After upgrading one of my systems to a SSD, I went through and replaced all boot drives in all my systems with them. I can't stand using mechanical disks these days--waiting for things to load just derails my train of thought and damages my productivity.
These were the best speed upgrades per dollar I've ever spent. And thanks to you, I not only enjoy the performance boost, but also the feel of flying a solar-powered helicopter.
SSDs from Intel, SuperTalent, OCZ, etc. are both fast and reliable.
Problems happen when you try to boot from thumb drive or otherwise misuse flash disks. But those disks which are designed by reputable companies to act as traditional hard drives are certainly more reliable than mechanical disks.
Their leader had to put out a message on the subject stating that Patel is merely inspired by the messiah:
Q. I can’t seem to find any individuals who give me the feeling that Maitreya would give one if hearing him speak on television. I do not sense any people with any spiritual energy emanating from them when they speak. The closest thing to someone as an ordinary person is Raj Patel the author of The Value of Nothing who appeared on Democracy Now and the Colbert Report in 2010. He even travelled from India to London in 1977. However he doesn’t seem to talk much about creating a new civilization based on sharing and justice as much as one would expect Maitreya to do. Is he in fact just an ordinary man inspired by Maitreya?Also he denied being Maitreya but agrees with your ideas and purpose.
A. The ideas of Maitreya have penetrated all planes for many years and thousands of people are ‘inspired’ by these ideas.
Are you new to the internet? This "founding fathers on religion" debate is old as dirt, and you don't seem to have the basics. Many of them would not be considered "Christians" by today's standards, and it is certainly false to say "all...were highly religious." As to the intent of the separation clause: Thomas Jefferson wanted to "build a wall between church and state" (in his words, from memory). His intent couldn't be more clear.
Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, Mr. Coward. The performance of Ruby 1.9 is what is improved. I am not referring to JRuby, or Rails, or Java, or whatever else you imagined. I really was talking about the latest version of Ruby, the programming language.
While I can't speak to Rails (never used it) or to dog penises, I can say that the newest version of Ruby (1.9) is much faster than the previous versions. Its performance is similar to that of python or perl, and it outperforms these similar languages in some benchmarks. It was the slowest of the mainstream dynamic languages, but that is no longer the case.
These are some carefully-chosen words. Ruby is evolving faster than any other language, it seems. You blink your eyes and the XML parser you were using is out-of-favor; everyone has switched to the new one which really is much improved. This can be frustrating in that you must work to keep up with the Ruby world, but all these changes really to seem to be bringing the best of the best ideas to the surface.
Combine this rapid change with Ruby's metaprogramming ability and you see a programming language ecosystem in which evolution is sure to favor that little OO language from Japan...
Your post is written like someone who has never even tried to implement security. Let me guess: you're a sales guy?
Take away admin rights and you stop SOME but not ALL malware. And you stop people from actually getting WORK DONE. Are you going to let them use your computer when they need to run an app which only works as admin?
The rest of your list is similarly vapid and worthless.
The last time I was in Belgium, every bike I saw looked like it was 60 years old. That honestly isn't an exaggeration. These are the sort of bikes you would only find in landfills in the US. What's up with that? Can Belgians not afford new bikes after paying for their socialized everything?
It's not just drugs that are expensive here. Everything is. My brother had a migraine. The hospital decided it needed to run some tests (CAT scan, I believe) to ensure it was not something more serious.
Their tests cost $20,000. Just tests--no drugs. Thankfully, he had insurance, so he only had to pay $4,000 out of his own pockets... but he is a student with no income, so $4k was hard to scrape together.
They perform more tests here, and they charge whatever they please for these tests. That's one reason America spends so much more on healthcare.
Mr. Coward, IT Security has a cost. As a security analyst, we must give the customer the best bang for the budget, not the best recommendation they can never afford to implement. That means prioritizing threat mitigation based on, among other things, attack feasibility.
It sounds like your understanding of the industry is quite unsophisticated. I doubt, Mr. Coward, that you are actually "an IT security guy," as you claim to be.
How about this: the color of the light emitted by CFLs and LEDs is ugly, and sometimes even hard on the eyes (especially with LEDs).
For me, this is reason enough to stick with incandescent bulbs for the places I spend most of my time.
If you consider my above statements to be "crap" then you shouldn't have skipped class on the day they talked about the light spectrum. The spectrum emitted unquestionably differs between lighting technologies.
As an IT security guy, I found this to be informative, actually. When analyzing the security of a system or organization, I need to know not just what is theoretically possible, but what can be done with already-existing software and hardware.
This article gives me some idea as to what attacks are currently practical (and for what key lengths).
When research or engineering achievements come from the commercial (rather than academic) sector, it isn't really reasonable to expect an academic tone. They're tooting their own horn, but they are doing it about something important.
you say tap rooms exist everywhere and in in operation on every communications system at all times.
Now you're just making things up. Funny guy!
Go prove yourself. Reality does not change.
The ultimate LOL in your post is talking about ROI for federal law enforcement. HA! Clearly, someone made the mistake of letting a pointy-haired middle-manager get a slashdot account.
All core internet networks have "high value data." Signal to noise is not a concern. It is trivial to configure recording equipment to record only summary data of traffic going to or from target systems (such as popular proxies and sites like wikileaks).
Guess what: tap rooms exist in more than just bars. This is not philosophy class. You can't change reality with word games or bad analogies. It exists anyway.
I don't take orders from you, random internet guy.
If you want to assume that the FBI climbs a pole and clips a sniffer on to core fiber with big-ol' alligator clips every time they do an investigation... then you're a funny guy. Like ha-ha funny. Like you're in jail because they actually have taps in place at all times but you wouldn't believe it because you expected them to document this for you or something funny.
The US government has taps on all internet backbones. Even if you go through a proxy, they will be able to identify your IP address if you access such information.
If the WikiLeaks had branded itself as a just whistle-blower site, it would have a chance at surviving. As is, its operators are certain to see jail eventually.
I work in corporate IT security, kido-o. I know linux seems leet to you helpdesk types, but I have seen a large number of linux servers hacked right here in this very datacenter. Users make mistakes; it is their nature. Systems administrators have limited resources. Departments have churn.
Keep denying these facts and you will only demonstrate that you are deluded. Linux is not a solution to all security concerns.
Well, given enough funding, IT Security could keep even Windows boxes to extremely low risk levels. Most companies, however, simply decide that $x dollars is enough to spend on Security, and so the Security team tries to get the most bang for that buck. You can block 99% of malware with a reasonable amount of security expense. To get to 99.9%, you will need to double or triple the cost. 100% is not possible, and most companies accept the risk that small amounts of malware get through.
Slashdot Mirror
After upgrading one of my systems to a SSD, I went through and replaced all boot drives in all my systems with them. I can't stand using mechanical disks these days--waiting for things to load just derails my train of thought and damages my productivity.
These were the best speed upgrades per dollar I've ever spent. And thanks to you, I not only enjoy the performance boost, but also the feel of flying a solar-powered helicopter.
SSDs from Intel, SuperTalent, OCZ, etc. are both fast and reliable.
Problems happen when you try to boot from thumb drive or otherwise misuse flash disks. But those disks which are designed by reputable companies to act as traditional hard drives are certainly more reliable than mechanical disks.
Their leader had to put out a message on the subject stating that Patel is merely inspired by the messiah:
http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2010/2010-03.htm
Are you new to the internet? This "founding fathers on religion" debate is old as dirt, and you don't seem to have the basics. Many of them would not be considered "Christians" by today's standards, and it is certainly false to say "all...were highly religious." As to the intent of the separation clause: Thomas Jefferson wanted to "build a wall between church and state" (in his words, from memory). His intent couldn't be more clear.
I bet you went to "public" school in Texas...
Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, Mr. Coward. The performance of Ruby 1.9 is what is improved. I am not referring to JRuby, or Rails, or Java, or whatever else you imagined. I really was talking about the latest version of Ruby, the programming language.
Reading comprehension is important.
While I can't speak to Rails (never used it) or to dog penises, I can say that the newest version of Ruby (1.9) is much faster than the previous versions. Its performance is similar to that of python or perl, and it outperforms these similar languages in some benchmarks. It was the slowest of the mainstream dynamic languages, but that is no longer the case.
These are some carefully-chosen words. Ruby is evolving faster than any other language, it seems. You blink your eyes and the XML parser you were using is out-of-favor; everyone has switched to the new one which really is much improved. This can be frustrating in that you must work to keep up with the Ruby world, but all these changes really to seem to be bringing the best of the best ideas to the surface.
Combine this rapid change with Ruby's metaprogramming ability and you see a programming language ecosystem in which evolution is sure to favor that little OO language from Japan...
Best of all, most of that stuff stops working when they take their laptops home and let their kids play with them!
Your post is written like someone who has never even tried to implement security. Let me guess: you're a sales guy?
Take away admin rights and you stop SOME but not ALL malware. And you stop people from actually getting WORK DONE. Are you going to let them use your computer when they need to run an app which only works as admin?
The rest of your list is similarly vapid and worthless.
The purpose of health insurance today is to provide hospitals assurance that they will get paid if they treat you.
Stop playing word-games. You call yourself an "intellectual" but you're merely a sophist--a buffoon with a thesaurus.
The last time I was in Belgium, every bike I saw looked like it was 60 years old. That honestly isn't an exaggeration. These are the sort of bikes you would only find in landfills in the US. What's up with that? Can Belgians not afford new bikes after paying for their socialized everything?
It's not just drugs that are expensive here. Everything is. My brother had a migraine. The hospital decided it needed to run some tests (CAT scan, I believe) to ensure it was not something more serious.
Their tests cost $20,000. Just tests--no drugs. Thankfully, he had insurance, so he only had to pay $4,000 out of his own pockets... but he is a student with no income, so $4k was hard to scrape together.
They perform more tests here, and they charge whatever they please for these tests. That's one reason America spends so much more on healthcare.
A $20,000 headache... yeesh.
Mr. Coward, IT Security has a cost. As a security analyst, we must give the customer the best bang for the budget, not the best recommendation they can never afford to implement. That means prioritizing threat mitigation based on, among other things, attack feasibility.
It sounds like your understanding of the industry is quite unsophisticated. I doubt, Mr. Coward, that you are actually "an IT security guy," as you claim to be.
Your response is bogus because:
(x) I never said anything about headaches
(x) LEDs/CFLs with the spectrum of sunlight or incandescent bulbs do not exist
This is not even close to a continuous spectrum.
But thanks for trolling by!
How about this: the color of the light emitted by CFLs and LEDs is ugly, and sometimes even hard on the eyes (especially with LEDs).
For me, this is reason enough to stick with incandescent bulbs for the places I spend most of my time.
If you consider my above statements to be "crap" then you shouldn't have skipped class on the day they talked about the light spectrum. The spectrum emitted unquestionably differs between lighting technologies.
As an IT security guy, I found this to be informative, actually. When analyzing the security of a system or organization, I need to know not just what is theoretically possible, but what can be done with already-existing software and hardware.
This article gives me some idea as to what attacks are currently practical (and for what key lengths).
When research or engineering achievements come from the commercial (rather than academic) sector, it isn't really reasonable to expect an academic tone. They're tooting their own horn, but they are doing it about something important.
Now you're just making things up. Funny guy!
Go prove yourself. Reality does not change.
The ultimate LOL in your post is talking about ROI for federal law enforcement. HA! Clearly, someone made the mistake of letting a pointy-haired middle-manager get a slashdot account.
All core internet networks have "high value data." Signal to noise is not a concern. It is trivial to configure recording equipment to record only summary data of traffic going to or from target systems (such as popular proxies and sites like wikileaks).
Guess what: tap rooms exist in more than just bars. This is not philosophy class. You can't change reality with word games or bad analogies. It exists anyway.
Ha-ha funny, eventually-in-jail funny, and too-dumb-to-use-google funny. Way to be!
I don't take orders from you, random internet guy.
If you want to assume that the FBI climbs a pole and clips a sniffer on to core fiber with big-ol' alligator clips every time they do an investigation... then you're a funny guy. Like ha-ha funny. Like you're in jail because they actually have taps in place at all times but you wouldn't believe it because you expected them to document this for you or something funny.
The US government has taps on all internet backbones. Even if you go through a proxy, they will be able to identify your IP address if you access such information.
If the WikiLeaks had branded itself as a just whistle-blower site, it would have a chance at surviving. As is, its operators are certain to see jail eventually.
I work in corporate IT security, kido-o. I know linux seems leet to you helpdesk types, but I have seen a large number of linux servers hacked right here in this very datacenter. Users make mistakes; it is their nature. Systems administrators have limited resources. Departments have churn.
Keep denying these facts and you will only demonstrate that you are deluded. Linux is not a solution to all security concerns.
*facepalm*
Yes, you're right. My problems is that I learned about economics in a university rather than on the Internet.
Call underemployment "underemployment" or "U6". Don't call it "unemployment." That would make you look stupid. Again.
Is this a joke? A determined attacker, willing to spend enough resources, could get to any computer system with a user--regardless of the OS.
Well, given enough funding, IT Security could keep even Windows boxes to extremely low risk levels. Most companies, however, simply decide that $x dollars is enough to spend on Security, and so the Security team tries to get the most bang for that buck. You can block 99% of malware with a reasonable amount of security expense. To get to 99.9%, you will need to double or triple the cost. 100% is not possible, and most companies accept the risk that small amounts of malware get through.