. I got a modem and started war dialing and memorizing "at" commands just so I could try and be a badass like Kevin Mitnick.
Yeah. Once upon a time, I knew quite a bit about the Hayes-compatable MODEM command set. It all fell to crap as "compatable" became "hayes-ish". Sad, though, the only ones I actually used over the years:
ATZ - reset the modem to factory defaults.
ATI1, ATI2, ATI3, ATI4, etc. - what kind of modem is this, anyway?
Why is it that people get so worked up over Mitnick?
Dude, have you *read* the story of Mitnick? Yeah, he did some things he shouldn'ta. He knew it. He was a dick. He also didn't send out P3N15 spam, nor did he do any particular damage to the systems he infiltrated.
But where it gets interesting? His prosecution... He was denied more rights than most people know they have, and was even denied right to a phone call because they feared he could launch bombs by squeaking ringtones into the phone!
The point is that it is being revised, that it's not finalized, and possibly never will be. The so-called "Standard Model" is well proven, it's just disjointed and complicated. (EG: The math behind field theory) The mathematics of Superstring theory apparently explain all currently known phenomena, while signficantly reducing the complexity of the basic assumptions, and unifying the disjointed pieces of the standard model, in particular the heretofore unresolvable rift between relativity theory and sub-atomic theory.
It underscores dynamic nature of Science - the acknowledgement that absolute truth is not in our grasp. It requires humility, and it's just not the lazy path, even though following it is far easier than not doing so.
I think the bigger question in my mind is why hadn't someone tried to do this before now?
Science isn't truth, and it isn't fact. It's a process that, over time, results in a gradual and constant tendency towards truth.
If you get into a debate with religious folk about "creationism" versus "evolution", one of the tactics almost invariably tried is to disprove some facet or other of evolution through some form of deductive reasoning. The basic idea is to prove that Science is somehow wrong, and then assume that creationism wins by default once that's done.
It's easy to see the fallacy: disproving evolution (even if they can) doesn't prove creationism.
But, scientific theory is always undergoing review and clarification. Newtonian gravity works, in limited scopes. It was revised and improved with relativity theory, which is itself being revised and improved today with multidimensional, superstring theory. It's this recursive process of deduction, testing, and review that advances science.
We should be ecstatic! Despite our incredible efforts to find it, we've uncovered NO evidence that this has ever happened before in the multi-billion year history of the universe!
People are stupid, and we have to acknowledge that. Our intellect barely rises above our other urges, the urge towards sex, the blindnesses caused by our tendency to suspend reason (A.K.A. "Faith") and follow the leader 'cause it's easy. And, truly fresh/new approaches to problems are rare, and hard to find. Most any "new" thought is merely an extension of a previous thought. We're creatures of habit. But, so long as we continue to try, so long as we continue to be willing to challenge our assumptions, and take the time to do so when somebody DOES come up with something new, then the process of Science progresses, and life continues to get better.
Schools today don't teach science. They teach "facts", like "water vapor absorbs light, but absorbes blue light the least, and thus makes the sky blue". They don't ever teach the method of science, the passion of science, beyond making you recite the "gather facts, form hypothesis, test hypothesis, draw conclusion" which is only minimally how science works.
Children are BORN scientists. As they explore with their hands, and their minds, the world around them, they perform hundreds of experiments a day, every day. Where do you find frogs? What bug is making that buzzing noise? What happens if you clap your hands near a grasshopper? How many blocks can I stack up before they fall over?
So, what do we do? We lock them up in a sterile environment, where they're told not to question the teacher, and never to talk to the kids next to them. We prevent their natural curiousity, and instead, browbeat them into performing tricks like a circus animal. The apathy of the schoolchild is both detrimental and obvious.
And after that's done, after the child's natural, scientific curiousity has been conquered, that's when we introduce the wonders of science in the most boring, unimaginably unflattering way possible, by forcing him/her to regurgitate "facts" that they'd be ridiculed to question.
The real wonder? How does science advance at all in the face of this educational travesty?
It's pretty obvious that scientific curiosity is built into the very fiber of humanity, or how else could still be advancing despite our incredibly expensive social efforts to prevent it?
To me, the question is: why are there so few refineries now? Did the oil excecs get to gether some golf game and say: Let's not build any more for a couple years? Was it *really* environmental regulation that quashed them? Collusion in that market would have the benefit of huge profits for them. I remember Cheney had secret meetings with the oil 'boyz' a few years ago, and they collectively decided US energy policy, without ever releasing the minutes of those meetings.. I think that was pre-Iraq so they might make some fun reading in 40 years..
Have you SEEN the demand for solar/alternative energy products of recent? The recent hikes in oil prices suddenly makes many of the "tree-hugger" energy sources commercially viable!
Contrary to your particular beliefs, raising prices like this only serves to improve SHORT TERM profits, and will KILL the industry long term if left too high. Alternatives like wind, biodiesel, solar, nuclear, etc. are waiting at the wings, biting at the margins of big oil, and as soon as the threshold is reached, and they are profitable, mass economies of scale kick in, and their price will drop. Forever. Killing the oil industry margins. Forever.
They don't want this, they want to keep oil as expensive as possible, but cheaper than alternative energy. They're failing right now, and I'd imagine they are on full red alert as a result. If these prices (or higher) remain for 10+ years, oil will become marginalized and it will be game over for this cartel. Expect prices to drop quickly in 2-5 years, or expect to see big oil take a back seat like never since 1900.
If I don't accept the license, the default is NOT that I can not use the software.
Really? So, if (for example), SCO were to reject the "license" for the Linux kernel given persuant to the GPL, why, since they "bought" a copy of Red Hat, why, they can do what they want with it?
Ever consider that you don't generally buy software, in any sense at all? As with renting anything else (EG: a DVD, an apartment, a car, etc) you get the right to USE it for a fee, so long as you honor certain conditions. I can see it now: "Your honor, when I paid the so-called rent for the apartment, I rejected the terms of the contract, and under the first sale doctrine, I had every legal right to chainsaw the interior - I can do whatever I want with it!".
Methinks you need to finish at least that 1st year of law skool...
Unusual crops and alien life (SETI responders) would not stand out near SF./sidenote: Damn, this CSS for/. SUCKS on IE!//sidenote
San Fransicso is very liberal. But, this is on the OTHER side of California's Central Valley, which is VERY conservative, consisting of lots of rice/wheat/nut farmers who are as republican as any.
(Sigh) If you think 250 miles from SF is "near" SF, you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground... or at least, you don't know California.
It doesn't matter. First sale doctrine says you can re-sell anything someone else has sold to you. That includes your software, no matter what some silly sticker on your computer says. The only party facing any restrictions is Dell; their contract with Microsoft says they have to bundle the cheap OEM version of Windows with a computer and not sell it separately. The user is free to do with his copy as he wishes.
OK. So take your perfectly LEGAL copy of Windows, and um... sell it on EBay. Let us all know how FAR you get.
The "First Sale" doctorine applies to merchandise. Windows is LICENSED to you.
As a copyright holder, I can say "Your legal right to use this software exists only so long as your left ring finger is jammed into your belly button", and well, that's the price of the license. Don't like? Don't use the software! If I catch you using my software with your RIGHT ring finger jammed in your belly button, I certainly have the right to revoke your license, and if you keep using said copyrighted material, I then have the right to sue for damages.
So, Microsoft has given Dell rights to SELL the license. You have rights to use the Windows software under the LICENSE so long as its generally used with the hardware you bought it with.
If you don't like these terms, spouting mumbo-jumbo from the Commercial Code will get you a +2 insightful on Slashdot, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Use Linux, as I usually do. But don't be stupid enough to believe that just because you don't AGREE with the terms means that you have the right to violate them as you see fit, and still have a license to anything at all.
Re:The choice was probably about cost...
on
Nessus Closes Source
·
· Score: 1, Informative
> 3) Market your produce better than the competition.
Somebody didn't learn to read. He *can't* make his produce better...
Somebody else didn't learn to read, either. Or, did you not know the difference between "Make" and "Market"? How about "produce" vs. "product"? When criticizing somebody's ability to read, it's important to be sure you read it, yourself. If you criticize spelling, make sure your spelling is good. Otherwise, you just come out looking like a dumbass...
I use Linux. I like it. It's plenty "good enough" for reliable, production use. Any area that BSD is better than Linux, it's not "better enough" to justify the expense and time to port over all our apps and data to it.
Linux has supported SMP for longer, and is thus more likely to be mature and stable on it. More hardware is supported by Linux than BSD. At numerous things it's faster than BSD, and at others, it's not much slower.
Linux has more mindshare - nobody talks about "Windows vs BSD", but "Win v. Lin" is a common theme.
So, I certainly don't mind BSD, and I might make the switch at some point the indeterminate future, but I spend my time getting stuff done, and for now, that getting done works wonderfully on RedHat/Whitebox Linux.
Here are some more in that vein: When will I be able to write self-testing, self-healing programs? Why isn't there a smartphone/wireless-PDA-phone-MP3-camera thingamajiggy that automatically stores all data to a secure location on the internet. And costs less than $150. When will my computer do my grocery shopping for me? Or brush my teeth?
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood. But,my response to your questions:
1) "pie in the sky". WTF is "self-healing"?
2) Secure location on the Internet - Yeah, why not? $150 ain't what it used to be. Adjust for inflation, and your $300 toy of today IS $150 from a decade or two ago...
3) Re: shopping computer - in a sense, it already does. Your local grocery stores (particularly the bigger ones) use a predictive algorithm to determine what products to have on the shelves, based on a combination of recent demand and demand 1 year ago for XYZ product.
It doesn't work for you in your household, though, because (1) You don't inventory your shelves with barcode readers, (2) it has no way of knowing what you want to cook tomorrow, and (3) the economies of scale just aren't there.
There are website grocery shopping options out there, but mostly in areas with fairly high population density.
Most people here know the acronym IANAL, which means "I Am Not A Lawyer".
Even if that does violate the DMCA, only certain people would have standing to sue about it...mostly Sony.
But it's statements like this that should bring rise to a new acronym, ITOOMA, which means "I'm Talking Out Of My Ass". As in: "ITOOMA, but I think that the Federal Reserve Bank should prosecute private copyright infringement cases since it's clear that because of the law of unintended consequences, the USPTO owes its existence to the USPO and Britany Spears.".
Come back when you have some idea what you're talking about, mmmkay?
What if, behind closed doors at Google they're working on an OS?... on x86 machines it will be able to run Windows software.
Pie, meet sky. Microsoft can barely come up with something that runs Windows software! What makes you think that Google, with a bare fraction of the resources of Microsoft could do it?
Having a Java/OSS "OpenOffice" would be fun. Click a link. Wait 40 minutes for Swrite.jar to download. Open file. Click save. Wait 2 minutes while the file gets uploaded over your 128k upstream DSL. Yuck.
"The network IS the computer" still has a long way to go, a few examples:
1) Kerberos uses symetric encryption. Why? Nothing like having all the credentials for all your users in PLAINTEXT on a server - if it gets hacked, all your security is HOSED and you get to re-issue passwords to anybody who MIGHT have been logged in... this is just lame.
2) X works great - on a LAN with near unlimited bandwidth. Introduce true Internet speeds, and it sucks balls pretty fast. Also, you have to tunnel it over ssh or something, otherwise your security sucks. And, everybody "knows" that you don't leave ports 6000+ open, otherwise you're open to all kinds of attacks. (Oops! Your network transparency just became network opaque!)
3) Ever try to run NFS over the Internet... SECURELY?!?! Its host-based security model is piss-poor, and performance is second to just about anything else.
4) OpenLDAP is a true, pain in the ass to use. Ever try modifying a schema for an OpenLDAP server? Having to dump/reload the entire LDAP DB be cause you change a single field is truely CRAPTACULAR.
5) Java is awesome for hardware abstraction - but where's the OSS version? What is there out there that's OSS and provides equivalent functionality? When do I get to get a java release via yum, as part of my OS install CD?
6) When do I get to mix objects in PHP, Perl, C, and Java into a single codebase? PHP is my language of choice for most of my work, but sometimes I'd just LOVE to something in C to get some improved performance, or maybe take a perl class and access it directly from PHP... Since there's not a standards organization everybody pays any attention to, this kind of functionality just won't happen anytime soon...
7) When will I be able to mix/match objects? Why can't I instantiate a software object in C or PHP on a remote system, such that the object occupies memory on THAT system instead of THIS one, and have it all work? Why can't we have a "network aware" process model?
Don't get me wrong - OSS is awesome, I type this on my Dell Inspiron laptop running Fedora Core Linux, (and I'm happy to use it!) - but acknowledging your weaknesses is the first step to fixing them.
Living to 300... of course we will, we'll have to work till we are 280 though.
Sort of.
Technology exists to leverage your productivity. Therefore, those who utilize technology as fully as possible are able to produce more. They are, therefore, worth more to society than those who do not. Thus, they should be paid more.
Put it like this: If you had to dig a trench to run a water pipe for a mile or two, who would you rather hire: A) A team of cheap, immigrant laborors who work under the table with their shovels or B) A well-to-do guy with a fancy, high-capacity ditch-witch tractor?
Guy B gets it done in a day or two, the team of manual laborors take a month to do an inferior job. Thus, a single guy out-produces and out-performs 10 manual laborors due to technology. Should he be paid the same as the laborors?
The divide between the haves (most notably, the "upper-middle" class now splitting away from the "middle class") and the have nots (the welfare-poor) is very sharply divided on terms of education. (and the implicit association with the ability to leverage technology)
If you're working long and hard until you're 280, it's because you haven't leveraged the technology and forces around you well enough to produce the wealth you need for the living you want. (which gets cheaper and cheaper as time goes by, though expectations seem to rise to match)
For that matter, it seems as though there's a burgeoning population of people widely acknowledged as "never going to make it" now living on the public dole. Cheaper just to pay them off with food than to try to make them fit productively in society. This, in my mind, is a rotting cancer in society - people on the dole tend to have a very low sense of self, and often feel utterly worthless as they cash their state checks. (I have a sister stuck in this very trap - it's terrible to watch)
Anyway, this rant has gone on too long. What was the question again?
MS does seem to be working hard to make itself irrelevent in ways that will not be fully understood for years...
And history repeats itself. Remember IBM, when they were big and bad? Compaq legally reverse engineered their BIOS, and started making clones. And the clones were outselling the genuine IBMs. So, IBM create a new standard called "PS/2".
It was bigger, badder, and meaner than "ISA" (Industry Standard Architecture) and it was wholly owned by IBM. They owned the roost, they set the standards, and everybody would drop their "open" options for the closed one, and IBM would be kazillions of bucks.
But, it didn't work. People didn't buy it. Microsoft is very clearly in danger of repeating that very same mistake, and I'm quite sure they are aware of that fact. They may be vile, evil, and short-sighted, but they aren't dumb.
Will history repeat itself? News at 11. (2011, that is)
When you release software of any significance or note, it's important to be very clear about what license you are releasing it under. Don't just say "GPL" as that's ambiguous. GPL? Most recent GPL?
What if the GPL license evolves into something you don't want? Such as disallowing *any* commercial use?
Be specific!
Specify "GPL 2.0" if that's what you mean. If you have any other conditions, make sure they're specified clearly. EG: "In order to use this software, you must also do the hokey pokey in front of your boss."
This is a huge step forward in usability and productivity over the old days, but it can also seductively mask the overall complexity inherent in the system.
Great. You did POKEs and the like. Did you fill out punch cards? Did you design any of the circuitry in those computers? How many circuits have you soldered together?
In each generation of technology, there's a "black box" from the previous generation. These black boxes encompass increasing complexity, and are "black boxed" in that they provide a degree of abstraction from the complexity inside.
That's the basis of good technology - can it be black-boxed? If so, it provides the necessary abstraction to allow it to become infrastructure for the next layer of development.
I routinely do programming with remote calls over TCP. Do I know or CARE exactly how the TCP stack negotiates the virtual socket? Not at all. I write:
$fp=fopen($url, 'r');
and I have the connection. I don't worry about the lower layers of the communication stack, the MAC address negotiation between my computer and the router, the router's socket management algorithms, or any of that stuff - it's all "black boxed" and is infractructure for me.
"It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them."
Chances are, if they are running SAP, that box is loaded. Or overloaded. And then, things can sometimes get more dicey.
I've run busy mail servers hosting about 6,000 email addresses. I've seen a server run with a load average between 2.0 and 20.0, 24x7 for WEEKS ON END without any complaints. A full megabit of traffic, 24x7, just for EMAIL...
I've seen millions of website hits per month, month after month, year after year. No complaints, reliability simply excellent. And, I've seen this using Linux kernel 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6.
Sorry, pal. Maybe it's true for some other slashweenies, but in my experience, the reliability of Linux IS truly legendary, and is why I've standardized on Linux anywhere I can possibly use it.
Heck, when I'm putting together a new, high-capacity system, one of the first things I do is load a series of "torture tests" and run them. I put the server through its paces, running with a load average between 5.0 and 10.0, compiling the kernel or PHP in a loop, copying files, reading large files into memory and clearing memory out, while stressing whatever service the server will be using. (EG: if it's a mail server, while all the above is running, I have a script sending 10,000-20,000 emails per hour to 25 pseudo-accounts, while another script POPs them all to the bit bucket. If it's a web server, I have 10-20 wget shell scripts beating the webserver continuously)
Hour after hour, for a week or so.
A few disclaimers:
1) I make sure all the components for a high-capacity server (esp. the chipset & NIC) are on the RedHat compatability list.
2) When I'm buying hardware for a cheapie embedded server, I try to buy hardware that's been on the market for at least 6 months or so.
With this formula, I've had nothing but stellar results!
Hmm. How about 1 day to install Linux, and the rest is setting up SAP and testing?
1 day. WTF?!?!? I routinely sell embedded server systems (using Whitebox Linux) that update themselves (a la yum) and have it all set up in under 15 minutes.
Maybe those SAPs really outta learn what an installer script is - I can (no kidding!)
1) load an installer CD (maybe 10 minutes for a "minimal" install)
2) stick in an installation CD, and run the installer
3) Have a functioning, self-tested software install in a total time (including unpacking the box) of less than 20 minutes per machine. The installer uses yum to resolve any missing package dependencies, and downloading all current OS updates is inherent into the process.
So, I point the finger at SAP. Where do they get off not having a decent installer? 2 FRICKKEN WEEKS to come up with a working system?
"Software updates had to be manually installed to ensure SAP certification."
Screw using RPM for individual updates - that's rediculous when you manage a large number of machines. Keeping track of packages installed an dependencies will drive anyone batty - which is why the august powers that be gave us yum (or apt, the Debian equivalent) Why isn't SAP running their own YUM server? That way, "approved" patches can be run with a simple "yum -y update" !??!
"We asked the customer to do a diagnostic test and the customer never responded, so it was impossible for us to address the issue,"
Hmmm... now the story begins to make some kinda sense. Something is very Very VERY wrong here..
That's part of the push for open source voting systems - you have a hard copy for verification.
The crux of the problem with electronic voting system is: How do you
A) Guarantee the anonymity of a particular voter from the voting machine?
B) Allow a voter to later confirm that their vote was, in fact, part of the final tally?
One way I thought of was to use the reproducable "random" numbers produced by cellular automata algorithms as concieved by Stephen Wolfram can be used to provide a repeatable, random, verifiable identifier that can tie a voter to a vote without any obvious marks on the voting stub at all.
One of the beauties of this system is that, even with partial data, you can still do a reasonable validation of the accuracy of a run of votes from a particular machine. (easily audited, hard to spoof, and easy to verify results thereafter)
Now one would think if this was put in a movie prior to the filing of the patent thus placing it in the public domain. This patent should not have been issued no ?? thoughts ? anyone anyone......
You have a year from the time of public disclosure of an idea to file a patent. If public disclosure happens prior to filing the patent, disclosure of that fact must be on the patent application, and you better have some notes or something pretty substantial to prove that you were the one to come up with the idea.
Why don't the security conscious just use OpenBSD?
Two words: failing gracefully.
The OpenBSD approach to security boils down to: "Never, ever make a mistake". They've spent untold thousands of man-hours looking for anything that might ever be a mistake. And, towards this end, they've done an incredible job, and have an excellent track record that they can rightly brag about.
But for one thing: mistakes happen. What happens when you write a stoopid CGI and forget to escape a parameter, allowing a blackhat to execute a shell?
Suddenly, OpenBSD or not, you have a real, live, bonafide security hole. In years of administration I've done, EVERY SINGLE SECURITY HOLE exploited on any of the numerous Linux systems I administer of recent were ALL CASES directly a result of a client installing/using software for their websites that was insecure. (3 such incidents in the past 3 years, 2 of them being website defacements) And, I can't just say "Well, let's not allow for shell scripting" because many customers use tools that require this capability.
The approach of SELinux is to acknowledge that mistakes are made, and the starting assumption is that the above mentioned security hole is ALREADY EXPLOITED and a real, live, bad guy already has gotten thru such a security hole.
Now, how do you limit the damage? It's either
1) Never, ever make a mistake - if you do, you are so, utterly screwed!
2) How do you prevent common mistakes from screwing you?
Slashdot Mirror
. I got a modem and started war dialing and memorizing "at" commands just so I could try and be a badass like Kevin Mitnick.
Yeah. Once upon a time, I knew quite a bit about the Hayes-compatable MODEM command set. It all fell to crap as "compatable" became "hayes-ish". Sad, though, the only ones I actually used over the years:
ATZ - reset the modem to factory defaults.
ATI1, ATI2, ATI3, ATI4, etc. - what kind of modem is this, anyway?
ATDT[phone#] - Dial a phone number.
ATH0 - self evident.
How many do you remember?
Why is it that people get so worked up over Mitnick?
Dude, have you *read* the story of Mitnick? Yeah, he did some things he shouldn'ta. He knew it. He was a dick. He also didn't send out P3N15 spam, nor did he do any particular damage to the systems he infiltrated.
But where it gets interesting? His prosecution... He was denied more rights than most people know they have, and was even denied right to a phone call because they feared he could launch bombs by squeaking ringtones into the phone!
Simple absurdity.
The point is that it is being revised, that it's not finalized, and possibly never will be. The so-called "Standard Model" is well proven, it's just disjointed and complicated. (EG: The math behind field theory) The mathematics of Superstring theory apparently explain all currently known phenomena, while signficantly reducing the complexity of the basic assumptions, and unifying the disjointed pieces of the standard model, in particular the heretofore unresolvable rift between relativity theory and sub-atomic theory.
It underscores dynamic nature of Science - the acknowledgement that absolute truth is not in our grasp. It requires humility, and it's just not the lazy path, even though following it is far easier than not doing so.
I think the bigger question in my mind is why hadn't someone tried to do this before now?
Science isn't truth, and it isn't fact. It's a process that, over time, results in a gradual and constant tendency towards truth.
If you get into a debate with religious folk about "creationism" versus "evolution", one of the tactics almost invariably tried is to disprove some facet or other of evolution through some form of deductive reasoning. The basic idea is to prove that Science is somehow wrong, and then assume that creationism wins by default once that's done.
It's easy to see the fallacy: disproving evolution (even if they can) doesn't prove creationism.
But, scientific theory is always undergoing review and clarification. Newtonian gravity works, in limited scopes. It was revised and improved with relativity theory, which is itself being revised and improved today with multidimensional, superstring theory. It's this recursive process of deduction, testing, and review that advances science.
We should be ecstatic! Despite our incredible efforts to find it, we've uncovered NO evidence that this has ever happened before in the multi-billion year history of the universe!
People are stupid, and we have to acknowledge that. Our intellect barely rises above our other urges, the urge towards sex, the blindnesses caused by our tendency to suspend reason (A.K.A. "Faith") and follow the leader 'cause it's easy. And, truly fresh/new approaches to problems are rare, and hard to find. Most any "new" thought is merely an extension of a previous thought. We're creatures of habit. But, so long as we continue to try, so long as we continue to be willing to challenge our assumptions, and take the time to do so when somebody DOES come up with something new, then the process of Science progresses, and life continues to get better.
Schools today don't teach science. They teach "facts", like "water vapor absorbs light, but absorbes blue light the least, and thus makes the sky blue". They don't ever teach the method of science, the passion of science, beyond making you recite the "gather facts, form hypothesis, test hypothesis, draw conclusion" which is only minimally how science works.
Children are BORN scientists. As they explore with their hands, and their minds, the world around them, they perform hundreds of experiments a day, every day. Where do you find frogs? What bug is making that buzzing noise? What happens if you clap your hands near a grasshopper? How many blocks can I stack up before they fall over?
So, what do we do? We lock them up in a sterile environment, where they're told not to question the teacher, and never to talk to the kids next to them. We prevent their natural curiousity, and instead, browbeat them into performing tricks like a circus animal. The apathy of the schoolchild is both detrimental and obvious.
And after that's done, after the child's natural, scientific curiousity has been conquered, that's when we introduce the wonders of science in the most boring, unimaginably unflattering way possible, by forcing him/her to regurgitate "facts" that they'd be ridiculed to question.
The real wonder? How does science advance at all in the face of this educational travesty?
It's pretty obvious that scientific curiosity is built into the very fiber of humanity, or how else could still be advancing despite our incredibly expensive social efforts to prevent it?
To me, the question is: why are there so few refineries now? Did the oil excecs get to gether some golf game and say: Let's not build any more for a couple years? Was it *really* environmental regulation that quashed them? Collusion in that market would have the benefit of huge profits for them. I remember Cheney had secret meetings with the oil 'boyz' a few years ago, and they collectively decided US energy policy, without ever releasing the minutes of those meetings.. I think that was pre-Iraq so they might make some fun reading in 40 years..
Have you SEEN the demand for solar/alternative energy products of recent? The recent hikes in oil prices suddenly makes many of the "tree-hugger" energy sources commercially viable!
Contrary to your particular beliefs, raising prices like this only serves to improve SHORT TERM profits, and will KILL the industry long term if left too high. Alternatives like wind, biodiesel, solar, nuclear, etc. are waiting at the wings, biting at the margins of big oil, and as soon as the threshold is reached, and they are profitable, mass economies of scale kick in, and their price will drop. Forever. Killing the oil industry margins. Forever.
They don't want this, they want to keep oil as expensive as possible, but cheaper than alternative energy. They're failing right now, and I'd imagine they are on full red alert as a result. If these prices (or higher) remain for 10+ years, oil will become marginalized and it will be game over for this cartel. Expect prices to drop quickly in 2-5 years, or expect to see big oil take a back seat like never since 1900.
If I don't accept the license, the default is NOT that I can not use the software.
Really? So, if (for example), SCO were to reject the "license" for the Linux kernel given persuant to the GPL, why, since they "bought" a copy of Red Hat, why, they can do what they want with it?
Ever consider that you don't generally buy software, in any sense at all? As with renting anything else (EG: a DVD, an apartment, a car, etc) you get the right to USE it for a fee, so long as you honor certain conditions. I can see it now: "Your honor, when I paid the so-called rent for the apartment, I rejected the terms of the contract, and under the first sale doctrine, I had every legal right to chainsaw the interior - I can do whatever I want with it!".
Methinks you need to finish at least that 1st year of law skool...
Unusual crops and alien life (SETI responders) would not stand out near SF. /sidenote: Damn, this CSS for /. SUCKS on IE! //sidenote
San Fransicso is very liberal. But, this is on the OTHER side of California's Central Valley, which is VERY conservative, consisting of lots of rice/wheat/nut farmers who are as republican as any.
(Sigh) If you think 250 miles from SF is "near" SF, you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground... or at least, you don't know California.
It doesn't matter. First sale doctrine says you can re-sell anything someone else has sold to you. That includes your software, no matter what some silly sticker on your computer says. The only party facing any restrictions is Dell; their contract with Microsoft says they have to bundle the cheap OEM version of Windows with a computer and not sell it separately. The user is free to do with his copy as he wishes.
OK. So take your perfectly LEGAL copy of Windows, and um... sell it on EBay. Let us all know how FAR you get.
The "First Sale" doctorine applies to merchandise. Windows is LICENSED to you.
As a copyright holder, I can say "Your legal right to use this software exists only so long as your left ring finger is jammed into your belly button", and well, that's the price of the license. Don't like? Don't use the software! If I catch you using my software with your RIGHT ring finger jammed in your belly button, I certainly have the right to revoke your license, and if you keep using said copyrighted material, I then have the right to sue for damages.
So, Microsoft has given Dell rights to SELL the license. You have rights to use the Windows software under the LICENSE so long as its generally used with the hardware you bought it with.
If you don't like these terms, spouting mumbo-jumbo from the Commercial Code will get you a +2 insightful on Slashdot, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Use Linux, as I usually do. But don't be stupid enough to believe that just because you don't AGREE with the terms means that you have the right to violate them as you see fit, and still have a license to anything at all.
> 3) Market your produce better than the competition.
...
...
Somebody didn't learn to read. He *can't* make his produce better
Somebody else didn't learn to read, either. Or, did you not know the difference between "Make" and "Market"? How about "produce" vs. "product"? When criticizing somebody's ability to read, it's important to be sure you read it, yourself. If you criticize spelling, make sure your spelling is good. Otherwise, you just come out looking like a dumbass
I use Linux. I like it. It's plenty "good enough" for reliable, production use. Any area that BSD is better than Linux, it's not "better enough" to justify the expense and time to port over all our apps and data to it.
Linux has supported SMP for longer, and is thus more likely to be mature and stable on it. More hardware is supported by Linux than BSD. At numerous things it's faster than BSD, and at others, it's not much slower.
Linux has more mindshare - nobody talks about "Windows vs BSD", but "Win v. Lin" is a common theme.
So, I certainly don't mind BSD, and I might make the switch at some point the indeterminate future, but I spend my time getting stuff done, and for now, that getting done works wonderfully on RedHat/Whitebox Linux.
Here are some more in that vein: When will I be able to write self-testing, self-healing programs? Why isn't there a smartphone/wireless-PDA-phone-MP3-camera thingamajiggy that automatically stores all data to a secure location on the internet. And costs less than $150. When will my computer do my grocery shopping for me? Or brush my teeth?
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood. But,my response to your questions:
1) "pie in the sky". WTF is "self-healing"?
2) Secure location on the Internet - Yeah, why not? $150 ain't what it used to be. Adjust for inflation, and your $300 toy of today IS $150 from a decade or two ago...
3) Re: shopping computer - in a sense, it already does. Your local grocery stores (particularly the bigger ones) use a predictive algorithm to determine what products to have on the shelves, based on a combination of recent demand and demand 1 year ago for XYZ product.
It doesn't work for you in your household, though, because (1) You don't inventory your shelves with barcode readers, (2) it has no way of knowing what you want to cook tomorrow, and (3) the economies of scale just aren't there.
There are website grocery shopping options out there, but mostly in areas with fairly high population density.
Haven't you ever heard of an electric toothbrush?
Most people here know the acronym IANAL, which means "I Am Not A Lawyer".
Even if that does violate the DMCA, only certain people would have standing to sue about it...mostly Sony.
But it's statements like this that should bring rise to a new acronym, ITOOMA, which means "I'm Talking Out Of My Ass". As in: "ITOOMA, but I think that the Federal Reserve Bank should prosecute private copyright infringement cases since it's clear that because of the law of unintended consequences, the USPTO owes its existence to the USPO and Britany Spears.".
Come back when you have some idea what you're talking about, mmmkay?
What if, behind closed doors at Google they're working on an OS?... on x86 machines it will be able to run Windows software.
Pie, meet sky. Microsoft can barely come up with something that runs Windows software! What makes you think that Google, with a bare fraction of the resources of Microsoft could do it?
Having a Java/OSS "OpenOffice" would be fun. Click a link. Wait 40 minutes for Swrite.jar to download. Open file. Click save. Wait 2 minutes while the file gets uploaded over your 128k upstream DSL. Yuck.
"The network IS the computer" still has a long way to go, a few examples:
1) Kerberos uses symetric encryption. Why? Nothing like having all the credentials for all your users in PLAINTEXT on a server - if it gets hacked, all your security is HOSED and you get to re-issue passwords to anybody who MIGHT have been logged in... this is just lame.
2) X works great - on a LAN with near unlimited bandwidth. Introduce true Internet speeds, and it sucks balls pretty fast. Also, you have to tunnel it over ssh or something, otherwise your security sucks. And, everybody "knows" that you don't leave ports 6000+ open, otherwise you're open to all kinds of attacks. (Oops! Your network transparency just became network opaque!)
3) Ever try to run NFS over the Internet... SECURELY?!?! Its host-based security model is piss-poor, and performance is second to just about anything else.
4) OpenLDAP is a true, pain in the ass to use. Ever try modifying a schema for an OpenLDAP server? Having to dump/reload the entire LDAP DB be cause you change a single field is truely CRAPTACULAR.
5) Java is awesome for hardware abstraction - but where's the OSS version? What is there out there that's OSS and provides equivalent functionality? When do I get to get a java release via yum, as part of my OS install CD?
6) When do I get to mix objects in PHP, Perl, C, and Java into a single codebase? PHP is my language of choice for most of my work, but sometimes I'd just LOVE to something in C to get some improved performance, or maybe take a perl class and access it directly from PHP... Since there's not a standards organization everybody pays any attention to, this kind of functionality just won't happen anytime soon...
7) When will I be able to mix/match objects? Why can't I instantiate a software object in C or PHP on a remote system, such that the object occupies memory on THAT system instead of THIS one, and have it all work? Why can't we have a "network aware" process model?
Don't get me wrong - OSS is awesome, I type this on my Dell Inspiron laptop running Fedora Core Linux, (and I'm happy to use it!) - but acknowledging your weaknesses is the first step to fixing them.
Did I actually get the opportunity, after years of reading slashdork, of getting a first post?
BYE KARMA BYE!
Living to 300... of course we will, we'll have to work till we are 280 though.
Sort of.
Technology exists to leverage your productivity. Therefore, those who utilize technology as fully as possible are able to produce more. They are, therefore, worth more to society than those who do not. Thus, they should be paid more.
Put it like this: If you had to dig a trench to run a water pipe for a mile or two, who would you rather hire: A) A team of cheap, immigrant laborors who work under the table with their shovels or B) A well-to-do guy with a fancy, high-capacity ditch-witch tractor?
Guy B gets it done in a day or two, the team of manual laborors take a month to do an inferior job. Thus, a single guy out-produces and out-performs 10 manual laborors due to technology. Should he be paid the same as the laborors?
This effect gets more and more pronounced as the technology involved gets more sophisticated. Joel Spolsky hits on this idea in a big way in a recent "Joel on Software" article.
The divide between the haves (most notably, the "upper-middle" class now splitting away from the "middle class") and the have nots (the welfare-poor) is very sharply divided on terms of education. (and the implicit association with the ability to leverage technology)
If you're working long and hard until you're 280, it's because you haven't leveraged the technology and forces around you well enough to produce the wealth you need for the living you want. (which gets cheaper and cheaper as time goes by, though expectations seem to rise to match)
For that matter, it seems as though there's a burgeoning population of people widely acknowledged as "never going to make it" now living on the public dole. Cheaper just to pay them off with food than to try to make them fit productively in society. This, in my mind, is a rotting cancer in society - people on the dole tend to have a very low sense of self, and often feel utterly worthless as they cash their state checks. (I have a sister stuck in this very trap - it's terrible to watch)
Anyway, this rant has gone on too long. What was the question again?
MS does seem to be working hard to make itself irrelevent in ways that will not be fully understood for years...
And history repeats itself. Remember IBM, when they were big and bad? Compaq legally reverse engineered their BIOS, and started making clones. And the clones were outselling the genuine IBMs. So, IBM create a new standard called "PS/2".
It was bigger, badder, and meaner than "ISA" (Industry Standard Architecture) and it was wholly owned by IBM. They owned the roost, they set the standards, and everybody would drop their "open" options for the closed one, and IBM would be kazillions of bucks.
But, it didn't work. People didn't buy it. Microsoft is very clearly in danger of repeating that very same mistake, and I'm quite sure they are aware of that fact. They may be vile, evil, and short-sighted, but they aren't dumb.
Will history repeat itself? News at 11. (2011, that is)
When you release software of any significance or note, it's important to be very clear about what license you are releasing it under. Don't just say "GPL" as that's ambiguous. GPL? Most recent GPL?
What if the GPL license evolves into something you don't want? Such as disallowing *any* commercial use?
Be specific!
Specify "GPL 2.0" if that's what you mean. If you have any other conditions, make sure they're specified clearly. EG: "In order to use this software, you must also do the hokey pokey in front of your boss."
Great. You did POKEs and the like. Did you fill out punch cards? Did you design any of the circuitry in those computers? How many circuits have you soldered together?
In each generation of technology, there's a "black box" from the previous generation. These black boxes encompass increasing complexity, and are "black boxed" in that they provide a degree of abstraction from the complexity inside.
That's the basis of good technology - can it be black-boxed? If so, it provides the necessary abstraction to allow it to become infrastructure for the next layer of development.
I routinely do programming with remote calls over TCP. Do I know or CARE exactly how the TCP stack negotiates the virtual socket? Not at all. I write:
$fp=fopen($url, 'r');
and I have the connection. I don't worry about the lower layers of the communication stack, the MAC address negotiation between my computer and the router, the router's socket management algorithms, or any of that stuff - it's all "black boxed" and is infractructure for me.
Put another way: How many of you actually know what a torque converter is? Some of you will, but many of you don't - yet it's in every car with an automatic transmission...
Thanks, but it's hard to beat a simple script, eg:
/bin/sh /dev/null -q
#!
while [ true ] ; do
wget http://atestwebserver.com/thefile.html -O
done;
It's easy to think of ways to improve on this; you could retrieve from a list of known files with a "for" loop. The list goes on.
Chances are, if they are running SAP, that box is loaded. Or overloaded. And then, things can sometimes get more dicey.
I've run busy mail servers hosting about 6,000 email addresses. I've seen a server run with a load average between 2.0 and 20.0, 24x7 for WEEKS ON END without any complaints. A full megabit of traffic, 24x7, just for EMAIL...
I've seen millions of website hits per month, month after month, year after year. No complaints, reliability simply excellent. And, I've seen this using Linux kernel 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6.
Sorry, pal. Maybe it's true for some other slashweenies, but in my experience, the reliability of Linux IS truly legendary, and is why I've standardized on Linux anywhere I can possibly use it.
Heck, when I'm putting together a new, high-capacity system, one of the first things I do is load a series of "torture tests" and run them. I put the server through its paces, running with a load average between 5.0 and 10.0, compiling the kernel or PHP in a loop, copying files, reading large files into memory and clearing memory out, while stressing whatever service the server will be using. (EG: if it's a mail server, while all the above is running, I have a script sending 10,000-20,000 emails per hour to 25 pseudo-accounts, while another script POPs them all to the bit bucket. If it's a web server, I have 10-20 wget shell scripts beating the webserver continuously)
Hour after hour, for a week or so.
A few disclaimers:
1) I make sure all the components for a high-capacity server (esp. the chipset & NIC) are on the RedHat compatability list.
2) When I'm buying hardware for a cheapie embedded server, I try to buy hardware that's been on the market for at least 6 months or so.
With this formula, I've had nothing but stellar results!
Hmm. How about 1 day to install Linux, and the rest is setting up SAP and testing?
1 day. WTF?!?!? I routinely sell embedded server systems (using Whitebox Linux) that update themselves (a la yum) and have it all set up in under 15 minutes.
Maybe those SAPs really outta learn what an installer script is - I can (no kidding!)
1) load an installer CD (maybe 10 minutes for a "minimal" install)
2) stick in an installation CD, and run the installer
3) Have a functioning, self-tested software install in a total time (including unpacking the box) of less than 20 minutes per machine. The installer uses yum to resolve any missing package dependencies, and downloading all current OS updates is inherent into the process.
So, I point the finger at SAP. Where do they get off not having a decent installer? 2 FRICKKEN WEEKS to come up with a working system?
"Software updates had to be manually installed to ensure SAP certification."
Screw using RPM for individual updates - that's rediculous when you manage a large number of machines. Keeping track of packages installed an dependencies will drive anyone batty - which is why the august powers that be gave us yum (or apt, the Debian equivalent) Why isn't SAP running their own YUM server? That way, "approved" patches can be run with a simple "yum -y update" !??!
"We asked the customer to do a diagnostic test and the customer never responded, so it was impossible for us to address the issue,"
Hmmm... now the story begins to make some kinda sense. Something is very Very VERY wrong here..
terminals which print out an ink ballot
That's part of the push for open source voting systems - you have a hard copy for verification.
The crux of the problem with electronic voting system is: How do you
A) Guarantee the anonymity of a particular voter from the voting machine?
B) Allow a voter to later confirm that their vote was, in fact, part of the final tally?
One way I thought of was to use the reproducable "random" numbers produced by cellular automata algorithms as concieved by Stephen Wolfram can be used to provide a repeatable, random, verifiable identifier that can tie a voter to a vote without any obvious marks on the voting stub at all.
One of the beauties of this system is that, even with partial data, you can still do a reasonable validation of the accuracy of a run of votes from a particular machine. (easily audited, hard to spoof, and easy to verify results thereafter)
Now one would think if this was put in a movie prior to the filing of the patent thus placing it in the public domain. This patent should not have been issued no ?? thoughts ? anyone anyone
You have a year from the time of public disclosure of an idea to file a patent. If public disclosure happens prior to filing the patent, disclosure of that fact must be on the patent application, and you better have some notes or something pretty substantial to prove that you were the one to come up with the idea.
PS: IANAL.
Why don't the security conscious just use OpenBSD?
Two words: failing gracefully.
The OpenBSD approach to security boils down to: "Never, ever make a mistake". They've spent untold thousands of man-hours looking for anything that might ever be a mistake. And, towards this end, they've done an incredible job, and have an excellent track record that they can rightly brag about.
But for one thing: mistakes happen. What happens when you write a stoopid CGI and forget to escape a parameter, allowing a blackhat to execute a shell?
Suddenly, OpenBSD or not, you have a real, live, bonafide security hole. In years of administration I've done, EVERY SINGLE SECURITY HOLE exploited on any of the numerous Linux systems I administer of recent were ALL CASES directly a result of a client installing/using software for their websites that was insecure. (3 such incidents in the past 3 years, 2 of them being website defacements) And, I can't just say "Well, let's not allow for shell scripting" because many customers use tools that require this capability.
The approach of SELinux is to acknowledge that mistakes are made, and the starting assumption is that the above mentioned security hole is ALREADY EXPLOITED and a real, live, bad guy already has gotten thru such a security hole.
Now, how do you limit the damage? It's either
1) Never, ever make a mistake - if you do, you are so, utterly screwed!
2) How do you prevent common mistakes from screwing you?
I choose the latter, thank you.
one of these days, I will start wrapping my postings in joke tags when appropriate.
<JOKE>
Maybe you could make them funny?
</JOKE>