Indoor use? How about this downside: Most of the places ravaged by malaria have little to no "inside" with which to confine the DDT?
Yes, we know you are making a statement that using DDT to kill mosquitoes and prevent disease is worth the cost of killing wildlife through disruption of the food chain and reproduction cycles of avians. Good for you.
Personally, I enabled the GPS tagging on my phone on purpose. Normally it's off, and the only other interesting thing in the exif tags are the model of the phone. I enjoy having a GPS tag on each pic in case I want to go back and look at exactly where I was when it was taken. I did remember to turn it off before taking a picture of the secret location I buried my treasure of gold doubloons, so I think it should be safe.
Long story short, what could possibly go wrong? I could see how an Iphone user (if this stuff is turned on by default) would be caught off guard by all the extra info in the tag. However, unless you are really oversharing everything else, like "look at this sweet pic of my new 50" tv... too bad I will be on vacation for two weeks starting tomorrow and wont be able to watch it... hope no one realizes the spare key is under the door mat... And my social security card is in the cookie jar next to my birth certificate..." Would an Iphone user really be *that* stupid? Wait, no, don't answer that.
Really? I share a sense of surprise with just about everyone else on Slashdot at the revelation that "no one I know in the military even uses the phrase "collateral damage" without a visible reaction of repugnance." When was the memo leaked that contained "moral objections to combat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan" drafted by the US military and sent to the White House? Or is it military policy to just keep your nose to the proverbial death-grindstone and not worry about decisions made above you? Furthermore, more than half of the US population stood up and said "YES" to collateral damage in 2004 when it re-elected the war-monger-in-chief to keep up the 'strategy' of barbarian destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the conservative estimates of civilian deaths in those two conflicts are absolutely nauseating.
If, as you say, the US military is against collateral damage, they seem to have a funny way of showing it. If a majority of the citizenry is against it, it too has a very odd way of demonstrating that belief. I firmly think we *avoidably* wasted far too many lives in both of those conflicts, and would love to hear that the rest of the country (including the military) does too. However, based on observation, I have my doubts.
An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch. Such forces would already be in-country weeks or months before their strike, perhaps organized as a sports team or as individuals on tourist or student visas.
Fuck it, why not just have THEM carry the bombs? Saves you from building the missiles in the first place.
Clearly, protecting these planes will be of extreme priority; they will probably be stored at a completely undisclosed location, that's if they are even allowed to land. It seems practical that these things would eventually be completely unmanned, requiring only an occasional fueling rendezvous to stay aloft for many months at a time.
Let's be practical. As of today, if we want to take out an enemy threat, we send a big ol' bomb after them. If they happen to have surrounded themselves with 20 innocent people, collateral damage ensues. This is acceptable to pretty much everyone (except maybe the loved ones of the innocents who died.) Even if this system were to be put into use as a single-fire human target eliminator, it would be replacing a tool that is far less 'evil'.
Oh, and I know you and the GP were trying to be funny, Real Genius, et. al.
That may be the job title...but how is that any different than other job titles like general manager, breakroom supervisor, technician, janitor. All of those people also have 'jobs' that support the interests of others...and in a less direct way, even the stockholders too. But you seem to have this thought, from your writing, that the top boss should somehow be more altruistic about their jobs vs their survival instincts.
All anyone is saying is that they should be rewarded/reprimanded based on how well they do their *job*, not how cleverly worded their compensation contract is that lets them only show up two months a year, drive the company into the ground, then walk away with enough money to last them the rest of their miserable lives. Until executive election becomes more transparent in cases like this, it should rightly be criticized for what it is, nothing more than an elitist cabal designed to enrich the wallets of those holding positions of power; by the elite, for the elite.
You seem to think that just because they make obscene amounts of money, and that people like you don't really know what it is that they do or how it is that they got their job, that they shouldn't be held to any measure of accountability and instead should be able to finagle any amount of money out of the company they want to, and be able to walk away scot-free when it turns out that they spent the past 2 years working in the exact opposite way they were supposed to be.
Many high level executives run their companies right, and recognize that they have a huge responsibility on their shoulders. Just because people like you have no problem robbing a company blind (out of self-described 'self interest') as soon as there was no one looking over your shoulder, doesn't mean that it should be acceptable.
Because when it's their *job* to look out for the interests of the employees and stockholders, and they instead look out for only their own interests, it becomes something completely different from self-preservation, motivation, or whatever you want to call it. It becomes greed. It is arguably theft. It is almost certainly evil. It is in no way, shape, or form a 'job well done'.
*presuming they are not simply circumventing labor or environmental laws by relocating. If the entirety of the savings is due to loophole-seeking, then yeah, tariff the goods at the border to equalize things. Structure the tariff like an itemized bill, so that foreign countries/companies can realize lower tariffs for compliance with domestic standards immediately, and on a piecemeal basis.
The logic in this approach is so innate that there is simply NO chance it would ever be implemented by legislators. Still, it's at least 20 years too late as the damage is done (both to our economy and to the environments of foreign countries).
Bingo, humans are simply not wired to think long term (i.e. the amount of time it takes to pay off a car loan.) Writ large, the effect of 300 million people all making short term, self interested decisions is pretty self evident in the sh**storm we find ourselves in today. However, ask any one individual person and they will cry "it surely can't be MY fault!!!" when confronted with reality, and then a moment later turn around and say "the hell if YOU are going to decide what's right for me!" (be it regarding microeconomics, health care, environment, etc.)
The parallels drawn between this assertion and the current socio-political climate in the US is an exercise left to the reader; but it's pretty clear we are ALL doing it wrong at this point.
Ignorance is the only bliss we have left, it seems. On, and bye bye, karma!
But the free market would never lead us to disaster by chasing the lowest common denominator and exploiting our innately trusting human nature! I also don't see how a 'big government' is required to sufficiently instill the kind of nationalism that forces people to buy higher priced, locally produced goods.
So sponsoring the "Summer of Code" doesn't count as contributing? Seeing as how they have paid for development time on hundreds (if not thousands) of good projects? What have you done for Open Source lately?
Yes, their behavior with regard to the code going into their products does not really embrace the open source model, but given the constraints they are under to protect their core business IP, can you blame them?
It seems like the best thing that can happen is for Google to maintain the Android changes on their own. It sacrifices the portability of drivers written for the android flavor, but are you really planning on hacking the mainstream kernel to run on your smartphone? As long as the software stays public, lets avoid reinventing the wheel and let Google do what they need to do to make a competitive product.
Gaming while you develop php? Wow either you are a God among men, or your games are full of chat like printf("fsck off you noob"); and your PHP code is full of wwwwwwwwaawwdadsdwwwwwwdadadwwwww...
This is not a troll, I swear! Are there any good performance assessment tools used during development? If so, do they work well with any of these IDEs? I don't do a lot of PHP work but it would be nice to have a tool that could audit code, advise on which lines were the most resource-intensive, and recommend lighter weight procedures.
The benefit to more cores is you can completely turn off the cores that are unneeded, instead of simply slowing the clock speed of one big honking core that may not be nearly as efficient at that lower clock rate. It appears (although I am no expert) that this scales well in low power applications, since many chipmakers are favoring higher core counts for their performance lineup. As far as making use of them, it's up to the OS and application authors to code things that behave well (i.e. are properly multithreaded) on many cores. This is a field that is improving constantly.
Netbooks are supposed to be those things too small to work like a real computer but too big to be really portable! How could Steve Jobs be wrong? Is it true that they are small enough to be more portable than a laptop but big enough to be more useful than a cellphone/PDA?
I wonder how long I will go on musing for, before I break down and buy one...
Did it now? Really? Where is your rendered news video footage of the incident (represented by a humble looking man in jeans and a t-shirt) begging at the knees of Jimmy Lei (in a heroic suit of white, shining armor)? Until then, I won't believe you.
People tune into what they want to see, fake or real, and if you tell them it's "news" then not only does it entertain but it satisfies what little intellectual desire they manifest. "Editorialized" video is just the next step on the march to edutainews channels that are completely wrong in everything they report, but are watched and believed thanks to the complete suppression of the will to seek out unbiased, factual sources. Why not? It sure is easier to be told what to believe than to put the effort into coming up with it on your own.
Simple, some devices require no log-in to make use of them (such as the femtocell, or almost every other firewall-router) since the default settings are sufficient for 99% of users. In this case, you don't want to burden the user with setting (and then forgetting) the password to the device just to make use of it. Set it to something strong and unique, and give it to the user in a form that is secure (a sticker on the box which can be clipped and saved, or a sticker on the unit). The final effect is that if the user doesn't change it and loses track of it, they can call support and instead of a lengthy password reset and reconfiguration process, the support line can simply look up the serial number and derive the password.
Using the SN severely limits the possible space unless the SN is itself highly unique from device to device. This is a good place to start but make sure it's a significant portion of the SN and the SN itself is very long and non sequential. Better yet, make it a hashed password only based on the SN; using a private key so it can't be reversed. Going from a trillion possibilities to a million may sound like a trivial problem but it really hurts the depth of security, all the attacker needs is a sufficiently fast way to test each password, if your tar pit fails for some reason you are going to be up the creek.
You pay for the hardware, and the 'minutes' at the normal rate, but no carrier I have seen charges you per month for owning the cell. It isn't nearly as sinister as you describe, since their network still has to haul the call where it's going, even if you do in fact bring it to them via the Internet.
You are right that it's 'their job' to provide you with coverage, but no carrier asserts that they will go to any length necessary to cover 100% of the earth with 100% usable signal. Verizon's ad campaign featuring an army of tower workers following customers around was hyperbolic. Sorry if you got confused.
I think what you meant to say is there is an inherent cost to being forgetful (forgetting the password before writing it down in a safe place) or lazy (not writing it down in an safe/perpetual place.) Yes, if the alternative is leaving a password susceptible to casual attack, feel free to write the password down and lock it in your desk drawer with the IP of the device on it, and leave that post-it around for the next guy.
Not that there aren't a ton of secure, effective tools to manage passwords out there.
The "problem" being that hitting the 'accelerate' button on the cruise control causes the car to accelerate?
Most cruise control systems have an on/off switch, a cancel button, a decel/coast button, AND an input from the brake (and clutch if equipped) that ALL deactivate the acceleration caused by the cruise control. Not to mention the option to deactivate the engine with the key, or shift the transmission into neutral. It's a great example of a properly redundant component of the car. Stop complaining Woz, you hit accelerate and it accelerated; you used one of the many stopping methods and it stopped. The problem, if it exists, lies in the definition/function of the 'accelerate' button on the cruise control. Poor U/I design? Maybe. Safety issue? No more unsafe than having the cruise control system installed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck getting to the SIM card on an Iphone, unless by 'unlocked' you meant 'completely disassembled with many special tools'...
Yeah! Fuck you, Bali Tiger! Get lost, Chinese river dolphin! Hasta la vista, Desert Bandicoot!
Indoor use? How about this downside: Most of the places ravaged by malaria have little to no "inside" with which to confine the DDT?
Yes, we know you are making a statement that using DDT to kill mosquitoes and prevent disease is worth the cost of killing wildlife through disruption of the food chain and reproduction cycles of avians. Good for you.
Personally, I enabled the GPS tagging on my phone on purpose. Normally it's off, and the only other interesting thing in the exif tags are the model of the phone. I enjoy having a GPS tag on each pic in case I want to go back and look at exactly where I was when it was taken. I did remember to turn it off before taking a picture of the secret location I buried my treasure of gold doubloons, so I think it should be safe.
Long story short, what could possibly go wrong? I could see how an Iphone user (if this stuff is turned on by default) would be caught off guard by all the extra info in the tag. However, unless you are really oversharing everything else, like "look at this sweet pic of my new 50" tv... too bad I will be on vacation for two weeks starting tomorrow and wont be able to watch it... hope no one realizes the spare key is under the door mat... And my social security card is in the cookie jar next to my birth certificate..." Would an Iphone user really be *that* stupid? Wait, no, don't answer that.
Really? I share a sense of surprise with just about everyone else on Slashdot at the revelation that "no one I know in the military even uses the phrase "collateral damage" without a visible reaction of repugnance." When was the memo leaked that contained "moral objections to combat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan" drafted by the US military and sent to the White House? Or is it military policy to just keep your nose to the proverbial death-grindstone and not worry about decisions made above you? Furthermore, more than half of the US population stood up and said "YES" to collateral damage in 2004 when it re-elected the war-monger-in-chief to keep up the 'strategy' of barbarian destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the conservative estimates of civilian deaths in those two conflicts are absolutely nauseating.
If, as you say, the US military is against collateral damage, they seem to have a funny way of showing it. If a majority of the citizenry is against it, it too has a very odd way of demonstrating that belief. I firmly think we *avoidably* wasted far too many lives in both of those conflicts, and would love to hear that the rest of the country (including the military) does too. However, based on observation, I have my doubts.
An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch. Such forces would already be in-country weeks or months before their strike, perhaps organized as a sports team or as individuals on tourist or student visas.
Fuck it, why not just have THEM carry the bombs? Saves you from building the missiles in the first place.
Clearly, protecting these planes will be of extreme priority; they will probably be stored at a completely undisclosed location, that's if they are even allowed to land. It seems practical that these things would eventually be completely unmanned, requiring only an occasional fueling rendezvous to stay aloft for many months at a time.
Even if this system were to be put into use as a single-fire human target eliminator, it would be replacing a tool that is far more 'evil'.
fixed that for me
Let's be practical. As of today, if we want to take out an enemy threat, we send a big ol' bomb after them. If they happen to have surrounded themselves with 20 innocent people, collateral damage ensues. This is acceptable to pretty much everyone (except maybe the loved ones of the innocents who died.) Even if this system were to be put into use as a single-fire human target eliminator, it would be replacing a tool that is far less 'evil'.
Oh, and I know you and the GP were trying to be funny, Real Genius, et. al.
That may be the job title...but how is that any different than other job titles like general manager, breakroom supervisor, technician, janitor. All of those people also have 'jobs' that support the interests of others...and in a less direct way, even the stockholders too. But you seem to have this thought, from your writing, that the top boss should somehow be more altruistic about their jobs vs their survival instincts.
All anyone is saying is that they should be rewarded/reprimanded based on how well they do their *job*, not how cleverly worded their compensation contract is that lets them only show up two months a year, drive the company into the ground, then walk away with enough money to last them the rest of their miserable lives. Until executive election becomes more transparent in cases like this, it should rightly be criticized for what it is, nothing more than an elitist cabal designed to enrich the wallets of those holding positions of power; by the elite, for the elite.
You seem to think that just because they make obscene amounts of money, and that people like you don't really know what it is that they do or how it is that they got their job, that they shouldn't be held to any measure of accountability and instead should be able to finagle any amount of money out of the company they want to, and be able to walk away scot-free when it turns out that they spent the past 2 years working in the exact opposite way they were supposed to be.
Many high level executives run their companies right, and recognize that they have a huge responsibility on their shoulders. Just because people like you have no problem robbing a company blind (out of self-described 'self interest') as soon as there was no one looking over your shoulder, doesn't mean that it should be acceptable.
Because when it's their *job* to look out for the interests of the employees and stockholders, and they instead look out for only their own interests, it becomes something completely different from self-preservation, motivation, or whatever you want to call it. It becomes greed. It is arguably theft. It is almost certainly evil. It is in no way, shape, or form a 'job well done'.
*presuming they are not simply circumventing labor or environmental laws by relocating. If the entirety of the savings is due to loophole-seeking, then yeah, tariff the goods at the border to equalize things. Structure the tariff like an itemized bill, so that foreign countries/companies can realize lower tariffs for compliance with domestic standards immediately, and on a piecemeal basis.
The logic in this approach is so innate that there is simply NO chance it would ever be implemented by legislators. Still, it's at least 20 years too late as the damage is done (both to our economy and to the environments of foreign countries).
Bingo, humans are simply not wired to think long term (i.e. the amount of time it takes to pay off a car loan.) Writ large, the effect of 300 million people all making short term, self interested decisions is pretty self evident in the sh**storm we find ourselves in today. However, ask any one individual person and they will cry "it surely can't be MY fault!!!" when confronted with reality, and then a moment later turn around and say "the hell if YOU are going to decide what's right for me!" (be it regarding microeconomics, health care, environment, etc.)
The parallels drawn between this assertion and the current socio-political climate in the US is an exercise left to the reader; but it's pretty clear we are ALL doing it wrong at this point.
Ignorance is the only bliss we have left, it seems. On, and bye bye, karma!
But the free market would never lead us to disaster by chasing the lowest common denominator and exploiting our innately trusting human nature! I also don't see how a 'big government' is required to sufficiently instill the kind of nationalism that forces people to buy higher priced, locally produced goods.
Perhaps you have a newsletter?
So sponsoring the "Summer of Code" doesn't count as contributing? Seeing as how they have paid for development time on hundreds (if not thousands) of good projects? What have you done for Open Source lately?
Yes, their behavior with regard to the code going into their products does not really embrace the open source model, but given the constraints they are under to protect their core business IP, can you blame them?
It seems like the best thing that can happen is for Google to maintain the Android changes on their own. It sacrifices the portability of drivers written for the android flavor, but are you really planning on hacking the mainstream kernel to run on your smartphone? As long as the software stays public, lets avoid reinventing the wheel and let Google do what they need to do to make a competitive product.
Gaming while you develop php? Wow either you are a God among men, or your games are full of chat like printf("fsck off you noob"); and your PHP code is full of wwwwwwwwaawwdadsdwwwwwwdadadwwwww...
do tell!
This is not a troll, I swear! Are there any good performance assessment tools used during development? If so, do they work well with any of these IDEs? I don't do a lot of PHP work but it would be nice to have a tool that could audit code, advise on which lines were the most resource-intensive, and recommend lighter weight procedures.
The benefit to more cores is you can completely turn off the cores that are unneeded, instead of simply slowing the clock speed of one big honking core that may not be nearly as efficient at that lower clock rate. It appears (although I am no expert) that this scales well in low power applications, since many chipmakers are favoring higher core counts for their performance lineup. As far as making use of them, it's up to the OS and application authors to code things that behave well (i.e. are properly multithreaded) on many cores. This is a field that is improving constantly.
Netbooks are supposed to be those things too small to work like a real computer but too big to be really portable! How could Steve Jobs be wrong? Is it true that they are small enough to be more portable than a laptop but big enough to be more useful than a cellphone/PDA?
I wonder how long I will go on musing for, before I break down and buy one...
Did it now? Really? Where is your rendered news video footage of the incident (represented by a humble looking man in jeans and a t-shirt) begging at the knees of Jimmy Lei (in a heroic suit of white, shining armor)? Until then, I won't believe you.
People tune into what they want to see, fake or real, and if you tell them it's "news" then not only does it entertain but it satisfies what little intellectual desire they manifest. "Editorialized" video is just the next step on the march to edutainews channels that are completely wrong in everything they report, but are watched and believed thanks to the complete suppression of the will to seek out unbiased, factual sources. Why not? It sure is easier to be told what to believe than to put the effort into coming up with it on your own.
Simple, some devices require no log-in to make use of them (such as the femtocell, or almost every other firewall-router) since the default settings are sufficient for 99% of users. In this case, you don't want to burden the user with setting (and then forgetting) the password to the device just to make use of it. Set it to something strong and unique, and give it to the user in a form that is secure (a sticker on the box which can be clipped and saved, or a sticker on the unit). The final effect is that if the user doesn't change it and loses track of it, they can call support and instead of a lengthy password reset and reconfiguration process, the support line can simply look up the serial number and derive the password.
Using the SN severely limits the possible space unless the SN is itself highly unique from device to device. This is a good place to start but make sure it's a significant portion of the SN and the SN itself is very long and non sequential. Better yet, make it a hashed password only based on the SN; using a private key so it can't be reversed. Going from a trillion possibilities to a million may sound like a trivial problem but it really hurts the depth of security, all the attacker needs is a sufficiently fast way to test each password, if your tar pit fails for some reason you are going to be up the creek.
You pay for the hardware, and the 'minutes' at the normal rate, but no carrier I have seen charges you per month for owning the cell. It isn't nearly as sinister as you describe, since their network still has to haul the call where it's going, even if you do in fact bring it to them via the Internet.
You are right that it's 'their job' to provide you with coverage, but no carrier asserts that they will go to any length necessary to cover 100% of the earth with 100% usable signal. Verizon's ad campaign featuring an army of tower workers following customers around was hyperbolic. Sorry if you got confused.
Oh, for the love of documentation!
I think what you meant to say is there is an inherent cost to being forgetful (forgetting the password before writing it down in a safe place) or lazy (not writing it down in an safe/perpetual place.) Yes, if the alternative is leaving a password susceptible to casual attack, feel free to write the password down and lock it in your desk drawer with the IP of the device on it, and leave that post-it around for the next guy.
Not that there aren't a ton of secure, effective tools to manage passwords out there.
The "problem" being that hitting the 'accelerate' button on the cruise control causes the car to accelerate?
Most cruise control systems have an on/off switch, a cancel button, a decel/coast button, AND an input from the brake (and clutch if equipped) that ALL deactivate the acceleration caused by the cruise control. Not to mention the option to deactivate the engine with the key, or shift the transmission into neutral. It's a great example of a properly redundant component of the car. Stop complaining Woz, you hit accelerate and it accelerated; you used one of the many stopping methods and it stopped. The problem, if it exists, lies in the definition/function of the 'accelerate' button on the cruise control. Poor U/I design? Maybe. Safety issue? No more unsafe than having the cruise control system installed at all.