The Yorktown lost control of its propulsion system because its computers were unable to divide by the
number zero, the memo said. The Yorktown's Standard Monitoring Control System administrator
entered zero into the data field for the Remote Data Base Manager program. That caused the database to
overflow and crash all LAN consoles and miniature remote terminal units, the memo said.
So a database divide-by-zero took down the whole network, including all the machines on it. Sounds like an OS failure to me - why should a database failure or even a database crash of another machine on the LAN take down every other machine? Even if it caused the custom application to fail on every other machine, the machines should still be up.
So while NT may not have been the initial failure, due to its poor error handling or stability problems it converted a localized problem into a network-wide problem. If that's not a failure of the OS, what is it? A feature?:)
Note how many comments they got - 325-ish. How many American Slashdot readers
commented? Not many, it would seem. You're reaping the result of your own apathy. You chose
not to speak, and the MPAA spoke for you.
I hate to tell you this, but it wasn't exactly an issue that could be resolved by a popular vote. If the 325 individuals and organizations who were most interested in this couldn't make an impression, then 10000/. "me too" comments wouldn't have changed anything. 10000 well-reasoned and documented examples might have made some difference, but as you see above many good examples and strong arguments were already ignored in this case.
What happened on the Yorktown could have happened regardless of the OS since it was the
software they were using that goofed.
I disagree with that - there are some OSes that I could name which wouldn't go belly-up just because a particular application was written incorrectly. Now if you based your ship's operations on that faulty application, you still might have to be towed back to port, but at least your other applications would still be usable.
Government cannot exist without the tacit consent of the populace.
I think this is backwards - most people realize that some form of government is a good thing. They may not agree on what or how much the government does, but they prefer some form of organization to mob rule.
Your (well, Fred's) quote assumes that people don't want government but keep forgetting to get rid of it. It is more the case that when presented with the alternative, most people prefer to have some sort of government, and vote accordingly.
Voting is not an
expression of power, but an admission of powerlessness, since it cannot do otherwise
than reaffirm the government's supposed legitimacy.
But a government selected by the voters is legitimate, at least if we are considering legitimacy in terms applicable to democracy or a republic. I'm sure there are some people who don't consent to the legitimacy of a particular government (either because of election fraud or just from being sore losers), but those folks are welcome to leave for somewhere which has less government or a different one.
If the diffuser window were removed, you would
see a hexagonal array of LEDs sitting in the
bottom of the can....
To protect the LEDs and microprocessor board
inside, the fixture should not be operated
without the diffuser, and please don't monkey
around with either the LEDs or the circuit board
itself. I won't disassemble this one any
further, and you shouldn't either.
Somehow I don't think that's going to stop the current audience:)
Considering many people already underwrite their "free" internet access by agreeing to view ads, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable step. Not that I would go for that, but there are people who would.
I know, I know - I got a little worked up there. But I still find it amazing that Clinton came very close to impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair (a lie that many in both parties in Congress have told, I'm sure), but Reagan got away scot-free on amazing defense of "well, I didn't know what was going on in the White House," and went on to become one of America's best-loved X-Presidents. I only hope that 50 years of perspective will put both men in their proper place in history.
grrr... I guess I should quit before I get all het up again:)
If you don't like it, get a new ISP. There will always be at least one ISP (or Hotmail in this case) that will be happy to let you get spam. In the future I could even see you getting a discount on your monthly bill since you're going to be viewing a lot more advertisements.
Users have the ultimate direct input into decisions by their ISPs - they can hit them in the pocketbook. On the other hand, users of public libraries often have little or no direct control over what the government does to internet access at those facilities.
I agree that it is unethical for an ISP to use the RBL but not inform its users, though. Full disclosure of such an affiliation might drive away some users but attact others who view it as a positive factor for that ISP.
If a conservative president had
done anything remotely like what Clinton has done he would have been removed from office.
I don't know about that - I recall a certain conservative president whose administration not so long ago was aiding the enemies of the United States in direct defiance of Congress, but was not removed from office (and was nowhere near as close as President Clinton wasto being removed). Whatever the actions of the current administration, the level and scope of their words and deeds doesn't approach the treasonous activities which Reagan countenanced within the Oval Office.
The problem is that we can't wait 20 or 30 years for those in power to understand things online. If corporations and governments succeed in their efforts of today to discourage freedom of speech, destroy open protocols, and remove rights like Fair Use (which have major consequences outside of the digital world too), we will have to work ten times harder and still have a lot of luck in order to reverse those changes in 20 years. We need action now by everyone who has any input, no matter how small, into the political process.
This world is rapidly becoming a fucked place, and I fear a revolution is brewing...
That's funny, because I'm looking forward to the revolution. Don't fear the reaper, baby, unless of course you're a huge multinational with more lawyers than sense.
Don't forget a national federal registry of deadbeat dads. Not that I'm sure that's such a bad idea, but as the candidate of the supposedly conservative, states-rights, small-government and business-friendly party, GW doesn't really measure up.
If you consider the discrepancy between the professed views of the two parties and their actual actions, the Democrats are still closer to doing what they say they'll do. Which is unfortunate, because I'd actually vote for a Republican if I could be sure they really would make government smaller. So far no one has ever done it, though.
I wonder if any of the DoD scientists were watching when Al Gore claimed responsibility for
creating the internet? I bet they weren't too happy.
Actually, Vinton Cerf and some other prime movers in the internet community have come out in support of Gore, on the grounds that at least he appreciated the potential of it and favored expanding it. This is as opposed to his colleagues in Congress, some of whom still don't even have email addresses.
In my personal opinion,
the Clinton-Gore administration has done more to striffle internet growth.
Striffle? It took several reads for me to read this as "stifle", which I believe is what you were aiming for. And if you think internet growth was "striffled" under a Democratic administration, just vote in the Republicans and see how you like them apples instead. I don't think things would have been any better, and probably (IMHO) would have been worse.
1) If they get a certain percentage of the vote this election, they get more official money and
recognition in the next election and more power between times
Of course, with money comes squabbling and divisiveness, like that which characterized the Reform Party convention earlier this year. I was disappointed to see Buchanan hijack that party; they seemed to actually support practical reforms without all the political idealism/ideology (see, it can be good or bad) of the other third parties.
Throughout this whole election I've been reminded of Homer Simpson explaining how things are really run by people "no smarter than you or I are". Perhaps the candidates really are mental giants, but they sure don't come across that way on the campaign trail.
P.S. The 60 second posting limit is quite annoying - I just waited five minutes for/. to come back up, and now I have three comments all ready to go. Perhaps the 60 second limit should be waived for those with a +1 bonus available?
I don't think Open Source was really the focus here. There have been many visionary things created in the last few years that owe their existence and inspiration to the Internet, like Napster and even collaborative news sites like/. Sure some of these projects are a little shy on software engineering skills, but on the other hand they're reshaping the way people use the 'net and the way that people interact with each other. Young people (and some older ones, too, when they put their minds to it) are initiating (often unknowingly) projects that are totally changing culture and society. Not by cloning Windows programs necessarily, but by being open to communicating in new ways and with new people, and by having no preconceptions of which things are impossible, and which things are only possible after rigorous regression testing.
That being said,
I sound like jonkatz, and
I am a software engineer, and I wouldn't dream of going about one of the projects that I work on the same way that Gnutella or even the Linux kernel are being developed. But it seems to work for them
Slashdot Mirror
from Government Computer News, the horse's mouth.
So a database divide-by-zero took down the whole network, including all the machines on it. Sounds like an OS failure to me - why should a database failure or even a database crash of another machine on the LAN take down every other machine? Even if it caused the custom application to fail on every other machine, the machines should still be up.
So while NT may not have been the initial failure, due to its poor error handling or stability problems it converted a localized problem into a network-wide problem. If that's not a failure of the OS, what is it? A feature? :)
I hate to tell you this, but it wasn't exactly an issue that could be resolved by a popular vote. If the 325 individuals and organizations who were most interested in this couldn't make an impression, then 10000 /. "me too" comments wouldn't have changed anything. 10000 well-reasoned and documented examples might have made some difference, but as you see above many good examples and strong arguments were already ignored in this case.
I disagree with that - there are some OSes that I could name which wouldn't go belly-up just because a particular application was written incorrectly. Now if you based your ship's operations on that faulty application, you still might have to be towed back to port, but at least your other applications would still be usable.
That wasn't particularly insightful, even for a dig at Signal 11.
I think this is backwards - most people realize that some form of government is a good thing. They may not agree on what or how much the government does, but they prefer some form of organization to mob rule.
Your (well, Fred's) quote assumes that people don't want government but keep forgetting to get rid of it. It is more the case that when presented with the alternative, most people prefer to have some sort of government, and vote accordingly.
But a government selected by the voters is legitimate, at least if we are considering legitimacy in terms applicable to democracy or a republic. I'm sure there are some people who don't consent to the legitimacy of a particular government (either because of election fraud or just from being sore losers), but those folks are welcome to leave for somewhere which has less government or a different one.
Wow, that was ugly but enlightening. Mod up, please!
From the bit about the spotlight:
Somehow I don't think that's going to stop the current audience :)
"/-r4d" means k-rad, I believe. As in "k-rad eleet".
And now that you've posted, your moderation is undone :)
Considering many people already underwrite their "free" internet access by agreeing to view ads, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable step. Not that I would go for that, but there are people who would.
I know, I know - I got a little worked up there. But I still find it amazing that Clinton came very close to impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair (a lie that many in both parties in Congress have told, I'm sure), but Reagan got away scot-free on amazing defense of "well, I didn't know what was going on in the White House," and went on to become one of America's best-loved X-Presidents. I only hope that 50 years of perspective will put both men in their proper place in history.
grrr... I guess I should quit before I get all het up again :)
If you don't like it, get a new ISP. There will always be at least one ISP (or Hotmail in this case) that will be happy to let you get spam. In the future I could even see you getting a discount on your monthly bill since you're going to be viewing a lot more advertisements.
Users have the ultimate direct input into decisions by their ISPs - they can hit them in the pocketbook. On the other hand, users of public libraries often have little or no direct control over what the government does to internet access at those facilities.
I agree that it is unethical for an ISP to use the RBL but not inform its users, though. Full disclosure of such an affiliation might drive away some users but attact others who view it as a positive factor for that ISP.
Works OK here, although I didn't try ordering (I'll see if it can be a birthday present first :)
P.S. The lameness filter should not be applied to /. users who have the +2 bonus. All in favor...?
If you don't like your ISP, switch. Therefore, it's voluntary for you.
I don't know about that - I recall a certain conservative president whose administration not so long ago was aiding the enemies of the United States in direct defiance of Congress, but was not removed from office (and was nowhere near as close as President Clinton wasto being removed). Whatever the actions of the current administration, the level and scope of their words and deeds doesn't approach the treasonous activities which Reagan countenanced within the Oval Office.
The problem is that we can't wait 20 or 30 years for those in power to understand things online. If corporations and governments succeed in their efforts of today to discourage freedom of speech, destroy open protocols, and remove rights like Fair Use (which have major consequences outside of the digital world too), we will have to work ten times harder and still have a lot of luck in order to reverse those changes in 20 years. We need action now by everyone who has any input, no matter how small, into the political process.
No, that wasn't informative, it was possibly interesting or funny. Bad moderators!
Today is not your day, apparently :)
That's funny, because I'm looking forward to the revolution. Don't fear the reaper, baby, unless of course you're a huge multinational with more lawyers than sense.
Don't forget a national federal registry of deadbeat dads. Not that I'm sure that's such a bad idea, but as the candidate of the supposedly conservative, states-rights, small-government and business-friendly party, GW doesn't really measure up.
If you consider the discrepancy between the professed views of the two parties and their actual actions, the Democrats are still closer to doing what they say they'll do. Which is unfortunate, because I'd actually vote for a Republican if I could be sure they really would make government smaller. So far no one has ever done it, though.
Actually, Vinton Cerf and some other prime movers in the internet community have come out in support of Gore, on the grounds that at least he appreciated the potential of it and favored expanding it. This is as opposed to his colleagues in Congress, some of whom still don't even have email addresses.
Striffle? It took several reads for me to read this as "stifle", which I believe is what you were aiming for. And if you think internet growth was "striffled" under a Democratic administration, just vote in the Republicans and see how you like them apples instead. I don't think things would have been any better, and probably (IMHO) would have been worse.
Of course, with money comes squabbling and divisiveness, like that which characterized the Reform Party convention earlier this year. I was disappointed to see Buchanan hijack that party; they seemed to actually support practical reforms without all the political idealism/ideology (see, it can be good or bad) of the other third parties.
Throughout this whole election I've been reminded of Homer Simpson explaining how things are really run by people "no smarter than you or I are". Perhaps the candidates really are mental giants, but they sure don't come across that way on the campaign trail.
P.S. The 60 second posting limit is quite annoying - I just waited five minutes for /. to come back up, and now I have three comments all ready to go. Perhaps the 60 second limit should be waived for those with a +1 bonus available?
I don't think Open Source was really the focus here. There have been many visionary things created in the last few years that owe their existence and inspiration to the Internet, like Napster and even collaborative news sites like /. Sure some of these projects are a little shy on software engineering skills, but on the other hand they're reshaping the way people use the 'net and the way that people interact with each other. Young people (and some older ones, too, when they put their minds to it) are initiating (often unknowingly) projects that are totally changing culture and society. Not by cloning Windows programs necessarily, but by being open to communicating in new ways and with new people, and by having no preconceptions of which things are impossible, and which things are only possible after rigorous regression testing.
That being said,
D'oh! I've been out-subtled!