"Like many, we are urging Microsoft to make Windows -- not Windows Mobile -- available on the Arm. This is a complex question for them," Negroponte said.
OLPC is in talks with Microsoft to develop a version of a full Windows OS for XO-2, Negroponte said. The XO-2 is still 18 months away from release, so "a lot can change with regard to Microsoft and Arm," Negroponte said.
They jettisoned Sugar, and they keep courting Microsoft. So sad. I wish the article would have explored the "open source" hardware concept. No idea what the heck that means from the article or for OLPC:
OLPC can't implement all its ideas in XO-2, so it ultimately wants to "open source" the hardware design to other PC makers for use in building devices, McNierney said. He hopes that opening up the hardware design will spur the development of a "rich family of devices" that accelerate the adoption of the XO-2 technology.
Even if found to be guilty of civil or criminal wrongdoing, the BBC may have a complete defence because their act was taken as part of a protected form of investigative journalism or alternatively because they are acting as a good Samaritan in the public interest. They seem to be acting with the interest of exposing to the public and documenting a very important situation on the internet
Is this also true for security researchers who publicly expose vulnerabilities? I realize it is a different situation, but there seem to be some analogues. What about hacking into someone's system only in order to inform them of the method of the hack?
It got to me to thinking. What is the Federation really? At least as written by Gene Roddenberry it seems to border on communism. Even DS9 continued this trend to a certain point -- mentioning "transporter credits" in one episode. Apparently the government doles out ration coupons to control how often the citizenry can move about. Where's the individual freedom and liberty?
Great angle. This also has a modern analogue in terms of "cultural imperialism" of the West.
I'm a huge trek fan, and strongly believe in having optimism for humanity... BUT... Trek has taken it too far. Optimism doesn't mean flawless and imperfect, yet the federation represents that. Remember season 1 of TNG? With that hole plot thing within the federation? That was interesting. How about the several times they tried to take Data, or his daughter. And so on -- Picard and Kirk disobeyed the Federation plenty of times, and that was interesting. Yet, they need to step further and really create a flaw federation. An early post about Andromeda is a good staging ground to think about -- work towards a calamitous model. Nothing in that has to mean distopia, but it sure as hell MUST mean challenge, difficulty, and struggle. Voyager failed in that category colossally.
2. Hibernate is inherently unsafe, unless the hibernation itself is encrypted. And once there, why not just fresh-boot?
Not sure why hibernation is inherently unsafe. Anyway, there is nothing particularly special to encrypted hibernation. Hibernation writes everything in RAM to the HDD. All you need to do is encrypt it. Products like Pointsec do this. No big deal. As to your second question -- the answer is simply user convenience. Some prefer hibernation over a cold boot. I don't care either way, so long as the data stays encrypted, I'm happy.
This quote from the article identifies the problem quite well:
Creative Assembly's Richard Bull notes that "there's still this disturbing mindset among programmers, particularly game programmers, that if the AI is taking any kind of considerable chunk of time, that's a really bad thing. It's only just getting to the stage now where people regard it as important enough to deserve this chunk of time in a game. If your graphics rendering is taking up 50 percent of your CPU time it's like 'well, never mind, it looks great', but if you try to tell people that you have this really intelligent decision-making system that's taking up 30 percent of the CPU time, they'll say 'you obviously don't know what you're doing, it's badly programmed' and so on".
I'd bet every strategy gamer out there would take a better AI over seeing blades of grass, but alas, AI doesn't draw marketing like grass blowing in the wind.:( FWIW, reviews are already criticizing Empire a bit for what has been a problem in past versions: all focus on the tactical AI (much needed, no doubt), but the campaign AI is still problematic. In this sense, CA has a heck of a task developing two quite different AIs. It is hard enough getting just one of them in respectable shape!
I think you are right on target with Apple's thinking.
The thing that has bugging me for *years* is that their Pro line seems increasingly irrelevant. It seems entirely geared towards high-end multimedia and design use. I understand that is a valid segment of the high-end market -- but I don't get how that constitutes the entire "Pro" market. Why on earth go for a Mac Pro?
* Quad Core
* Nvidia GT 120
* More HDD options
* PCI capabilities
I am surprised that both the iMac and the Mac Pro max out at 8GB RAM. Great for the iMac, of course. It just seems like the pro line-up has become a bit of a fiction. I understood it when they were doing multiple processors as a matter of course -- you needed a big machine. I understood it when expansion (HDD & PCI) was a bigger industry 5+ years ago than it is today with just about everything built in. Nowadays, though, it seems like a false choice -- you could put a quad core and GT120 in an iMac, and you could do it for a competitive price. I remember the days when I'd yearn for the Quadras, the 9500, 9600, and the power mac G3 & G4. Around the G5, though, the iMac became a very capable computer, and the Power Mac G5 lost its luster. Oh well.
I am disappointed to see that the new iMacs don't have quad cores, although I'm a bit heartened to see they at least support up to 8 GB RAM. An imac quad core would be a great virtualization machine. I think Apple has missed the mark to not go quad core -- at least in the high imacs -- considering these models will likely be out for 9 months to 12 months.
I'm also disappointed that prices didn't drop a bit considering the current market conditions. To ask folks to put down $1200 to have an all in one solution may be a non-starter nowadays. If you want a Quad core mac, you have to pay $2500 -- and for that you get 3GB RAM. Wow. Anyway, I can understand why there isn't fan fair here -- these are pretty minor speed bumps. These were much needed so I'm glad to see them arrive, but in the absence of new innovation, these speed bumps are decent today, but in 6 months they are going to be quite far behind.
Yay! Just what we need in this day and age -- another example of gross consumerism and extravagant wealth. Just imagine if all the productive energy used to serve the super wealthy was put to use to get our economy back on its feet?
Netbooks can play a huge role in unseating the Windows monopoly. Just as Linux has "snuck in the backdoor" as the leading OS on embedded devices, it is also the most obvious and best answer for netbooks. As we move away from expensive "generalist" computers into the realm of truly commodity hardware, Windows just can't compete. Hopefully wide-scale netbook adoption of Linux can get a big enough base of ordinary users that Linux can grow to adapt to their needs.:)
No, the math takes that into account with various assumptions. You see, since we are talking about a 1,000 light year radius in all directions from Earth, only 1 civilization needs to be around when we are listening. Here is the meat of his proper quote:
"For example, even assuming the average CC has a lifetime of 1,000 years,
ten times longer than Earth has been broadcasting, and has a signal horizon
of 1,000 light-years, you need a minimum of over 300 CCs in the galactic
neighborhood to reach a minimum density. For example, if there were only
200 CCs in our galactic neighborhood roughly meeting these parameters,
probabilistically they will never be aware of each other."
Summary says: "300 communicating civilizations in the Milky Way". The quote is: "300 communicating civilization in the galactic neighborhood". I interpret the latter to mean all solar systems within 1,000 light years. The former quote leads to the entire milky way, which has a diameter of 100,000 light years.
Your analogy implies taxation spent on something useless, thus producing an obvious answer. This analogy shows ignorance of the current economic problems: credit is frozen, people are not spending, and taxes will be *cut*. Thus, using *future* tax money (e.g. debt) on useful investments (infrastructure, etc) is a pretty good thing for those of us in the present. It is debatable how good this will be for future tax payers: generally contingent on how well private companies and governments do on making useful investments. To date, the banks haven't been holding up their end of the bargain...
Well said. My advice:
* Be polite
* Be dispassionate
* Present the facts, make this a "teachable moment"
* Do not respond to attacks/misunderstand
* Take nothing personally
* Consistently lead the conversation back to the facts
* Be overly generous with patience
Excepting the point that some level of corporate espionage occurs, the term "cyberwar" is misleading. It is hard to understand the military becoming actively involved in "internet warfare". Information warfare, on the other hand, should be an absolutely critical part of any modern military organization. Disrupting and intercepting enemy communications is a corner stone to any successful military operation, and this is nothing new.
What the hell does this have to do with the internet? The internet does not serve as the communications hub for military organizations, it is instead a hub for commerce. Thus, in this sense, in an environment of total war -- taking out the internet "early and often" would make sense -- but isn't it easier to just bomb ISPs?
>What I want to know is, how can I make my senior management care?
You can't.
That doesn't mean you have no recourse. First, realize that you are not asking a security question. Your question is about your organization, its goals, values, and mission. It is a question about resources and priorities, and there isn't a single employee, department, or division -- that isn't always asking the same kind of question (albeit, likely in a different form).
Information Security is all about the business, communication, information flow, etc. If you start talking on those terms, you'll find that you can serve the institution in various in sundry ways. Some folks tilt at Windmills, trying to convince upper management about why Packet X must be stopped, but that misses the point. Management has no need to care about IT security -- that is the CIO's job. Management does need to care about information security, but you can't make any progress speaking in terms of IT security. Management that doesn't care about a properly presented case on information security likely doesn't care about a whole host of departments and organizational functions. If I'm the CEO of a commodity organization, I probably wouldn't care either.
Recently Slashdot has posted a few articles from blogs as if they were somehow authoritative. I know that Slashdot "editorship" is a frequent source of ridicule, but this is poor form that just isn't necessary. A blog should never be a "source" -- do just a few minutes of research, find the actual sources, and post an article about that... if it actually crosses any kind of threshold.
Your goal shouldn't be finding math that imitates art; instead you should find art that reflects the essence of the math geeks you work with. Generally for example, impressionism isn't going to be helpful, but cubism is often appealing. The main thing is: an interest in art is about creativity, consider that.
Put in another way. I'm a fan of the movie "Stranger than Fiction". One of the brilliant things they did were visuals for a fellow with aspergers. Art for math geeks, engineers, etc, is often found with a confluence of their craft with the real world. For example, I absolutely love powerlines -- I have taken hundreds of photos of powerlines around the world.
Seriously, if you are really after *art* -- you have to pursue the heart of the matter. No boilerplate nonsense, none of this "what you are supposed to do". You've got to capture the essence.
taken without consent of the owner. Since when is taxation taken without consent? You have a choice to pay taxes, and you have a choice to live in a country with taxes.
Money is representative of resources, and there is no real difference. If you were paid in gold, or oil, you'd need to pay taxes on that too. This is just pointless definitional hair-splitting. No, money serves as an exchange value, and it is decidedly different from property. Gold also, obviously, is a form of money. Oil is not, it is a commodity. I'm not aware of any economic model, no mater how far right or left, that doesn't make this distinction. You need to study economics.
Seconded. I have owned an Aeron at home for 7 years now, it had been the best chair I had ever used....
Now, at work, I have the Steel Case Leap, and this chair is much better than the Aeron. Honestly, my old Aeron hasn't held up that great over the years, but also, adjustment wise, the Steelcase is better.
http://www.steelcase.com/na/leap_products.aspx?f=11852
the bill of rights does not regulate activities of individuals so no enforcement power of government is implied. Rather, the bill of rights prohibits specific activities on the part of the government. You are correct, but inconsistent. The previous poster suggested that property rights need enforcement. That logic negates the claim of negative rights for both property rights and freedom of speech.
This is an argument that leads to certain doom for libertarians, so it is necessary to suggest that property rights require no enforcement, and thus national defense, police, and so on, serve no role in regards to the protection of property rights.
Otherwise, you risk calling both property rights and freedom of speech positive rights (which is generally considered a 20th century concept), in which case you deep six your entire argument.
Yes, the free market is much better because each "redistribution" is approved by all parties involved. Communal redistribution is similarly approved, but naturally, this varies in effectiveness by form of government.:) Of course, the same is true of the free market. Both systems are imperfect in implementation, but both have the intent of receiving approval by participants.
Well, seeing as we believe that property should only ever be exchanged voluntarily, that's really the same thing, isn't it? It is only the same thing if property equals money, which it doesn't, and then only if money equals taxation, which doesn't make sense.
The government is charged with upholding rights. That is done through the courts and by force through through the executive branch. So of course we need armed forced and police to uphold our rights. You've made a leap in logic here, and it reveals the flaw in your premise on "rights". If force of arms is necessary to maintain property rights, then what do you suppose is necessary to provide equal rights? You can't, after all, use a gun to enforce free speech, but you can provide equal public access to the media.
Just as you presume an innate property right, an equally axiomatic assumption can be made about a right to health care. You can't suggest that a property right is sustained in any way other than through redistribution of wealth, simply, it is a form of redistribution through which you approve (free market) rather than a redistribution that you loathe (communal funding).
I'm just saying that such taxation is only justified if it is voluntary. No, you are actually saying taxation is only justified when it doesn't interfere with property rights. You've taken that single right and made it superior to all others; other rights exist only to the extent that they are subservient to that single right that you worship.
First, it has taken them 7 years to figure out how to respond to Wikipedia, let alone have any kind of tenable internet strategy? Good for them.
Second, they are still clueless about wikipedia, and can't even critique it properly. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is based on consensus decision making, which has a different set of flaws. Their straw-man concept of editor versus the masses is literally stolen from the 20th century.
Third, have any of you checked out their site? Are you kidding me? It is full of junk! Adds, photos, stupid celebrity information, etc. I mean, this is web design 1990s style, covered with the "modernizing" sheep's clothing of flash. They just don't get it: we don't go to an encyclopedia to get bombarded by useless information and junk. On the contrary!
Finally, they've got the whole paradigm upside down. You don't build a website by making it closed and proprietary, and then let the "community" trickle in amidst various and sundry rules. You have to start the site completely open, and slowly develop structure in response to your community.
Britannica, I have no idea who is paying your bills anymore, but do us all a favor: read your entry for evolution then obsolescence, again and again, until you get it.
The article summary quotes a blog posting, *NOT* the Gartner study. Further, the blog posting only quotes the top ten items from Gartner, and provides no further data.
The blogger is passing around FUD, without supporting those statements with any information from Gartner. This is a non-article with so little data.
Slashdot Mirror
They jettisoned Sugar, and they keep courting Microsoft. So sad. I wish the article would have explored the "open source" hardware concept. No idea what the heck that means from the article or for OLPC:
Is this also true for security researchers who publicly expose vulnerabilities? I realize it is a different situation, but there seem to be some analogues. What about hacking into someone's system only in order to inform them of the method of the hack?
Great angle. This also has a modern analogue in terms of "cultural imperialism" of the West.
I'm a huge trek fan, and strongly believe in having optimism for humanity ... BUT... Trek has taken it too far. Optimism doesn't mean flawless and imperfect, yet the federation represents that. Remember season 1 of TNG? With that hole plot thing within the federation? That was interesting. How about the several times they tried to take Data, or his daughter. And so on -- Picard and Kirk disobeyed the Federation plenty of times, and that was interesting. Yet, they need to step further and really create a flaw federation. An early post about Andromeda is a good staging ground to think about -- work towards a calamitous model. Nothing in that has to mean distopia, but it sure as hell MUST mean challenge, difficulty, and struggle. Voyager failed in that category colossally.
2. Hibernate is inherently unsafe, unless the hibernation itself is encrypted. And once there, why not just fresh-boot? Not sure why hibernation is inherently unsafe. Anyway, there is nothing particularly special to encrypted hibernation. Hibernation writes everything in RAM to the HDD. All you need to do is encrypt it. Products like Pointsec do this. No big deal. As to your second question -- the answer is simply user convenience. Some prefer hibernation over a cold boot. I don't care either way, so long as the data stays encrypted, I'm happy.
Creative Assembly's Richard Bull notes that "there's still this disturbing mindset among programmers, particularly game programmers, that if the AI is taking any kind of considerable chunk of time, that's a really bad thing. It's only just getting to the stage now where people regard it as important enough to deserve this chunk of time in a game. If your graphics rendering is taking up 50 percent of your CPU time it's like 'well, never mind, it looks great', but if you try to tell people that you have this really intelligent decision-making system that's taking up 30 percent of the CPU time, they'll say 'you obviously don't know what you're doing, it's badly programmed' and so on".
I'd bet every strategy gamer out there would take a better AI over seeing blades of grass, but alas, AI doesn't draw marketing like grass blowing in the wind. :( FWIW, reviews are already criticizing Empire a bit for what has been a problem in past versions: all focus on the tactical AI (much needed, no doubt), but the campaign AI is still problematic. In this sense, CA has a heck of a task developing two quite different AIs. It is hard enough getting just one of them in respectable shape!
I think you are right on target with Apple's thinking.
The thing that has bugging me for *years* is that their Pro line seems increasingly irrelevant. It seems entirely geared towards high-end multimedia and design use. I understand that is a valid segment of the high-end market -- but I don't get how that constitutes the entire "Pro" market. Why on earth go for a Mac Pro?
* Quad Core
* Nvidia GT 120
* More HDD options
* PCI capabilities
I am surprised that both the iMac and the Mac Pro max out at 8GB RAM. Great for the iMac, of course. It just seems like the pro line-up has become a bit of a fiction. I understood it when they were doing multiple processors as a matter of course -- you needed a big machine. I understood it when expansion (HDD & PCI) was a bigger industry 5+ years ago than it is today with just about everything built in. Nowadays, though, it seems like a false choice -- you could put a quad core and GT120 in an iMac, and you could do it for a competitive price. I remember the days when I'd yearn for the Quadras, the 9500, 9600, and the power mac G3 & G4. Around the G5, though, the iMac became a very capable computer, and the Power Mac G5 lost its luster. Oh well.
I am disappointed to see that the new iMacs don't have quad cores, although I'm a bit heartened to see they at least support up to 8 GB RAM. An imac quad core would be a great virtualization machine. I think Apple has missed the mark to not go quad core -- at least in the high imacs -- considering these models will likely be out for 9 months to 12 months. I'm also disappointed that prices didn't drop a bit considering the current market conditions. To ask folks to put down $1200 to have an all in one solution may be a non-starter nowadays. If you want a Quad core mac, you have to pay $2500 -- and for that you get 3GB RAM. Wow. Anyway, I can understand why there isn't fan fair here -- these are pretty minor speed bumps. These were much needed so I'm glad to see them arrive, but in the absence of new innovation, these speed bumps are decent today, but in 6 months they are going to be quite far behind.
Gizmodo has a much better overview with a video of the device in action, detailed specs, etc. http://i.gizmodo.com/5162584/always-innovating-touch-book-is-a-part+netbook-part+tablet-open-source-frankenstein?skyline=true&s=x
Yay! Just what we need in this day and age -- another example of gross consumerism and extravagant wealth. Just imagine if all the productive energy used to serve the super wealthy was put to use to get our economy back on its feet?
Netbooks can play a huge role in unseating the Windows monopoly. Just as Linux has "snuck in the backdoor" as the leading OS on embedded devices, it is also the most obvious and best answer for netbooks. As we move away from expensive "generalist" computers into the realm of truly commodity hardware, Windows just can't compete. Hopefully wide-scale netbook adoption of Linux can get a big enough base of ordinary users that Linux can grow to adapt to their needs. :)
No, the math takes that into account with various assumptions. You see, since we are talking about a 1,000 light year radius in all directions from Earth, only 1 civilization needs to be around when we are listening. Here is the meat of his proper quote: "For example, even assuming the average CC has a lifetime of 1,000 years, ten times longer than Earth has been broadcasting, and has a signal horizon of 1,000 light-years, you need a minimum of over 300 CCs in the galactic neighborhood to reach a minimum density. For example, if there were only 200 CCs in our galactic neighborhood roughly meeting these parameters, probabilistically they will never be aware of each other."
Summary says: "300 communicating civilizations in the Milky Way". The quote is: "300 communicating civilization in the galactic neighborhood". I interpret the latter to mean all solar systems within 1,000 light years. The former quote leads to the entire milky way, which has a diameter of 100,000 light years.
Your analogy implies taxation spent on something useless, thus producing an obvious answer. This analogy shows ignorance of the current economic problems: credit is frozen, people are not spending, and taxes will be *cut*. Thus, using *future* tax money (e.g. debt) on useful investments (infrastructure, etc) is a pretty good thing for those of us in the present. It is debatable how good this will be for future tax payers: generally contingent on how well private companies and governments do on making useful investments. To date, the banks haven't been holding up their end of the bargain...
Well said. My advice: * Be polite * Be dispassionate * Present the facts, make this a "teachable moment" * Do not respond to attacks/misunderstand * Take nothing personally * Consistently lead the conversation back to the facts * Be overly generous with patience
Excepting the point that some level of corporate espionage occurs, the term "cyberwar" is misleading. It is hard to understand the military becoming actively involved in "internet warfare". Information warfare, on the other hand, should be an absolutely critical part of any modern military organization. Disrupting and intercepting enemy communications is a corner stone to any successful military operation, and this is nothing new. What the hell does this have to do with the internet? The internet does not serve as the communications hub for military organizations, it is instead a hub for commerce. Thus, in this sense, in an environment of total war -- taking out the internet "early and often" would make sense -- but isn't it easier to just bomb ISPs?
Gene Roddenberry never sold out. ;p
>What I want to know is, how can I make my senior management care? You can't. That doesn't mean you have no recourse. First, realize that you are not asking a security question. Your question is about your organization, its goals, values, and mission. It is a question about resources and priorities, and there isn't a single employee, department, or division -- that isn't always asking the same kind of question (albeit, likely in a different form). Information Security is all about the business, communication, information flow, etc. If you start talking on those terms, you'll find that you can serve the institution in various in sundry ways. Some folks tilt at Windmills, trying to convince upper management about why Packet X must be stopped, but that misses the point. Management has no need to care about IT security -- that is the CIO's job. Management does need to care about information security, but you can't make any progress speaking in terms of IT security. Management that doesn't care about a properly presented case on information security likely doesn't care about a whole host of departments and organizational functions. If I'm the CEO of a commodity organization, I probably wouldn't care either.
Recently Slashdot has posted a few articles from blogs as if they were somehow authoritative. I know that Slashdot "editorship" is a frequent source of ridicule, but this is poor form that just isn't necessary. A blog should never be a "source" -- do just a few minutes of research, find the actual sources, and post an article about that... if it actually crosses any kind of threshold.
Your goal shouldn't be finding math that imitates art; instead you should find art that reflects the essence of the math geeks you work with. Generally for example, impressionism isn't going to be helpful, but cubism is often appealing. The main thing is: an interest in art is about creativity, consider that.
Put in another way. I'm a fan of the movie "Stranger than Fiction". One of the brilliant things they did were visuals for a fellow with aspergers. Art for math geeks, engineers, etc, is often found with a confluence of their craft with the real world. For example, I absolutely love powerlines -- I have taken hundreds of photos of powerlines around the world.
Seriously, if you are really after *art* -- you have to pursue the heart of the matter. No boilerplate nonsense, none of this "what you are supposed to do". You've got to capture the essence.
Seconded. I have owned an Aeron at home for 7 years now, it had been the best chair I had ever used.... Now, at work, I have the Steel Case Leap, and this chair is much better than the Aeron. Honestly, my old Aeron hasn't held up that great over the years, but also, adjustment wise, the Steelcase is better. http://www.steelcase.com/na/leap_products.aspx?f=11852
First, it has taken them 7 years to figure out how to respond to Wikipedia, let alone have any kind of tenable internet strategy? Good for them.
Second, they are still clueless about wikipedia, and can't even critique it properly. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is based on consensus decision making, which has a different set of flaws. Their straw-man concept of editor versus the masses is literally stolen from the 20th century.
Third, have any of you checked out their site? Are you kidding me? It is full of junk! Adds, photos, stupid celebrity information, etc. I mean, this is web design 1990s style, covered with the "modernizing" sheep's clothing of flash. They just don't get it: we don't go to an encyclopedia to get bombarded by useless information and junk. On the contrary!
Finally, they've got the whole paradigm upside down. You don't build a website by making it closed and proprietary, and then let the "community" trickle in amidst various and sundry rules. You have to start the site completely open, and slowly develop structure in response to your community.
Britannica, I have no idea who is paying your bills anymore, but do us all a favor: read your entry for evolution then obsolescence, again and again, until you get it.
The article summary quotes a blog posting, *NOT* the Gartner study. Further, the blog posting only quotes the top ten items from Gartner, and provides no further data.
The blogger is passing around FUD, without supporting those statements with any information from Gartner. This is a non-article with so little data.