Congress wasn't talking about interference in the technical sense that channels would interfere in the spectrum of the existing channels, but about interference in the audience. It's business interference that the low power FM channels are being accused of by the oligopolists...
"If I encrypt my data using an open standard, but I don't tell you which standard I used, it's going to be more difficult than if I flat out told you I used DES."
You'll be surprised how little that really matters.
"Tell me how that type of obscurity hurts me."
It hurts you, because you think it will increase the security of your system in any way. Which may in turn result in you thinking that that will compensate for example, for using CBC mode or a long term PSK (or god forbit both)... While it will absolutely not.
Security through obscurity is like hiding a key under the doormat. You think you're o.k. because the key is hidden, and you don't see the key yourself when you go out and wander around your door. Plus so many people do it (you assume) and you never hear them talk about break-ins.
But reality is that the mat will really stop nobody who wants to enter your house from getting the key. The only people your key-hiding will stop is people who didn't want to enter in the first place anyway, the other people will for sure check under the mat, flowerpot, etc...
Security through obscurity gives a false sense of security, making the implementer lax. That is one of the many reasons why obscurity is actually counterproductive for security. In practice obscurity has already has lead to many, many security failures.
That is what is means. Translation: if you have 'security through obscurity', the best you can do is assume your worst enemies already know all the details and the worst you can do is assume that it will help you in anything at all.
Obscurity does not help towards security. Obscurity is just what it is, obscurity, but a searchlight will make it vanish completely.
Use real security.
Re:And we all know right he was in 1981...
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
Sure, later he denied ever saying it, but after a bit of digging I found an interview that basically proves that he assumed it was enough: It was ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address base for applications within -- oh five or six years people were complaining.
Actually, there is a good chance that spacetethers can make the re-entry speed of spacecraft lower and also can reduce the required speed for takeoff. And lower speed means lower forces and less fuel, means less risk.
Wow! As fast as my cable modem lets data get through! And it needs only 0.5kb/s up... I guess a lot of people are seeding this (translation: keeping their download windows open). Thanks guys!
You're preaching to the crowd in typo capital. People smile politely but avoid eye contact. In fact they are looking down, duck a little, and quickly pass by with a visible sign of relief that the preacher did not personally address them while they were passing by.
Given past behaviour, the French would be speaking Germans if it wasn't for the hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers that found their grave on D-Day and the months thereafter. Don't dismiss this because you've heard that argument before, becuase that doesn't bring back those people.
How many French gave their live to safe Americans, at all?
Which country exploded nuclear bombs even though they had signed a treaty not to?
Which country had a huge economic deal with Saddam and was not surprisingly much against kicking his government out of power?
So which country is more than likely to do whatever it wants?
Recent and Past behaviour of France shows a pretty ugly picture indeed.
I bet the engineers have a 'shadow LAN' in parallel with that nonsense 'no Linux corporate LAN'. This mostly Linux shadow LAN is probably the one on which the actual work gets done, and two years from now the managers will claim that that one was the official one to begin with.
"f you have any figures to even suggest the opposite, I would love to see them."
If the list of companies in the Embedded Linux Consortium does not impress you, then who do _you_ think are actually the implementers of most of the volume shipments of embedded systems?
You sound very much like an optimistic Microsoft SalesPerson(tm), or somebody who owns a little bit too much stock of it.
Re:Now if only it had a decent name
on
Ogg Now An RFC
·
· Score: 1
Actually, OGG itself is just a multimedia transport stream. Ogg Vorbis is about music, but for example Ogg Theora is about video, just like Ogg Tarkin (althoug that one is still in experimental stages).
Where do you get all that info? I'm subscribed to the gcc mailing lists, but there is just too much traffic to keep up with it. Is there a secret kerneltraffic-type list out there for gcc?
"H.264 usually refers to the MPEG-4 AVC (advanced video coding) profile."
More so the other way around. H.264 was developed under the wings of the ITU (jvt) with the "codename" H.26L. The goal was to make a successor to H.263 that would make usable video conferencing possible at 10kbit/s (!). Then, when the HDTV broadcasting compression performance tests were being done, the H.264 guys though 'why not scale our resolution and bitrates up and join that test', so they did and beat MPEG4 by a healty margin. That's when the ISO (of MPEG fame) woke up and smelled the H.264 coffee, and a new joint committee was formed for a 'new version' of MPEG4 that would basically be a reprint of the H.264 standard with an ISO logo on top.
No I meant NASA, all missions i nspace manned, unmanned, and ground-based projects.
For example, the manned Apollo project made geosynchronous orbit satellites a lot easier to do because it resulted in a tremendous advance in knowledge about how to launch rockets.
The shuttle has similarly resulted in a large advance in materials and structural engineering that make many other technological advances possible.
"FYI BA = Bachelor's of Arts. MBA = Masters of Business Administration, a graduate degree."
D'oh! You got me there! I really need to brush up on US college terms... (got mine in Europe). Bachelor's of Arts. Hmm, it's got to be something different than a degree in arts from Europe. There is no way that after a bachelor's in arts in Europe gets you anywere closer to a science degree in europe, let alone masters or PhD. If it is the same, than you probably don't even want to know what my opinion is of the educational value of an art degree in Europe.
So everybody is different and everybody requires a different approach. There is no such thing as "just the piece of paper counts and it doesn't matter which degree you go for", because for each individual it does matter very much.
Some people go for a technical degree and drop out, because they realize that it isn't their thing, some others go for a non technical degree and end up in technical jobs (in various degrees of 'technical'). That still doesn't mean that a solid background in a non-technical degree compensates for the missed solid mathematical background and understanding of physics that you get with most technical degrees. It just means that some people are cut out to do the jobs that require such a background and understanding and others who are not and who will find other positions in the processes surrounding those jobs.
You're equating 'programmer' with BSCS, and get very close to equating 'somebody with a BS degree' with a programmer. There are many programmers with no BS degree, and there are many BS degrees that are not CS majors, or even programmers. Actually, the nuclear scientist you talk about is a BS (or MS, or Phd), but not a BA. Anyways, those are details and I know that BA people can't be bothered with that and it wasn't your point anyway, so I'll get to the point:
There is a saying that a lot of companies go by: An engineer can turn into a manager, but a manager can never turn into an engineer. Another saying is 'it takes one to know one', which in many cases is very true. Of course, not all good engineers (few?) turn into good managers, but on the other side not many managers with only a BA background are very capable at managing engineers (because there is a large communication barrier resulting from the different backgrounds).
One large source of failure to communicate is even present in your posting: With a good manager, the engineers aren't working _for_ the manager, but the manager is the facilitator that makes the group of engineers operate as an effective team (together with external contacts, this is the 'b in BA: business). Making a team effective for a task, that is the task of the manager, in addition to reporting upwards into the chain of command (filling in the the 'a' in BA: administration). In a sense, the manager is working for the engineers. The manager that makes the engineers feel that they are working for him will see low morale and see the brightest ones leave. It's not just textbook, I've seen it happen.
I've heard that last sentence "you'll probably end up working for a BA" many times before, and on every occasion it was a BA defending its position, and especially the way you put it it sounds more like a threat than something constructive. Just like my statements at the beginning of this posting.
Note that I never even insinuated that I look down on those with a BA degree, I asked you how you knew that your BA degree opened more doors for you than a BS for _you_ would have. Based on your post I'd say that you are BA material, and not BS material, and you simply made a better choice for you. And that is just my point, because you hinted that you thought you were BS material and that even for a BS material person, a BA will open more doors and result in reaching the personal goals more effectively. That is just not true.
Slashdot Mirror
Congress wasn't talking about interference in the technical sense that channels would interfere in the spectrum of the existing channels, but about interference in the audience. It's business interference that the low power FM channels are being accused of by the oligopolists...
"If I encrypt my data using an open standard, but I don't tell you which standard I used, it's going to be more difficult than if I flat out told you I used DES."
You'll be surprised how little that really matters.
"Tell me how that type of obscurity hurts me."
It hurts you, because you think it will increase the security of your system in any way. Which may in turn result in you thinking that that will compensate for example, for using CBC mode or a long term PSK (or god forbit both)... While it will absolutely not.
Security through obscurity is like hiding a key under the doormat. You think you're o.k. because the key is hidden, and you don't see the key yourself when you go out and wander around your door. Plus so many people do it (you assume) and you never hear them talk about break-ins.
But reality is that the mat will really stop nobody who wants to enter your house from getting the key. The only people your key-hiding will stop is people who didn't want to enter in the first place anyway, the other people will for sure check under the mat, flowerpot, etc...
Security through obscurity gives a false sense of security, making the implementer lax. That is one of the many reasons why obscurity is actually counterproductive for security. In practice obscurity has already has lead to many, many security failures.
That is what is means. Translation: if you have 'security through obscurity', the best you can do is assume your worst enemies already know all the details and the worst you can do is assume that it will help you in anything at all.
Obscurity does not help towards security. Obscurity is just what it is, obscurity, but a searchlight will make it vanish completely.
Use real security.
Sure, later he denied ever saying it, but after a bit of digging I found an interview that basically proves that he assumed it was enough: It was ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address base for applications within -- oh five or six years people were complaining.
Actually, there is a good chance that spacetethers can make the re-entry speed of spacecraft lower and also can reduce the required speed for takeoff. And lower speed means lower forces and less fuel, means less risk.
Actually, do an 'apt-get install bwbasic', and use /usr/bin/bwbasic as shell, and there you go: BASIC at the command prompt.
It's already there...
And here...
Saw a torrent link here
Wow! As fast as my cable modem lets data get through! And it needs only 0.5kb/s up... I guess a lot of people are seeding this (translation: keeping their download windows open). Thanks guys!
It wasn't even on the mirrors yet.
You're preaching to the crowd in typo capital. People smile politely but avoid eye contact. In fact they are looking down, duck a little, and quickly pass by with a visible sign of relief that the preacher did not personally address them while they were passing by.
"and given recent and past behaviour"
Given past behaviour, the French would be speaking Germans if it wasn't for the hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers that found their grave on D-Day and the months thereafter. Don't dismiss this because you've heard that argument before, becuase that doesn't bring back those people.
How many French gave their live to safe Americans, at all?
Which country exploded nuclear bombs even though they had signed a treaty not to?
Which country had a huge economic deal with Saddam and was not surprisingly much against kicking his government out of power?
So which country is more than likely to do whatever it wants?
Recent and Past behaviour of France shows a pretty ugly picture indeed.
"and Linux is forbidden in the corporate LAN" ...
I bet the engineers have a 'shadow LAN' in parallel with that nonsense 'no Linux corporate LAN'. This mostly Linux shadow LAN is probably the one on which the actual work gets done, and two years from now the managers will claim that that one was the official one to begin with.
Nothing to see here moderators. Move on.
.
"What about all the special purpose real time OSes that many companies use"
Old news: The ELC, which includes such corporate heavyweights as IBM, Intel, Motorola, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Siemens and Sony, is clearly gaining momentum in its effort to bring Linux to the forefront of the embedded market.
"f you have any figures to even suggest the opposite, I would love to see them."
If the list of companies in the Embedded Linux Consortium does not impress you, then who do _you_ think are actually the implementers of most of the volume shipments of embedded systems?
Smell Coffee. Read more, be informed.
So Sony is an unmovable object? Obviously even?
Do you even (ever?) read the news?
You sound very much like an optimistic Microsoft SalesPerson(tm), or somebody who owns a little bit too much stock of it.
Actually, OGG itself is just a multimedia transport stream. Ogg Vorbis is about music, but for example Ogg Theora is about video, just like Ogg Tarkin (althoug that one is still in experimental stages).
Where do you get all that info? I'm subscribed to the gcc mailing lists, but there is just too much traffic to keep up with it. Is there a secret kerneltraffic-type list out there for gcc?
You probably missed that the FSB was increased by 20%.
"H.264 usually refers to the MPEG-4 AVC (advanced video coding) profile."
More so the other way around. H.264 was developed under the wings of the ITU (jvt) with the "codename" H.26L. The goal was to make a successor to H.263 that would make usable video conferencing possible at 10kbit/s (!). Then, when the HDTV broadcasting compression performance tests were being done, the H.264 guys though 'why not scale our resolution and bitrates up and join that test', so they did and beat MPEG4 by a healty margin. That's when the ISO (of MPEG fame) woke up and smelled the H.264 coffee, and a new joint committee was formed for a 'new version' of MPEG4 that would basically be a reprint of the H.264 standard with an ISO logo on top.
No I meant NASA, all missions i nspace manned, unmanned, and ground-based projects.
For example, the manned Apollo project made geosynchronous orbit satellites a lot easier to do because it resulted in a tremendous advance in knowledge about how to launch rockets.
The shuttle has similarly resulted in a large advance in materials and structural engineering that make many other technological advances possible.
I'm so shocked that I even type 'than' when I mean 'then'. I hate it when people do that, especially when I am that person.
"FYI BA = Bachelor's of Arts. MBA = Masters of Business Administration, a graduate degree."
D'oh! You got me there! I really need to brush up on US college terms... (got mine in Europe). Bachelor's of Arts. Hmm, it's got to be something different than a degree in arts from Europe. There is no way that after a bachelor's in arts in Europe gets you anywere closer to a science degree in europe, let alone masters or PhD. If it is the same, than you probably don't even want to know what my opinion is of the educational value of an art degree in Europe.
Good point. Python is pretty powerful. I haven't used it that much yet though, personally.
So everybody is different and everybody requires a different approach. There is no such thing as "just the piece of paper counts and it doesn't matter which degree you go for", because for each individual it does matter very much.
Some people go for a technical degree and drop out, because they realize that it isn't their thing, some others go for a non technical degree and end up in technical jobs (in various degrees of 'technical'). That still doesn't mean that a solid background in a non-technical degree compensates for the missed solid mathematical background and understanding of physics that you get with most technical degrees. It just means that some people are cut out to do the jobs that require such a background and understanding and others who are not and who will find other positions in the processes surrounding those jobs.
You're equating 'programmer' with BSCS, and get very close to equating 'somebody with a BS degree' with a programmer. There are many programmers with no BS degree, and there are many BS degrees that are not CS majors, or even programmers. Actually, the nuclear scientist you talk about is a BS (or MS, or Phd), but not a BA. Anyways, those are details and I know that BA people can't be bothered with that and it wasn't your point anyway, so I'll get to the point:
There is a saying that a lot of companies go by: An engineer can turn into a manager, but a manager can never turn into an engineer. Another saying is 'it takes one to know one', which in many cases is very true. Of course, not all good engineers (few?) turn into good managers, but on the other side not many managers with only a BA background are very capable at managing engineers (because there is a large communication barrier resulting from the different backgrounds).
One large source of failure to communicate is even present in your posting: With a good manager, the engineers aren't working _for_ the manager, but the manager is the facilitator that makes the group of engineers operate as an effective team (together with external contacts, this is the 'b in BA: business). Making a team effective for a task, that is the task of the manager, in addition to reporting upwards into the chain of command (filling in the the 'a' in BA: administration). In a sense, the manager is working for the engineers. The manager that makes the engineers feel that they are working for him will see low morale and see the brightest ones leave. It's not just textbook, I've seen it happen.
I've heard that last sentence "you'll probably end up working for a BA" many times before, and on every occasion it was a BA defending its position, and especially the way you put it it sounds more like a threat than something constructive. Just like my statements at the beginning of this posting.
Note that I never even insinuated that I look down on those with a BA degree, I asked you how you knew that your BA degree opened more doors for you than a BS for _you_ would have. Based on your post I'd say that you are BA material, and not BS material, and you simply made a better choice for you. And that is just my point, because you hinted that you thought you were BS material and that even for a BS material person, a BA will open more doors and result in reaching the personal goals more effectively. That is just not true.
Actually, that depends, which open source license is valid for the library and where and how the resulting code is to be used...
Perhaps writing that 250 line perl script would have been an even better choice.