I hate to say it, but most of the valuable work being done today is at the commercial level. i.e. Building upon the CompSci foundations to create useful, real world products.
I haven't seen a commercial product that paid the slightest attention to CompSci foundations in years, leaving them with the sort of saleable "usefulness" that pleases the marketing department, but a bit lacking in the sort of usefulness that "gets shit done."
The best thing about this is that you can keep selling the same "product" over and over again by adding kludges to your kludges to "fix" obvious flaws in usefulness.
But we end with "lickable" kludgeballs out of the deal, so everyone is "happy" about the situation.
The vast majority of people involved in computing these days earn their livings by tossing stones over a wall, back and forth to each other. This is not "useful" in the old fashioned sense of useful being somehow productive, instead of being merely an excuse to issue a paycheck to "stimulate the economy."
"Just don't expect any sort of immediate results."
Well yes, that's the whole point of research, isn't it? As often as not the most far reaching research doesn't even have any idea whether or not it might turn out to be "good for something" while it's being conducted and there's simply no way to tell in advance which water contains the baby when you start throwing it out.
Perhaps you are unaware of what little actual research is still going on because of your focus on "usability" and "immediate results."
Not that it matters much in the current climate, the DARPA annoucement pretty much just codifies the defacto status of damned little actual research being done these days, and if CompSci isn't dead it's at least on a feeding tube, so we might just as well put the money into something "useful," like "smarter" bombs.
I'm not actually averse to this, despite the tenor of my post. I've never been particularly happy about the Defense Department being a major funder of computer research. This move can only result in a search for funding from alternate sources and a freeing up of research direction.
It could move CompSci research back to an academic field conducted in the universities, if the universities themselves hadn't already forgotten what CompSci was and devolved into Java trade schools, because Java is "useful."
Well, I have the standard issues with the concept of copyright violation as "stealing," but I don't have any innate problem with the idea of copyright violators being civilly prosecuted for such violations of civil rights.
I do have some problems with fairly recent changes to the law and its perception (such as civil rights violations as criminal theft of property) which broadens what is protected, for how long it is protected, what may be done to protect it, criminalizes violations and makes abhorent means available to prosecute violations.
But not with rights holders civilly prosecuting alleged violators per se.
Of course the above does not in any way imply that I believe the tactics and methods used by the RIAA (such as dressing up to give the impression that they are officers of the law and filing rubber stamp John Doe suits by the bushel basketful) are those of scum sucking bastards, but it is in part my legal and social perception objections that allow them to operate in such a manner in the first place.
one size fits all, but unfortunately this doesn't satisfy everybody.
One size fits all Be you short or be you tall Be you wide or be you slim Be you her or be you him Now, please, don't start to scream and yell We never said it would fit well
Dude, you make it sound like it's ok to violate essentially arbitraty "intellectual property" laws just to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of poor people.
It's easy enough to acquire $10 million dollars by spending $50 million on it, but, call me old fashioned, I insist on thinking of "make" as having something to do with net profits.
A bum panhandling on the street makes more than Scott, and is in a more honorable profession to boot.
I'm not actually defending any data that the government would care about, so it's all moot
Nonsense. If you read the article you'll discover that the NSA is perfectly aware that the better your incryption the more you are obviously hiding something criminal.
If you didn't have something to hide you wouldn't be carrying a briefcase with a lock on it in the first place, now would you?
Our weak attempts at ending terrorism do nothing but erode our freedoms and that's exactly what they want to have happen.
If by "they" you mean "members of our own government." Which is the true terror, because once "they" are allowed to get away with it there is no defence.
British economist E.F. Schumacher once wrote that all the west had to do to win the economic war with Japan was to send them the Harvard business school.
The Japanese met us halfway and simply started sending their kids over to attend.
Unfortunately for us they weren't quite stupid enough to actually take the school, so we're still stuck with it.
Bear in mind that the curriculum "trains" its students to be qualified for one job, and one job only; the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. There are, of course, only 500 such jobs available in total, and for the most part the positions stay filled for years, and even decades. HBS graduates a bit more than 500 students every year.
And not one of them is qualified to work at McDonald's.
Since the beginning of time the majority of serious security threats have always come from someone trusted.
See the Battle of Thermopylae and Benedict Arnold.
In any case, in this particular instance there is no real reason to "prioritize," because there is no real impediment to implimenting both.
It would, in fact, only become an issue of priorities if left to each individual admin to close every hole, instead of a group of indviduals setting reasonable defaults for each admin to share and rely on being in place.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to say it, but most of the valuable work being done today is at the commercial level. i.e. Building upon the CompSci foundations to create useful, real world products.
I haven't seen a commercial product that paid the slightest attention to CompSci foundations in years, leaving them with the sort of saleable "usefulness" that pleases the marketing department, but a bit lacking in the sort of usefulness that "gets shit done."
The best thing about this is that you can keep selling the same "product" over and over again by adding kludges to your kludges to "fix" obvious flaws in usefulness.
But we end with "lickable" kludgeballs out of the deal, so everyone is "happy" about the situation.
The vast majority of people involved in computing these days earn their livings by tossing stones over a wall, back and forth to each other. This is not "useful" in the old fashioned sense of useful being somehow productive, instead of being merely an excuse to issue a paycheck to "stimulate the economy."
"Just don't expect any sort of immediate results."
Well yes, that's the whole point of research, isn't it? As often as not the most far reaching research doesn't even have any idea whether or not it might turn out to be "good for something" while it's being conducted and there's simply no way to tell in advance which water contains the baby when you start throwing it out.
Perhaps you are unaware of what little actual research is still going on because of your focus on "usability" and "immediate results."
Not that it matters much in the current climate, the DARPA annoucement pretty much just codifies the defacto status of damned little actual research being done these days, and if CompSci isn't dead it's at least on a feeding tube, so we might just as well put the money into something "useful," like "smarter" bombs.
I'm not actually averse to this, despite the tenor of my post. I've never been particularly happy about the Defense Department being a major funder of computer research. This move can only result in a search for funding from alternate sources and a freeing up of research direction.
It could move CompSci research back to an academic field conducted in the universities, if the universities themselves hadn't already forgotten what CompSci was and devolved into Java trade schools, because Java is "useful."
KFG
Then eat them.
KFG
You try to answer their question or admit that your clueless.
Dude!
KFG
Bell's "Men of Mathematics" is not to be missed.
KFG
. . .are **not** those of scum sucking bastards. . .are **not**!
I need to sack my editor again. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go make some more suggestions for suggestive poses for the moose.
KFG
Well, I have the standard issues with the concept of copyright violation as "stealing," but I don't have any innate problem with the idea of copyright violators being civilly prosecuted for such violations of civil rights.
I do have some problems with fairly recent changes to the law and its perception (such as civil rights violations as criminal theft of property) which broadens what is protected, for how long it is protected, what may be done to protect it, criminalizes violations and makes abhorent means available to prosecute violations.
But not with rights holders civilly prosecuting alleged violators per se.
Of course the above does not in any way imply that I believe the tactics and methods used by the RIAA (such as dressing up to give the impression that they are officers of the law and filing rubber stamp John Doe suits by the bushel basketful) are those of scum sucking bastards, but it is in part my legal and social perception objections that allow them to operate in such a manner in the first place.
KFG
one size fits all, but unfortunately this doesn't satisfy everybody.
One size fits all
Be you short or be you tall
Be you wide or be you slim
Be you her or be you him
Now, please, don't start to scream and yell
We never said it would fit well
KFG
Thus does Slashdot discuss matters of social importance.
You're not new here, are you?
KFG
Dude, you make it sound like it's ok to violate essentially arbitraty "intellectual property" laws just to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of poor people.
Have you no sense of ethics?
KFG
The new EZ tax form:
1: How much did you make?
2: Send it in, plus 10%
KFG
Nah, that just means he spends more than you.
It's easy enough to acquire $10 million dollars by spending $50 million on it, but, call me old fashioned, I insist on thinking of "make" as having something to do with net profits.
A bum panhandling on the street makes more than Scott, and is in a more honorable profession to boot.
KFG
I'm not actually defending any data that the government would care about, so it's all moot
Nonsense. If you read the article you'll discover that the NSA is perfectly aware that the better your incryption the more you are obviously hiding something criminal.
If you didn't have something to hide you wouldn't be carrying a briefcase with a lock on it in the first place, now would you?
KFG
In short, the entire approach makes no sense.
You are presuming that the sense to be found in it has something to do with catching terrorists.
Silly boy.
KFG
Our weak attempts at ending terrorism do nothing but erode our freedoms and that's exactly what they want to have happen.
If by "they" you mean "members of our own government." Which is the true terror, because once "they" are allowed to get away with it there is no defence.
KFG
I'm holding out until they combine forces with FVWM for the ultimate in unified desktop goodness.
KFGOffice
Well yeah, but that doesn't exactly tickle, let alone remove, your funny bone.
No, I'm not even going to talk about what makes my nose light up.
KFG
. . .continue to keep Terry in your thoughts. . .
I believe relationships should be based on principles of reciprocity.
KFG
It could sue you if you tried to sell a similar product (e.g.: another OS) and called it "SCO".
SCO sells stock certificates, a similar product to TP, although less valuable.
KFG
So; Chirac, Bill and Linus walk into a bistro:
Linus says to Chirac, "C'est magnifique! Mais c'est ne pas la Google."
KFG
British economist E.F. Schumacher once wrote that all the west had to do to win the economic war with Japan was to send them the Harvard business school.
The Japanese met us halfway and simply started sending their kids over to attend.
Unfortunately for us they weren't quite stupid enough to actually take the school, so we're still stuck with it.
Bear in mind that the curriculum "trains" its students to be qualified for one job, and one job only; the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. There are, of course, only 500 such jobs available in total, and for the most part the positions stay filled for years, and even decades. HBS graduates a bit more than 500 students every year.
And not one of them is qualified to work at McDonald's.
KFG
But you're forgetting the fundie's favorite special pleading. . .
No, I can hardly forget that one, since I run into it all the time. I simply assume that the pleading was not included in the film.
KFG
This would necessarily occur when discussing the traveling time of light.
KFG
When it's all about the developers?
KFG
"The remote threats are of utmost urgency."
Since the beginning of time the majority of serious security threats have always come from someone trusted.
See the Battle of Thermopylae and Benedict Arnold.
In any case, in this particular instance there is no real reason to "prioritize," because there is no real impediment to implimenting both.
It would, in fact, only become an issue of priorities if left to each individual admin to close every hole, instead of a group of indviduals setting reasonable defaults for each admin to share and rely on being in place.
KFG
There's a word for admins who trust the users:
"Fired."
I don't even trust my own mother on her own network.She loves me for it. Her system stays up.
KFG