The fact is, most of the information systems in the military are pretty much exactly like the ones in the civilian sector. Their laptops are covered in kevlar, but there's no real difference between 'military information security' and 'civilian information security', other than the literal nature of the expression 'mission critical' and an increased focus on redundant, mobile systems.
What makes that bad? Where did that rule come from? It's a class thing, like most things in grammar. When your teachers told you that you shouldn't do that, they were trying to tell you to quit talking like you're poor. Ok, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but most linguists agree that grammatical rules that don't clarify meaning arise from social issues, not language ones.
Yes, I understand all of that, I wasn't saying you wouldn't be able to find a way to play minesweeper. I was saying the average ford employee wouldn't be able to. And it was a joke, at that.
For the purposes of any company, there are some good reasons to use linux. Firstly, you can often increase security. Secondly, you can reduce hardware costs, compared to windows. Thirdly, your employees probably won't be able to figure out how to play minesweeper on company time:)
It's not as much hype as you would think (in the interest of full disclosure, I am a UT EE student and about half of my posts now on/. seem to be talking about something the university has done...). Yes, grid computing is a bad term for it, because it's already taken. I'm not sure whose fault it was that it got labelled that, but I doubt it was one of the guys actually working on this. They all seem like competitent lads. Now for what I actually have to say:
At 32 nanometers, Intel could put tens of HT pentium cores on a single chip, achieving the same result. Yes, but any more than 16 logical cores, and your x86 arch won't recognize them. Why? 4 bit cpu identifiers (each logical core under HT identifies itself as a normal processor).
For computational problems that can be broken down into parallel computations, the answer is yes. For all the other types of problems, the answer is no. Although I have to admit that most algorithmic bottlenecks is in iterative tasks that are highly parallelizable. Very true, but no more true for TRIPS than for any other parallel system. Additionally, just about every computer now does a lot of things in parallel. Think of any multitasking OS. So, worse comes to worse, you can run x number of apps as normal serial executions (though TRIPS wouldn't run any currently exsisting commercial software-- new platform and all, and a test too, not something ready for production by any means).
Unfortunately, it will mean new compilers and maybe programming languages that have primitives for expressing parallelism. I completely agree.
Please tell me/. got cracked again, because I don't want to think this actually made it through the editorial process. I'm not trying to troll, but this write up is a rant, not any kind of summary or other form of useful information. Since when do we have an op-ed section? Give me the links, tell me what's happening, don't tell me how I ought to feel about it, ok?
Well, if you're a member of IEEE, you can usually get all that stuff for free. I'm a member (because as a student it only costs me like thirty bucks a year). I've pulled a bunch of documents from their archives and I've never payed a thing. Though, they do have an exagerated opinion of the value of dead trees. Some of the standards do require extra fees, I think, but none of the stuff I've used.
not to mention, you could actually reverse engineer the code from the md5s assuming a) the lines are short enough, b)you have enough memory, c) you have enough processing power. Especially if you have examples from other bits of their code that you can use to make intelligent guesses...
Actually, if you have a good enough machine shop, good knowledge of physics, a lot of computer time and usable fuel if wouldn't be really difficult. Of course, this is the kind of comment that gets you locked away for a long, long time recently...
That's exactly the point. Well, ok, kind of. It's not out of context, it's deprived of context. I wasn't using to it say "oh, look, Linus really uses windows behind our back." It's more like, gee, I wonder who'll get angry at this.
Look. The RIAA needs to understand that it is not (or at least should not be) a law enforcement agency. It is an industry association. It should act that way. Sue all you want, but if there really is a greivance with file sharers, then let's take it to court. The RIAA is building its own little court system, so that eventually Congress can just hand off the jurisdiction for music related lawsuits to them.
Would that be Pointy Haired Doctors? Seriously though, when will people get it. The g5 is a pretty damned good processor, and the architecture around it is definitely better than that of the p4. Full speed mem bus, how novel!
No, the whole point of the comment was, if someone sends you their product unsolicited, they can't require you to pay for it. It's a federal commerce law.
I think Vivendi is the larger of the two companies, actually. It's one of the BIG media companies. As in, one of the four or so that control almost all (90%+, IIRC) of the American media outlets.
No, because you're buying a physical copy of the music, not a liscense to listen to the music. Or, err, the other way around, depending on what is more advantageous to the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is, most of the information systems in the military are pretty much exactly like the ones in the civilian sector. Their laptops are covered in kevlar, but there's no real difference between 'military information security' and 'civilian information security', other than the literal nature of the expression 'mission critical' and an increased focus on redundant, mobile systems.
What makes that bad? Where did that rule come from? It's a class thing, like most things in grammar. When your teachers told you that you shouldn't do that, they were trying to tell you to quit talking like you're poor. Ok, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but most linguists agree that grammatical rules that don't clarify meaning arise from social issues, not language ones.
How about if you move a million of them off of the planet per day? Oh, so clearly it _is_ possible then. Perhaps you meant "it's not easy"?
At the university, we just kick them off of the network... works pretty well.
Go for the eyes boo, go for the eyes! RRRRASSSSSKKKK!!
It's a perl script to format normal text into text that looks like a perl script? I think my head is spinning.
Yes, I understand all of that, I wasn't saying you wouldn't be able to find a way to play minesweeper. I was saying the average ford employee wouldn't be able to. And it was a joke, at that.
For the purposes of any company, there are some good reasons to use linux. Firstly, you can often increase security. Secondly, you can reduce hardware costs, compared to windows. Thirdly, your employees probably won't be able to figure out how to play minesweeper on company time :)
At first when I saw Allah[0] I thought you were referencing the first element in an array of Allahs. Polytheism?
It's not as much hype as you would think (in the interest of full disclosure, I am a UT EE student and about half of my posts now on /. seem to be talking about something the university has done...). Yes, grid computing is a bad term for it, because it's already taken. I'm not sure whose fault it was that it got labelled that, but I doubt it was one of the guys actually working on this. They all seem like competitent lads. Now for what I actually have to say:
At 32 nanometers, Intel could put tens of HT pentium cores on a single chip, achieving the same result.
Yes, but any more than 16 logical cores, and your x86 arch won't recognize them. Why? 4 bit cpu identifiers (each logical core under HT identifies itself as a normal processor).
For computational problems that can be broken down into parallel computations, the answer is yes. For all the other types of problems, the answer is no. Although I have to admit that most algorithmic bottlenecks is in iterative tasks that are highly parallelizable.
Very true, but no more true for TRIPS than for any other parallel system. Additionally, just about every computer now does a lot of things in parallel. Think of any multitasking OS. So, worse comes to worse, you can run x number of apps as normal serial executions (though TRIPS wouldn't run any currently exsisting commercial software-- new platform and all, and a test too, not something ready for production by any means).
Unfortunately, it will mean new compilers and maybe programming languages that have primitives for expressing parallelism.
I completely agree.
Please tell me /. got cracked again, because I don't want to think this actually made it through the editorial process. I'm not trying to troll, but this write up is a rant, not any kind of summary or other form of useful information. Since when do we have an op-ed section? Give me the links, tell me what's happening, don't tell me how I ought to feel about it, ok?
Well, if you're a member of IEEE, you can usually get all that stuff for free. I'm a member (because as a student it only costs me like thirty bucks a year). I've pulled a bunch of documents from their archives and I've never payed a thing. Though, they do have an exagerated opinion of the value of dead trees. Some of the standards do require extra fees, I think, but none of the stuff I've used.
thus, lines short enough. That's the reason that many authentication modules use md5, and limit the number of characters you can use.
not to mention, you could actually reverse engineer the code from the md5s assuming a) the lines are short enough, b)you have enough memory, c) you have enough processing power. Especially if you have examples from other bits of their code that you can use to make intelligent guesses...
Actually, if you have a good enough machine shop, good knowledge of physics, a lot of computer time and usable fuel if wouldn't be really difficult. Of course, this is the kind of comment that gets you locked away for a long, long time recently...
I just want you to know, I laughed for a good like time about this. Bravo.
That's exactly the point. Well, ok, kind of. It's not out of context, it's deprived of context. I wasn't using to it say "oh, look, Linus really uses windows behind our back." It's more like, gee, I wonder who'll get angry at this.
Screw the PVR capabilities. IT PLAYS GAMES!
Only partially kidding...
There is no open without GPL! duh! long live gnu/linux! rarr!
Look. The RIAA needs to understand that it is not (or at least should not be) a law enforcement agency. It is an industry association. It should act that way. Sue all you want, but if there really is a greivance with file sharers, then let's take it to court. The RIAA is building its own little court system, so that eventually Congress can just hand off the jurisdiction for music related lawsuits to them.
Would that be Pointy Haired Doctors? Seriously though, when will people get it. The g5 is a pretty damned good processor, and the architecture around it is definitely better than that of the p4. Full speed mem bus, how novel!
No, the whole point of the comment was, if someone sends you their product unsolicited, they can't require you to pay for it. It's a federal commerce law.
I think Vivendi is the larger of the two companies, actually. It's one of the BIG media companies. As in, one of the four or so that control almost all (90%+, IIRC) of the American media outlets.
No, because you're buying a physical copy of the music, not a liscense to listen to the music. Or, err, the other way around, depending on what is more advantageous to the RIAA.
Although you have stated that it is rhetorical, I would like to provide the answer for people who just don't have it floating around in their heads.
Yes.