Management tools have been available for Windows for years, Silver observed, but many enterprises still have not been able to manage their Windows environment. This has often been due to too much complexity, lack of sufficient policies or standards, or cultural and political issues, according to Silver.
If this is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes.
Umm, I do. With *nix, you can get away with using almost nothing in the way of "management tools." What most would consider essential utilities are included. Just add effort.
The situation is improving with newer Windows versions, but my impression is that they are still behind the game; I admit that maybe my ignorance of XP and longhorn might leave me biased, but for e.g.: try finding a list of open file handles in Windows, or a table of bound ports, or a robust scripting language. These types of tools typically need to be added. With *nix I usually can use an existing tool or combination of tools to easily and quickly find what I want, plus it is easily automated from then on. My impression is that things are not always that easy in Windows without (occasionally costly) add-ons.
Another point regarding desktop TCO - a lot of Windows-based office productivity type networks opt for Terminal Server/Citrix to lower cost and simplify administration. For use on a LAN (i.e. not considering low b/w access, where RDP and ICA really shine), *nix has a network transparent windowing system (X, in case that isn't completely obvious) that doesn't require connection licenses or $15,000 per server licenses plus maintenance. All things being equal (i.e., assuming all of the linux apps are adequate functional replacements for Windows apps, and hardware + software maintenance is about the same price), this is an area where linux is clearly cheaper because you don't have to pay for the network protocol.
As much as I loved your hi-jinks with the speed limit signs in Hazzard County, I have to disagree.
I think that there is propably no cover-up of known flaws on Epson's part. They're just annoyed that the maker of DLPs is using the results as a marketing tool. That said, it is probably completely ethical on TI's part (assuming they didn't fund the study) to point out the supposed advantages of DLP, although I wouldn't personally switch based on the results mentioned.
I think it's alarming that so many inquiries were made into the gulf war regarding U.S. war crimes. I can see why liberals would hop on that, but that doesn't make it any less disturbing to me. Never mind the more obvious stuff in Panama, Chile, and Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia.
> And of course, no one thinks that the > millions and millions of people who died at > the hands of Stalin during the 20th century > is a war crime
That's not true, a lot of people think that. You describe the US government perfectly, however - Trumping up one bad guy while ignoring others' (and its own) atrocities out of self-interest. That lack of respect for principles we claim to cherish shakes my faith in the government and erodes its credibility.
The U.S. isn't the most ruthless single perpetrator, but we have the most power and the most potential for damage (and, ironically, for good). So we need to be more humble and self-critical.
The military may uncover things. It seems just as likely they may not. History dictates that in either case, they will claim to have found it. If you don't belive the U.S. will lie to provide justification, then you have overlooked a lot of history.
- look at the CIA fact book entry on Chile. then ask any economist how they think Chile is doing since the Pinochet coup.
Breaking weapons and ecological treaties could also be considered duplicitous.
America is capable of doing good, but don't doubt for a minute that we have a lot of moral clearance over Saddam Hussein. Collectively, the U.S. can be just as insidious and even more deadly.
You know, that's funny that you say that, because they weren't scuds. Sorry.
Rest assured, whether they exist or not, the U.S. will report finding W.O.M.D. in Iraq. Convenient that the phantom "scud" just happened to be totally obliterated by a patriot missile this morning.
Also rest assured that there are plenty of people who want to believe the "coalition" is doing the right thing for the right reasons, and like the parent poster, will swallow any b.s. rumors which support that idea without bothering to verify them.
Even if they were scuds (which they almost certainly were not), it is interesting that one of the banned weapons which make Iraq a threat to the world couldn't hit a gaggle of troops and armor on their front fucking door.
This could give one the impression that Iraq is, for all intents and purposes, already disarmed relative to the powers that claim to be threatened.
- the hippocampus is a black box (they can't even see the "object code," if you will
- complex systems are notoriously difficult to debug
I find the claim that the scientists have considered every possible behavior and simulated it in firmware to be suspect.
How can they be sure they have considered every possible input/output? How can they be sure that what they observed was "correct" behavior?
Any biologists or neuroscientists care to elucidate? Also, how similar is the human hippocampus to the rat's? Couldn't the behavior differences require complete regression testing? It seems like this increase in precision in medicine demands a commensurate increase in the precision of testing.
I agree that embedded, even truly "coupled," components are not evil. But the use of these components to control standards is.
IE has become a de facto standard for how your HTML should render. The W3C should be the authoritative source, not just MS. Similarly, industry consortium should decide on A/V delivery standards. Microsoft should not be allowed to use their OS monopoly to unfairly affect this decision to their exclusive benefit, but clearly they have been doing so - see the Windows Media sticker on your new DVD player.
It's not all MS' fault. Morons everywhere confuse the terms "protocol" and "product" and let MS walk all over the rest of us.
Bottom line - evangelize and trust bust until they stop it. Maybe people are sick of hearing about it. Sorry, we need to keep whining until they are stopped... or until all means have been clearly exhausted.
The most important finding as a result of new imaging is that the mass extiction may have been caused by sulfur fumes, and fires started by hot falling debris. Before they thought photosynthesis was halted by solar obstruction from the dust cloud.
Which means that a similarly-sized asteroid may be slightly less apocalyptic than thought. Sort of comforting, though I wonder how we'd deal with global forest fires when we can't even handle a relatively small number now.
coriolis is also an apparent (re: imaginary) force along the same lines - the way i understand it, we perceive it because any movement on earth happens with respect to a non-inertial frame of reference (not just relative to surface, but to orbit and rotation). it's not a real force, but it's a very real part of accounting for motion. i think i remember hearing about a gemini splash-down being off by miles because a programmer didn't account for the coriolis effect.
pc floppies have one key quality - they are almost universally supported.
sure, they are old and a bit slow, but they are useful because of their omnipresence. for moving snippets of data from here to there under any condition, it is still hard to beat floppies.
usb key drives are nice - i have one - but they need to get a bit cheaper. then they would be a nice replacement for the "quick snippet" niche.
> we're running low on Shuttles, and now that > we're down by two
we're not "down by two" - endeavor was built to replace challenger. we're down by one.
> Don't we have some new birds like those seen in > Armageddon yet?
what the fuck does armageddon have to do with state of the art?
> getting nailed by some radical towel heads
because all terrorists wear turbans. like tim mcveigh, for example.
> with the others aging, how much longer can we > keep up that program?
wait until you know why the shuttle was destroyed before you start condemning the program. if snap judgements like yours were made when prepping shuttle launches, there would be a lot more than two catastrophic missions on the books.
People are not always to blame for their own addictions. People can be driven to drink, or accidentally addicted to morphine by a negligent doctor, or have addictive personalities due to existing mental illness.
> Yah, there are too many books in the world! > Burn them!:-)
That's funny.
> If you're knowledgeable enough to already know > all of the old information, why would you even > consider reading a new book? Perhaps you should > be writing your own book.
I'm not complaining that there are too many books. On the contrary, I'm saying there are not enough - with a narrower scope. Many have a general knowledge of security, but not every single platform. Surely you can see the benefit to writing a concise platform-specific book rather than (or in addition to) yet another biblical security compendium with a one platform focus?
Imagine being an admin and being tasked with "securing" a client's heterogeneous network. You could either a) read through a general security bible and adapt the concepts to each platform, researching the specific methods yourself, or b) you could have a cookbook-style guide for each platform that names the popular tools, configuration options, and pitfalls.
I think b) would be quicker and would avoid reinvention of the wheel during implementation. What would really be irritating is if all of those books cost 50 bucks and had 600 pages of duplicate material common to each book.
> Brand new, cutting edge, up-to-the-moment > security information you get from various web > sites, not books -- as you surely know.
At this point, it should be clear that I'm not talking about bleeding-edge changes.
Wasn't it just a few years ago when I was complaining that there was not enough focus on security? Now there are so many books it is almost annoying. Even casual admins or enthusiasts have that "Hackers Exposed" book.
At 800 pages, they MUST be re-inventing the wheel to some degree. A lot of those bullets in the contents seem like general things you should know about host-based security in general. Boosk like that usually annoy me - sifting through all that to get to the fresh information is tedious. I have an American attention span, damnit!
He did not act from a desire of profit, or even of fame. He did not do anything with an intent to hurt someone
It is indeed sad, and I personally think the punishment may be a little harsh, but if we measured the seriousness of a crime based on intent, we'd be in trouble.
"I didn't mean to crash while driving drunk" "I didn't mean to hit that little girl while I was randomly firing bullets into the woods" "I didn't mean to psychologically ruin that 12-year-old for life when I seduced him"
A lot of laws are meant to punish people for not thinking about the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, since there is sometimes no way to ascertain intent, we legislate against lack of foresight. These are usually lesser crimes/penalties. 3 years seems long, still... hopefully he'll get out sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
Management tools have been available for Windows for years, Silver observed, but many enterprises still have not been able to manage their Windows environment. This has often been due to too much complexity, lack of sufficient policies or standards, or cultural and political issues, according to Silver.
If this is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes.
Umm, I do. With *nix, you can get away with using almost nothing in the way of "management tools." What most would consider essential utilities are included. Just add effort.
The situation is improving with newer Windows versions, but my impression is that they are still behind the game; I admit that maybe my ignorance of XP and longhorn might leave me biased, but for e.g.: try finding a list of open file handles in Windows, or a table of bound ports, or a robust scripting language. These types of tools typically need to be added. With *nix I usually can use an existing tool or combination of tools to easily and quickly find what I want, plus it is easily automated from then on. My impression is that things are not always that easy in Windows without (occasionally costly) add-ons.
Another point regarding desktop TCO - a lot of Windows-based office productivity type networks opt for Terminal Server/Citrix to lower cost and simplify administration. For use on a LAN (i.e. not considering low b/w access, where RDP and ICA really shine), *nix has a network transparent windowing system (X, in case that isn't completely obvious) that doesn't require connection licenses or $15,000 per server licenses plus maintenance. All things being equal (i.e., assuming all of the linux apps are adequate functional replacements for Windows apps, and hardware + software maintenance is about the same price), this is an area where linux is clearly cheaper because you don't have to pay for the network protocol.
I think that there is propably no cover-up of known flaws on Epson's part. They're just annoyed that the maker of DLPs is using the results as a marketing tool. That said, it is probably completely ethical on TI's part (assuming they didn't fund the study) to point out the supposed advantages of DLP, although I wouldn't personally switch based on the results mentioned.
> for some reason I will never understand my wife
...it sounds like you perfectly understand her excitement. :)
> is very excited to go see it.
> I love that the TV hulk was just him with green skin, a ripped shirt, and tussled hair
> They say we only use 2% of our mental capacity,
oh man, did you set yourself up there.
You: I think this is the wrong road to go down.
Eliza: Can you elaborate on that?
You: We should make computers better for people, but they should be made to actually think and reason.
Eliza: Why do you mention computers?
You: We have enough trouble doing this ourselves...
Eliza: Please go on.
You: if we have machines doing it they will surely out think us, and then what?
Eliza: What answer would please you the most?
and i'm glad to see my employer is acquiescing without a fight.
> And of course, no one thinks that the
> millions and millions of people who died at
> the hands of Stalin during the 20th century
> is a war crime
That's not true, a lot of people think that. You describe the US government perfectly, however - Trumping up one bad guy while ignoring others' (and its own) atrocities out of self-interest. That lack of respect for principles we claim to cherish shakes my faith in the government and erodes its credibility.
The U.S. isn't the most ruthless single perpetrator, but we have the most power and the most potential for damage (and, ironically, for good). So we need to be more humble and self-critical.
- look at the CIA fact book entry on Chile. then ask any economist how they think Chile is doing since the Pinochet coup.
- look at us war crimes in the first gulf war. Try getting the current government to acknowledge that the U.S. has committed war crimes.
Breaking weapons and ecological treaties could also be considered duplicitous.
America is capable of doing good, but don't doubt for a minute that we have a lot of moral clearance over Saddam Hussein. Collectively, the U.S. can be just as insidious and even more deadly.
You know, that's funny that you say that, because they weren't scuds. Sorry.
Rest assured, whether they exist or not, the U.S. will report finding W.O.M.D. in Iraq. Convenient that the phantom "scud" just happened to be totally obliterated by a patriot missile this morning.
Also rest assured that there are plenty of people who want to believe the "coalition" is doing the right thing for the right reasons, and like the parent poster, will swallow any b.s. rumors which support that idea without bothering to verify them.
Even if they were scuds (which they almost certainly were not), it is interesting that one of the banned weapons which make Iraq a threat to the world couldn't hit a gaggle of troops and armor on their front fucking door.
This could give one the impression that Iraq is, for all intents and purposes, already disarmed relative to the powers that claim to be threatened.
consider:
- the hippocampus is a black box (they can't even see the "object code," if you will
- complex systems are notoriously difficult to debug
I find the claim that the scientists have considered every possible behavior and simulated it in firmware to be suspect.
How can they be sure they have considered every possible input/output? How can they be sure that what they observed was "correct" behavior?
Any biologists or neuroscientists care to elucidate? Also, how similar is the human hippocampus to the rat's? Couldn't the behavior differences require complete regression testing? It seems like this increase in precision in medicine demands a commensurate increase in the precision of testing.
The grant money itself is used toward non-microsoft infrastructure. Imposing that condition doesn't seem likely or fair.
IE has become a de facto standard for how your HTML should render. The W3C should be the authoritative source, not just MS. Similarly, industry consortium should decide on A/V delivery standards. Microsoft should not be allowed to use their OS monopoly to unfairly affect this decision to their exclusive benefit, but clearly they have been doing so - see the Windows Media sticker on your new DVD player.
It's not all MS' fault. Morons everywhere confuse the terms "protocol" and "product" and let MS walk all over the rest of us.
Bottom line - evangelize and trust bust until they stop it. Maybe people are sick of hearing about it. Sorry, we need to keep whining until they are stopped... or until all means have been clearly exhausted.
Yeah, let's hope it hits Canada next time instead of Mexico.
Just kidding, I love all of my northern neighbors.
Which means that a similarly-sized asteroid may be slightly less apocalyptic than thought. Sort of comforting, though I wonder how we'd deal with global forest fires when we can't even handle a relatively small number now.
centripetal force is quite real. so-called "centrifugal" force is imaginary.
oh i suppose a link is in order.
coriolis is also an apparent (re: imaginary) force along the same lines - the way i understand it, we perceive it because any movement on earth happens with respect to a non-inertial frame of reference (not just relative to surface, but to orbit and rotation). it's not a real force, but it's a very real part of accounting for motion. i think i remember hearing about a gemini splash-down being off by miles because a programmer didn't account for the coriolis effect.
ha ha - you must be pretty old if you think 15 year-olds remember the smurfs.
Here is the interview I heard... I think he is the same guy.
The same guy did an editorial on NPR the other day discussing this bill. He opposes it for obvious reasons ;)
pc floppies have one key quality - they are almost universally supported.
sure, they are old and a bit slow, but they are useful because of their omnipresence. for moving snippets of data from here to there under any condition, it is still hard to beat floppies.
usb key drives are nice - i have one - but they need to get a bit cheaper. then they would be a nice replacement for the "quick snippet" niche.
> we're running low on Shuttles, and now that
> we're down by two
we're not "down by two" - endeavor was built to replace challenger. we're down by one.
> Don't we have some new birds like those seen in
> Armageddon yet?
what the fuck does armageddon have to do with state of the art?
> getting nailed by some radical towel heads
because all terrorists wear turbans. like tim mcveigh, for example.
> with the others aging, how much longer can we
> keep up that program?
wait until you know why the shuttle was destroyed before you start condemning the program. if snap judgements like yours were made when prepping shuttle launches, there would be a lot more than two catastrophic missions on the books.
People are not always to blame for their own addictions. People can be driven to drink, or accidentally addicted to morphine by a negligent doctor, or have addictive personalities due to existing mental illness.
Always blaming the victim of an addiction is an example of the fundamental attribution error.
> Yah, there are too many books in the world! :-)
> Burn them!
That's funny.
> If you're knowledgeable enough to already know
> all of the old information, why would you even
> consider reading a new book? Perhaps you should
> be writing your own book.
I'm not complaining that there are too many books. On the contrary, I'm saying there are not enough - with a narrower scope. Many have a general knowledge of security, but not every single platform. Surely you can see the benefit to writing a concise platform-specific book rather than (or in addition to) yet another biblical security compendium with a one platform focus?
Imagine being an admin and being tasked with "securing" a client's heterogeneous network. You could either a) read through a general security bible and adapt the concepts to each platform, researching the specific methods yourself, or b) you could have a cookbook-style guide for each platform that names the popular tools, configuration options, and pitfalls.
I think b) would be quicker and would avoid reinvention of the wheel during implementation. What would really be irritating is if all of those books cost 50 bucks and had 600 pages of duplicate material common to each book.
> Brand new, cutting edge, up-to-the-moment
> security information you get from various web
> sites, not books -- as you surely know.
At this point, it should be clear that I'm not talking about bleeding-edge changes.
Wasn't it just a few years ago when I was complaining that there was not enough focus on security? Now there are so many books it is almost annoying. Even casual admins or enthusiasts have that "Hackers Exposed" book.
At 800 pages, they MUST be re-inventing the wheel to some degree. A lot of those bullets in the contents seem like general things you should know about host-based security in general. Boosk like that usually annoy me - sifting through all that to get to the fresh information is tedious. I have an American attention span, damnit!
He did not act from a desire of profit, or even of fame. He did not do anything with an intent to hurt someone
It is indeed sad, and I personally think the punishment may be a little harsh, but if we measured the seriousness of a crime based on intent, we'd be in trouble.
"I didn't mean to crash while driving drunk"
"I didn't mean to hit that little girl while I was randomly firing bullets into the woods"
"I didn't mean to psychologically ruin that 12-year-old for life when I seduced him"
A lot of laws are meant to punish people for not thinking about the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, since there is sometimes no way to ascertain intent, we legislate against lack of foresight. These are usually lesser crimes/penalties. 3 years seems long, still... hopefully he'll get out sooner.