That said, I'm curious as to why you say that no animation is a plus.
I've found that in most cases, the quality of the information presented is inversely proportional to the degree of flashiness of the presentation. It's sort of a "Those who can do, those who cannot produce pretty power point slides" thing.
Thank goodness there are people like you to save us from "nonsense" of those "quacks" at Scotland Yard, MI5, FBI, NSA, and the rest.
Good point, but then again, maybe you're looking for quacks in the wrong places. Also, here is some perspective published 19 days after the MSNBC article.
I guess it is "well known" that explosive could in no way be made from a wide range of readily available materials like peroxide as was used last year in the London subway attacks.
Yes, it looks like it would be pretty easy to make HTMD, especially on a plane.
The question here isn't whether or not there are bad guys out there. The question is about how to respond to them. It seems to me like we might be getting it wrong.
You mean those British guys with no plane tickets, no passports, and no workable plan? Thank God we got those bastards!
Then again, even though those guys did not have a way to make a workable bomb, they did manage to get my three year old daughter frisked and her lip gloss confiscated when we flew recently.
I think the point is that if we think that we're not being well served by the Microsoft monopoly, but we still buy their products, then we are a part of the problem.
I have taught university courses, and there is only one worthwhile way to encourage attendance: offer classes that are worth attending. Anything else is pointless bureaucracy.
Also, the decision of whether or not to come to class should be left with the students. College students are adults who should make their own decisions. Some of them will make bad decisions that will hurt their college performances, but that's part of learning.
Secondly, that because going to the bathroom during the boring parts (and the court in no way implies that there are boring parts in Hollywood movies) also results in the creation of a derivative work, it is also forbidden by law.
In the case of many Hollywood movies, I can certainly see how going to the bathroom would create a derivative work. The similarities are too great to be a coincidence.
Windows is not secure - yes, there's no surprise here. Here's another thing that's not surprising: It doesn't matter. People don't want better security. They may say they want it, but they aren't willing to do anything to make it happen. It's just human nature.
It's tough these days to be a web development generalist. I can think fo two strategies that might help.
1. Specialize - find some field, hopefully one you like, and become a specialist in it. Something like XML web services for travel applications, or web application security, or whatever (the more technical, the better, I think). Just find something and become the goto guy/gal in that field.
2. Startup - stop coding for other people and work on your own startup. This is a hard path to follow and the odds of success aren't great, but you may be happier.
Allright, good point. But it still seems to me that the differences between free and proprietary software are relevant in determining liability. We should consider what steps a software provider has made to deal with bugs, and providing source is an important step. After all, not everybody does it.
And it could be a defense if it were written into a software liability law. There could be a free software exception. N.B.: This last part is strictly hypothetical. In the USA, proprietary software vendors would write the liability law, so it would probably include a death penalty clause for free software programmers. And RMS and Linus would get one way tickets to gitmo, effective immediately.
If you provide source code, then your liability should be reduced or eliminated, because you've given the users of your code a way to deal with bugs without relying on you. But since proprietary software vendors don't allow you to fix bugs in their software, then they should be held liable for those bugs.
If you want a system that is functionally identical to Microsoft Windows, there is a large company in Redmond, Washington that supplies one. I think they call it "Microsoft Windows", or something like that.
On the other hand, if Windows doesn't suit you and you want to try something different, then you may want to consider other operating systems. Linux may be a good choice in this case.
Isn't it interesting that there is an automatic assumption that if there was a good FOSS driver for nVidia, it would not be derived from the current closed driver? What's in there?
I have installed the nVidia driver before. It sticks out very clearly in my mind because it's one of the few occaisions when I've had to install a third party driver rather than use a driver in the mainline kernel tree. I'd say that nVidia represents the best case scenario when using closed drivers. If I really depended on the capabilities of a good 3d graphics card, today I would use the nVidia. It's the best of a set of bad choices.
I'd rather have my drivers in the main kernel tree, so that my drivers get updated every time I update my kernel. I update my kernel pretty regularly. If I depended on an nVidia driver, I would have to take the extra step of updating my driver. Occaisionally, that update might fail if nVidia hadn't kept up, so I would have to stick with the old kernel for a while. Since I don't need a high end video card, I choose to forgo that hassle.
In summary, using closed source drivers is doing it the hard way. I don't do things the hard way unless it's necessary. I hope we get a fully capable FOSS driver for nVidia cards, because that's the only thing keeping me from buying one.
When a change is made to the Linux kernel that may break some drivers, kernel developers check the driver code and update it to conform to the new kernel. Of course they can only do this with open source drivers. When you upgrade your kernel, the accompanying drivers are upgraded at the same time. Your closed source nVidia driver, however, may stop working.
This sucks for users, and it's even worse for nVidia. They have to keep close tabs on kernel development and provide drivers for whatever kernel versions they need to support. At the same time, those freeloading companies that opened their driver source are getting their drivers updated and distributed for free. Bastards.
So, the next time you want to claim to understand the FOSS model, you might want to stop and consider whether you actually are.
Keep in mind that you can't rely on the nVidia drivers to work, because they are closed source. Opting for a closed source driver is accepting that Bad Things may happen to your system, and you may not get any help if they do.
You're right of course. The only sane course of action when a box is compromised is to wipe it and rebuild it. I think the problem with Windows is that you wind up doing this too often. That's why you need an automated procedure.
1. If you don't like math, then you don't like computer science. Period. This also means that many career paths are closed to you. You might be able to squeak out a CS degree, but you probably won't get far or be happy in the field.
2. You say that you don't like math, but it may be a bit early to say that. Most people enter college knowing no math. I say this from experience teaching college math and cs, and from the experience of graduating high school with no math skills - but eventually completing an master's degree in math. Give it a chance.
3. If you really don't like math/cs, that doesn't mean that you can't work in the computer field. I have a good friend with a humanities degree who has a very successful career as a project manager in the computer games business.
The rise of Firefox and other browsers has convinced most web developers that developing IE-specific sites is short-sighted and stupid. Sure, there are a handful who still don't get it, but they never will. IE 7 will get wide use, since many people will get it when they get a new computer. It doesn't really matter because it won't influence the work of web developers who understand the value of well made web sites.
Slashdot Mirror
What's holding you back? It's time to quit talking about switching to Linux and actually do it.
I've found that in most cases, the quality of the information presented is inversely proportional to the degree of flashiness of the presentation. It's sort of a "Those who can do, those who cannot produce pretty power point slides" thing.
Good point, but then again, maybe you're looking for quacks in the wrong places. Also, here is some perspective published 19 days after the MSNBC article.
Yes, it looks like it would be pretty easy to make HTMD, especially on a plane.
The question here isn't whether or not there are bad guys out there. The question is about how to respond to them. It seems to me like we might be getting it wrong.
Because it keeps her happy on a 14-hour flight across the Pacific.
You mean those British guys with no plane tickets, no passports, and no workable plan? Thank God we got those bastards!
Then again, even though those guys did not have a way to make a workable bomb, they did manage to get my three year old daughter frisked and her lip gloss confiscated when we flew recently.
Did we win this one?
Actually, you were very safe, since the odds of two people getting boxcutters on the plain was practically nil.
Umm, didn't we just recognize the fifth anniversary of not catching those guys?
I think the point is that if we think that we're not being well served by the Microsoft monopoly, but we still buy their products, then we are a part of the problem.
I have taught university courses, and there is only one worthwhile way to encourage attendance: offer classes that are worth attending. Anything else is pointless bureaucracy.
Also, the decision of whether or not to come to class should be left with the students. College students are adults who should make their own decisions. Some of them will make bad decisions that will hurt their college performances, but that's part of learning.
My new passport just arrived yesterday, so I'm off the hook until 2016. Whew.
In the case of many Hollywood movies, I can certainly see how going to the bathroom would create a derivative work. The similarities are too great to be a coincidence.
Windows is not secure - yes, there's no surprise here. Here's another thing that's not surprising: It doesn't matter. People don't want better security. They may say they want it, but they aren't willing to do anything to make it happen. It's just human nature.
It's tough these days to be a web development generalist. I can think fo two strategies that might help.
1. Specialize - find some field, hopefully one you like, and become a specialist in it. Something like XML web services for travel applications, or web application security, or whatever (the more technical, the better, I think). Just find something and become the goto guy/gal in that field.
2. Startup - stop coding for other people and work on your own startup. This is a hard path to follow and the odds of success aren't great, but you may be happier.
Allright, good point. But it still seems to me that the differences between free and proprietary software are relevant in determining liability. We should consider what steps a software provider has made to deal with bugs, and providing source is an important step. After all, not everybody does it.
And it could be a defense if it were written into a software liability law. There could be a free software exception. N.B.: This last part is strictly hypothetical. In the USA, proprietary software vendors would write the liability law, so it would probably include a death penalty clause for free software programmers. And RMS and Linus would get one way tickets to gitmo, effective immediately.
If you provide source code, then your liability should be reduced or eliminated, because you've given the users of your code a way to deal with bugs without relying on you. But since proprietary software vendors don't allow you to fix bugs in their software, then they should be held liable for those bugs.
If you want a system that is functionally identical to Microsoft Windows, there is a large company in Redmond, Washington that supplies one. I think they call it "Microsoft Windows", or something like that.
On the other hand, if Windows doesn't suit you and you want to try something different, then you may want to consider other operating systems. Linux may be a good choice in this case.
Isn't it interesting that there is an automatic assumption that if there was a good FOSS driver for nVidia, it would not be derived from the current closed driver? What's in there?
I have installed the nVidia driver before. It sticks out very clearly in my mind because it's one of the few occaisions when I've had to install a third party driver rather than use a driver in the mainline kernel tree. I'd say that nVidia represents the best case scenario when using closed drivers. If I really depended on the capabilities of a good 3d graphics card, today I would use the nVidia. It's the best of a set of bad choices.
I'd rather have my drivers in the main kernel tree, so that my drivers get updated every time I update my kernel. I update my kernel pretty regularly. If I depended on an nVidia driver, I would have to take the extra step of updating my driver. Occaisionally, that update might fail if nVidia hadn't kept up, so I would have to stick with the old kernel for a while. Since I don't need a high end video card, I choose to forgo that hassle.
In summary, using closed source drivers is doing it the hard way. I don't do things the hard way unless it's necessary. I hope we get a fully capable FOSS driver for nVidia cards, because that's the only thing keeping me from buying one.
Nobody is expecting you to fix the driver.
When a change is made to the Linux kernel that may break some drivers, kernel developers check the driver code and update it to conform to the new kernel. Of course they can only do this with open source drivers. When you upgrade your kernel, the accompanying drivers are upgraded at the same time. Your closed source nVidia driver, however, may stop working.
This sucks for users, and it's even worse for nVidia. They have to keep close tabs on kernel development and provide drivers for whatever kernel versions they need to support. At the same time, those freeloading companies that opened their driver source are getting their drivers updated and distributed for free. Bastards.
So, the next time you want to claim to understand the FOSS model, you might want to stop and consider whether you actually are.
Keep in mind that you can't rely on the nVidia drivers to work, because they are closed source. Opting for a closed source driver is accepting that Bad Things may happen to your system, and you may not get any help if they do.
You're right of course. The only sane course of action when a box is compromised is to wipe it and rebuild it. I think the problem with Windows is that you wind up doing this too often. That's why you need an automated procedure.
1. If you don't like math, then you don't like computer science. Period. This also means that many career paths are closed to you. You might be able to squeak out a CS degree, but you probably won't get far or be happy in the field. 2. You say that you don't like math, but it may be a bit early to say that. Most people enter college knowing no math. I say this from experience teaching college math and cs, and from the experience of graduating high school with no math skills - but eventually completing an master's degree in math. Give it a chance. 3. If you really don't like math/cs, that doesn't mean that you can't work in the computer field. I have a good friend with a humanities degree who has a very successful career as a project manager in the computer games business.
The rise of Firefox and other browsers has convinced most web developers that developing IE-specific sites is short-sighted and stupid. Sure, there are a handful who still don't get it, but they never will. IE 7 will get wide use, since many people will get it when they get a new computer. It doesn't really matter because it won't influence the work of web developers who understand the value of well made web sites.
Customers don't care if the release is delayed. Upgrades aren't for customers, upgrades are for vendors.
If he had kept the information about Diebold's activities secret, would that have been ok?