> These blades are huge, thick profile and with HUGE drag. > There is simply no way a human can spin and keep them rotating > for 1 minute at a speed sufficient for liftoff.
Yeah, but it's merely an engineering problem. All they have to do is reduce the blade profile by (thick/3.212) to get to (HUGE-SOMEWHATBIG)+3, give or take a few hundredths of a BIG and it just might work.
Could someone confirm my math?
Oh I admit, it LOOKS grim, but isn't it a bit presumptuous to be a naysayer without any real data?
I don't know where you got that figure, but you may want to look at the sustained power output of a cyclist. I am an average cyclist, and I can pump out more than 200 W sustained if it's for only a few minutes. For comparison, the Tour winner cranked out around 350 W average for the whole tour, and is capable of much more. (of course, power/weight ratio is what really counts, but the same argument applies).
> is the boss going to want to pay for these books?
that depends on how much you bill out per hour, if the "boss" is one of the users asking the questions, and if it's worth the ROI in terms of user satisfaction. in the case of most IT generalists, the cost is trivial compared to the time spent studying each individual case, or compared to giving a cold shoulder to the guys that ultimately fund your paycheck.
in a similar move, we initially bought AV software for them as well (though eventually the client made a deal w/ NAI, now McAfee, who offers "enterprise" deals including home user licensing benefits). it makes sense for us - instead of letting this expected service pull time away from more complicated work, we come up with ways to push the responsibility back onto the users without completely ignoring their needs.
You're right. But I still advocate a book of this sort because it targets a second tier of power users who are competent, if not truly advanced/pro. They can read the book and coddle the cluebies. Many who might call themselves advanced or professional find themselves in the potentially insufferable position of being responsible for answering questions like these. Some natural teacher/prophet types may love it, I'm sure, but for those who don't, this book is a means to delegate to the "power users."
...at the company's expense. Everyone stumbles into the IT office and asks these questions, and the answer doesn't exactly fit in an FAQ because everyone has a slightly different situation.
And save your breath about whether or not it's my job to answer such questions. I probably don't work where you do.
The quote seems in line with intuition at least... how would it go - as the bandwidth increases, practical usage will increase, the number of active nodes will increase, and voila a petri dish for more sophisticated viruses. Sure, it's not the only catalyst, but bandwidth seems to have something to do with it.
> Interesting argument, if a bit on the shiny side of the tinfoil hat.
Except that I wasn't really making a moral commentary, but merely describing a trend.
> Each time you (not you personally) drive to the 7-11 in your Hummer, you're > using up the oil that a future generation could have used to cruise Route 66. > Where's the "freedom" in that?
The freedom exists from there being no clear dichotomy between neccessity and choice when it comes to transportation. I agree, some choices aren't at all sustainable.
Perhaps the "f'n break" you desire is reflected in the quotation marks i placed around "freedom." Or maybe the implication was lost on you.
Interesting nonetheless.
> Besides, it's voluntary
It's about as voluntary as employment. If you are lucky, you don't need an income or a car to survive in the USA. But for most people this is not the case. So what this does is to practically require that you separate your leisure and essential transportation. I never implied that was unreasonable, only that this is the trend result.
Isn't entrapment when you are goaded into doing something illegal you wouldn't otherwise do?
This is part of the trend toward automated mass transit. Suck all the joy/autonomy out of driving by constraining the ways you can legally drive, and after a while there will be no "freedom" in having your own car. You may as well get on the subway with a toy driving wheel and make vroom-vroom sounds.
I concur, though I own a Mazda and have owned Saturns and 1980s fords.
One can (economically) work on the later model cars with only a modest tool set, mostly metric wrenches - a socket set, box wrenches, and a torx set. It seems like the major changes in engines have really been materials, the addition of fuel injection and the increased complexity of emissions - at the core, an engine is still an engine. As a noob, (but with some friendly advice from gearheads), I changed the engine in a couple of days on the Mazda. The ECU/PCM hasn't been a problem either. You can go even cheaper than $300 - The ISO scan tool I built from a PCB I got online cost $12 in parts (if you don't count the laptop) and has saved me hundreds in diag fees.
doh - as pointed out, it's encrypt with A, decrypt with B, then encrypt with A, and then only in "EDE" mode. you can also use 3 keys (EEE mode). sorry!
no, the confusion comes from DES being 64-bit with a byte's worth of parity. effective length of single DES key is 56 bits.
now, to really mess it up - the effective key length of 3DES is 112 bits, because only 2 keys are actually used, key A and B. Encrypt with A, then B, then A.
> Ok, so his thesis seems to be that Windows is insecure because it's too hard? Is > this guy on crack? > This isn't a fair analysis, it's just more "MS is teh gay linucks is > awwwwsome!!!!!11!" tripe.
His thesis is actually more along the lines of (and I'm quoting from the Win v Unix section of the article):
"Current Windows systems have some of the highest security ratings (as compared to other systems)... However, the number of documented security issues and the real-life rampant insecurity of Windows are not speculations either! The problems are real, both for Microsoft, and for Windows users."
Nowhere here is he saying that MS sucks, or that linux r0x0rs. Again, from the sam part of the article:
"We stated earlier that UNIX was not even designed with security in mind. Several technologies that originated on Unix, such as NFS and the X Window System, were woefully inadequate in their security."
The argument that explains the paradox is along the lines of what many of us already know - that MS is more prevalent, has a wider spectrum of users (inexperienced to experienced) and exists in a wider range of vulnerable environments - not just cozy, isolated research labs.
So while your arguments are valid, they don't really go against the overall opinion of the article.
Re:I think is was said somewhere else...
on
P2P Leaks Surprises
·
· Score: 1
Maybe the people who were careless with the stuff in the first place will do a double-take now. If the idea that this happens isn't general knowledge, then people will assume it doesn't happen and will continue being careless. Public release is an important feedback mechanism.
I would agree that it might be prudent to inform the public after plugging up any non-human weaknesses, but ultimately, the weak link here is people.
what's your point, vanessa? aerospace orgs are not limited to doing aerodynamics. they also do structural, mechanical, thermal, design, tech pubs, repair. as opposed to a pharma company, who might use such a cluster, but not for aerodynamical work. geez.
Quite correct - no answer at all. Sorry if you feel slighted at the dismissal. If you really want to discuss something with me, then it's simple - take at least some care not to predicate your attempts at discussion on logical fallacies. If you think that's unfair, take heart - there are many other people on/. to chat with in that manner, and my opinion is not important anyway.
> Since "libertarian" is to eschew force except in defense of property, and > "socialism" is to expropriate personal property by force, can you define what > you mean by "libertarian socialism"?
This is a false dilemma. Normally one would beg pardon after offering it and not before. Short answer: in the context of "libertarian socialism," I don't share the above definitions.
Can you honestly tell me that the government is going to hire a panel of people to check in in-depth source changes on OSS projects?
If they don't do this for ANY software, contracted or otherwise, they are enabling a security hole. And you are right - in many cases, software is NOT examined and certified. And not just OSS or custom contract software, but COTS packages. They should check all of them. One is not more inherently trustworthy than any other. As a defense contractor, for instance, you have no control over who your COTS provider hires as a coder. Maybe it's a dude or gal who also happens to work for the intelligence wing of [insert enemy here].
I think that having experts able to review each line of code checked in and put into production defeats the whole idea of using Open Source: at that point, you might as well just hire the experts to write the code in the first place and eliminate the vector all together.
That is, assuming the point of using OSS is code review for security. You also benefit from code review for quality, and from not having to invent the damn thing in the first place. This is the same for "buy" software.
Scanning the code for security should be done in either case (free code or contracted code). Updates are handled by sound change management. You don't have a sensitive piece of equipment using the latest CVS builds.
Slashdot Mirror
> These blades are huge, thick profile and with HUGE drag.
> There is simply no way a human can spin and keep them rotating
> for 1 minute at a speed sufficient for liftoff.
Yeah, but it's merely an engineering problem. All they have to do is reduce the blade profile by (thick/3.212) to get to (HUGE-SOMEWHATBIG)+3, give or take a few hundredths of a BIG and it just might work.
Could someone confirm my math?
Oh I admit, it LOOKS grim, but isn't it a bit presumptuous to be a naysayer without any real data?
I don't know where you got that figure, but you may want to look at the sustained power output of a cyclist. I am an average cyclist, and I can pump out more than 200 W sustained if it's for only a few minutes. For comparison, the Tour winner cranked out around 350 W average for the whole tour, and is capable of much more. (of course, power/weight ratio is what really counts, but the same argument applies).
script kiddies get virtually no advantage from this toolset.
> is the boss going to want to pay for these books?
that depends on how much you bill out per hour, if the "boss" is one of the users asking the questions, and if it's worth the ROI in terms of user satisfaction. in the case of most IT generalists, the cost is trivial compared to the time spent studying each individual case, or compared to giving a cold shoulder to the guys that ultimately fund your paycheck.
in a similar move, we initially bought AV software for them as well (though eventually the client made a deal w/ NAI, now McAfee, who offers "enterprise" deals including home user licensing benefits). it makes sense for us - instead of letting this expected service pull time away from more complicated work, we come up with ways to push the responsibility back onto the users without completely ignoring their needs.
Yeah, it's thinkin' man's music.
You're right. But I still advocate a book of this sort because it targets a second tier of power users who are competent, if not truly advanced/pro. They can read the book and coddle the cluebies. Many who might call themselves advanced or professional find themselves in the potentially insufferable position of being responsible for answering questions like these. Some natural teacher/prophet types may love it, I'm sure, but for those who don't, this book is a means to delegate to the "power users."
...at the company's expense. Everyone stumbles into the IT office and asks these questions, and the answer doesn't exactly fit in an FAQ because everyone has a slightly different situation.
And save your breath about whether or not it's my job to answer such questions. I probably don't work where you do.
The quote seems in line with intuition at least... how would it go - as the bandwidth increases, practical usage will increase, the number of active nodes will increase, and voila a petri dish for more sophisticated viruses. Sure, it's not the only catalyst, but bandwidth seems to have something to do with it.
> Most of these people are in and out of prison so do you think they actually
> give a shit if they're on cam?
Um, yes. Many prisoners don't like certain visitors due to the shame of being seen behind bars.
> I'd subscribe if Michael Jackson goes to jail!
I never found him (or gratuitous violence) all that attractive... but you're entitled to your tastes.
> But lots of people without driving limitations would simply make roads
> needlessly dangerous for those that are just trying to get somewhere.
Agreed. I think this is just an example of social & market forces working to completely separate leisurely transit from neccessary transit.
> Interesting argument, if a bit on the shiny side of the tinfoil hat.
Except that I wasn't really making a moral commentary, but merely describing a trend.
> Each time you (not you personally) drive to the 7-11 in your Hummer, you're
> using up the oil that a future generation could have used to cruise Route 66.
> Where's the "freedom" in that?
The freedom exists from there being no clear dichotomy between neccessity and choice when it comes to transportation. I agree, some choices aren't at all sustainable.
Perhaps the "f'n break" you desire is reflected in the quotation marks i placed around "freedom." Or maybe the implication was lost on you.
Interesting nonetheless.
> Besides, it's voluntary
It's about as voluntary as employment. If you are lucky, you don't need an income or a car to survive in the USA. But for most people this is not the case. So what this does is to practically require that you separate your leisure and essential transportation. I never implied that was unreasonable, only that this is the trend result.
ya learn something every day... i guess #1 is a more intuitive definition anyway.
Isn't entrapment when you are goaded into doing something illegal you wouldn't otherwise do?
This is part of the trend toward automated mass transit. Suck all the joy/autonomy out of driving by constraining the ways you can legally drive, and after a while there will be no "freedom" in having your own car. You may as well get on the subway with a toy driving wheel and make vroom-vroom sounds.
I concur, though I own a Mazda and have owned Saturns and 1980s fords.
One can (economically) work on the later model cars with only a modest tool set, mostly metric wrenches - a socket set, box wrenches, and a torx set. It seems like the major changes in engines have really been materials, the addition of fuel injection and the increased complexity of emissions - at the core, an engine is still an engine. As a noob, (but with some friendly advice from gearheads), I changed the engine in a couple of days on the Mazda. The ECU/PCM hasn't been a problem either. You can go even cheaper than $300 - The ISO scan tool I built from a PCB I got online cost $12 in parts (if you don't count the laptop) and has saved me hundreds in diag fees.
No, no, you're thinking of the invention of Inward Singing.
doh - as pointed out, it's encrypt with A, decrypt with B, then encrypt with A, and then only in "EDE" mode. you can also use 3 keys (EEE mode). sorry!
no, the confusion comes from DES being 64-bit with a byte's worth of parity. effective length of single DES key is 56 bits.
now, to really mess it up - the effective key length of 3DES is 112 bits, because only 2 keys are actually used, key A and B. Encrypt with A, then B, then A.
> Ok, so his thesis seems to be that Windows is insecure because it's too hard? Is
> this guy on crack?
> This isn't a fair analysis, it's just more "MS is teh gay linucks is
> awwwwsome!!!!!11!" tripe.
His thesis is actually more along the lines of (and I'm quoting from the Win v Unix section of the article):
"Current Windows systems have some of the highest security ratings (as compared to other systems)... However, the number of documented security issues and the real-life rampant insecurity of Windows are not speculations either! The problems are real, both for Microsoft, and for Windows users."
Nowhere here is he saying that MS sucks, or that linux r0x0rs. Again, from the sam part of the article:
"We stated earlier that UNIX was not even designed with security in mind. Several technologies that originated on Unix, such as NFS and the X Window System, were woefully inadequate in their security."
The argument that explains the paradox is along the lines of what many of us already know - that MS is more prevalent, has a wider spectrum of users (inexperienced to experienced) and exists in a wider range of vulnerable environments - not just cozy, isolated research labs.
So while your arguments are valid, they don't really go against the overall opinion of the article.
Maybe the people who were careless with the stuff in the first place will do a double-take now. If the idea that this happens isn't general knowledge, then people will assume it doesn't happen and will continue being careless. Public release is an important feedback mechanism.
I would agree that it might be prudent to inform the public after plugging up any non-human weaknesses, but ultimately, the weak link here is people.
what's your point, vanessa? aerospace orgs are not limited to doing aerodynamics. they also do structural, mechanical, thermal, design, tech pubs, repair. as opposed to a pharma company, who might use such a cluster, but not for aerodynamical work. geez.
For an aerospace org, a cluster of this type would be used primarily for aerodynamical analysis work.
Quite correct - no answer at all. Sorry if you feel slighted at the dismissal. If you really want to discuss something with me, then it's simple - take at least some care not to predicate your attempts at discussion on logical fallacies. If you think that's unfair, take heart - there are many other people on /. to chat with in that manner, and my opinion is not important anyway.
> Since "libertarian" is to eschew force except in defense of property, and
> "socialism" is to expropriate personal property by force, can you define what
> you mean by "libertarian socialism"?
This is a false dilemma. Normally one would beg pardon after offering it and not before. Short answer: in the context of "libertarian socialism," I don't share the above definitions.
Can you honestly tell me that the government is going to hire a panel of people to check in in-depth source changes on OSS projects?
If they don't do this for ANY software, contracted or otherwise, they are enabling a security hole. And you are right - in many cases, software is NOT examined and certified. And not just OSS or custom contract software, but COTS packages. They should check all of them. One is not more inherently trustworthy than any other. As a defense contractor, for instance, you have no control over who your COTS provider hires as a coder. Maybe it's a dude or gal who also happens to work for the intelligence wing of [insert enemy here].
I think that having experts able to review each line of code checked in and put into production defeats the whole idea of using Open Source: at that point, you might as well just hire the experts to write the code in the first place and eliminate the vector all together.
That is, assuming the point of using OSS is code review for security. You also benefit from code review for quality, and from not having to invent the damn thing in the first place. This is the same for "buy" software.
Scanning the code for security should be done in either case (free code or contracted code). Updates are handled by sound change management. You don't have a sensitive piece of equipment using the latest CVS builds.