If you would have read the article, its because this is easier to maintain than a stand alone switch. Running 4 lines isn't always the best idea because of cost of each line, as the article points out a lot of networking groups charge PER cable, not per pull.
This thing provides:
Little to no maintainence.
Reduces cost of cables pulled to office
Reduces clutter in ceiling
Relatively low cost for high quality manufacturer
My company, and every other company I've associated with over 25 employees don't have a lot of SMC or Netgear crap lying around. With experience as a network admin, I can say I'd much rather spend a few extra bucks on this than have one of those things sitting out where the user can fsck with it.
Hmmmm... They may already have this... They have these pins that light up during parades, fireworks shows and certain attractions. I would figure that they work on some sort of timer, but maybe they're 802.11 devices.
Interesting concept. However I believe that freedom and power are inseperable. When you give anyone freedom you are also giving them power. The freedom to choose how you use software is a power as much as having the freedom to choose how your software is used is a power.
I don't agree with RMS on this. I think he's off base. He advocates freedom--to a point, which isn't freedom at all. I understand where he's coming from, the freedom to license software has become abused, but is this reason to remove it? I don't think so.
With any freedom there are responsibilities. When people abuse the freedom of speech, I can't advocate removing that freedom because they are using it to thier own advantage. I can use my own freedoms to combat their misuse, however. That is the challenge, to combat misuse of freedoms. This is a duty of the masses, and not the elite. We have a responsibility to use our freedom of choice to combat what we see as misuse.
Limiting freedom of any sort isn't the answer. Freedom without power really isn't freedom.
So, to these men, I say: drop it. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the people decide which license should govern them. It's nothing short of a vi vs. emacs or Christianity vs. Islam battle, and neither side stands a chance at winning. Let the users decide.
I believe letting the users decide is exactly what Tim O'Reilly is advocating. RMS does not believe that licenses other than GPL (and maybe a choice few others, but I'm not sure) are right. He does not believe you or I or anyone should have the right, or power as he puts it, to choose how to license our software.
Comeon moderators... This isn't a troll. A lot of folks have legitimate beefs with Stallman and GNU. Simply because I think the GNU license inhibits free software doesn't mean I'm trolling.
If I were trolling I assure you I could have put something there that would bring in the comments...
Stallman believes software should be free -- as in speech -- as in Taliban ruled Afghanistan.
RMS preaches percieved freedom of software not actual free software. I write software for several reasons, because I'm paid, because I'm curious, because there's a need, because I'm generous, because I can. When I release this software to the public I choose to do so because I feel it's right to do. I don't do it to promote a free software agenda, I do it to give people access to what I have done, do with it as you want, change it, correct it, rearrange it, buy it, sell it. That's free software. If I say you can use it, you can.
RMS attatches conditions, and IMNSHO those conditions severely limit the freedom that we associate with free software. Most commercial software you cannot give away, GNU software you cannot truely sell. From most people's points of view GNU software looks like the better deal, but when you really look at it, GNU software while free as in beer, is not free as in speech. Both have licenses that restrict your use of the software in ways that may not be acceptable to you.
Child labor laws are aimed directly at business. Unreasonable search and seizure is to protect you from police. If I want to require a search of your person before you are allowed into my property, that is completely within my rights.
When the Gov't is your employer it acts as a company and not government.
The thing I'm interested in is whether these can step down and work with existing 802.11b hardware, similar to what 100bt cards do on a 10bt network.
I'd guess no, and that will hurt things somewhat. 802.11b has a reasonable home following, and I don't see a lot of users upgrading their home networks to 'a', because they don't need the additional bandwidth in most cases. (If I want video, it's probably going to be on a stationary device I can run a cable to). A lot of corps may implement 'b' because of the extra range and bandwidth, so your laptop would need two cards in it... which would suck.
Yes they do and store enough voltage to KILL YOU DEAD.
I always thought that it wasn't the voltage that would kill you, it was the amperage... Isn't voltage just the amount of 'push', where amperage is the amount of 'fry'?
IIRC, static electricity is very high voltage, but near nil amperage, so no harm.
Or could be because he doesn't want to work with Macs.
A linux solution may be completely free of new costs, sure there's his time, and time to aquaint the talent with the new software, but that would be incurred regardless. A mac solution would involve hardware and software as well.
He didn't say why this guy was getting tired of Windows, it might not be crashing that's the problem. He may be fed up with licensing in general, and a mac based solution isn't going to get him any further away from that problem.
But thousands of American civilians are already dead in this conflict, greater civilian losses than in any war in U.S. history.
First we'll assume you mean U.S. civilians, as millions were killed in WWII, which is certainly still in the recollection of most Americans. Going a bit further back, but again certainly within U.S. history, there was the civil war. Do you honestly believe that there were not more civilians killed in that war?
Now on to your question. There is no doubt that our technology will benifit us. Do our GPS targetting systems work, certainly. Are our satellites as good as we think they are for battlefield intelligence? You betcha. Have our soldiers been better prepared both mentally and physically? Absolutley. Can the Taliban win this war? No chance.
But it isn't technology that gives us the real advantage. We had technology on our side in Vietnam. We didn't win. Sure, it wasn't nearly at the level we have now, and we didn't have the experience using what we had in real situations, but we simply were more powerful. But we didn't win. Why didn't we win? During Vietnam we were a divided nation. We had defeated the Viet Cong in South Vietnam by 1968. But the north saw our division here in America, and counted on us to give in to internal pressures. To make a long story short, we did.
Today there's no such division. The overwhelming majority of people in this country believe this is something that needs to be done. Sure there are some people who disagree, but they certainly aren't the majority. Our nation is united. The other nations of the world are also standing behind us. If we continue to stand united, we will win this war, just as we've won all other wars that we've stood through united.
When all is said and done, some may say that technology won the war. But the real reasons will have had nothing to do with technology.
Hmmm... I opened help in Windows 2000 and looked in the index and found 'file types, changing' And this is what I found:
To modify an existing file type
Open Folder Options Click the File Types tab.
Click the file type that you want to change.
Click Advanced.
If necessary, modify the description of the file type, and click Change Icon to change the icon for the file type.
In Actions, click the command that you want to modify, and then click Edit, Remove, or Set Default. Or click New to add a new command to the list in Actions.
Repeat step 6 for as many actions as you want to modify for this file type.
Seems simple to me... What does this guy want, dialog boxes everytime you open a file?
"You are opening this file with Windows Media Player, do you want to use another program instead?" ['click' NO]
"Are You sure? You may actually like Real Player better, or maybe WinAMP." ['click' YES]
"OK, Your default player has not been changed, but we will check back with you to see if you've changed your mind next time you open a file."
Besides, if a user likes Real Player (example he used), when he opens the program it will notify him that it is not set up to be associated with certain file types, and ask to correct this. This is in no way anything that contributes to MS maintaining a monopoly. This guy is probably just hacked off because it took him 1/2 an hour to figure out because he couldn't use help. Musta been a slow day over at Salon...
They're different devices...
on
Pocket PC 2002
·
· Score: 2
Sure, if you don't want color, or MP3, Palm is certainly the best bet hands down. But if you're going to step up to color and MP3 Capability you're talking a $500 Clie N710c. Now... the Clie is a supercool machine, but for $500 you can also pick up a iPAQ with 64 Meg, vs 16 on the Clie. I'd go after the iPAQ myself in this case.
These Pocket PCs are competitivly priced with the highend Palm OS machines right now. They have no low-end like palm does, but they're only aiming at high end buyers right now.
Low end palms are affordable for just about anyone right now, but execs are going to be more likely to pick up the pricey, and flashy pocket pc. That's what they're looking for...
Using software of doubtful quality is irresponsible
Then don't use software. There's no such thing as software that is bug free, and certainly no such thing as an OS that is secure.
You're ignoring the entire point. If you don't maintain a system it is just as hackable as any other non-maintained system. Since you seem to like unrelated anaolgies let me give you this one: Say you have a boat, it has a hole in it the size of a quarter. The other guy has a hole the size of a softball. Sure he's going down quicker, but if you don't plug your hole you're going to the same place.
Its fscking stupid to choose an OS because you think its more secure than another. Choose it because it's easier to maintain, because it has more features, is easier to use, is cheaper, whatever, but don't lie to yourself and say its more secure.
Give me three servers installed two years ago, RedHat 6.2, Windows NT, and Solaris and left to sit. Which is more secure? Doesn't matter. They've all got huge holes just waiting to be exploited. Now set up these machines today, maybe the Solaris one wins out today, but without maintainence, they're all screwed.
You can't backup the assertation that (LI||U)nix is less prone to problems than Windows. If you go back 6 months that might appear to be the case, but go back years, and you see a huge number of exploits on Unixes.
I've been adminning boxes of all varieties for years now. I had a RH 6.2 box compromised because of a WU-FTPd exploit about a year ago. When this happened I acknowledged in the report that it was because I had not patched WU-FTPd. Not because WU-FTPd had a hole. There was no excuse for the hole not to be patched, because the patch was out and RedHat had issued an advisory, I had simply screwwed up.
Finally, your entire argument makes no sense.
Myth: "It doesn't matter what system you are running, if you don't keep up to date you will be hit."
No, this is a fact, you provide no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, just a silly anaology that makes little sense. What isn't smart is thinking your OS is somehow immune to attack.
Heat of the resulting fire caused the supporting girders to melt on the floors where the plane was burning. As I understood it the floors in this building would have weighed about 6 million pounds. After one came down into the floor below, there was no stopping it.
The weight of the plane, impact, and explosion were much less of a factor than the resulting fire. Had there not have been a fire, or could it had been controlled, we would quite possibly be looking at restoring the buildings right now.
While hydrogen would not have burned like the jet fuel, I'm not sure it's practical in airliners because of the huge distances they travel. Hydrogen as a fuel doesn't provide a lot of bang for it's volume.
What really gets me is the possibility that abestos could have delayed the colapse for up to 4 hours longer. They stopped spraying asbestos in the buildings above the 64th floor becase NYC banned it. They were wetspraying, which was a technique used to eliminate asbestos from getting in the air. While we'll never know how long if any those building would have stayed up, the belief at the time was that asbestos would provide 4 hours longer before the girders melted, hopefully giving time to evacuate the building.
Asbestos, much like hydrogen has been demonized, somewhat unfairly. While there is no argument that it is not dangerous, there can be safe ways to utilize dangerous materials. Unfortunately people jump on these bandwagons too quickly to make informed decisions.
I remember when they removed asbestos from my elementary school, the teacher told us that dust from the ceiling tiles was asbestos, probably exactly what she thought. In actuality, it was normal dust, and the asbestos was covered by fiberglass and foil insulation, and was harmless, until they started scraping it all off that is...
Linux boxes are much more secure than any of the competitors. Solaris is getting better; UnixWare is pretty hopeless (see BUGTRAQ). NT is... well, draw your own conclusions about NT. I feel much safer with a Linux server than with any other OS and the security just keeps getting better.
Bullshit. You're lying to yourself. One OS is not automatically more secure than another. Notice the first problem they noted: Default installations of operating systems and applications. They meant all operating systems, they didn't say 'RedHat and Debian are pretty good, you'll probably be okay with them, or at least more okay than someone using Windows.' Not only is this the most important point of the article, all other vulnerabilities stem from it. They all exist because of complacency with the current state of security of a system.
Security is not determined by OS. Period.
A systems security depends on the administrator's vigilance in keeping up to date on patches. Sure, windows has had a lot of exploits lately, but how many of these exploits were not patchable? Hmm. Conversly, Linux and other Unix systems have been not as widely or at least as publically attacked lately. Is this because they have less holes? Redhat 7.1, about 6 months old has 23 security alerts listed. 7.0 and 6.2 both have over 60. So, there's likely likely more out there in 7.1. Many of these are critical and involve remote root exploits. Feel safe? I hope not.
(Li||U)nix can be attacked with the same efficiency of what we've seen happen to Windows systems in the past few months. Administrators aren't simply better because they admin unix boxes, that's proven in the article that 50% of the copies of BIND that were running in mid 1999 were vulnerable. It would make sense that a similar percentage of other security risks exist as well.
I'm not bashing Unix, and I'm certainly not saying that Windows is a more secure OS. Its a moot point. What I'm saying is that people who blame the OS for their mistakes are wrong. They're using windows as a scapegoat, and ignoring the real problem behind this.
Unix will be hit by one of these sometime or another, and it will be just as publicized because it will likely use the same distrubution methods as before, email.
Go back, read the article again, paying close attention to the generic problems they mention. These are the basic things that any admin has to look at, every day. A machine is never secure. You can be sure of that.
If you buy the wireless web service from Sprint, you dip into your regular plan minutes, just like a voice call, which costs much less than $.39 a minute.
The advantage to the IP based model is it is available in more locations. PCS exists in more places than Palm.net does. Palm.net is available only in major cities, PCS hits a lot of smaller cities, and covers most interstates.
We're getting closer to unlimitted wireless plans. Two companies are offering local unlimitted usage for about 30$ a month where I am. We'll see more of this as time goes on, and paying by the bit is going to make less sense.
One, this could allow a cell phone battery to last months, not days. Two, it's a clean independent fuel source. Three, how many moving parts do you think there are? Plug it in, you push down a lever that releases an amount of methane into a chamber. Know how long a Bic lighter can last? Certainly longer than most folks keep their phones. Cell phone makers ALREADY consider their devices disposable. Motorola's Timeport with OLED will burn out with regular use in about 3 years.
Finally, this has more application than just phones. Laptops, PDA units, GPS units, tools, toys could all use this technology. This allows people not to be tethered to power lines to use these devices.
Fuel cells offer a great alternative to conventional energy sources. They promise a cheap portable and realistic power source. Its not a stupid idea. Its a forward thinking idea that has a lot of potential.
You can take any class you want. If you want a degree you have to fill the requirements. If you just want a certification, get a certification. If you want a degree, you have to be educated, not trained. That doesn't happen on your schedule, because some things need to be standard.
As someone who is in the position to hire people, I don't look so much at certifications, and I don't even look so much at degrees. What I look for is a broad experience base, and the willingness to learn new things.
If you came to me looking for a job saying that you took all the courses for your degree except the general education classes, because they were a waste of time, there's no way I'd hire you. Says to me that you don't have patience, and aren't open minded enough to take on tasks that may require learning new skills. May be wrong, but that's tough, employers are going to call them as they see them.
Or you can get the upcomimg dual tuner DishNetwork PTV 721, which has 70 hours, and the ability to record two shows at once.
The PTV 501 had some problems, but from what I've read tht 721 should be feature competitive with TiVO and ReplayTV. It also is going to be an Interactive TV box with games and the like, if you go for that, and reportedly the ability to burn CD's. (Music)
So replay can record up to 320 hours. Big deal, It'll take 320 hours to do it too. This thing can record 70 hours in 35.
Best thing is this thing is preordering for $499 with no commitments to Dish programming (which kicks DTV's ass, BTW), or montly access charges. I was going to break down and get a TiVO, but a dual tuner PVR for under 500 bucks... Can't beat that. I just hope it gets here before football season is over.
Slashdot Mirror
If you would have read the article, its because this is easier to maintain than a stand alone switch. Running 4 lines isn't always the best idea because of cost of each line, as the article points out a lot of networking groups charge PER cable, not per pull.
This thing provides:
Little to no maintainence.
Reduces cost of cables pulled to office
Reduces clutter in ceiling
Relatively low cost for high quality manufacturer
My company, and every other company I've associated with over 25 employees don't have a lot of SMC or Netgear crap lying around. With experience as a network admin, I can say I'd much rather spend a few extra bucks on this than have one of those things sitting out where the user can fsck with it.
Companies will buy tons of these.
It's not targetted at home users. It's for office use. Of course they won't sell a lot of these to home users, but companies will buy TONS of them.
Hmmmm... They may already have this... They have these pins that light up during parades, fireworks shows and certain attractions. I would figure that they work on some sort of timer, but maybe they're 802.11 devices.
The article I read doesn't mention anything about IP. While it's probable that they are, they could be using another protocol other than IP.
:p
Hmmm... SNA would be cool
Interesting concept. However I believe that freedom and power are inseperable. When you give anyone freedom you are also giving them power. The freedom to choose how you use software is a power as much as having the freedom to choose how your software is used is a power.
I don't agree with RMS on this. I think he's off base. He advocates freedom--to a point, which isn't freedom at all. I understand where he's coming from, the freedom to license software has become abused, but is this reason to remove it? I don't think so.
With any freedom there are responsibilities. When people abuse the freedom of speech, I can't advocate removing that freedom because they are using it to thier own advantage. I can use my own freedoms to combat their misuse, however. That is the challenge, to combat misuse of freedoms. This is a duty of the masses, and not the elite. We have a responsibility to use our freedom of choice to combat what we see as misuse.
Limiting freedom of any sort isn't the answer. Freedom without power really isn't freedom.
So, to these men, I say: drop it. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the people decide which license should govern them. It's nothing short of a vi vs. emacs or Christianity vs. Islam battle, and neither side stands a chance at winning. Let the users decide.
I believe letting the users decide is exactly what Tim O'Reilly is advocating. RMS does not believe that licenses other than GPL (and maybe a choice few others, but I'm not sure) are right. He does not believe you or I or anyone should have the right, or power as he puts it, to choose how to license our software.
Comeon moderators... This isn't a troll. A lot of folks have legitimate beefs with Stallman and GNU. Simply because I think the GNU license inhibits free software doesn't mean I'm trolling.
If I were trolling I assure you I could have put something there that would bring in the comments...
Stallman believes software should be free -- as in speech -- as in Taliban ruled Afghanistan.
RMS preaches percieved freedom of software not actual free software. I write software for several reasons, because I'm paid, because I'm curious, because there's a need, because I'm generous, because I can. When I release this software to the public I choose to do so because I feel it's right to do. I don't do it to promote a free software agenda, I do it to give people access to what I have done, do with it as you want, change it, correct it, rearrange it, buy it, sell it. That's free software. If I say you can use it, you can.
RMS attatches conditions, and IMNSHO those conditions severely limit the freedom that we associate with free software. Most commercial software you cannot give away, GNU software you cannot truely sell. From most people's points of view GNU software looks like the better deal, but when you really look at it, GNU software while free as in beer, is not free as in speech. Both have licenses that restrict your use of the software in ways that may not be acceptable to you.
Child labor laws are aimed directly at business. Unreasonable search and seizure is to protect you from police. If I want to require a search of your person before you are allowed into my property, that is completely within my rights.
When the Gov't is your employer it acts as a company and not government.
The thing I'm interested in is whether these can step down and work with existing 802.11b hardware, similar to what 100bt cards do on a 10bt network.
I'd guess no, and that will hurt things somewhat. 802.11b has a reasonable home following, and I don't see a lot of users upgrading their home networks to 'a', because they don't need the additional bandwidth in most cases. (If I want video, it's probably going to be on a stationary device I can run a cable to). A lot of corps may implement 'b' because of the extra range and bandwidth, so your laptop would need two cards in it... which would suck.
Yes they do and store enough voltage to KILL YOU DEAD.
I always thought that it wasn't the voltage that would kill you, it was the amperage... Isn't voltage just the amount of 'push', where amperage is the amount of 'fry'?
IIRC, static electricity is very high voltage, but near nil amperage, so no harm.
Could be because he can't change hardware.
Or could be because he doesn't want to work with Macs.
A linux solution may be completely free of new costs, sure there's his time, and time to aquaint the talent with the new software, but that would be incurred regardless. A mac solution would involve hardware and software as well.
He didn't say why this guy was getting tired of Windows, it might not be crashing that's the problem. He may be fed up with licensing in general, and a mac based solution isn't going to get him any further away from that problem.
Hmmm... Reminds me of the Monty Python 'Twit' skits...
Here they come wondering why elm doesn't say 'You've got Mail'
But thousands of American civilians are already dead in this conflict, greater civilian losses than in any war in U.S. history.
First we'll assume you mean U.S. civilians, as millions were killed in WWII, which is certainly still in the recollection of most Americans. Going a bit further back, but again certainly within U.S. history, there was the civil war. Do you honestly believe that there were not more civilians killed in that war?
Now on to your question. There is no doubt that our technology will benifit us. Do our GPS targetting systems work, certainly. Are our satellites as good as we think they are for battlefield intelligence? You betcha. Have our soldiers been better prepared both mentally and physically? Absolutley. Can the Taliban win this war? No chance.
But it isn't technology that gives us the real advantage. We had technology on our side in Vietnam. We didn't win. Sure, it wasn't nearly at the level we have now, and we didn't have the experience using what we had in real situations, but we simply were more powerful. But we didn't win. Why didn't we win? During Vietnam we were a divided nation. We had defeated the Viet Cong in South Vietnam by 1968. But the north saw our division here in America, and counted on us to give in to internal pressures. To make a long story short, we did.
Today there's no such division. The overwhelming majority of people in this country believe this is something that needs to be done. Sure there are some people who disagree, but they certainly aren't the majority. Our nation is united. The other nations of the world are also standing behind us. If we continue to stand united, we will win this war, just as we've won all other wars that we've stood through united.
When all is said and done, some may say that technology won the war. But the real reasons will have had nothing to do with technology.
It appears with registered file types as well... look again.
Seems simple to me... What does this guy want, dialog boxes everytime you open a file?
"You are opening this file with Windows Media Player, do you want to use another program instead?" ['click' NO]
"Are You sure? You may actually like Real Player better, or maybe WinAMP." ['click' YES]
"OK, Your default player has not been changed, but we will check back with you to see if you've changed your mind next time you open a file."
Besides, if a user likes Real Player (example he used), when he opens the program it will notify him that it is not set up to be associated with certain file types, and ask to correct this. This is in no way anything that contributes to MS maintaining a monopoly. This guy is probably just hacked off because it took him 1/2 an hour to figure out because he couldn't use help. Musta been a slow day over at Salon...
Sure, if you don't want color, or MP3, Palm is certainly the best bet hands down. But if you're going to step up to color and MP3 Capability you're talking a $500 Clie N710c. Now... the Clie is a supercool machine, but for $500 you can also pick up a iPAQ with 64 Meg, vs 16 on the Clie. I'd go after the iPAQ myself in this case.
These Pocket PCs are competitivly priced with the highend Palm OS machines right now. They have no low-end like palm does, but they're only aiming at high end buyers right now.
Low end palms are affordable for just about anyone right now, but execs are going to be more likely to pick up the pricey, and flashy pocket pc. That's what they're looking for...
Using software of doubtful quality is irresponsible
Then don't use software. There's no such thing as software that is bug free, and certainly no such thing as an OS that is secure.
You're ignoring the entire point. If you don't maintain a system it is just as hackable as any other non-maintained system. Since you seem to like unrelated anaolgies let me give you this one: Say you have a boat, it has a hole in it the size of a quarter. The other guy has a hole the size of a softball. Sure he's going down quicker, but if you don't plug your hole you're going to the same place.
Its fscking stupid to choose an OS because you think its more secure than another. Choose it because it's easier to maintain, because it has more features, is easier to use, is cheaper, whatever, but don't lie to yourself and say its more secure.
Give me three servers installed two years ago, RedHat 6.2, Windows NT, and Solaris and left to sit. Which is more secure? Doesn't matter. They've all got huge holes just waiting to be exploited. Now set up these machines today, maybe the Solaris one wins out today, but without maintainence, they're all screwed.
You can't backup the assertation that (LI||U)nix is less prone to problems than Windows. If you go back 6 months that might appear to be the case, but go back years, and you see a huge number of exploits on Unixes.
I've been adminning boxes of all varieties for years now. I had a RH 6.2 box compromised because of a WU-FTPd exploit about a year ago. When this happened I acknowledged in the report that it was because I had not patched WU-FTPd. Not because WU-FTPd had a hole. There was no excuse for the hole not to be patched, because the patch was out and RedHat had issued an advisory, I had simply screwwed up.
Finally, your entire argument makes no sense.
No, this is a fact, you provide no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, just a silly anaology that makes little sense. What isn't smart is thinking your OS is somehow immune to attack.
Heat of the resulting fire caused the supporting girders to melt on the floors where the plane was burning. As I understood it the floors in this building would have weighed about 6 million pounds. After one came down into the floor below, there was no stopping it.
The weight of the plane, impact, and explosion were much less of a factor than the resulting fire. Had there not have been a fire, or could it had been controlled, we would quite possibly be looking at restoring the buildings right now.
While hydrogen would not have burned like the jet fuel, I'm not sure it's practical in airliners because of the huge distances they travel. Hydrogen as a fuel doesn't provide a lot of bang for it's volume.
What really gets me is the possibility that abestos could have delayed the colapse for up to 4 hours longer. They stopped spraying asbestos in the buildings above the 64th floor becase NYC banned it. They were wetspraying, which was a technique used to eliminate asbestos from getting in the air. While we'll never know how long if any those building would have stayed up, the belief at the time was that asbestos would provide 4 hours longer before the girders melted, hopefully giving time to evacuate the building.
Asbestos, much like hydrogen has been demonized, somewhat unfairly. While there is no argument that it is not dangerous, there can be safe ways to utilize dangerous materials. Unfortunately people jump on these bandwagons too quickly to make informed decisions.
I remember when they removed asbestos from my elementary school, the teacher told us that dust from the ceiling tiles was asbestos, probably exactly what she thought. In actuality, it was normal dust, and the asbestos was covered by fiberglass and foil insulation, and was harmless, until they started scraping it all off that is...
Linux boxes are much more secure than any of the competitors. Solaris is getting better; UnixWare is pretty hopeless (see BUGTRAQ). NT is
Bullshit. You're lying to yourself. One OS is not automatically more secure than another. Notice the first problem they noted: Default installations of operating systems and applications. They meant all operating systems, they didn't say 'RedHat and Debian are pretty good, you'll probably be okay with them, or at least more okay than someone using Windows.' Not only is this the most important point of the article, all other vulnerabilities stem from it. They all exist because of complacency with the current state of security of a system.
Security is not determined by OS. Period.
A systems security depends on the administrator's vigilance in keeping up to date on patches. Sure, windows has had a lot of exploits lately, but how many of these exploits were not patchable? Hmm. Conversly, Linux and other Unix systems have been not as widely or at least as publically attacked lately. Is this because they have less holes? Redhat 7.1, about 6 months old has 23 security alerts listed. 7.0 and 6.2 both have over 60. So, there's likely likely more out there in 7.1. Many of these are critical and involve remote root exploits. Feel safe? I hope not.
(Li||U)nix can be attacked with the same efficiency of what we've seen happen to Windows systems in the past few months. Administrators aren't simply better because they admin unix boxes, that's proven in the article that 50% of the copies of BIND that were running in mid 1999 were vulnerable. It would make sense that a similar percentage of other security risks exist as well.
I'm not bashing Unix, and I'm certainly not saying that Windows is a more secure OS. Its a moot point. What I'm saying is that people who blame the OS for their mistakes are wrong. They're using windows as a scapegoat, and ignoring the real problem behind this.
Unix will be hit by one of these sometime or another, and it will be just as publicized because it will likely use the same distrubution methods as before, email.
Go back, read the article again, paying close attention to the generic problems they mention. These are the basic things that any admin has to look at, every day. A machine is never secure. You can be sure of that.
If you buy the wireless web service from Sprint, you dip into your regular plan minutes, just like a voice call, which costs much less than $.39 a minute.
The advantage to the IP based model is it is available in more locations. PCS exists in more places than Palm.net does. Palm.net is available only in major cities, PCS hits a lot of smaller cities, and covers most interstates.
We're getting closer to unlimitted wireless plans. Two companies are offering local unlimitted usage for about 30$ a month where I am. We'll see more of this as time goes on, and paying by the bit is going to make less sense.
One, this could allow a cell phone battery to last months, not days. Two, it's a clean independent fuel source. Three, how many moving parts do you think there are? Plug it in, you push down a lever that releases an amount of methane into a chamber. Know how long a Bic lighter can last? Certainly longer than most folks keep their phones. Cell phone makers ALREADY consider their devices disposable. Motorola's Timeport with OLED will burn out with regular use in about 3 years.
Finally, this has more application than just phones. Laptops, PDA units, GPS units, tools, toys could all use this technology. This allows people not to be tethered to power lines to use these devices.
Fuel cells offer a great alternative to conventional energy sources. They promise a cheap portable and realistic power source. Its not a stupid idea. Its a forward thinking idea that has a lot of potential.
You can take any class you want. If you want a degree you have to fill the requirements. If you just want a certification, get a certification. If you want a degree, you have to be educated, not trained. That doesn't happen on your schedule, because some things need to be standard.
As someone who is in the position to hire people, I don't look so much at certifications, and I don't even look so much at degrees. What I look for is a broad experience base, and the willingness to learn new things.
If you came to me looking for a job saying that you took all the courses for your degree except the general education classes, because they were a waste of time, there's no way I'd hire you. Says to me that you don't have patience, and aren't open minded enough to take on tasks that may require learning new skills. May be wrong, but that's tough, employers are going to call them as they see them.
Or you can get the upcomimg dual tuner DishNetwork PTV 721, which has 70 hours, and the ability to record two shows at once.
The PTV 501 had some problems, but from what I've read tht 721 should be feature competitive with TiVO and ReplayTV. It also is going to be an Interactive TV box with games and the like, if you go for that, and reportedly the ability to burn CD's. (Music)
So replay can record up to 320 hours. Big deal, It'll take 320 hours to do it too. This thing can record 70 hours in 35.
Best thing is this thing is preordering for $499 with no commitments to Dish programming (which kicks DTV's ass, BTW), or montly access charges. I was going to break down and get a TiVO, but a dual tuner PVR for under 500 bucks... Can't beat that. I just hope it gets here before football season is over.