At first I thought the lightening was merely the loss of contrast. But it rather appears than an ambient light level has been added to the images. My best guess is that this is likely the average of the added noise. This makes sense if you consider that the idea is to take local hi-freq spikes and spread their influence around the image.
Some military broadband links send a constant stream of encrypted data, whether real data or filler. This "hiding in plain sight" reduces the ability of someone to perform traffic analysis on the network in precisely such a manner. This would be awful on the Net, of course, if everyone did it. But people should be aware that encryption is not the only facet of communications security that they need to worry about.
One thing that should not change is the current practice of granting a patent to the person who can show that they produced an innovation first. The corporations' desire to switch to "first to file" will only serve those who can afford to keep armies of patent lawyers on staff, and who can file thousands of applications per year. Basically it favors and preserves the incumbents. The Horatio Alger story of the individual inventing something in his garage will become a fading myth.
Actually, the evidence would indicate that Texas doesn't suffer quite so badly from paranoia. If you followed the news, you would see that Austin is one of the cities where these things have been up for weeks, where people -didn't- freak out.
Heh. I love the 'notabug' tracker tag. Dismisses the submitter politely.
But, yes, there is nothing new in AJAX that causes security problems. It is not new tech, just a style of architecture. The same problems and solutions with respect to security exists for AJAX as for the underlying infrastructure. Java applets, Flash apps, "traditional" Javascripted pages, all have had their trials and tribulations in the past, and their security models are well mapped-out. The sandboxes already exist. AJAX runs within them, not outside.
I would call these "animatrons" since they are merely animated to have the appearance of animals. But I would not classify them as robots. They are no more robots than Battlebots are robots. They are not autonomous at all.
Nor do they have any "servo" function. That is where they would sense something in their environment, perform some analysis of that information, and respond according to the analysis.
That would have been an awesome sight, that thing landing in the (relatively) lonely desert. One of the promised features was supposed to be the ability to land anywhere. Unfortunately, things have not turned out that way.
I wish that I hadn't used up my mod points this morning, else I'd +1 that statement right now. Open Source is definitely not a place for people who fear change.
Hopefully the hype and rhetoric of the Linux desktop, and the unreasonable expectations for it, are being tempered. If people wanted a free replacement for each and every one of their favorite Windows programs, then obviously they were looking in the wrong place. But that is a Good Thing. Windows has been around far too long, and the look and feel is becoming tired and boring. We don't want the same thing to happen to the desktop as what happened to General Motors.
But the various projects seem to be rather healthy, and progress very nicely, with new stuff all of the time.
You are probably right, but I think that water rockets for kids under 6 are almost as scary (fun). I had a blast with those. They can be very powerful. One can have a lot of (mass x velocity) by the time it hits and shatters a window.
A few months ago there was an article at Poynter.org, about how journalists hate getting assignments for these seasonal safety articles even more than people hate reading them. Christmas, New Years, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, all annual observances that "we all experience together," strike fear and loathing into journalists, who cower under their desks when the editor approaches.
The US and UK are so tightly bound in military and intelligence matters, you really should not believe reports like this. This kind of news is "for public release." Grain of salt.
"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
Didn't know that she said that.
I have been quoting this for years. This is precisely the way to deal with any bureaucracy. Asking for permission is the most ridiculous thing to do when wanting to get something done. You are condemning yourself to days and weeks of memos, email, meetings, and PowerPoint charts. Better to just do it and get it done. Cut that Gordian knot. What a useful method of dealing with middle management.
I just didn't know that she was the one who said it first.
After last year, when the state was smushed by God's finger of Doom, why would this even be on the radar? Why would anyone care? I can't believe that anyone is spending any energy or oxygen on something like this.
Yes, that stuck out pretty badly, didn't it? So at first glance the guy seems like a complete newb. But on reflection, you know, the word compiling does make a bit of sense, if you are generous enough to allow him a different meaning for the word. No, not the compiling we mean when we think of GCC munching away on all of those tasty source files. But if you think of assembling and organizing things, well, yes, it makes a bit of sense. This is like "the reporter was compiling all the facts for his story." In that sense, initrd is definitely assembling the kernel from its core binary and subsequent loadable modules, and is organizing (configuring) the stuff as it goes.
It is the responsible and moral thing to do to be careful when asking for people to donate their time and effort to a project. When the pool of contributors has likely invested thousands of hours of labor into a project, one must be ready to at least have a little bit of willingness to accept the products of their toils graciously.
This is similar to seti@home asking for millions of contributors to donate their resources, yet allow from them absolutely no input into the experiment itself. Quite a few people bailed on the project because of a perceived ivory tower attitude. Look, don't touch!
People asking for volunteers should heed Henry V: "But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make"
I thought the subject matter was excellent, and it makes you wonder why the most important function in a democracy is treated so cheaply.
However, I was disappointed with the program itself. I was expecting something of the quality of HBO's other documentaries, or something from PBS's Frontline. Rather, instead of being a thoughtful exposition of facts, it was loaded with anecdotes and storytelling. Why would I care about Bev Harris's conversations during their minivan road trip? The "gotcha" moments and the crying were awful, too. Its production quality seemed more like "Taxicab Confessions" or some UFO conspiracy.
But, again, the subject matter is an incredibly important one. Elections are a democracy's lifeblood, and the ultimate checkpoint and balance. The FEC must be more watchful and responsible than it is.
Often it is desirable to reuse someone else's library. But often it is still very valuable to provide the code yourself, to prevent another dependency on someone else's code, and also avoid something that might limit portability.
I think it is the same cost/performance threshold that people use in everyday life, in making a decision to purchase or "do it yourself." Is using a third-party library worth the hassle of integrating and packaging it?
For example, one developer wanted to add a default dependency on the enormous Boost C++ library to our project in order to provide a chart-drawing ability. Was it worth it to us to add such a burden? No. Would it be beneficial to an app whose purpose is to draw charts? Probably.
Note that at the end the author states that it is currently a PC-only shop. I think this colors the article a bit.
It has been pointed out in an earlier article that when an average Windows user says "I already know computers," that is actually a misstatement. What the user means is, "I can use the Windows(c) GUI."
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Joe Sixpack user wants a free clone of everything in the Windows or Mac world. He does NOT want Linux. Maybe users should band together and start a FreeWindows.org project or something, and stop trying to mold the Linux and OSS world into something that it isn't.
I'm not saying that everything the user wants in an operating system cannot be obtained. But who is going to provide it?
These endless "Linux needs," and "ready for the desktop" articles all point the blame to the shiftless, lazy, uncooperative open source software contributors. But what are the users going to contribute? Developers are people, too, with families, responsibilities, and busy schedules.
Although the subject matter is compelling (and likely mostly true), I am disappointed by the production of the show in general. I had wished for more facts than were presented. The program was almost all about "Bev Harris, Freedom Fighter," with anecdotes and storytelling instead of presenting solid information.
I had hoped for a powerful documentary such as HBO's normal fare, or something from PBS's Frontline. It seemed more like "gotcha" journalism, or some UFO investigation. I realize that it must be entertaining in addition to just mundane reporting, but it was a bit too much.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that this is a government agency. The training people are already on staff.
At first I thought the lightening was merely the loss of contrast. But it rather appears than an ambient light level has been added to the images. My best guess is that this is likely the average of the added noise. This makes sense if you consider that the idea is to take local hi-freq spikes and spread their influence around the image.
Some military broadband links send a constant stream of encrypted data, whether real data or filler. This "hiding in plain sight" reduces the ability of someone to perform traffic analysis on the network in precisely such a manner. This would be awful on the Net, of course, if everyone did it. But people should be aware that encryption is not the only facet of communications security that they need to worry about.
One thing that should not change is the current practice of granting a patent to the person who can show that they produced an innovation first. The corporations' desire to switch to "first to file" will only serve those who can afford to keep armies of patent lawyers on staff, and who can file thousands of applications per year. Basically it favors and preserves the incumbents. The Horatio Alger story of the individual inventing something in his garage will become a fading myth.
Actually, the evidence would indicate that Texas doesn't suffer quite so badly from paranoia. If you followed the news, you would see that Austin is one of the cities where these things have been up for weeks, where people -didn't- freak out.
4 aspirin
3 vitamin C
3 cups of coffee
But, yes, there is nothing new in AJAX that causes security problems. It is not new tech, just a style of architecture. The same problems and solutions with respect to security exists for AJAX as for the underlying infrastructure. Java applets, Flash apps, "traditional" Javascripted pages, all have had their trials and tribulations in the past, and their security models are well mapped-out. The sandboxes already exist. AJAX runs within them, not outside.
1. Who do you think you are fooling?
2. How long did you think you could get away with it?
I would call these "animatrons" since they are merely animated to have the appearance of animals. But I would not classify them as robots. They are no more robots than Battlebots are robots. They are not autonomous at all.
Nor do they have any "servo" function. That is where they would sense something in their environment, perform some analysis of that information, and respond according to the analysis.
That would have been an awesome sight, that thing landing in the (relatively) lonely desert. One of the promised features was supposed to be the ability to land anywhere. Unfortunately, things have not turned out that way.
I wish that I hadn't used up my mod points this morning, else I'd +1 that statement right now. Open Source is definitely not a place for people who fear change.
Hopefully the hype and rhetoric of the Linux desktop, and the unreasonable expectations for it, are being tempered. If people wanted a free replacement for each and every one of their favorite Windows programs, then obviously they were looking in the wrong place. But that is a Good Thing. Windows has been around far too long, and the look and feel is becoming tired and boring. We don't want the same thing to happen to the desktop as what happened to General Motors.
But the various projects seem to be rather healthy, and progress very nicely, with new stuff all of the time.
Now -that- is how to write an irritating alliterative headline! ^^
You are probably right, but I think that water rockets for kids under 6 are almost as scary (fun). I had a blast with those. They can be very powerful. One can have a lot of (mass x velocity) by the time it hits and shatters a window.
A few months ago there was an article at Poynter.org, about how journalists hate getting assignments for these seasonal safety articles even more than people hate reading them. Christmas, New Years, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, all annual observances that "we all experience together," strike fear and loathing into journalists, who cower under their desks when the editor approaches.
The US and UK are so tightly bound in military and intelligence matters, you really should not believe reports like this. This kind of news is "for public release." Grain of salt.
"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
Didn't know that she said that.
I have been quoting this for years. This is precisely the way to deal with any bureaucracy. Asking for permission is the most ridiculous thing to do when wanting to get something done. You are condemning yourself to days and weeks of memos, email, meetings, and PowerPoint charts. Better to just do it and get it done. Cut that Gordian knot. What a useful method of dealing with middle management.
I just didn't know that she was the one who said it first.
The only thing I've found useful from the Schema namespaces is the set of datatypes (int, float, string, etc) which are quite useful for other things.
Could W3C please split these off into their own "standard" namespace family?
After last year, when the state was smushed by God's finger of Doom, why would this even be on the radar? Why would anyone care? I can't believe that anyone is spending any energy or oxygen on something like this.
Hey, let's be generous. Or not! Hah!^^
This is similar to seti@home asking for millions of contributors to donate their resources, yet allow from them absolutely no input into the experiment itself. Quite a few people bailed on the project because of a perceived ivory tower attitude. Look, don't touch!
People asking for volunteers should heed Henry V: "But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make"
(posted this elsewhere too, sorry for the dupe)
I agree.
I thought the subject matter was excellent, and it makes you wonder why the most important function in a democracy is treated so cheaply.
However, I was disappointed with the program itself. I was expecting something of the quality of HBO's other documentaries, or something from PBS's Frontline. Rather, instead of being a thoughtful exposition of facts, it was loaded with anecdotes and storytelling. Why would I care about Bev Harris's conversations during their minivan road trip? The "gotcha" moments and the crying were awful, too. Its production quality seemed more like "Taxicab Confessions" or some UFO conspiracy.
But, again, the subject matter is an incredibly important one. Elections are a democracy's lifeblood, and the ultimate checkpoint and balance. The FEC must be more watchful and responsible than it is.
Often it is desirable to reuse someone else's library. But often it is still very valuable to provide the code yourself, to prevent another dependency on someone else's code, and also avoid something that might limit portability.
I think it is the same cost/performance threshold that people use in everyday life, in making a decision to purchase or "do it yourself." Is using a third-party library worth the hassle of integrating and packaging it?
For example, one developer wanted to add a default dependency on the enormous Boost C++ library to our project in order to provide a chart-drawing ability. Was it worth it to us to add such a burden? No. Would it be beneficial to an app whose purpose is to draw charts? Probably.
Note that at the end the author states that it is currently a PC-only shop. I think this colors the article a bit.
It has been pointed out in an earlier article that when an average Windows user says "I already know computers," that is actually a misstatement. What the user means is, "I can use the Windows(c) GUI."
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Joe Sixpack user wants a free clone of everything in the Windows or Mac world. He does NOT want Linux. Maybe users should band together and start a FreeWindows.org project or something, and stop trying to mold the Linux and OSS world into something that it isn't.
I'm not saying that everything the user wants in an operating system cannot be obtained. But who is going to provide it?
These endless "Linux needs," and "ready for the desktop" articles all point the blame to the shiftless, lazy, uncooperative open source software contributors. But what are the users going to contribute? Developers are people, too, with families, responsibilities, and busy schedules.
I had hoped for a powerful documentary such as HBO's normal fare, or something from PBS's Frontline. It seemed more like "gotcha" journalism, or some UFO investigation. I realize that it must be entertaining in addition to just mundane reporting, but it was a bit too much.