And I would be trying to fill in the missing/starting items as innocuously as possible.
Now, they are ALL about "entertainment". Which is why CNN has "The Situation Room" and such.
The Daily Show SHOULD be operating with a handicap. They have to focus solely on the items that they can turn into a joke. That should not be easy. They should be scraping the bottom of the barrel.
But they have one advantage that the "news" shows do not. The Daily Show has SMART people working for it. They REMEMBER previous statements by politicians and they are not afraid to show how the politicians contradict themselves.
When was the last time you saw actual analysis and comparisons of a politician's statements on a regular news program. Yet they are a staple of The Daily Show. Because it is FUNNY when they catch a politician contradicting him/herself. And then The Daily Show will continue to hammer on the joke.
It should be stupid. It should be lame. But because the regular "news" shows have abandoned even the pretense of being about "news", The Daily Show wins by default.
The Daily Show mines recent events for jokes. Regular news shows can't even mine recent events for news.
If you read that page (as well as others on the same system which I've seen linked here) you'll notice they mention the round is cannon-launched.
Yes, as I specifically mentioned when I said: "The only similarity they have is that they are both launched from the same cannon."
So, we've established that both are launched from the same cannon.
And then I clarified my question for you: "Does it experience the same initial SLAM that the conventional round does?"
But it is launched by the same gun in the same fashion, and follows a largely ballistic trajetory.
Yes, we've already covered the cannon part. The cannon part has been covered. We have both covered the cannon part.
Now, "ballistic". As in ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile). So "ballistic" can apply to standard rounds and rocket propelled devices. Is the Copperhead more of a "standard round" with the associated SLAM or is it more of the rocket/missile variety that accelerates over a longer distance?
This matters because, in the FA, the payload (electronics) will disengage at 2,000g's. Their example was that such is already accomplished at 10x the g's.
Note the differences between the two. From those two pages, it does not appear that the Copperhead is anything like a regular shell. The only similarity they have is that they are both launched from the same cannon.
The question is: Is the Copperhead more like a laser guided rocket than an artillery shell? Does it experience the same initial SLAM that the conventional round does? Regular rockets do not. They accelerate over a longer distance than an artillery shell does. That SLAM is what would damage the electronics in the shell.
This would seem to be an obstacle for launching things like communications satellites, but Fiske points out that the US military uses electronics in laser-guided artillery, which survive being fired out of guns at up to 20,000g.
I wasn't aware of laser-guided artillery.
I know of laser-guided rockets and missiles and such. But I was under the impression that anything lauched from a cannon depended upon the artillery team to have done the calculations prior to firing it.
I think that these two were looking for a little fame... and did not realize how the professionals would react to their claims.
Once they realized that the professionals (who are better programmers than they) were looking into their claims, they fell back on the "it's a joke" claim.
There are so many different ways of handling system messages.
#1. An icon on the task bar that changes appearance to indicate you have system messages.
#2. A list of messages pops up when you log on.
#3. A list of messages pops up when you come out of a period of inactivity.
Your "check engine" light does not take over the windshield of your car, does it? Why should a less important message on your computer take over the monitor?
They train with real guns, but are using video games to train tactics. Which can make sense.
Nope. They won't learn anything more about tactics than they would reading a book.
To train tactics, you have to practice the tactics with your team. Video game characters all have the same characteristics. People do not. The biggest differences are speed and grace/clumsiness.
And that doesn't even address the issue that most terrorist's "tactics" at the moment are "strap on the bomb, walk to the target and detonate yourself". If you're in a CS-type firefight, you've already fucked up the mission.
But they also need ways to identify the characteristics of people's choices. Right now, one NetFlix account can be used by a whole family. So instead of getting 1 person's characteristic choices (teenage emo goth girl), you get those combined with the other family members (Dad's action films, Mom's chick flicks, Jr's teenage sex comedies).
Eventually, you'd end up with a movie genome cross indexed to a sub-culture.
You all said that globalism was a good thing, but now you can't take it?
I have no problem with "globalism" PROVIDED that the country getting the jobs has the same level of regulations and protections that we have (or higher).
The problems I have with "globalism" is when companies off-shore because the other country has FEWER worker protections or environmental regulations than we do. Yeah, it's great for your CEO's bonus if you can work 10 year old kids for 12 hours a day at $5 a week making tennis shoes. But this isn't about your CEO's bonus.
We should be bringing everyone else UP to our standards rather than racing to the lowest level out there. But we are racing to the bottom. That is the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
He's selling a service/product ("bug" scanning).
If you required that he match the apps/categories, then he wouldn't be able to match aircraft software to any Open Source project. Without the highly tested, life-critical proprietary apps, his case would collapse.
Which is why he only differentiates based upon "proprietary" or "open".
He's comparing "bugs" in a project such as Apache with "bugs" in the software controlling a jet engine on an airplane.
He refuses to accept that different projects have different requirements. When the project results in people dying if it fails, you spend a LOT more money and time finding all the "bugs".
When the worst that happens is that you don't see a web page, your money/time requirements are not so high.
Even so, from his finding, Open Source is, on average, better than the closed source projects (not counting the closed source projects that result in loss-of-life in the event of a failure).
He's an idiot for confusing the different requirements.
If that was so, they would not need us to supply the laptops.
No, because the laptops only solve the "problem" of not having laptops.
At the basis it is always about having enough food. Without enough food, you end up with war and starvation.
Then it is about enough shelter/clothing.
Then it is about medicine.
If they have sufficient quantities of those, then they can work for everything else. If they do not have enough food/shelter/clothing/medicine, then giving them a laptop won't help them at all.
"...to help..." with what? Specifically?
The problem is not that these kids don't have laptops.
The problem is not that these kids are losing data files.
The problem is that these kids live in an unstable (politically/economically) environment. And no amount of laptops will change that. The laptops will not protect them. The laptops will not end a drought. The laptops will not bring in more crops.
And that is the problem. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Instead of focusing on getting laptops to these kids, why not work on actually understanding the problems and mitigating them?
That is exactly what this is about. They're putting a lot of effort and money into getting these laptops to the kids. And they will feel good about it. But it will not solve a single problem that those kids face every day.
But they will feel really good about "helping" those kids who don't have laptops.
Woodward was part of the Watergate coverage. That was over 30 years ago. The closest we have now is The Daily Show.
And my point is that the "bloggers" have not ascended, but that what now passes for "investigative reporting" has declined to the point where it isn't any better than those "bloggers".
That is my point. The "old media" is not publishing/supporting the reporters any more. Instead, we get whatever they can find on some guy's website. Whether it is factual or not is not an issue.
The issue is whether it is getting a lot of page hits. Popularity vs insight. And popularity is winning.
Limbaugh runs a radio show. A RADIO show. People might want to look up "Tokyo Rose" from 60 years ago.
The "change" isn't to a "new media".
The real change is that the existing media (newspapers, TV and radio) have abandoned most of the investigative reporting.
Now they just sit back and report on the "story" that website X is getting a lot of hits from a posting about a video clip about some politician you've never heard of.
The "old media" is "reporting" on what the current buzz is. That's all.
Sure it would have. We used to see that all the time in newspapers and on television and the radio. A local group does some digging and finds something and it becomes a nation-wide sensation.
But that is more about the current state of "news programming" (it sucks) than about "new media".
We used to have "investigative reporting" and such. Think back to Watergate.
Two of those three "examples" happened on television. During regular news programming.
How is this "new media"?
The tree comment is not about the falling but whether "sound" exists without someone to hear it. The disturbance of the air exists, that is easy. But is that disturbance "sound" if no one can hear it?
So, if someone taps your phone, your phone has been tapped.
The question you are asking should be "if no one requests that tap be used, have your Rights been violated".
Once that tap has been used, and data collected, whether any person sees that data is irrelevant. The tap has been used, the information has been collected. The tree has fallen, the sound has been heard.
So drivers can read email while driving.
That's just fucking retarded. People have trouble driving while "reading" the road and traffic conditions. Why split their concentration any more?
I've had to call Microsoft about WinXP activation a few times ... and we lease all our machines from HP. The activation code is on a sticker on the machine. There should not be ANY problems with our activation. Particularly with me because we have two other people who do desktop support. And we have just over 100 desktops.
But between key generators and lazy co-workers who use the wrong codes on the wrong machines, I've had to call Microsoft to straighten this out a few times.
And I'm in a small company.
Microsoft's stated plan depends too much (entirely) upon the honesty/skill of my co-workers and the failure of key generators.
No fucking way, dude. Why should I waste MY time (emphasis on the fact that it is MY fucking time) because Microsoft is too lazy/stupid to figure out a better way of doing this?
Novell, way back when, used to link their licenses to specific companies and you could call them and they would tell you every license you had registered with them. If you lost a license disk, they would replace it.
Microsoft refuses to do the same. Even with the improved technology that we have today. They would rather put the burden on ME to:
a. Make sure that nothing does go wrong.
and
b. Call them when something does go wrong.
Total all the "hours" spent surfing junk sites ... for 100,000 employees ... and even at 6 minutes a day you'd have 600,000 minutes = 10,000 hours = 416 hours = 52 employees working 8 hour shifts.
Now, for 50,000 employees, they'd have to spend 12 minutes out of an 8 hour day to get those numbers.
25,000 employees would require 24 minutes out of an 8 hour day.
And so forth. These "statistics" are meaningless without knowing how many TOTAL employees there are and what the mean and median are. Are there 10,000 employees and 5 of them spend 10 hours a day surfing junk while everyone thinks they're working? And the rest of the "hours" are people surfing junk sites during lunch?
"Spam" is in the eye of the beholder.
But this could also be phishing if the phisher is building a database linking email addresses to real names / physical addresses / phone numbers.
The more pieces of information they can get, the easier it is for them to get the missing pieces. Remember HP's "pretexting" story?
What is the minimum amount of info you need to "steal" someone's identify? Name, Social Security number (if USA) and address? Can it be done with less?
If I were criminally inclined, I would be building a database with all that information on every person I could get it on. I'd be aiming for "identity theft" in a major way. And I would be trying to fill in the missing/starting items as innocuously as possible.
They stopped being about "news" a long time ago.
Now, they are ALL about "entertainment". Which is why CNN has "The Situation Room" and such.
The Daily Show SHOULD be operating with a handicap. They have to focus solely on the items that they can turn into a joke. That should not be easy. They should be scraping the bottom of the barrel.
But they have one advantage that the "news" shows do not. The Daily Show has SMART people working for it. They REMEMBER previous statements by politicians and they are not afraid to show how the politicians contradict themselves.
When was the last time you saw actual analysis and comparisons of a politician's statements on a regular news program. Yet they are a staple of The Daily Show. Because it is FUNNY when they catch a politician contradicting him/herself. And then The Daily Show will continue to hammer on the joke.
It should be stupid. It should be lame. But because the regular "news" shows have abandoned even the pretense of being about "news", The Daily Show wins by default.
The Daily Show mines recent events for jokes.
Regular news shows can't even mine recent events for news.
There was a study that already showed The Daily Show's audience was better informed about the news than people who just watched the regular news.o litics/
... it's that network news sucks so bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.p
The issue isn't that The Daily Show is so much better
Or as Mr. Stewart put it (paraphrased) "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls".
So, it would seem that SourceForge cannot verify the sender of incoming messages from GMail so SourceForge is issuing a temporary rejection.
Is GMail correctly handling the temp rejects?
The solution would be:
a. Find out where the sender verify callout is breaking and fix that.
b. Disable sender verify callout until you can do "a".
Yes, as I specifically mentioned when I said: "The only similarity they have is that they are both launched from the same cannon."
So, we've established that both are launched from the same cannon.
And then I clarified my question for you:
"Does it experience the same initial SLAM that the conventional round does?"
Yes, we've already covered the cannon part. The cannon part has been covered. We have both covered the cannon part.
Now, "ballistic". As in ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile). So "ballistic" can apply to standard rounds and rocket propelled devices. Is the Copperhead more of a "standard round" with the associated SLAM or is it more of the rocket/missile variety that accelerates over a longer distance?
This matters because, in the FA, the payload (electronics) will disengage at 2,000g's. Their example was that such is already accomplished at 10x the g's.
Yes, Google does turn up many pages. But that is not my question.n itions/m712.htm
n itions/m107.htm
This is the Copperhead:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mu
This is a regular cannon round:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mu
Note the differences between the two. From those two pages, it does not appear that the Copperhead is anything like a regular shell. The only similarity they have is that they are both launched from the same cannon.
The question is: Is the Copperhead more like a laser guided rocket than an artillery shell? Does it experience the same initial SLAM that the conventional round does? Regular rockets do not. They accelerate over a longer distance than an artillery shell does. That SLAM is what would damage the electronics in the shell.
I wasn't aware of laser-guided artillery.
I know of laser-guided rockets and missiles and such. But I was under the impression that anything lauched from a cannon depended upon the artillery team to have done the calculations prior to firing it.
I think that these two were looking for a little fame ... and did not realize how the professionals would react to their claims.
Once they realized that the professionals (who are better programmers than they) were looking into their claims, they fell back on the "it's a joke" claim.
There are so many different ways of handling system messages.
#1. An icon on the task bar that changes appearance to indicate you have system messages.
#2. A list of messages pops up when you log on.
#3. A list of messages pops up when you come out of a period of inactivity.
Your "check engine" light does not take over the windshield of your car, does it? Why should a less important message on your computer take over the monitor?
Nope. They won't learn anything more about tactics than they would reading a book.
To train tactics, you have to practice the tactics with your team. Video game characters all have the same characteristics. People do not. The biggest differences are speed and grace/clumsiness.
And that doesn't even address the issue that most terrorist's "tactics" at the moment are "strap on the bomb, walk to the target and detonate yourself". If you're in a CS-type firefight, you've already fucked up the mission.
All you learn is how to move a mouse/controller.
I think that we should support any terrorist who wants to use a video game as "training". It will make them that much easier to capture.
Yes, they need more characteristics of movies.
But they also need ways to identify the characteristics of people's choices. Right now, one NetFlix account can be used by a whole family. So instead of getting 1 person's characteristic choices (teenage emo goth girl), you get those combined with the other family members (Dad's action films, Mom's chick flicks, Jr's teenage sex comedies).
Eventually, you'd end up with a movie genome cross indexed to a sub-culture.
I have no problem with "globalism" PROVIDED that the country getting the jobs has the same level of regulations and protections that we have (or higher).
The problems I have with "globalism" is when companies off-shore because the other country has FEWER worker protections or environmental regulations than we do. Yeah, it's great for your CEO's bonus if you can work 10 year old kids for 12 hours a day at $5 a week making tennis shoes. But this isn't about your CEO's bonus.
We should be bringing everyone else UP to our standards rather than racing to the lowest level out there. But we are racing to the bottom. That is the problem.