If you have an interest in information security, I recommend the PaulDotCom Security Weekly podcast. Paul and Larry do an excellent job of covering the news and giving in-depth tutorials for useful security tools.
Agreed. But when these people have no interest in how the computer works and therefore no way to learn how to fix them, that presents a problem. I'm not talking about simple things like changing a background or backing up e-mail -- they can do that. I'm talking about hardware failures and problems that require a Windows (or other software) to be reinstalled or otherwise fixed. They can take it to my current place of employment to be fixed, but that gets quite expensive.
Oh, you bet -- I love VNC. The thing I worry about is that one of the Windows boxes might die to the point that it loses network connectivity. Maybe I should invest in Ghost or a similar program and develop a nice image.;-)
As a soon-to-be graduate student, I am faced with an inevitable move to somewhere far away from my family. One of the things that I worry about most is my family's dependence on computers: my dad utilizes several machines with varying platforms in order to make his business run; the rest of my family members use computers extensively to communicate with the rest of our family and keep up on the news.
When I move away, they will be losing their support staff. I'm definitely a geek and will be the first to admit that it's fun maintaining all these computers... but at the same time, someone needs to be here to keep things running. Thankfully, many of our machines run Linux or FreeBSD and will be easy to maintain remotely. The Windows machines, on the other hand, could be a problem.
All that aside, though, I'm glad to see that someone is developing a technology that allows people to feel connected in a more intimate sense than just throwing e-mail bits back and forth. Maybe by the time I've moved to my next school, I will be able to use a technology like this to keep the computers running and avoid homesickness.
Who knows, I guess it could become my research topic...
I've often wondered the same thing. After all, who would feel the need to extend text into something that looks similar to graphics when you step back about 10 paces?
One of the main reasons, I think, is simply to see how far (and how skillfully) it can be stretched. In that respect, it seems similar to the gentlemen who not long ago were striving to connect a Commodore 64 to the internet -- or the other gentleman who wrote an ethernet driver in BASIC.
These things may not be fun to compete with modern technology, but it takes a good level of skill to do each of them. Good programming practice, I would bet.
It seems that this could be very good for consumers but not so good for businesses. If the pricing information is available to the public, then this destroys some of the potential strategies for the companies -- as discussed in several posts before mine. But with the prices available, the companies could easily try to "one up" (or one down, since it's pricing) each other in an effort to bring in more customers.
It's usually beneficial to the consumer when this sort of competition is started. A prime example where I live is Meijer vs. Wal-mart. When Meijer arrived, the price war that followed was a great one for us consumers. I imagine that a similar thing might happen in this case.
Slashdot doesn't necessarily reflect the truth (if there is such a thing), but it is to our experts that we look in situations like this. The Slashdot community has been debating the "viruses vs. virii" idea for a long time -- it's nice to see that someone finally asked a medical expert.
Now the problem is that sometimes technological terms differ from the other sciences. For example, "antennae" is correct when used to discuss the appendages that come out of the head of a creature; antennas, however, are metallic objects that are used to send/receive signals. So in the case of viruses and virii, it's certainly possible that virii may manifest itself in our language simply because it's used frequently. That's the nature of language in many cases.
I'm not sure how your friend's credibility stands in terms of social dynamics and culture, but the grandparent post was asking someone with extensive education in the medical field. If such a person says that "viruses" is the preferred spelling, then I'd be inclined to trust him or her. Distasteful names have no place in a discussion like this.
Doesn't the GPL also protect those who modify/redistribute code that belongs to others, provided that the code is released under the GPL? If the GPL were to be invalidated, then it seems like those people -- the ones who changed and/or redistributed the code -- could be held liable for copyright infringement. That's a pretty cynical concept, since it would mean that one of the copyright owners decided to turn against one of the main ideas of open source development... but perhaps there's a company that the copyright holder doesn't like, and that company is using his code or has changed and redistributed it in some way. What then?
Those are good points. Perhaps there has been no effect on the Free Software community as of yet, but what would happen if SCO is somehow able to prove that the GPL is invalid and not enforceable? That, I think, would be devastating -- both for projects and possibly for the spirit of the community.
I really, really hope this gets settled in a decent fashion without getting any uglier.
I was actually just thinking about the same thing. If someone is indeed behind this whole mess, though, I would hope that the penalty for intentionally sabotaging the progress of the Linux and OSS/FS movement would be greater than the penalties that may come out of the currently scheduled proceedings.
The argument that someone else is behind this may not hold up in the scheduled SCO vs. IBM trial, but it certainly would make good countersuit material. I sure hope that IBM is able to get to the bottom of things if this is the case.
You were heard.:) I would mod you up but I've already posted in this discussion.
Aside from that, I think that program integration is slowly getting better. It's still not quite there in RH9, but it's much better than it was in some of the previous RH releases. I've also been tracking the development of Enlightenment 0.17 which, it appears, will have good and clean program integration. I think that this was one of the things that Raster was hoping to address when the E developers decided to do a re-write. Let us hope, anyway!
... The strategy isn't to convert the masses all at once, but rather to explain the advantages of Linux over the Windows operating system for certain types of companies running certain types of applications.
This focus on smaller sample groups is nice to see. It is quite obvious that in certain situations, Linux has some major advantages over Windows. In my experience, web applications (Apache+PHP+MySQL) and embedded systems are good examples.
In support of the above quote, I find it highly unlikely that Linux will be able to spur a "mass conversion" -- but that probably wouldn't be the best course of action anyway. I imagine that a better way would be to focus on a relatively small sample group and let the versatility of Linux convince people that it's a good choice. If the product is as good as many think it is, then the conversion of the masses may be inevitable. Time will tell.
No. Once again, that was not my point. When the machine is running, i.e. it is turned on with hard drives and fans spinning, it is using energy. That's the engine. Even if the CPU is idle, the machine is using energy to keep everything in memory and so on. My point was that if the machine is running in this fashion, you might as well be using the CPU also -- the power savings by having the CPU halted are small. One might as well use those cycles if the machine needs to be on.
That wasn't my point. When a machine is running, it has a certain number of CPU cycles per unit of time that can be utilized. Considering the little bit of energy that is saved by using HLT instructions, one might as well let the CPU execute things continuously. I suppose you could liken it to running a car's engine but not going anywhere -- you might as well let the engine's idle push you around slowly a little bit. The gas is being burned anyway. Let it be for something productive for humanity, even if we never find a signal.
True enough. But someone just surfing the web doesn't use up all of his/her computer's CPU cycles, meaning that a lot of that coal at the power plant is being spent on nothing. I would never advocate that people leave computers on full-time just for distributed computing projects, but it's a very neat way to make use of cycles on systems that must be left on but don't necessarily do too much. Computers in many business offices are good examples -- they're very often idle but must be there when the need arises.
I think it's rather nice when scientists of any discipline take it upon themselves to reduce things into the terms of a layman. If they didn't do this, chances are a good number of young potential scientists would not become interested in science -- it would seem too complicated.
Both Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein were believers in such simplicity. Feynman believed that one never really understands a topic unless he can prepare a freshman lecture on it. Einstein, also in support of simplicity, said that one does not really understand something unless he can explain it to his grandmother. So "pretty picture" or not, it sounds like this reduction to simple terms is good for both the layman and the scientist alike.
As for SETI@Home, I can't think of very many better uses of CPU time. Even if your specific computer never finds a candidate signal, you know that your electricity is spent benefiting humanity instead of entertaining idle CPU calls.
If you bothered to read the story you linked to, you would see that it was attributed to the batteries.
I did read the article. You'll notice that I said, "I do realize that she dropped the phone and this likely caused the problem," which I learned from the article -- regardless of that, though, the chemistry and physics aspects are really unrelated to what was being discussed. The grandparent was asking for an example of a spark, which was then provided. I was arguing no other point.
Antennae get struck by lightning because they are made of conductive materials and stick up into the sky.
And also because they build up a charge, which in turn increases (albeit slightly) the likelyhood of a lightning strike. After all, charges are what lightning is all about. It's obvious that you're well-versed in the sciences, so I don't think I need to say more about that.
F.Y.I.: antennae commonly refers to the pair of apendages that are attached to a head for sensory purposes. Antennas are strictly defined to be metallic objects that transmits EM waves. I'll stick with the latter.
... that means fully one half of the population has an IQ below 100.
I think you meant to say "median" there, since the mean IQ is just the simple average across the population. The median value is the dividing line of the two halves.
If you can show me one place -- any place -- where someone has been able to "cause a spark" [...]
There is an article on Excite here, which was covered on Slashdot here, that tells of a woman whose cell phone burst into flames. No matter the cause, there's your spark -- and much more. I do realize that she dropped the phone and this likely caused the problem, but this could just as easily have happened while she was standing at the pump.
But regardless of that, cell phones build up static energy much like people do -- any wireless internet/radio enthusiast will tell you that. This is what causes lightning to strike antennas more frequently than most other objects. Most people have also found out that static electricity from simply moving around can cause a spark.
All I'm saying is that the possibility exists for such a "spark" to take place given the right conditions (i.e., "in some cases"). Physics tells us such, and that's enough evidence for me to appreciate the concern.
Cellular phone manufacturers Nokia and Ericsson have said that the risk is very small that something will happen, but since there is a risk, it should be counted.
If the manufacturers of the devices in question are saying that there is a risk, we ought to take it seriously. When lives are potentially at stake, the probability of the said occurrence shouldn't matter.
The message is nothing but an urban legend, say representatives from the wireless and petroleum industries. But it's clearly one with legs: It has made the rounds online for the past three years, according to Snopes.com, a website dedicated to debunking urban myths.
The rest of the above article is available at this Wired page. So it sounds like it's mostly legend, although the remote possibility does exist.
So you push your car out of the filling station by hand to not ignite something when starting your engine?
The spark in your engine is contained -- there is little or no risk of igniting gas fumes in the air. I doubt that the engine running would create a problem, although they do recommend that you keep the engine off while actually fueling your vehicle.
I think that the parent post was saying that using the cellphone in an area where you or anyone else might be fueling could be dangerous. Most of the time we're not alone at the pumps.
Cell phones tend to build up a static charge due to their emission of electromagnetic waves, which, in some cases, can cause a spark. The same is true when people get back in their cars while fueling, since the door opening and closing can create static buildup. It's a legitimate concern.
I'm mostly surprised that these people adopted this new technology and use it to transfer such sensitive information. Hopefully the three industries also worked together to build a solid encryption system.
It also seems like a stretch that people would easily be able to do all the things they list -- e.g., post things to a campus website. I know how hard it is for me to check my hotmail account from my Sprint PCS phone.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have an interest in information security, I recommend the PaulDotCom Security Weekly podcast. Paul and Larry do an excellent job of covering the news and giving in-depth tutorials for useful security tools.
--a
--a
When I move away, they will be losing their support staff. I'm definitely a geek and will be the first to admit that it's fun maintaining all these computers... but at the same time, someone needs to be here to keep things running. Thankfully, many of our machines run Linux or FreeBSD and will be easy to maintain remotely. The Windows machines, on the other hand, could be a problem.
All that aside, though, I'm glad to see that someone is developing a technology that allows people to feel connected in a more intimate sense than just throwing e-mail bits back and forth. Maybe by the time I've moved to my next school, I will be able to use a technology like this to keep the computers running and avoid homesickness.
Who knows, I guess it could become my research topic...
--a
More info can be found in yesterday's extensive discussion on this. :)
--a
I've often wondered the same thing. After all, who would feel the need to extend text into something that looks similar to graphics when you step back about 10 paces?
One of the main reasons, I think, is simply to see how far (and how skillfully) it can be stretched. In that respect, it seems similar to the gentlemen who not long ago were striving to connect a Commodore 64 to the internet -- or the other gentleman who wrote an ethernet driver in BASIC.
These things may not be fun to compete with modern technology, but it takes a good level of skill to do each of them. Good programming practice, I would bet.
--a
It's usually beneficial to the consumer when this sort of competition is started. A prime example where I live is Meijer vs. Wal-mart. When Meijer arrived, the price war that followed was a great one for us consumers. I imagine that a similar thing might happen in this case.
--a
Now the problem is that sometimes technological terms differ from the other sciences. For example, "antennae" is correct when used to discuss the appendages that come out of the head of a creature; antennas, however, are metallic objects that are used to send/receive signals. So in the case of viruses and virii, it's certainly possible that virii may manifest itself in our language simply because it's used frequently. That's the nature of language in many cases.
--a
--a
I honestly hope I'm wrong. Any further thoughts?
--a
I really, really hope this gets settled in a decent fashion without getting any uglier.
--a
The argument that someone else is behind this may not hold up in the scheduled SCO vs. IBM trial, but it certainly would make good countersuit material. I sure hope that IBM is able to get to the bottom of things if this is the case.
--a
Aside from that, I think that program integration is slowly getting better. It's still not quite there in RH9, but it's much better than it was in some of the previous RH releases. I've also been tracking the development of Enlightenment 0.17 which, it appears, will have good and clean program integration. I think that this was one of the things that Raster was hoping to address when the E developers decided to do a re-write. Let us hope, anyway!
--a
This focus on smaller sample groups is nice to see. It is quite obvious that in certain situations, Linux has some major advantages over Windows. In my experience, web applications (Apache+PHP+MySQL) and embedded systems are good examples.
In support of the above quote, I find it highly unlikely that Linux will be able to spur a "mass conversion" -- but that probably wouldn't be the best course of action anyway. I imagine that a better way would be to focus on a relatively small sample group and let the versatility of Linux convince people that it's a good choice. If the product is as good as many think it is, then the conversion of the masses may be inevitable. Time will tell.
--a
--a
--a
Both Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein were believers in such simplicity. Feynman believed that one never really understands a topic unless he can prepare a freshman lecture on it. Einstein, also in support of simplicity, said that one does not really understand something unless he can explain it to his grandmother. So "pretty picture" or not, it sounds like this reduction to simple terms is good for both the layman and the scientist alike.
As for SETI@Home, I can't think of very many better uses of CPU time. Even if your specific computer never finds a candidate signal, you know that your electricity is spent benefiting humanity instead of entertaining idle CPU calls.
Cheers,
-a
I did read the article. You'll notice that I said, "I do realize that she dropped the phone and this likely caused the problem," which I learned from the article -- regardless of that, though, the chemistry and physics aspects are really unrelated to what was being discussed. The grandparent was asking for an example of a spark, which was then provided. I was arguing no other point.
Antennae get struck by lightning because they are made of conductive materials and stick up into the sky.
And also because they build up a charge, which in turn increases (albeit slightly) the likelyhood of a lightning strike. After all, charges are what lightning is all about. It's obvious that you're well-versed in the sciences, so I don't think I need to say more about that.
F.Y.I.: antennae commonly refers to the pair of apendages that are attached to a head for sensory purposes. Antennas are strictly defined to be metallic objects that transmits EM waves. I'll stick with the latter.
-a
I think you meant to say "median" there, since the mean IQ is just the simple average across the population. The median value is the dividing line of the two halves.
Cheers,
-a
There is an article on Excite here, which was covered on Slashdot here, that tells of a woman whose cell phone burst into flames. No matter the cause, there's your spark -- and much more. I do realize that she dropped the phone and this likely caused the problem, but this could just as easily have happened while she was standing at the pump.
But regardless of that, cell phones build up static energy much like people do -- any wireless internet/radio enthusiast will tell you that. This is what causes lightning to strike antennas more frequently than most other objects. Most people have also found out that static electricity from simply moving around can cause a spark.
All I'm saying is that the possibility exists for such a "spark" to take place given the right conditions (i.e., "in some cases"). Physics tells us such, and that's enough evidence for me to appreciate the concern.
I'm done. Take care.
-a
Cellular phone manufacturers Nokia and Ericsson have said that the risk is very small that something will happen, but since there is a risk, it should be counted.
If the manufacturers of the devices in question are saying that there is a risk, we ought to take it seriously. When lives are potentially at stake, the probability of the said occurrence shouldn't matter.
-a
The rest of the above article is available at this Wired page. So it sounds like it's mostly legend, although the remote possibility does exist.
-a
The spark in your engine is contained -- there is little or no risk of igniting gas fumes in the air. I doubt that the engine running would create a problem, although they do recommend that you keep the engine off while actually fueling your vehicle.
I think that the parent post was saying that using the cellphone in an area where you or anyone else might be fueling could be dangerous. Most of the time we're not alone at the pumps.
-a
I'm mostly surprised that these people adopted this new technology and use it to transfer such sensitive information. Hopefully the three industries also worked together to build a solid encryption system.
It also seems like a stretch that people would easily be able to do all the things they list -- e.g., post things to a campus website. I know how hard it is for me to check my hotmail account from my Sprint PCS phone.
Cheers,
-a