I think the idea of building a space elevator the instant we can is fundamentally flawed.
A space elevator would be an insanely profitable project, one that has tremendous implications for things like power generation, communications, space exploration, tourism, and precision manufacturing.
No doubt about any of those things.
But, before we go building a space elevator, wouldn't it be a good idea to give it a few thorough evaluations here dirtside?
There are countless questions that people are going to want to ask - is it strong enough? What if it breaks? Are C-tubes durable enough? Will it conduct electricity and "short out" the ionosphere? What about storms? What about terrorists? Do C-tubes wear out?
The first, best use of C-tubes would be a good bridge. If you had a suspension bridge built with pencil-thick C-tubes, people would get used to the idea that something to small would be so strong.
I figure the best place would be to build a suspension bridge over the straight of Gibraltar. Can you imagine how beautiful and spider-web like such a bridge would/could be?
That would provide major economic boon to North Africa, provide cheap tourism for Europeans, and provide an excellent proof of the viability of C-tubes as a building tool all in one.
I don't understand why, after all this neat-o science stuff, he couldn't get enough voltage to charge a battery.
He created an alternator, which generates DC. By creating an generator (which generates alternating current) he would be able to step up the voltage with a transformer to whatever voltage was required to charge whatever battery. (12v is typical)
Sure, the amperage would be squat, so it might take a *long* time to recharge a depleted battery, it would nonetheless charge.
I learned this using a bicycle generator to make a windmill - I created windmill blades and connected them directly to the generator. Unfortunately, it rotated slow enough to only generate 1.5-2 volts or so. By stepping this up 1:10 I was able to recharge a 12v golf-cart battery successfully (though slowly - it took several days) with modest wind.
Linux is open source. Why don't you develop such an interface?
That reads something like: "You have a welder - why don't you make your own car?". Kind of asshat, if you ask me.
The fact that Linux has an issue I'd like to see addressed another way doesn't stop me from accepting the deal. (Writing this on Mozilla/Fedora Core 1) It just means that from time to time I complain a bit about the parts I don't like.
It's this feedback that frequently results in better software!
Your idea brings me to my #1 axe to grind with Linux - no support for Binary drivers.
If there was a standard interface for drivers, vendors could be free to distribute drivers for *nix without giving away their "Secret sauce" to the OSS developers.
Alas, Linus is opposed to doing this for philosophical reasons, resulting in the horrible cludges that are available in order to remedy a problem that the kernel guys just don't want to address, but really should.
I have a "friend-like" relationship with a law office, where the primary lawyers are friends of mine.
I suggested to the secretaries one day that they d/l and use Moz on all their systems for security purposes. I d/l'd it once to their file server and let them have at it.
I was shocked when, a month or so later, I discovered they were all using Mozilla on all the systems, just like I'd recommended. There wasn't a single phone call, no complaints, no questions... nothing.
These are the people who call to ask if they should click "Open" or "Save" when they click on a PDF!
I was SHOCKED. Mozilla is clearly a winner!
I've been using it for years, but I'm a Tech Weenie and so really don't qualify as anywhere near your "average" user. For instance, using Windows, I don't feel comfortable until I can get a putty session up on a *nix box when I'm working...
There are two kinds of people, when it comes to the original VW Beetle: Those who love them, and those who hate them.
People who do not fall in one of the above two categories have never really used or owned an original VW Beetle.
It seems filesystems are the same way. I'm a long-term Ext2/3 user and have never had any particular issue with it. For the medium-power stuff I work with, it does fine. The filesystem on my laptop has been ext2/3 for almost 5 years now, I still have email, documents, etc. from 5 years ago on it. (It's been copied a few times - it originated on an AMD K6 system, now it's on a Dell Centrino Laptop)
So, I guess I'm in the "Ext3 is all good" camp.
Reading these posts, there are those who love Reiser, and those who hate it. Those in the middle haven't apparently used it.
I've found Ext3 to be slow when you have more than about 5000 files in a directory. If I had a specific need for that, I'd consider Reiser if my particular distro (RedHat migrating to Debian) supported it "out of the box".
Other than that, why bother? I've delivered millions upon millions of email messages and many millions of website hits on servers running Ext3.
So, for me, what filesystem I use is sort of like what tires I use on the car. I might care slightly when installing, but otherwise I wouldn't give even a rat's ass.
Re:Nice, but they've got it all wrong...
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
Seriously off-topic - not going to waste karma on this post...
Tried NDISWrapper - and got nowheres. It's a 802.11g Intel Pro Wireless 2200 on an Inspiron 600m. I've been waiting for the ipw2200 official project before I try again w/o the D-Link.
BTW - the laptop itself is damn sweet - Centrino 1.6 Ghz, 1.5 GB RAM, 60 HDD, CD/RW/DVD, dual-head under XWindows as one giant screen... Gbit ethernet... nice.
Re:Nice, but they've got it all wrong...
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Microsoft's monopoly is self-sustaining.
I almost agree with you. The point, though, is that Microsoft is being squeezed by Linux in very real ways.
There's a tremendous amount of inertia keeping Microsoft going, but in every real sense - marketshare, mindshare, install base, ease of use, as examples - Linux is gaining against both the other Unixes and Microsoft.
The Dell laptop on which I type this is running Fedora Linux - and with only the exception of the integrated wireless card, does an excellent job. (I use a D-Link PCMCIA to use wireless - cost me $9)
We don't have to "cru5h M$" to succeed. As a consumer force, Linux only needs to be a "viable alternative" to keep the Microsoft abuses in check.
Of course, Microsoft has long ridden on the coat-tails of "cheaper", but that's stopped now, and Microsoft is having to change their tune every 3 weeks...
I think over the next 2 decades, we'll come to a greater understand of life - and I think that we'll discover a unique aspect of life - that life is truly information technology.
Each cell in your body contains approximately 20 GB of data. Consider the redundancy and sheer massive size of information storage capacity your body consists of! Compare THAT to an Oracle cluster...
So, given the incredible need to process information in order to understand life itself (which could be considered a form of self-replicating information) I think that not only is it likely, but it's all but guaranteed that the lion's share of Information Technology advances will come from biological research.
PS: nanotechnology == microbiotics. Why re-invent the wheel when nature has spent billions of years perfecting nanotechnology? I think the "nanotechnology revolution" will be largely biological, with technological extensions.
When we speak of "the singularity", I think that's the point where our (currently abiological) technology fuses with biology to where they aren't clearly defined any longer.
Man or machine? Who can tell? How would you define either one?
Sorry, but anything that "learns" fits a definition of intelligence - using past results to predict future outcomes. Note that I'm not saying "self aware" or "conscious", simply "intelligence".
As we move forward, we'll see more and more intelligence on the part of the spammers, and the warring factions of intelligence will likely provide massive financial and political impetus to build ever more intelligence solutions - thus AI is born.
The problem with other vehicles for developing AI is simply the budget. With SPAM, everybody has a direct, financial incentive to develop it, so development will definitely happen!
Besides not liking to pay for software as a service, there was another huge problem that still is a problem. WAN reliability. I have been amazed at all the people that don't really understand how *unreliable* the wide area connection is.
At this point, you are right. Bowever, just in the past 5 years, I've seen dramatic improvements in bandwidth availability and reliability.
I'm sure telephone service was unreliable, at first, but time has passed, and the kinks worked out so that nobody blinks at depending on the telephone to make money. (A la telemarketing, etc)
It's only a question of time before WAN connectivity rivals the phone company. In many places, it already does.
When developing a long-term software strategy, do you worry about today's reality, or do you depend on your best projection of where things will be in the future?
If you guessed today, your software company is headed for the crapper.
I'm honestly surprised this hasn't happened sooner - as a workflow automation specialist, I frequently write web/intranet web application thingies, and an oft-quoted request is a document repository for documents to keep everybody coordinated.
I picture a word document with a reference tag in it, which, when the word doc is opened, a check is performed to the reference tag to see if a new version is available. (and if you are online the check is disabled)
I already do something similar with my software - when online, it performs a check to see if the latest version is running, and if not, it prompts to download the newer release.
With this web distribution, I've been able to cut the product distribution cycle from weeks to months down to hours. It's not atypical for a user to call in with a bug at 10:00 AM, and for me to identify the bug, fix it, test it, and publish a new software release, providing the fixed version to the customer at 2:00.
This kind of environment is very conducive to rapid development, feature deployment, and tremendous reliability since the process of updating the software also backs up the data to the server.
I've had users in TEARS thanking us for our software design when their computer crashes and they find that all their data has been invisibly backed up when they download and update our software!
Intelligent use of the web is not only a good thing, it's inevitable. If MS didn't do this, they'd lose it soon enough anyway.
Unfortunately, Open Office isn't picking up where it should... it's too concerned with being "good enough" to worry about true innovation. Instead of trying so hard to be a "MS replacement", it should instead focus on studying the real needs of its users, and looking for ways to streamline.
Making the software truly network aware would be a good step!
We have 150 years worth of data, the Earth is billions of years old, I don't think we're qualified to make assumptions.
And, what "qualifications" should be met before we can make these assumptions?
Specifically, why should we disregard a minimual data set when it's all we have to make any kind of decision on?
Which is better - Minimal data which indicates distinct possibilities and problems to plan against, or - Ignore anything but bullet-proof data and act blindly?
Put another way, let's assume that you have never seen nor heard of a gun. You then witness a shooting that kills your best friend. Assume further that some weeks later, somebody points a gun at you. Which are you going to do:
A) Pay no attention, since your one experience was "statistically insigificant', or
B) Run like hell as soon as you possibly can, and do whatever you can to not make him shoot you in the meantime?
Some information, even if not "proven', is better than none at all.
Here is my idea. Pay as you go sex. If you last 3 minutes you pay for 3 minutes only.
SWAGGER>
Sorry pal, no way would I EVER do that... With that kind of plan, A single sexual experience would bankrupt most nations! I could never afford it!/SWAGGER>
All those clueless gits out there who scream "they should have a network administrator!" might want to keep in mind that a network administrator isn't worth his weight in fuel to ship out there, much less keep around during the eight months of the year they're pretty much cut off from the outside world.
I administer numerous servers hundreds or thousands of miles away from me. No kidding. Who says I would have to be shipped down there to install things like patches, updates, firewalls, and the like?
I'm too time-impacted to do this for free, but for a reasonable fee, I could provide reasonable security for their network infrastructure without ever leaving my house.
If a hacker could get into it, I could get into it and lock it down. My own limitations are that I'm generally a Linux/Unix user and not too familiar with locking down Windows... so if their server was Win2K or XP, I'm not the man for the job....
Anyway, it doesn't take a pair of hands to do 98% of server administration, if the admin is any good.....
What is to stop someone from using a proxy from the UK?
I guess you've answered your own question... sorta.
Nothing is there to stop someone from using a proxy - but there's plenty in place to keep people from using proxies. If you spend 6 hours at it, you *might* find an anonymous proxy that doesn't include headers that the great folks at the BBC could recognize to find that you are in the good old "bastion of freedom" US of A.
But is that going to happen en masse?
Definitely not.
So, what will stop SOMEBODY? Nothing. Will it stop most people?
Yep.
For example, most proxies add additional headers to indicate who they're proxying for. For example, X-forwarded-for
So, in most cases, it's not too difficult to tell that: 1) You are using a proxy, and 2) You aren't in Great Britain.
As the corporate apologists are so fond of reminding us, free speech is about limiting government's control of speech.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! I call Bull.
What a load... My right to speak is infringed when you try to stop me, almost no matter what you do to attempt the silence.
There are various names for attempting to silence my speech, like extortion, battery, vandalism, and assault.
I don't care if you are wearing the veil of govornment.
Now, there are circumstances where I AGREE to limit my speech as part of a contract... but in that case, I have a choice - stop answering the telephone with "GW Bush is a Fscking retard, how may I help you?" or lose the job.
That's not "limiting speech" that's entering into a contract for a professional relationship - and that's quite different.
I do not need this AP on the road, and I don't know anyone who would need it.
OK, here's a good situation. It's a meeting with staff at XYZ organization. Our clients almost universally have a DSL network. A few are set up with wireless, usually it's Cat5.
So, there we are... in the meeting room. Frequently, nobody bothered to wire the conference room, or there's only one !@#!@ plug, while there are 3-5 of us all standing around with our fancy schmancy laptops, dealing with Internet-based software.
Make no mistake about this - putting a computer in the hand of a peasant won't drammatically improve his state as much as setting up a system for irrigation, procuring farm products etc.
My first thought was this article about Farmers in Nepal using Wifi.
I'll not pretend that IT is a panacea - but it's not the water pump that led Europe out of the middle ages into the rennaissance - it was the printing press, and the free exchange of ideas therefrom.
Sure, if I put in a 200 HP water pump, starving farmers would feel alot better, and quickly. But, as soon as I left, the water pump would break, and that'd be that.
You can't raise a civilization out of chaos and social disorder without bringing the free exchange of ideas to the common person.
Remember that it took HUNDREDS of years after the printing press for the rennaissance to hit full swing. Positive change can be slow. But, that doesnn't mean we shouldn't make that change.
Your PHB called: two fresh college grads are going to be replacing you next week, since the two of them combined are cheaper than you and can certainly do the same thing you do.
I AM the PHB - as an indie consultant, I am my own boss! I lose contracts from time to time, but I have enough different contracts in enough different industries that I'm not worried...
... maybe they should spend their money on food and birth control? I mean, what good is the 'net when you have 8 kids hungry at home? Seriously, the net is a wonderful tool but it's not going to magically transform a shantytown into a utopia.
I see this, time and time again. It appears to be sound reasoning: Why invest in XYZ information technology when they're going hungry?
The answer is astonishingly simple - Information is the key to finding out how to feed those hungry kids! If the problem is corruption in the local govt, information is the key to coming up with a solution. If the problem is lack of farming technology, where do you think the solution might be found, if not in what is perhaps the largest information repository in the world?
Also, information itself has direct value - how many of us here feed our families by accessing, processing, and developing information?
I feed my 5 hungry kids every day doing this!
When Gutenberg created the printing press 450 years ago, what he really did, in effect, was leverage the power of knowledge, and extend the reach of those who knew to many, many more people that didn't.
The Internet is an extension of that same idea. Why would you deny these people the fruits of YOUR knowledge just because they are lacking in some basic amenity, when that knowledge may well help them solve that deficiency?
Another take: if you have $1,000, and you need to make a $750 house payment, AND a $750 work truck payment, which do you pay?
Answer: Pay the work truck. Using the work truck will help you make the house payment, but using the house will not help you pay for your truck.
These computers are roughly analogous to the work truck...
looking on the bright side, at least it will give you the impression that you live a longer life, as opposed to life in the fast lane...
I go with the grandparent. What's wrong with a sense of purpose and accomplishment?
Why would you enjoy a "long" life of mediocrity? I tremendously enjoy a sense of competence, purpose, and accomplishment. I also frequently work my 455 off on 60 (or more) hour weeks, interspersed with a few 2-3 week vacations throughout the year.
There's nothing quite so delicious for my ego than to realize that many people depend on the critical services that I provide - and that it's totally ok because I am perfectly capable of providing them.
Now how about starting to work on an OFF switch? You know, push the button and the machine goes off? Now? Within one second? Goes from using amps of power to microamps?
I recently discovered this feature in VMWare called "Suspend". It's amazing. I can suspend a VM, then shut down the computer.
I can oopy this VM to another computer, and then restore the suspended session. The VM comes back up, restored at the exact processor/memory state it was suspended in!
So, I ask... why can't this be done in hardware? An instant, "SUSPEND OPERATION" button, to turn off the machine in seconds. (VMWare takes about 3 seconds to suspend a VM session on my 1.5 GB, 1.6 Ghz laptop)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the idea of building a space elevator the instant we can is fundamentally flawed.
A space elevator would be an insanely profitable project, one that has tremendous implications for things like power generation, communications, space exploration, tourism, and precision manufacturing.
No doubt about any of those things.
But, before we go building a space elevator, wouldn't it be a good idea to give it a few thorough evaluations here dirtside?
There are countless questions that people are going to want to ask - is it strong enough? What if it breaks? Are C-tubes durable enough? Will it conduct electricity and "short out" the ionosphere? What about storms? What about terrorists? Do C-tubes wear out?
The first, best use of C-tubes would be a good bridge. If you had a suspension bridge built with pencil-thick C-tubes, people would get used to the idea that something to small would be so strong.
I figure the best place would be to build a suspension bridge over the straight of Gibraltar. Can you imagine how beautiful and spider-web like such a bridge would/could be?
That would provide major economic boon to North Africa, provide cheap tourism for Europeans, and provide an excellent proof of the viability of C-tubes as a building tool all in one.
I don't understand why, after all this neat-o science stuff, he couldn't get enough voltage to charge a battery.
He created an alternator, which generates DC. By creating an generator (which generates alternating current) he would be able to step up the voltage with a transformer to whatever voltage was required to charge whatever battery. (12v is typical)
Sure, the amperage would be squat, so it might take a *long* time to recharge a depleted battery, it would nonetheless charge.
I learned this using a bicycle generator to make a windmill - I created windmill blades and connected them directly to the generator. Unfortunately, it rotated slow enough to only generate 1.5-2 volts or so. By stepping this up 1:10 I was able to recharge a 12v golf-cart battery successfully (though slowly - it took several days) with modest wind.
Is "Half-life 2" logically equivalent to "Full-life 1" ?
Linux is open source. Why don't you develop such an interface?
That reads something like: "You have a welder - why don't you make your own car?". Kind of asshat, if you ask me.
The fact that Linux has an issue I'd like to see addressed another way doesn't stop me from accepting the deal. (Writing this on Mozilla/Fedora Core 1) It just means that from time to time I complain a bit about the parts I don't like.
It's this feedback that frequently results in better software!
Your idea brings me to my #1 axe to grind with Linux - no support for Binary drivers.
If there was a standard interface for drivers, vendors could be free to distribute drivers for *nix without giving away their "Secret sauce" to the OSS developers.
Alas, Linus is opposed to doing this for philosophical reasons, resulting in the horrible cludges that are available in order to remedy a problem that the kernel guys just don't want to address, but really should.
How about this in /etc/hosts?
127.0.0.1 localhost slashdot.org www.slashdot.org
Soooo much easier...
I have a "friend-like" relationship with a law office, where the primary lawyers are friends of mine.
I suggested to the secretaries one day that they d/l and use Moz on all their systems for security purposes. I d/l'd it once to their file server and let them have at it.
I was shocked when, a month or so later, I discovered they were all using Mozilla on all the systems, just like I'd recommended. There wasn't a single phone call, no complaints, no questions... nothing.
These are the people who call to ask if they should click "Open" or "Save" when they click on a PDF!
I was SHOCKED. Mozilla is clearly a winner!
I've been using it for years, but I'm a Tech Weenie and so really don't qualify as anywhere near your "average" user. For instance, using Windows, I don't feel comfortable until I can get a putty session up on a *nix box when I'm working...
There are two kinds of people, when it comes to the original VW Beetle: Those who love them, and those who hate them.
People who do not fall in one of the above two categories have never really used or owned an original VW Beetle.
It seems filesystems are the same way. I'm a long-term Ext2/3 user and have never had any particular issue with it. For the medium-power stuff I work with, it does fine. The filesystem on my laptop has been ext2/3 for almost 5 years now, I still have email, documents, etc. from 5 years ago on it. (It's been copied a few times - it originated on an AMD K6 system, now it's on a Dell Centrino Laptop)
So, I guess I'm in the "Ext3 is all good" camp.
Reading these posts, there are those who love Reiser, and those who hate it. Those in the middle haven't apparently used it.
I've found Ext3 to be slow when you have more than about 5000 files in a directory. If I had a specific need for that, I'd consider Reiser if my particular distro (RedHat migrating to Debian) supported it "out of the box".
Other than that, why bother? I've delivered millions upon millions of email messages and many millions of website hits on servers running Ext3.
So, for me, what filesystem I use is sort of like what tires I use on the car. I might care slightly when installing, but otherwise I wouldn't give even a rat's ass.
Seriously off-topic - not going to waste karma on this post...
Tried NDISWrapper - and got nowheres. It's a 802.11g Intel Pro Wireless 2200 on an Inspiron 600m. I've been waiting for the ipw2200 official project before I try again w/o the D-Link.
BTW - the laptop itself is damn sweet - Centrino 1.6 Ghz, 1.5 GB RAM, 60 HDD, CD/RW/DVD, dual-head under XWindows as one giant screen... Gbit ethernet... nice.
Microsoft's monopoly is self-sustaining.
I almost agree with you. The point, though, is that Microsoft is being squeezed by Linux in very real ways.
There's a tremendous amount of inertia keeping Microsoft going, but in every real sense - marketshare, mindshare, install base, ease of use, as examples - Linux is gaining against both the other Unixes and Microsoft.
The Dell laptop on which I type this is running Fedora Linux - and with only the exception of the integrated wireless card, does an excellent job. (I use a D-Link PCMCIA to use wireless - cost me $9)
We don't have to "cru5h M$" to succeed. As a consumer force, Linux only needs to be a "viable alternative" to keep the Microsoft abuses in check.
Of course, Microsoft has long ridden on the coat-tails of "cheaper", but that's stopped now, and Microsoft is having to change their tune every 3 weeks...
I think over the next 2 decades, we'll come to a greater understand of life - and I think that we'll discover a unique aspect of life - that life is truly information technology.
Each cell in your body contains approximately 20 GB of data. Consider the redundancy and sheer massive size of information storage capacity your body consists of! Compare THAT to an Oracle cluster...
So, given the incredible need to process information in order to understand life itself (which could be considered a form of self-replicating information) I think that not only is it likely, but it's all but guaranteed that the lion's share of Information Technology advances will come from biological research.
PS: nanotechnology == microbiotics. Why re-invent the wheel when nature has spent billions of years perfecting nanotechnology? I think the "nanotechnology revolution" will be largely biological, with technological extensions.
When we speak of "the singularity", I think that's the point where our (currently abiological) technology fuses with biology to where they aren't clearly defined any longer.
Man or machine? Who can tell? How would you define either one?
It's my belief that the most likely source of the birth of Artificial Intelligence will be the SPAM filter.
Think about it - we now have software that "learns' what you like.
Sorry, but anything that "learns" fits a definition of intelligence - using past results to predict future outcomes. Note that I'm not saying "self aware" or "conscious", simply "intelligence".
As we move forward, we'll see more and more intelligence on the part of the spammers, and the warring factions of intelligence will likely provide massive financial and political impetus to build ever more intelligence solutions - thus AI is born.
The problem with other vehicles for developing AI is simply the budget. With SPAM, everybody has a direct, financial incentive to develop it, so development will definitely happen!
Besides not liking to pay for software as a service, there was another huge problem that still is a problem. WAN reliability. I have been amazed at all the people that don't really understand how *unreliable* the wide area connection is.
At this point, you are right. Bowever, just in the past 5 years, I've seen dramatic improvements in bandwidth availability and reliability.
I'm sure telephone service was unreliable, at first, but time has passed, and the kinks worked out so that nobody blinks at depending on the telephone to make money. (A la telemarketing, etc)
It's only a question of time before WAN connectivity rivals the phone company. In many places, it already does.
When developing a long-term software strategy, do you worry about today's reality, or do you depend on your best projection of where things will be in the future?
If you guessed today, your software company is headed for the crapper.
I'm honestly surprised this hasn't happened sooner - as a workflow automation specialist, I frequently write web/intranet web application thingies, and an oft-quoted request is a document repository for documents to keep everybody coordinated.
I picture a word document with a reference tag in it, which, when the word doc is opened, a check is performed to the reference tag to see if a new version is available. (and if you are online the check is disabled)
I already do something similar with my software - when online, it performs a check to see if the latest version is running, and if not, it prompts to download the newer release.
With this web distribution, I've been able to cut the product distribution cycle from weeks to months down to hours. It's not atypical for a user to call in with a bug at 10:00 AM, and for me to identify the bug, fix it, test it, and publish a new software release, providing the fixed version to the customer at 2:00.
This kind of environment is very conducive to rapid development, feature deployment, and tremendous reliability since the process of updating the software also backs up the data to the server.
I've had users in TEARS thanking us for our software design when their computer crashes and they find that all their data has been invisibly backed up when they download and update our software!
Intelligent use of the web is not only a good thing, it's inevitable. If MS didn't do this, they'd lose it soon enough anyway.
Unfortunately, Open Office isn't picking up where it should... it's too concerned with being "good enough" to worry about true innovation. Instead of trying so hard to be a "MS replacement", it should instead focus on studying the real needs of its users, and looking for ways to streamline.
Making the software truly network aware would be a good step!
We have 150 years worth of data, the Earth is billions of years old, I don't think we're qualified to make assumptions.
And, what "qualifications" should be met before we can make these assumptions?
Specifically, why should we disregard a minimual data set when it's all we have to make any kind of decision on?
Which is better - Minimal data which indicates distinct possibilities and problems to plan against, or - Ignore anything but bullet-proof data and act blindly?
Put another way, let's assume that you have never seen nor heard of a gun. You then witness a shooting that kills your best friend. Assume further that some weeks later, somebody points a gun at you. Which are you going to do:
A) Pay no attention, since your one experience was "statistically insigificant', or
B) Run like hell as soon as you possibly can, and do whatever you can to not make him shoot you in the meantime?
Some information, even if not "proven', is better than none at all.
Here is my idea. Pay as you go sex. If you last 3 minutes you pay for 3 minutes only.
/SWAGGER>
SWAGGER>
Sorry pal, no way would I EVER do that... With that kind of plan, A single sexual experience would bankrupt most nations! I could never afford it!
All those clueless gits out there who scream "they should have a network administrator!" might want to keep in mind that a network administrator isn't worth his weight in fuel to ship out there, much less keep around during the eight months of the year they're pretty much cut off from the outside world.
I administer numerous servers hundreds or thousands of miles away from me. No kidding. Who says I would have to be shipped down there to install things like patches, updates, firewalls, and the like?
I'm too time-impacted to do this for free, but for a reasonable fee, I could provide reasonable security for their network infrastructure without ever leaving my house.
If a hacker could get into it, I could get into it and lock it down. My own limitations are that I'm generally a Linux/Unix user and not too familiar with locking down Windows... so if their server was Win2K or XP, I'm not the man for the job....
Anyway, it doesn't take a pair of hands to do 98% of server administration, if the admin is any good.....
What is to stop someone from using a proxy from the UK?
I guess you've answered your own question... sorta.
Nothing is there to stop someone from using a proxy - but there's plenty in place to keep people from using proxies. If you spend 6 hours at it, you *might* find an anonymous proxy that doesn't include headers that the great folks at the BBC could recognize to find that you are in the good old "bastion of freedom" US of A.
But is that going to happen en masse?
Definitely not.
So, what will stop SOMEBODY? Nothing. Will it stop most people?
Yep.
For example, most proxies add additional headers to indicate who they're proxying for. For example, X-forwarded-for
So, in most cases, it's not too difficult to tell that: 1) You are using a proxy, and 2) You aren't in Great Britain.
As Scott McNealy said, so eloquently: You already have zero privacy. Get over it.
You can find out about what multicast is and what it means by checking out this Cisco page that explains what it actually is.
As always, Google is your friend...
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! I call Bull.
What a load... My right to speak is infringed when you try to stop me, almost no matter what you do to attempt the silence.
There are various names for attempting to silence my speech, like extortion, battery, vandalism, and assault.
I don't care if you are wearing the veil of govornment.
Now, there are circumstances where I AGREE to limit my speech as part of a contract... but in that case, I have a choice - stop answering the telephone with "GW Bush is a Fscking retard, how may I help you?" or lose the job.
That's not "limiting speech" that's entering into a contract for a professional relationship - and that's quite different.
I do not need this AP on the road, and I don't know anyone who would need it.
OK, here's a good situation. It's a meeting with staff at XYZ organization. Our clients almost universally have a DSL network. A few are set up with wireless, usually it's Cat5.
So, there we are... in the meeting room. Frequently, nobody bothered to wire the conference room, or there's only one !@#!@ plug, while there are 3-5 of us all standing around with our fancy schmancy laptops, dealing with Internet-based software.
We're taking turns, sitting around... it's awkward.
Something like this - plug in small cigarrete-pack sized box, and sit down... everybody's online at once!
Make no mistake about this - putting a computer in the hand of a peasant won't drammatically improve his state as much as setting up a system for irrigation, procuring farm products etc.
My first thought was this article about Farmers in Nepal using Wifi.
I'll not pretend that IT is a panacea - but it's not the water pump that led Europe out of the middle ages into the rennaissance - it was the printing press, and the free exchange of ideas therefrom.
Sure, if I put in a 200 HP water pump, starving farmers would feel alot better, and quickly. But, as soon as I left, the water pump would break, and that'd be that.
You can't raise a civilization out of chaos and social disorder without bringing the free exchange of ideas to the common person.
Remember that it took HUNDREDS of years after the printing press for the rennaissance to hit full swing. Positive change can be slow. But, that doesnn't mean we shouldn't make that change.
Your PHB called: two fresh college grads are going to be replacing you next week, since the two of them combined are cheaper than you and can certainly do the same thing you do.
I AM the PHB - as an indie consultant, I am my own boss! I lose contracts from time to time, but I have enough different contracts in enough different industries that I'm not worried...
... maybe they should spend their money on food and birth control? I mean, what good is the 'net when you have 8 kids hungry at home? Seriously, the net is a wonderful tool but it's not going to magically transform a shantytown into a utopia.
I see this, time and time again. It appears to be sound reasoning: Why invest in XYZ information technology when they're going hungry?
The answer is astonishingly simple - Information is the key to finding out how to feed those hungry kids! If the problem is corruption in the local govt, information is the key to coming up with a solution. If the problem is lack of farming technology, where do you think the solution might be found, if not in what is perhaps the largest information repository in the world?
Also, information itself has direct value - how many of us here feed our families by accessing, processing, and developing information?
I feed my 5 hungry kids every day doing this!
When Gutenberg created the printing press 450 years ago, what he really did, in effect, was leverage the power of knowledge, and extend the reach of those who knew to many, many more people that didn't.
The Internet is an extension of that same idea. Why would you deny these people the fruits of YOUR knowledge just because they are lacking in some basic amenity, when that knowledge may well help them solve that deficiency?
Another take: if you have $1,000, and you need to make a $750 house payment, AND a $750 work truck payment, which do you pay?
Answer: Pay the work truck. Using the work truck will help you make the house payment, but using the house will not help you pay for your truck.
These computers are roughly analogous to the work truck...
looking on the bright side, at least it will give you the impression that you live a longer life, as opposed to life in the fast lane...
I go with the grandparent. What's wrong with a sense of purpose and accomplishment?
Why would you enjoy a "long" life of mediocrity? I tremendously enjoy a sense of competence, purpose, and accomplishment. I also frequently work my 455 off on 60 (or more) hour weeks, interspersed with a few 2-3 week vacations throughout the year.
There's nothing quite so delicious for my ego than to realize that many people depend on the critical services that I provide - and that it's totally ok because I am perfectly capable of providing them.
Now how about starting to work on an OFF switch? You know, push the button and the machine goes off? Now? Within one second? Goes from using amps of power to microamps?
I recently discovered this feature in VMWare called "Suspend". It's amazing. I can suspend a VM, then shut down the computer.
I can oopy this VM to another computer, and then restore the suspended session. The VM comes back up, restored at the exact processor/memory state it was suspended in!
So, I ask... why can't this be done in hardware? An instant, "SUSPEND OPERATION" button, to turn off the machine in seconds. (VMWare takes about 3 seconds to suspend a VM session on my 1.5 GB, 1.6 Ghz laptop)