I haven't RTFA, big surprise, but just a thought...
If the cavities have to be tuned to match the sound, then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch?
Or even just two separate sonar systems on a ship/sub/whatever, that use two different frequencies, with no matching harmonics. If something shows up on one, and not the other, then somebody's trying to hide.
Just out of curiosity, what type of computers do you buy?
I've installed Linux on everything from standard name-brand systems, to the most mongrel, hacked together pieces of random crap you could imagine.
I virtually _always_ get to the desktop. The only time I can remember that I didn't was when I installed Debian for the second time, after not having done it for a while, and forgot to install the package that includes the "startx" command. (I hate GUI login screens on Linux, so I didn't use any ?dm) But that was really easy to fix, as I just had to install the xclients package.
These people that say they can't get the desktop to come up baffle me. I can honestly say I've _never_ seen that situation, and I've been dealing with Linux for well over a decade. The only thing I can think of is that you're using such a bizarre, esoteric hardware setup that virtually nobody ever sees in real life. But you've done this 8-9 times over the years. What are the chances that every computer you've owned has this type of setup? Virtually nil.
So, it makes no sense to me. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I have no frame of reference to relate to.
How does nLite ease the installation of Windows? The act of using nLite to create your custom unattended install is more complex than just doing an attended install in the first place.
Unless you have someone else create your nLited disk for you, but then, you could have somebody else do the Windows install, too.
... could someone like RH claim that they could provide a solution that'd be 100%-compatible with the existing MS environment at a lower cost? I seriously doubt this would be the case.
Microsoft can't truthfully claim this, either. They certainly can't claim a lower cost than MS, but they can't even claim 100% compatibility, either. That doesn't stop them from making the claim, though...
Whether it's being fixed by the localization team or not, the problem still should be fixed before the software goes out the door.
Internal testing of known bugs is a lot better and cheaper than putting out the product, and fixing bugs after the fact.
The developers should have been connected with the localization team, so that the bug could be fixed, as localization was still being worked on.
Even if the ball was started rolling by just pulling one person from the localization team and one developer into a meeting where they could swap information, preferably with a test machine to demonstrate examples on, then it would have been good management.
To just say, essentially "bugger off...that's not in our use case," is poor management in the extreme.
So I guess we should all be thanking the Somali pirates for helping the economy.
After all, all those ransoms are money flowing from one person to another, so it must be helpful.
And you're calling me stupid?
No...spending money to fix things simply to bring them back up to the level they were before they were damaged by a moron, does not help the economy. It sucks up resources that could otherwise be spent on something productive.
You can fix your damaged car, helping the autobody shop.
Or, you can buy a new car with the same money (presumably a smaller one), sell your old one, (which is still in one piece and running) and help a car dealer, car manufacturer, yourself, and the person who bought your old car.
Without the economic damage from the accident, you've suddenly got an extra car's worth of goods available to you and the economy.
Manufacturers should be able to offer you whatever contract you're willing to accept.
No. There are consumer protection laws in a lot of jurisdictions that prohibit this kind of crap. I know Ontario has laws to prevent this kind of thing, which basically state "It doesn't matter a hoot what the contract states, the following things are illegal:..." It then goes on to name a bunch of things that are currently clauses in a lot of contracts for things like cellphones.
By that logic, if I bomb a city, all the money spent on rebuilding said city is good for the economy, no?
Forget the bailout package and stimulus funds. Let's just blow the shit out of everything, and all our economic woes will be solved!!
Fixing broken shit that's broken due to maliciousness or negligence does NOT help the economy. The vast majority of traffic accidents are caused by negligence. Creating something new or repairing something that is broken due to wear or age....now THAT helps the economy.
Throwing money around for the sake of throwing money around isn't good economic policy. It's just money flowing, with no real benefit.
If they used RSA, yes. It would still be unbreakable, that we know of.
But when we're talking about government information here, I'm sure there are certain other governments around the world that would throw a significant amount of computing power at breaking whatever encryption was used.
If it was something involving MD5, you can be pretty sure it would be broken into fairly quickly.
And this is the US government we're talking about. If they encrypted this stuff in 2000, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find they'd used DES, which was broken in 1994.
Or they could have used Coconut98, which was published in 1998 (only two years old! Must be good, because it's new!). Then, it would have been broken only 4 years ago, in 2005.
Yes, there are some like RSA, AES, and IDEA that haven't been broken yet. But that would entail the government to know what the hell they're doing. And for the past several decades, they've proven pretty conclusively that they don't.
Somewhat irrelevant at this point, as most encryption methods in use in 2000 have either been broken, or advances in computer power have rendered them easily crackable. There are exceptions, of course, but it would be pure dumb luck that one of these exceptions was used to encrypt, rather than a broken one.
The real question is, will the current crop of retards realize "Hey....since this info was lost from previous administrations, maybe stuff can be lost for us, too! Maybe these electronic health records for the whole country aren't such a good idea after all....."
As well as that....nearly 1TB of data, if compressed, could take up 300GB of space, or less.
Depending on the data, of course.
If it's just a bunch of excel files with personal info in them, they'll compress quite well. If it's.bmp files of everybody's fingerprints, it will also compress well.
If it's binary biometric data (unlikely) then it won't compress well at all.
No...I got your point. I just chose to go on a mildly off topic rant about people who are incapable of doing anything for themselves.
Whenever I hear some computer expert talking to another and claiming that people don't like to do maintenance and repairs on their computer because "it would be like you fixing your own car" it kind of gets to me. Because I _can_ fix my own car.
It's a simple matter of disassembly, figuring out how things work, and reassembly with the broken parts replaced.
As for there being more types of RAM than sparkplugs.... Have you _seen_ the spark plug aisle at your local auto parts store?
I'd hazard a pretty good guess that there are many more spark plug types then there are RAM types.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't RTFA, big surprise, but just a thought...
If the cavities have to be tuned to match the sound, then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch?
Or even just two separate sonar systems on a ship/sub/whatever, that use two different frequencies, with no matching harmonics.
If something shows up on one, and not the other, then somebody's trying to hide.
And this was the Ubuntu 8.10 attempt?
I've got a machine that's very similar hardware-wise to that. I'm going to try installing on it and see what happens.
Just out of curiosity, what type of computers do you buy?
I've installed Linux on everything from standard name-brand systems, to the most mongrel, hacked together pieces of random crap you could imagine.
I virtually _always_ get to the desktop. The only time I can remember that I didn't was when I installed Debian for the second time, after not having done it for a while, and forgot to install the package that includes the "startx" command. (I hate GUI login screens on Linux, so I didn't use any ?dm)
But that was really easy to fix, as I just had to install the xclients package.
These people that say they can't get the desktop to come up baffle me. I can honestly say I've _never_ seen that situation, and I've been dealing with Linux for well over a decade. The only thing I can think of is that you're using such a bizarre, esoteric hardware setup that virtually nobody ever sees in real life. But you've done this 8-9 times over the years. What are the chances that every computer you've owned has this type of setup? Virtually nil.
So, it makes no sense to me. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I have no frame of reference to relate to.
How does nLite ease the installation of Windows?
The act of using nLite to create your custom unattended install is more complex than just doing an attended install in the first place.
Unless you have someone else create your nLited disk for you, but then, you could have somebody else do the Windows install, too.
So your point is moot....
... could someone like RH claim that they could provide a solution that'd be 100%-compatible with the existing MS environment at a lower cost? I seriously doubt this would be the case.
Microsoft can't truthfully claim this, either. They certainly can't claim a lower cost than MS, but they can't even claim 100% compatibility, either.
That doesn't stop them from making the claim, though...
It's only hypocritical if he, himself does it, not if some random FLOSS developer does it.
At least, I would assume a name like theodp would be a guy.....
Isn't that when you're assigning a comparison to a variable? :)
How do you know AC trolls don't read replies?
Do you do such things on a regular basis? :)
No, it's still management style thinking.
Whether it's being fixed by the localization team or not, the problem still should be fixed before the software goes out the door.
Internal testing of known bugs is a lot better and cheaper than putting out the product, and fixing bugs after the fact.
The developers should have been connected with the localization team, so that the bug could be fixed, as localization was still being worked on.
Even if the ball was started rolling by just pulling one person from the localization team and one developer into a meeting where they could swap information, preferably with a test machine to demonstrate examples on, then it would have been good management.
To just say, essentially "bugger off...that's not in our use case," is poor management in the extreme.
Hence, "management style thinking."
....W...T...F...
So I guess we should all be thanking the Somali pirates for helping the economy.
After all, all those ransoms are money flowing from one person to another, so it must be helpful.
And you're calling me stupid?
No...spending money to fix things simply to bring them back up to the level they were before they were damaged by a moron, does not help the economy. It sucks up resources that could otherwise be spent on something productive.
You can fix your damaged car, helping the autobody shop.
Or, you can buy a new car with the same money (presumably a smaller one), sell your old one, (which is still in one piece and running) and help a car dealer, car manufacturer, yourself, and the person who bought your old car.
Without the economic damage from the accident, you've suddenly got an extra car's worth of goods available to you and the economy.
The Broken Window Fallacy. Maybe you should read it sometime, before calling people stupid.
Until somebody figures out that, by using Tor, you can connect to MSN from anywhere in the world, bypassing all such restrictions.....
Crap. You're right.
I missed that.
Good catch.
That wasn't supposed to be a haiku.
And it's not 5-7-5 words, anyway. It's closer to syllables, so there are too many in the last line, also.
But maybe I should rewrite....
I know where I'm posting.
But man, you watch too much porn.
Some freaky stuff, too.
Now, it's a haiku. :)
Yes, I know where I'm posting.
But man, you watch too much porn.
And apparently freaky stuff, too.....
Manufacturers should be able to offer you whatever contract you're willing to accept.
No. There are consumer protection laws in a lot of jurisdictions that prohibit this kind of crap. I know Ontario has laws to prevent this kind of thing, which basically state "It doesn't matter a hoot what the contract states, the following things are illegal:..."
It then goes on to name a bunch of things that are currently clauses in a lot of contracts for things like cellphones.
By that logic, if I bomb a city, all the money spent on rebuilding said city is good for the economy, no?
Forget the bailout package and stimulus funds. Let's just blow the shit out of everything, and all our economic woes will be solved!!
Fixing broken shit that's broken due to maliciousness or negligence does NOT help the economy. The vast majority of traffic accidents are caused by negligence.
Creating something new or repairing something that is broken due to wear or age....now THAT helps the economy.
Throwing money around for the sake of throwing money around isn't good economic policy. It's just money flowing, with no real benefit.
Encryption isn't weak until it's broken.
And if the NSA are advising them, and they're following the advice don't you think it would have been encrypted?
It wasn't, so they're either not following the NSA's advice, or they're not being advised.
If they used RSA, yes. It would still be unbreakable, that we know of.
But when we're talking about government information here, I'm sure there are certain other governments around the world that would throw a significant amount of computing power at breaking whatever encryption was used.
If it was something involving MD5, you can be pretty sure it would be broken into fairly quickly.
And this is the US government we're talking about. If they encrypted this stuff in 2000, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find they'd used DES, which was broken in 1994.
Or they could have used Coconut98, which was published in 1998 (only two years old! Must be good, because it's new!).
Then, it would have been broken only 4 years ago, in 2005.
Yes, there are some like RSA, AES, and IDEA that haven't been broken yet. But that would entail the government to know what the hell they're doing. And for the past several decades, they've proven pretty conclusively that they don't.
By current crop of retards, do you mean the administration? The people who put them in office, both, or government in general?
Yes.
Somewhat irrelevant at this point, as most encryption methods in use in 2000 have either been broken, or advances in computer power have rendered them easily crackable.
There are exceptions, of course, but it would be pure dumb luck that one of these exceptions was used to encrypt, rather than a broken one.
The real question is, will the current crop of retards realize "Hey....since this info was lost from previous administrations, maybe stuff can be lost for us, too! Maybe these electronic health records for the whole country aren't such a good idea after all....."
How do you know, if the data's been lost?
Because there's no evidence of it, of course!!
As well as that....nearly 1TB of data, if compressed, could take up 300GB of space, or less.
Depending on the data, of course.
If it's just a bunch of excel files with personal info in them, they'll compress quite well. .bmp files of everybody's fingerprints, it will also compress well.
If it's
If it's binary biometric data (unlikely) then it won't compress well at all.
58th post!!!
If you had some way to store data in particle spin, I could easily see 6 dimensions.
x,y,z position, plus x,y,z spin.
Interesting stuff....
No...I got your point. I just chose to go on a mildly off topic rant about people who are incapable of doing anything for themselves.
Whenever I hear some computer expert talking to another and claiming that people don't like to do maintenance and repairs on their computer because "it would be like you fixing your own car" it kind of gets to me. Because I _can_ fix my own car.
It's a simple matter of disassembly, figuring out how things work, and reassembly with the broken parts replaced.
As for there being more types of RAM than sparkplugs.... Have you _seen_ the spark plug aisle at your local auto parts store?
I'd hazard a pretty good guess that there are many more spark plug types then there are RAM types.