Of course, I'm sure that the energy of fusion is much more than 50 times the amount of energy required for electrolysis.
(I use E for energy)
Re:THE CIA IS OBVIOUSLY BEHIND THIS
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yup. If they don't like you, they threaten to kill you. If we don't like you, we laugh at you.
Draw your own conclusions about which approach is morally superior and which culture is more advanced.
Re:This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of
on
GOVNET In the Works
·
· Score: 2
if it runs TCP/IP then there is some way it can be hacked True, but the example given, and the one I was responding to, was inadvertent subversion of network security. I think you and I both agree that network security is like a privacy lock on a bathroom door - it doesn't stand up to even a hard kick, but it keeps stupid people from barging into places they oughtn't go. And let's face it, with regard to technology, most people are stupid (ie don't understand and don't want to).
Re:This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of
on
GOVNET In the Works
·
· Score: 2
The second some low-level government flunkie at the Bureau of Railroad Employee Retirement signed onto AOL to check his e-mail, boom, there's a gateway.
Absolutely true. But think about a thin client...one that you CAN'T install AOL on. That'd clear up a lot of problems right there...
The goverment needs network security, too
on
GOVNET In the Works
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Whatever happened to government not being above the people?
Nice troll. I suppose suppose you think that the government should allow us all into their LANs - firewall separate the people from the government. And they shouldn't use private WAN links - they should transmit all their packets on public internet (and no VPNs!). Nor should they use encryption - that's just another barrier between the people and the information.
Come on, we're not talking about hiding stuff that's not already (theoretically) hidden. We're talking about basic security. I'd be shot if I seriously proposed to my employer any of those tongue-in-cheek items in my first paragraph - and we're a private firm. You don't let just anybody look at you're business. "But we're the people," you cry. "We have a right!" So you do. Consider the privacy implications of unsecured governmental communications. The feds have HUGE amounts of information about the citizenry, and I think that info should be secured from the likes of J. Random Cracker. Whether or not the government should have all that info is a question for another day, but surely they should secure what they have.
If you want to know what the government knows, use FOIA. Consider it a public interface; don't worry about the implementation details. Use your vote to eliminate bad implementors. encourage investigative journalism. Demand accountability in recordskeeping - make Ollie North a traitor. But for heaven's sake, don't be so pigheaded as to think that we should take phones out of government offices because ureaucrats use them to have point-to-point, uneavesdropped conversations.
P.S. I'll bet some proactive GS IT types are using current events to finally get some long-needed network security into place.
This has been moderated up as funny, but that kind of comment is EXACTLY why the ACLU will receieve no support from me, despite my general agreement with their principles, their goals, and their methods. They have NO CLUE how to communiate. I heard a local rep of the ACLU on the radio discussing a local issue, involving a racist-motivated closure of streets. On one side was a business person who sounded completely reasonable and reassuring and saying that there was NO bad intent behind what they were doing. On the other side was a fumbling idiot who asked loaded questions that were easily sidestepped by the businessman.
Now here we have an anti-terrorism bill that may have the effect of - gasp! - shutting down PETA, which is viewed be MANY Americans as an extremist group whose members throw blood on people and support blowing up labs where animal testing takes place. In other words, this anti-terrorist bill may extend the definition of terrorism to include groups that many view as borderline terrorists anyway. They are strictly preaching to the choir on this one, and it does NO ONE any good when you preach to the converted.
They all need a good course in corporate law and communications. They need to learn the same rhetorical weapons that the corporatists who are dismantling are freedoms are using. They need to learn to persuade the mass of sheep who are Americans that there really ARE dangers to civil liberties or they will start to be ignored as the extremists they seem to be. And that would be a crying shame.
By "open source" I assume you mean that all customers who purchased a license to execute their binaries would also have the right to view all source code for all binaries, and Microsoft would be obligated to distribute that source with the binaries, as well as make available for a nominal charge a compiler which would produce the provided binaries from the provided source.
When MS says that revealing their source reveals their trade secrets, they're lying - all the secrets are right their in the binaries.
Yup. There are also theoretical calculations that show that traveling faster than 60 mph will squash you like an egg. Of course, those are about 150 years old.
I agree that real mail is taken more seriously. Admittedly, shouldn't it be?
No. Unless you believe that one of the goals of a participatory democracy is to enact barriers to communication between citizens and their elected representatives.
Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that individuals who exert more effort to communicate with elected officials deserve more attention from the government. It is this attitude which has given us the system of legalized bribery we have now. Email often gets no response, snail mail gets a form letter, and a check for $1000 gets the ear of the representative. This is evil at its greyest.
The fastest touch-typist in the world can't type faster than a 300 bps modem can transmit; 110 bps maybe. Of course, most hackers, are hunt-and-peck and can't even reach that. However, I can still remember when I could read faster than my modem could transmit. I'd wait impatiently for the words to finish displaying on my Apple II's greenscreen monitor III, which leads to my point:
You kids complain these days about how long it takes for your fancy videos to download...well, back in MY day, we had to wait for the WORDS to finish downloading, and we LIKED it! We didn't have none o' these annymaitud JIFF files, and we only had one color, GREEN, and the pixels were the size of your fist! And we LIKED it that way! And those empty threes you like to listen to, why, back in my day we were just happy that we could hear CHR(7) - sometimes we'd listen to it over and over! You kids today are soft...sad, so sad...
This is either good for anonymity or bad for it. You can't argue both sides.
When Zero Knowledge closes...[that] will make the other providers...more effective.
...the closing of another anonymity service will make it harder for terrorists
These services make no effort to determine who you are or why you use their service. If they're more effective (presumably for the likes of you and me), they'll be more effective for terrorists, too. If it's harder for terrorists, then it's harder for all of us.
Ummm....no. That's the whole point of copyright registration REGISTERING a copyright. That's the whole point of public records. Once something has been entered into the public record, the legal theory is that EVERYONE has access to it and is presumed to have seen it.
You MIGHT have a case if you can document your independent creation and if the copyrighted information was not registered.
"Here is a database of people who we think will spam you. We think spam is equivalent to theft."
I think if you hired a good attorney you could come up with verbiage that would be legally defensible. Maybe something like "These are people who we believe will email you commercial message without your explicit permission."
The article hints at this, but I think that Microsoft needs to not only secure their default install for future products but make security part of their MCSE core training/testing requirements. I think they need to make a separate MCSE core test that focuses on security.
That's funny, because - gasp - Apache ALSO lets you pick and choose what you install. If you're an ignorant git and just click next (like 90% of PHB-hired newly-minted MCSEs), guess which one installs more crap by default.
I commend you on your ability to secure IIS...but just because you're smart doesn't mean that the IIS install routine is well-designed, from a security perspective.
I would think that rewriting it from scratch might cause more new exploits Yes. That's why sendmail and bind are the paragons of security they are today. From-scratch attempts to replace them are riddled with holes that make IIS look like a pinprick.
Having relatively recently graduated from college, I don't really see a way that this can be done. Most of my group experiences involved maybe half of the group caring about their grade, and the other half being ok with a C. You then end up with an extremely unbalanced work load as the ones who care the most do the most and produce the better product. Then they usually have to go around and fix up the people's work who really didn't care as much. All in all, it rarely leads to a produtive group and doesn't teach you much about the work force.
You had me up to the bit I've bolded...since you are recently graduated, you clearly haven't yet realized that what you describe is EXACTLY how most teams work. It sounds to me like you have had some EXCELLENT real world experience and have learned a LOT about how the work force works. You labor under the misconception that graduation magically changes all those mediocre people into excellent. If you are extremely lucky, you will land in a team where everyone works their tail off and is dedicated to success rather than adequacy. Should this occur, hold onto the job for dear life.
Meanwhile, reflect on your experiences with teams in college. Learn how to motivate your peers. Let me know if you ever figure out how to turn a lump into a go-getter...
Precisely why it's so hard (as you observed) to make a living writing linux drivers. At best it's a hobby right now, unless you're lucky. And being lucky is not an effective life strategy (although it works for a lucky few:)
How do you make money developing drivers for windows? I'd guess you make money the same way you always do...by working for an employer who pays you. If you're a programmer, and you're hired to write windows drivers, then you can make a living doing it. I think the poster's question was more like, "Where can I get a job writing drivers for Linux" rather than "windows drivers make money why don't linux ones."
The clear implication is that windows drivers COST money. The development cost for either kernel (Win32 or Linux) is probably comparable, but I'll bet the maintenance cost for Linux would be lower. Regardless, that's irrlevant to a person who'd like to make money by writing Linux drivers but who can't find anyone to pay him to do so.
Surprisingly, I get very little spam in my hotmail inboxm, on the order of 3-5 messages per week. Hotmail provides some good spam protection; I've got the filter set to the lowest level above no protection and generally get only opt-in spam. I use my hotmail account for everything on the net except financial transactions. My bulk mail folder in hotmail gets dozens of messages per day but I never see them.
Slashdot Mirror
4H -->He + 50E
E+2H2O --> 2H2 + O2
Of course, I'm sure that the energy of fusion is much more than 50 times the amount of energy required for electrolysis.
(I use E for energy)
Yup. If they don't like you, they threaten to kill you. If we don't like you, we laugh at you.
Draw your own conclusions about which approach is morally superior and which culture is more advanced.
if it runs TCP/IP then there is some way it can be hacked
True, but the example given, and the one I was responding to, was inadvertent subversion of network security. I think you and I both agree that network security is like a privacy lock on a bathroom door - it doesn't stand up to even a hard kick, but it keeps stupid people from barging into places they oughtn't go. And let's face it, with regard to technology, most people are stupid (ie don't understand and don't want to).
The second some low-level government flunkie at the Bureau of Railroad Employee Retirement signed onto AOL to check his e-mail, boom, there's a gateway.
Absolutely true. But think about a thin client...one that you CAN'T install AOL on. That'd clear up a lot of problems right there...
Whatever happened to government not being above the people?
Nice troll. I suppose suppose you think that the government should allow us all into their LANs - firewall separate the people from the government. And they shouldn't use private WAN links - they should transmit all their packets on public internet (and no VPNs!). Nor should they use encryption - that's just another barrier between the people and the information.
Come on, we're not talking about hiding stuff that's not already (theoretically) hidden. We're talking about basic security. I'd be shot if I seriously proposed to my employer any of those tongue-in-cheek items in my first paragraph - and we're a private firm. You don't let just anybody look at you're business. "But we're the people," you cry. "We have a right!" So you do. Consider the privacy implications of unsecured governmental communications. The feds have HUGE amounts of information about the citizenry, and I think that info should be secured from the likes of J. Random Cracker. Whether or not the government should have all that info is a question for another day, but surely they should secure what they have.
If you want to know what the government knows, use FOIA. Consider it a public interface; don't worry about the implementation details. Use your vote to eliminate bad implementors. encourage investigative journalism. Demand accountability in recordskeeping - make Ollie North a traitor. But for heaven's sake, don't be so pigheaded as to think that we should take phones out of government offices because ureaucrats use them to have point-to-point, uneavesdropped conversations.
P.S. I'll bet some proactive GS IT types are using current events to finally get some long-needed network security into place.
This has been moderated up as funny, but that kind of comment is EXACTLY why the ACLU will receieve no support from me, despite my general agreement with their principles, their goals, and their methods. They have NO CLUE how to communiate. I heard a local rep of the ACLU on the radio discussing a local issue, involving a racist-motivated closure of streets. On one side was a business person who sounded completely reasonable and reassuring and saying that there was NO bad intent behind what they were doing. On the other side was a fumbling idiot who asked loaded questions that were easily sidestepped by the businessman.
Now here we have an anti-terrorism bill that may have the effect of - gasp! - shutting down PETA, which is viewed be MANY Americans as an extremist group whose members throw blood on people and support blowing up labs where animal testing takes place. In other words, this anti-terrorist bill may extend the definition of terrorism to include groups that many view as borderline terrorists anyway. They are strictly preaching to the choir on this one, and it does NO ONE any good when you preach to the converted.
They all need a good course in corporate law and communications. They need to learn the same rhetorical weapons that the corporatists who are dismantling are freedoms are using. They need to learn to persuade the mass of sheep who are Americans that there really ARE dangers to civil liberties or they will start to be ignored as the extremists they seem to be. And that would be a crying shame.
You need Geritol, because you have irony-poor blood.
By "open source" I assume you mean that all customers who purchased a license to execute their binaries would also have the right to view all source code for all binaries, and Microsoft would be obligated to distribute that source with the binaries, as well as make available for a nominal charge a compiler which would produce the provided binaries from the provided source.
When MS says that revealing their source reveals their trade secrets, they're lying - all the secrets are right their in the binaries.
With five minutes of ranging an enemy warhead, you have enough data to know the missile will hit somewhere between Chicago and Denver.
Last time I checked, the area between Chicago and Denver was US territory. I don't really care which hamlet is the target.
Yup. There are also theoretical calculations that show that traveling faster than 60 mph will squash you like an egg. Of course, those are about 150 years old.
I agree that real mail is taken more seriously. Admittedly, shouldn't it be?
No. Unless you believe that one of the goals of a participatory democracy is to enact barriers to communication between citizens and their elected representatives.
Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that individuals who exert more effort to communicate with elected officials deserve more attention from the government. It is this attitude which has given us the system of legalized bribery we have now. Email often gets no response, snail mail gets a form letter, and a check for $1000 gets the ear of the representative. This is evil at its greyest.
Hewlett-Compaqard
The fastest touch-typist in the world can't type faster than a 300 bps modem can transmit; 110 bps maybe. Of course, most hackers, are hunt-and-peck and can't even reach that. However, I can still remember when I could read faster than my modem could transmit. I'd wait impatiently for the words to finish displaying on my Apple II's greenscreen monitor III, which leads to my point:
You kids complain these days about how long it takes for your fancy videos to download...well, back in MY day, we had to wait for the WORDS to finish downloading, and we LIKED it! We didn't have none o' these annymaitud JIFF files, and we only had one color, GREEN, and the pixels were the size of your fist! And we LIKED it that way! And those empty threes you like to listen to, why, back in my day we were just happy that we could hear CHR(7) - sometimes we'd listen to it over and over! You kids today are soft...sad, so sad...
Photo realistic first-person shooters, 75 frames per second.
This is either good for anonymity or bad for it. You can't argue both sides.
When Zero Knowledge closes...[that] will make the other providers...more effective.
...the closing of another anonymity service will make it harder for terrorists
These services make no effort to determine who you are or why you use their service. If they're more effective (presumably for the likes of you and me), they'll be more effective for terrorists, too. If it's harder for terrorists, then it's harder for all of us.
Ummm....no. That's the whole point of copyright registration REGISTERING a copyright. That's the whole point of public records. Once something has been entered into the public record, the legal theory is that EVERYONE has access to it and is presumed to have seen it.
You MIGHT have a case if you can document your independent creation and if the copyrighted information was not registered.
Not if it's considered slanderous or libelous.
"Here is a database of people who we think will spam you. We think spam is equivalent to theft."
I think if you hired a good attorney you could come up with verbiage that would be legally defensible. Maybe something like "These are people who we believe will email you commercial message without your explicit permission."
The article hints at this, but I think that Microsoft needs to not only secure their default install for future products but make security part of their MCSE core training/testing requirements. I think they need to make a separate MCSE core test that focuses on security.
That's funny, because - gasp - Apache ALSO lets you pick and choose what you install. If you're an ignorant git and just click next (like 90% of PHB-hired newly-minted MCSEs), guess which one installs more crap by default.
I commend you on your ability to secure IIS...but just because you're smart doesn't mean that the IIS install routine is well-designed, from a security perspective.
I would think that rewriting it from scratch might cause more new exploits
Yes. That's why sendmail and bind are the paragons of security they are today. From-scratch attempts to replace them are riddled with holes that make IIS look like a pinprick.
Having relatively recently graduated from college, I don't really see a way that this can be done. Most of my group experiences involved maybe half of the group caring about their grade, and the other half being ok with a C. You then end up with an extremely unbalanced work load as the ones who care the most do the most and produce the better product. Then they usually have to go around and fix up the people's work who really didn't care as much. All in all, it rarely leads to a produtive group and doesn't teach you much about the work force.
You had me up to the bit I've bolded...since you are recently graduated, you clearly haven't yet realized that what you describe is EXACTLY how most teams work. It sounds to me like you have had some EXCELLENT real world experience and have learned a LOT about how the work force works. You labor under the misconception that graduation magically changes all those mediocre people into excellent. If you are extremely lucky, you will land in a team where everyone works their tail off and is dedicated to success rather than adequacy. Should this occur, hold onto the job for dear life.
Meanwhile, reflect on your experiences with teams in college. Learn how to motivate your peers. Let me know if you ever figure out how to turn a lump into a go-getter...
Precisely why it's so hard (as you observed) to make a living writing linux drivers. At best it's a hobby right now, unless you're lucky. And being lucky is not an effective life strategy (although it works for a lucky few :)
How do you make money developing drivers for windows?
I'd guess you make money the same way you always do...by working for an employer who pays you. If you're a programmer, and you're hired to write windows drivers, then you can make a living doing it. I think the poster's question was more like, "Where can I get a job writing drivers for Linux" rather than "windows drivers make money why don't linux ones."
The clear implication is that windows drivers COST money. The development cost for either kernel (Win32 or Linux) is probably comparable, but I'll bet the maintenance cost for Linux would be lower. Regardless, that's irrlevant to a person who'd like to make money by writing Linux drivers but who can't find anyone to pay him to do so.
Surprisingly, I get very little spam in my hotmail inboxm, on the order of 3-5 messages per week. Hotmail provides some good spam protection; I've got the filter set to the lowest level above no protection and generally get only opt-in spam. I use my hotmail account for everything on the net except financial transactions. My bulk mail folder in hotmail gets dozens of messages per day but I never see them.
I am prepared to hand over a small but reasonable amount of cash in exchange for a spam-free email. Who wants to take my money?