You're concerned that your employees or former employees will attempt to exploit their insider status to commit crimes against you. The most natural and obvious answer is to hire an entirely separate company, with a whole additional set of employees, and give them insider access to your network.
Don't forget that things like break and continue are also gotos with funny sounding names.
Even Dijkstra, the author of Go To Statements Considered Harmful, wrote "Please don't fall into the trap of thinking I am terribly dogmatic about the go to statement. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline."
Will the real George Weiss please stand up?
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Let me first say, I've sat in on two out of the last three SCO conference calls. What's disappointed me most was the mature attitude and lack of childish disruption.
On today's conference call, I got my wish. Someone claiming to be George Weiss of the Gartner Group asked the most hostile and immature question I'd heard on one of these conference calls. Their question, summed up, was "How long does your company really think it can continue to decieve investors and the world?" What was an absolute hoot was McBride failing entirely to actually address the question. Not that he really needed too, but he didn't really even bother to address the whole "investor deception" bit, which I thought he would take more seriously. To their credit, they let the first Weiss ramble for a bit before answering the question.
About five questions later, the *real* George Weiss appeared and clarified that he had not, in fact, asked the hostile question. His question was some inane molly-coddling question about the emergence of some sort of consortium to settle sco's claims.
I don't know who pulled the prank but kudos to them. I was getting sick of hearing every act like a journalist who doesn't want to burn bridges.
You're asking a mouthful and drawing me into your barely on-topic question. First off, PDP-11 describes a line a DEC computers that were made between the late 60s/early 70s and 1990. Secondly, there were somewhere along the lines of 20 different models. The "last" PDP-11, released in 1990, ran at around 18 megahertz. Though I should note here that clock frequency is not the best way of measuring a computer's power. Especially when you're talking about things like the 11/20, where the processor was actually split up into 14 different boards (with an optional 15th.)
If you're interested in knowing more about previous models, I highly recommend the PDP-11 FAQ. Arkos Varga also has a very nice site with information on all of the various models.
While most of the responses to this sort of thing tend towards "Trash the junk" or "You want to see old computers, check out my basement", I think there's a couple distinct reasons to help endeavors like this and maintain what we have left of previous generations of computers and associated documentation.
To begin with, I could quote maxims about "Those who forget the past..." but I'm not that interested in the future consequences so much as understanding the present. A good example of this is a piece of history that's still with us that many people are already aware of: "dumping core." That's not terribly obscure, and is largely a jargon kind of thing. But what about using "!" to mean "not"? What about other semi-arbitrary parts of programming language semantics? Where did that come from and why? What about word sizes? Sure, most things are in powers of 2 now, but has it always been that way? No. Why not? We're constantly dragging bits of the past around with us, often long after it has stopped making sense to do so. Historical computers are important in that regard, as studying them helps us realize why we do things the way we do them.
That being said, it seems like there isn't much in their collection that is unreplaceable from other collections. However, I think that the reduced availability of these machines for study and experimentation would be a bad thing.
As witty and wonderful as your evaluation is, it misses the mark.
Let's say, for example, the you're playing quake. The quality of your network connection is most likely always changing. When it gets worse and latency increases, your playing suffers. The ammount of lead you were giving your targets before is no longer sufficient. If the lag carries on, your playing eventually adjusts and you're hitting targets again.
Now, what if you have a machine sitting next to you that is measuring latency between you and the game server. So that when latency changes there are small changes in the pitch it emits. Now, rather than learning through trial and error that your connection has gotten worse and that you need to compensate for it, you can train yourself to use those pitches to compensate for it.
Well, that's what the article is talking about. It's just a tool. It's not a magic network diagnostic tool of doom that's going to magically predict the behavior of a network in advance. It just converts one bit of information. the current latency between point a and point b, into a form that's easily interpreted by the brain.
Now this may seem like a fine rule to have on a firewall, this is the last thing I want on our law books. I've always been under the impression that US law is run on the principles of "that which is not explicitly forbidden is allowed" and "innocent until proven guilty." Not only is opt-in filtering a stupid idea, it also shifts the burden of proof to the defendant...which is stupid on an entirely new level.
But admitedly, if I was the RIAA, I'd probably be squeezing for all it's worth right now, too.
This is what happens when signals from the brain to the lower body are in some way impeeded. Or, in this case, communication between the ass and the brain seem to be cut off. Consider the legal department whichever piece of the anatomy pleases you most.
Mac Cube. Before it's announced, super-secret, fake looking pictures appear on websites. They all look obviously fake, then bam. They're all true.
Now I'm paranoid. How many people actualy saw this momentary images? Do they look obviously retouched? Whats the source? But wait, i thought the mac cube was fictional and was wrong, so then i start questioning my questioning...
To use an analogy, why lock your doors when you got a yogurt-fed pitbull waiting on the porch?
Because at some point, we have to collectivly realize that wanting lawyers and the FBI to babysit us can never end well. While I agree that security isn't the answer to everything, neither is legislation.
Man, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but ever since they finally deactivate Selective Availability on the global positioning system, I've been chomping at the bit to get my hands on a couple of those weapons grade ps2's to finish off this cruise missle.
I take it that sony has all of the export paperwork done, since they actually announced a date. I personally cannot wait for one of these.
Now, who is going to take it apon themselves to write a patch that lets me play dvd's from other regions?
I think this would be the perfect opportunity for Napster to give NetPD a little bit of a pinch. Napster has a list of 335,435 ips that Metallica wants banned for trading it's copyrighted music. Thats all well and good, but how were they collected? How does Napster know the list is accurate? You and I can't call up NetPD or Metallica and demand to know, but Napster can. And should. What if someone was sharing out a self-made legal parody of a Metallica song? Would their 'AI' pick that up as being a Metallica song? This is something that Napster should demand to know before complying with anything. And, should evidence collected by NetPD ever enter into the court case, the actual algorithms involved should be questioned in a very specific manner. Once that sort of thing enters public record, NetPD can kiss it's monopoly on tracking down copyright infringers goodbye.
But then again, thats just my opinion. Standard IANAL disclaimer applies.
Oh yes, I do this quite prolifically. Since random data will most likely be culled out of the heap when it's mashed together with all the rest of the collected and publicly available data, I prefer to use one of several 'personas' whenever asked for information. I like to think that this injection of false, but convincing, data will eventually be assigned a social security number and have a selective service card mailed to it. Then, when we somehow manage to get into a war, he'll get drafted. When he doesn't show up, he'll be labeled a draft dodger, and be hunted down.
Or not, I suppose. What I'm attempting to say is, if you really want to throw a chink into the gears of mass data collection, create several people, and give their data out consistantly and frequently.
Gee, I've always thought the biggest privacy invaders of the future would be large corperations, looking to use reinforcement advertising on people who already used their products, and different advertising on people not buying their stuff. Turns out, they just don't care that much for it to make economic sense. Guess I better go back to being wearing of entities that don't need to obey economic reasoning. Namely, the goverment. Huh. I guess I should stop profiling regular posters according to operating system and programming language preference, and start keeping track of all the slashdot posters advocating violent overthrow of the goverment. Besides, the cia has always paid well...
Slashdot Mirror
You're concerned that your employees or former employees will attempt to exploit their insider status to commit crimes against you. The most natural and obvious answer is to hire an entirely separate company, with a whole additional set of employees, and give them insider access to your network.
Don't forget that things like break and continue are also gotos with funny sounding names.
Even Dijkstra, the author of Go To Statements Considered Harmful, wrote "Please don't fall into the trap of thinking I am terribly dogmatic about the go to statement. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline."
Let me first say, I've sat in on two out of the last three SCO conference calls. What's disappointed me most was the mature attitude and lack of childish disruption.
On today's conference call, I got my wish. Someone claiming to be George Weiss of the Gartner Group asked the most hostile and immature question I'd heard on one of these conference calls. Their question, summed up, was "How long does your company really think it can continue to decieve investors and the world?" What was an absolute hoot was McBride failing entirely to actually address the question. Not that he really needed too, but he didn't really even bother to address the whole "investor deception" bit, which I thought he would take more seriously. To their credit, they let the first Weiss ramble for a bit before answering the question.
About five questions later, the *real* George Weiss appeared and clarified that he had not, in fact, asked the hostile question. His question was some inane molly-coddling question about the emergence of some sort of consortium to settle sco's claims.
I don't know who pulled the prank but kudos to them. I was getting sick of hearing every act like a journalist who doesn't want to burn bridges.
If you're interested in knowing more about previous models, I highly recommend the PDP-11 FAQ. Arkos Varga also has a very nice site with information on all of the various models.
To begin with, I could quote maxims about "Those who forget the past..." but I'm not that interested in the future consequences so much as understanding the present. A good example of this is a piece of history that's still with us that many people are already aware of: "dumping core." That's not terribly obscure, and is largely a jargon kind of thing. But what about using "!" to mean "not"? What about other semi-arbitrary parts of programming language semantics? Where did that come from and why? What about word sizes? Sure, most things are in powers of 2 now, but has it always been that way? No. Why not? We're constantly dragging bits of the past around with us, often long after it has stopped making sense to do so. Historical computers are important in that regard, as studying them helps us realize why we do things the way we do them.
That being said, it seems like there isn't much in their collection that is unreplaceable from other collections. However, I think that the reduced availability of these machines for study and experimentation would be a bad thing.
As witty and wonderful as your evaluation is, it misses the mark.
Let's say, for example, the you're playing quake. The quality of your network connection is most likely always changing. When it gets worse and latency increases, your playing suffers. The ammount of lead you were giving your targets before is no longer sufficient. If the lag carries on, your playing eventually adjusts and you're hitting targets again.
Now, what if you have a machine sitting next to you that is measuring latency between you and the game server. So that when latency changes there are small changes in the pitch it emits. Now, rather than learning through trial and error that your connection has gotten worse and that you need to compensate for it, you can train yourself to use those pitches to compensate for it.
Well, that's what the article is talking about. It's just a tool. It's not a magic network diagnostic tool of doom that's going to magically predict the behavior of a network in advance. It just converts one bit of information. the current latency between point a and point b, into a form that's easily interpreted by the brain.
Now this may seem like a fine rule to have on a firewall, this is the last thing I want on our law books. I've always been under the impression that US law is run on the principles of "that which is not explicitly forbidden is allowed" and "innocent until proven guilty." Not only is opt-in filtering a stupid idea, it also shifts the burden of proof to the defendant...which is stupid on an entirely new level.
But admitedly, if I was the RIAA, I'd probably be squeezing for all it's worth right now, too.
2001-05-16 06:15:23
Ok, it may not last this long, but it may last longer. Why do I bother? I don't know.
This is what happens when signals from the brain to the lower body are in some way impeeded. Or, in this case, communication between the ass and the brain seem to be cut off. Consider the legal department whichever piece of the anatomy pleases you most.
Mac Cube. Before it's announced, super-secret, fake looking pictures appear on websites. They all look obviously fake, then bam. They're all true.
Now I'm paranoid. How many people actualy saw this momentary images? Do they look obviously retouched? Whats the source? But wait, i thought the mac cube was fictional and was wrong, so then i start questioning my questioning...
The only way from here is down...
To use an analogy, why lock your doors when you got a yogurt-fed pitbull waiting on the porch?
Because at some point, we have to collectivly realize that wanting lawyers and the FBI to babysit us can never end well. While I agree that security isn't the answer to everything, neither is legislation.
Man, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but ever since they finally deactivate Selective Availability on the global positioning system, I've been chomping at the bit to get my hands on a couple of those weapons grade ps2's to finish off this cruise missle.
I take it that sony has all of the export paperwork done, since they actually announced a date. I personally cannot wait for one of these.
Now, who is going to take it apon themselves to write a patch that lets me play dvd's from other regions?
I think this would be the perfect opportunity for Napster to give NetPD a little bit of a pinch. Napster has a list of 335,435 ips that Metallica wants banned for trading it's copyrighted music. Thats all well and good, but how were they collected? How does Napster know the list is accurate? You and I can't call up NetPD or Metallica and demand to know, but Napster can. And should. What if someone was sharing out a self-made legal parody of a Metallica song? Would their 'AI' pick that up as being a Metallica song? This is something that Napster should demand to know before complying with anything. And, should evidence collected by NetPD ever enter into the court case, the actual algorithms involved should be questioned in a very specific manner. Once that sort of thing enters public record, NetPD can kiss it's monopoly on tracking down copyright infringers goodbye.
But then again, thats just my opinion. Standard IANAL disclaimer applies.
Oh yes, I do this quite prolifically. Since random data will most likely be culled out of the heap when it's mashed together with all the rest of the collected and publicly available data, I prefer to use one of several 'personas' whenever asked for information. I like to think that this injection of false, but convincing, data will eventually be assigned a social security number and have a selective service card mailed to it. Then, when we somehow manage to get into a war, he'll get drafted. When he doesn't show up, he'll be labeled a draft dodger, and be hunted down.
Or not, I suppose. What I'm attempting to say is, if you really want to throw a chink into the gears of mass data collection, create several people, and give their data out consistantly and frequently.
Gee, I've always thought the biggest privacy invaders of the future would be large corperations, looking to use reinforcement advertising on people who already used their products, and different advertising on people not buying their stuff. Turns out, they just don't care that much for it to make economic sense. Guess I better go back to being wearing of entities that don't need to obey economic reasoning. Namely, the goverment. Huh. I guess I should stop profiling regular posters according to operating system and programming language preference, and start keeping track of all the slashdot posters advocating violent overthrow of the goverment. Besides, the cia has always paid well...