The point of having superior military technology is so that (hopefully) we never have to use it.
Also, when military force must be used, in addition to reason provided in the GP's post, it must also provide maximum safety to the warfighter, so that he may come home to his family in one piece when the day is done. I would say at least 40% of our mission as military researchers falls under the category of what we call "Survivability".
Hey, just wanted to make a few things clear, from the perspective of someone who works on this stuff (military research in general, FCS in particular). There are three basic networks that we use here, and I'm hoping I can provide a bit of detail on each:
The most widely-used is the NIPRNet, which is the network that most business operations on the base use. All machines connected to it must conform to a standard Windows image, and the network is monitored and internet access moderately restricted (i.e. gaming sites, porn sites, "mp3 sites", direct ip connections, etc. are blocked). Software on these machines must undergo a lengthy approval process before being loaded by a qualified WGM (basically, your workgroup's local tech person with admin access to the machines). Most resident contractors are put on this network, with a few exceptions.
Next, we have the SIPRNet. This is the secure network, and is rigidly monitored and the machines accessing it are restricted to only the things deemed essential for the classified project. SIPRNet machines must be isolated both physically and electronically from any other computers on the base and from the intranet/internet.
Finally, we have the DREN. This is the "research" network, and is where people like me get things done. Internet access is unrestricted, and software is loosly, if at all, controlled (basically, if you're not causing alarms to go off in the network guy's building, you're ok...just don't go using it for Bittorrent or the like). Individuals have full control of their computers, and can install and run their own programs (including, as in my case, Linux). A firewall still blocks most ports to the outside world, but 80 and 21 are open (I am forced to ssh to my home box through port 80, however, and CVS isn't an option in most cases). The research supercomputers are on this network, and a kerberos authentication scheme is used for access. Frankly, this is the only machine I can get anything resembling real work done on, but we're all forced to have a separate NIPRNet box for e-mail, active directory stuff, and the like. If their work demands it, contractors may, in certain cases, have access to this network. It is not reachable at all from the outside except through kerberized ssh and ftp.
Hope this settles a few things. I know there's distinctions on different levels that I'm not aware of and/or not allowed to know, but that's how things generally look from a DoD-employed researcher's perspective.
It doesn't matter; I don't think PearPC cares if anyone buys. I think they'd be more upset over someone else releasing their unfinished work...and not on their terms. Think if you were in the middle of a large, potentially-prestigous, non-commercial (yet) project. Say you're just getting it right, things are coming together, and you're working swiftly towards your ultimate goal...then FWOOMP! someone slides in, puts your uncompleted work up on the market, claims it as their own, and charges people for it--and gives you nothing but trouble in return. You'd probably be pretty upset, too.
Call it whatever you like. I'd probably call it a matter of honorability.
We are talking about playing MP3s and the occasional film not some propriatary format they are trying to push down our throats, and dont tell me about WMA because for gods sake if the Mum and Dad consumers are going to use that format well good on them who gives a Dam I just dont get it, that the e...something, something, typo, something, run-on, something else...
Actually, you bring up a good point, but it's not the one you made. The fact that it's the media player not being shipped makes a big deal in the proprietary format restriction aspect. MS, or anyone else, now have even less of an assurance that their WM* files will be universally viewable. Perhaps this will make people consider more carefully how they distribute media files, since now proprietary incompatibility is going to be affecting a lot more people.
It's something to think about--it may not seem like much, but it's a reasonable step in the Big Scheme of Things to wean the computer-using population away from assuming everyone uses the same system.
I submitted this last week, with a funnier headline!
Actually, they did have it on their official download page for about a day, and I just happened to be checking. When I went to show a friend, however, I found it was no longer there, and the download pointed you to the version 5. Luckily, I was able to find the URL in my download history, and found that they didn't actually remove the file from the server -- only the link.
The program is actually quite smooth, and is very well-integrated. They seem to have done a great deal of work on the interface, and I'd be surprised if this didn't forshadow some future Adobe interest in Linux. It seems like an excessive amount of effort for one freely-available program -- accessibility features, a very good help system, etc. I was especially impressed by the implementation of the "Find" feature.
The rendering is spotless, clean, and fast, and Adobe's "CoolType" font rendering libraries are also provided. I've not found a.pdf that it did not render correctly, but it unfortunately will not render pure postscript.
All in all, though, I must admit that I was quite impressed. I hope to see more Adobe interest in Linux in the future -- it would be a very nice seal of approval for the system as a whole to finally see, say, Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, or Premiere natively for Linux.
Very cool!
P.S. If it's still the same version I downloaded, you can rid yourself of that annoying flashing advertisement bar thingy by dragging all the toolbar buttons down to a new toolbar...when you move the last one down, it removes the now-empty (except for the flashy Adobe ad thingy) original bar and you're left with an identical bar where you moved the button, without the annoying advertisement, helpfully moved back to its "original" position when the default one is removed. Lock 'em there, and you're good to go, even after closing and re-opening the program!
I don't think it's really fair to say that they have a right to sue people over a basic word game. In fact, I doubt even they came up with the idea in the first place -- there's probably some ancient depiction of Greek commonpeople playing a local variant of similar game somewhere.
"I have [snake][square][dagger][cat][squiggly][triangle] on a triple-word score!" "Hey, that's not a word!" "Is so! The -[squiggly][triangle] is an accepted alternate spelling. Check the Book of Ra-sha-ha if you don't believe me!"
Tomorrow, the New York Times will sue online crossword-puzzle sites.
P.S. darn you,/., and your non-support of heiroglyphic charactersets!
The story was about their image search, and there is a link to that. The comments have been more directed towards the regular MSN search, but you can't fault the/. editors for that.
In practice, though, anyone who is a "nerd" (as that is for whom this news is said to be) can figure out how to get to the regular search engine if they wanted.
Presentation is everything. I guarantee that gets modded +5 informative with proper (any, for that matter) punctuation and capitalization. (SHOUTING and dozens of consecutive exclamation points !!!!!!! midsentence doesn't count. This isn't eBay.)
The shot at the moderators at the bottom won't help you, either, no matter what your comment says. Such comments are always off-topic, never constructive, and certainly not going to contribute to a POSITIVE mod on the post.
Finally, nobody really cares about moderating up an AC. Log in and put an identity (even a fake one) behind your comment and its credibility improves tenfold...and at least the mod points go somewhere, that way.
And now watch as I get blasted for being off-topic (as I should be). >8)
Whether you realize it or not, most games DO have male leads which are designed to be attractive. There are many more Duke Nukems and Gordon Freemans out there with big hulking muscles and/or suave good looks than there are Leisure Suit Larrys. I mean, if you're creating anything artificially, why not make it look good (a la the movie industry)? In fact, when it comes to computers, it's actually magnitudes easier to do it that way.
I seem to recall the United States government having to pay farmers to not grow crops, because we're producing far more food than we (fat as we are!) can consume.
As a military research civilian, I am frequently faced with this problem. >8)
I was always told to use a/an in writing as if the acronym was spelled out instead of pronounced; however upon doing a quick google search, it would appear that one Doctor Grammar disagrees.
Slashdot Mirror
GNU/FCS?
The point of having superior military technology is so that (hopefully) we never have to use it.
Also, when military force must be used, in addition to reason provided in the GP's post, it must also provide maximum safety to the warfighter, so that he may come home to his family in one piece when the day is done. I would say at least 40% of our mission as military researchers falls under the category of what we call "Survivability".
Hey, just wanted to make a few things clear, from the perspective of someone who works on this stuff (military research in general, FCS in particular). There are three basic networks that we use here, and I'm hoping I can provide a bit of detail on each:
The most widely-used is the NIPRNet, which is the network that most business operations on the base use. All machines connected to it must conform to a standard Windows image, and the network is monitored and internet access moderately restricted (i.e. gaming sites, porn sites, "mp3 sites", direct ip connections, etc. are blocked). Software on these machines must undergo a lengthy approval process before being loaded by a qualified WGM (basically, your workgroup's local tech person with admin access to the machines). Most resident contractors are put on this network, with a few exceptions.
Next, we have the SIPRNet. This is the secure network, and is rigidly monitored and the machines accessing it are restricted to only the things deemed essential for the classified project. SIPRNet machines must be isolated both physically and electronically from any other computers on the base and from the intranet/internet.
Finally, we have the DREN. This is the "research" network, and is where people like me get things done. Internet access is unrestricted, and software is loosly, if at all, controlled (basically, if you're not causing alarms to go off in the network guy's building, you're ok...just don't go using it for Bittorrent or the like). Individuals have full control of their computers, and can install and run their own programs (including, as in my case, Linux). A firewall still blocks most ports to the outside world, but 80 and 21 are open (I am forced to ssh to my home box through port 80, however, and CVS isn't an option in most cases). The research supercomputers are on this network, and a kerberos authentication scheme is used for access. Frankly, this is the only machine I can get anything resembling real work done on, but we're all forced to have a separate NIPRNet box for e-mail, active directory stuff, and the like. If their work demands it, contractors may, in certain cases, have access to this network. It is not reachable at all from the outside except through kerberized ssh and ftp.
Hope this settles a few things. I know there's distinctions on different levels that I'm not aware of and/or not allowed to know, but that's how things generally look from a DoD-employed researcher's perspective.
Alright, then...the first time a mapping/routefinding service which has US maps has had satellite imagery integrated.
>8)
I think they mean that it's the first time a true mapping/routefinding service (MapQuest, et al) has satellite imagery integrated.
Is that your shiny little hat fallen off on the floor over there?
Tragically, because it probably will.
It doesn't matter; I don't think PearPC cares if anyone buys. I think they'd be more upset over someone else releasing their unfinished work...and not on their terms. Think if you were in the middle of a large, potentially-prestigous, non-commercial (yet) project. Say you're just getting it right, things are coming together, and you're working swiftly towards your ultimate goal...then FWOOMP! someone slides in, puts your uncompleted work up on the market, claims it as their own, and charges people for it--and gives you nothing but trouble in return. You'd probably be pretty upset, too.
Call it whatever you like. I'd probably call it a matter of honorability.
TFA says he hired his dad. I'm not quite sure if that's funny, disgusting, or pathetic.
Plug-ins are implemented as the plug-ins plug-ins with plug-ins over plug-ins plug-ins plug-ins plug-ins plug-ins.
Furthermore, plug-ins plug-ins plug-ins so that plug-ins plug-ins.
Mine eyes glazeth over.
P.S. plug-ins
P.P.S I just like saying plug-ins. It's a funny word. Plug-ins. Hee!
We are talking about playing MP3s and the occasional film not some propriatary format they are trying to push down our throats, and dont tell me about WMA because for gods sake if the Mum and Dad consumers are going to use that format well good on them who gives a Dam I just dont get it, that the e...something, something, typo, something, run-on, something else...
Actually, you bring up a good point, but it's not the one you made. The fact that it's the media player not being shipped makes a big deal in the proprietary format restriction aspect. MS, or anyone else, now have even less of an assurance that their WM* files will be universally viewable. Perhaps this will make people consider more carefully how they distribute media files, since now proprietary incompatibility is going to be affecting a lot more people.
It's something to think about--it may not seem like much, but it's a reasonable step in the Big Scheme of Things to wean the computer-using population away from assuming everyone uses the same system.
Excuse me, sir. I think you are lost. I believe the thread you are looking for is here.
Have a nice day, and good karma to you!
I submitted this last week, with a funnier headline!
.pdf that it did not render correctly, but it unfortunately will not render pure postscript.
Actually, they did have it on their official download page for about a day, and I just happened to be checking. When I went to show a friend, however, I found it was no longer there, and the download pointed you to the version 5. Luckily, I was able to find the URL in my download history, and found that they didn't actually remove the file from the server -- only the link.
The program is actually quite smooth, and is very well-integrated. They seem to have done a great deal of work on the interface, and I'd be surprised if this didn't forshadow some future Adobe interest in Linux. It seems like an excessive amount of effort for one freely-available program -- accessibility features, a very good help system, etc. I was especially impressed by the implementation of the "Find" feature.
The rendering is spotless, clean, and fast, and Adobe's "CoolType" font rendering libraries are also provided. I've not found a
All in all, though, I must admit that I was quite impressed. I hope to see more Adobe interest in Linux in the future -- it would be a very nice seal of approval for the system as a whole to finally see, say, Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, or Premiere natively for Linux.
Very cool!
P.S. If it's still the same version I downloaded, you can rid yourself of that annoying flashing advertisement bar thingy by dragging all the toolbar buttons down to a new toolbar...when you move the last one down, it removes the now-empty (except for the flashy Adobe ad thingy) original bar and you're left with an identical bar where you moved the button, without the annoying advertisement, helpfully moved back to its "original" position when the default one is removed. Lock 'em there, and you're good to go, even after closing and re-opening the program!
I don't think it's really fair to say that they have a right to sue people over a basic word game. In fact, I doubt even they came up with the idea in the first place -- there's probably some ancient depiction of Greek commonpeople playing a local variant of similar game somewhere.
/., and your non-support of heiroglyphic charactersets!
"I have [snake][square][dagger][cat][squiggly][triangle] on a triple-word score!"
"Hey, that's not a word!"
"Is so! The -[squiggly][triangle] is an accepted alternate spelling. Check the Book of Ra-sha-ha if you don't believe me!"
Tomorrow, the New York Times will sue online crossword-puzzle sites.
P.S. darn you,
The story was about their image search, and there is a link to that. The comments have been more directed towards the regular MSN search, but you can't fault the /. editors for that.
In practice, though, anyone who is a "nerd" (as that is for whom this news is said to be) can figure out how to get to the regular search engine if they wanted.
-hC
Seriously, I should go back to bed. The section corresponding to the comment should be Appendix D, as is noted in the comment topic.
For all you crossword-puzzlers and wordgames enthusiasts, Chapter 13 is a great tool to have, and an interesting study in and of itself.
FOUO is the rating that applies to everything that the military uses that isn't classified but is not public domain.
Just FYI.
Presentation is everything. I guarantee that gets modded +5 informative with proper (any, for that matter) punctuation and capitalization. (SHOUTING and dozens of consecutive exclamation points !!!!!!! midsentence doesn't count. This isn't eBay.)
The shot at the moderators at the bottom won't help you, either, no matter what your comment says. Such comments are always off-topic, never constructive, and certainly not going to contribute to a POSITIVE mod on the post.
Finally, nobody really cares about moderating up an AC. Log in and put an identity (even a fake one) behind your comment and its credibility improves tenfold...and at least the mod points go somewhere, that way.
And now watch as I get blasted for being off-topic (as I should be). >8)
You dropped this on the floor, sir:
</i>
Here ya go.
Slow boobies day on Fark? >8p
There are entire websites devoted to Impractical Armor. >8)
Whether you realize it or not, most games DO have male leads which are designed to be attractive. There are many more Duke Nukems and Gordon Freemans out there with big hulking muscles and/or suave good looks than there are Leisure Suit Larrys. I mean, if you're creating anything artificially, why not make it look good (a la the movie industry)? In fact, when it comes to computers, it's actually magnitudes easier to do it that way.
I seem to recall the United States government having to pay farmers to not grow crops, because we're producing far more food than we (fat as we are!) can consume.
As a military research civilian, I am frequently faced with this problem. >8)
I was always told to use a/an in writing as if the acronym was spelled out instead of pronounced; however upon doing a quick google search, it would appear that one Doctor Grammar disagrees.