PBS had a great show called Dimming the Sun and IIRC they delve into showing how the 9/11 air traffic halt raised the temperature in American cities by 1 or 2 degrees.
Err, no, that's not right.
What they found was that the night-day temperature difference increased by about a degree, which makes sense if contrails are insulating the atmosphere (due to less heat escaping at night).
Yeah, pity you're actually reading the fucking results wrong. *sigh* To quote wikipedia:
Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before
The daytime temperature didn't increase. The difference between night and day increased. And guess what? That matches expectations! Why? Because:
Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect
So when there are contrails, it stays warmer at night, due to radiative forcing effects. No contrails? It gets colder at night. End result? *Larger night-day temperature difference*.
But, hey, let's actually look at your study, shall we? Hey, here's a choice quote from the abstract:
Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation4, 5 and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails over this period.
Hey, look at that... that's what they fucking found. Science at work: scientists make prediction. Scientists have convenient experiment. Observations match predictions. The system works.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your "skepticism".
Too fucking bad for those of us who cared, we just saw it too late to make a difference.
So, what, you think you need to protect all those poor, ignorant pleebs from themselves? Gee wiz, how nice of you.
Hey, here's an idea: Why don't you worry about your own privacy, and let everyone else worry about there's. If someone wants to post every little piece of minutiae of their lives on the internet, who the fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't? Are they curtailing your ability to preserve your own privacy? No. So fuck off. What they do with their personal information is their own god damned business, just as what you do with your personal information is yours.
Ugh, ignore the fucking Telegraph article, it's a piece of shit.
The NASA article makes no claim that this solar maximum will be any worse than previous ones. Their point is that, due to the deep penetration of technology in our lives, our society is more sensitive than ever to peak solar activity, and so solar weather forecasting is now more important than ever.
the only security I would have is some kind of "promise"
It's a legally binding statement. If that isn't enough for you, nothing will be. But I suspect that's already a given, so there's no sense in trying to convince you.
But it doesn't matter, because this is a complete aside. Your claim was that the only thing that makes useful is all the non-CP-covered APIs. I pointed out that, no, Mono is interesting simply as a Linux development platform. So you decided to change the subject. But that doesn't change the fact that Mono provides an interesting development platform, whether or not *you* find it personally distasteful because of its connection to Microsoft.
We could talk about the "strong" IDE if either Microsoft or Mono provide one that can catch up with Eclipse or NetBeans.
LOLFR! Wow, that's... interesting. Like it or not, Microsoft has been the market leader in IDEs for, well... ever. Both Eclipse and NetBeans exist to try and duplicate functionality Microsoft pioneered.
Seriously, I get the anti-Microsoft sentiment, but wow, revisionist history much?
The language is a matter of taste, but if you don't like Java than you can always use other languages (for example, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, Scala, Groovy, and so on) and have the whole JDK and the java tools (like ant and maven) for you.
What part of "Java doesn't make for good desktop applications" don't you understand? Did you choose to ignore that fact because it's inconvenient, or did you not actually read my post?
What about.NET, Asp.net, Windows Forms, which make C# any useful in the first place?
Well, ignoring the fact that ".NET" isn't actually anything specifically...
None of those things "make C#... useful in the first place". The language, by itself, is very nice. What makes it useful is whatever APIs and dev environment are available on top of it. And guess what? Mono provides a full OSS application stack that's *very* good, in addition to a solid IDE that's getting better and better.
If you want a managed and widely available language and framework, why you don't just use Java, Python, Php, Perl, Ruby and so on
Well, gee, why use Java, Python, Php, Perl, or Ruby when there's good ol' C?
Oh yeah... because choice is good, and different languages have different strengths. For example, Java has truly shit-tacular native GUI support, making it terrible for desktop application development. Meanwhile, the IDEs for those scripting languages you list pale in comparison to those available for statically typed languages (their dynamic nature makes static code analysis a lot more difficult, and so things like code completion are a lot tougher).
The other question is, why anyone should even use Mono in the first place?
Because it combines a very very good language with a strong IDE and an excellent set of bindings to OSS libraries.
Yes, no threats so long as you ignore the three thousand lives we lost, the two towers and several buildings around them, and a chunk of the Pentagon. No actual threats indeed.
Yeah, and a multi-billion-dollar strategic fighter jet or a missile defense shield is exactly what's needed to fight that kind of threat...
I'm using Kubuntu btw, so I couldn't care less about F-Spot.
Well, thanks for taking the time to post a comment in an article about a product you "couldn't care less about". That's very generous of you, and I'm sure we're all better for reading your insightful words.
Meh, as long as F-Spot and Mono remain in the repository, I have little issue with them moving to Shotwell if they feel it's the better product (for whatever reason, be it phantom legal issues, or legitimate stability issues).
I disagree. The right to arms is not absolute in a similar way as the right to free speach isn't absolute.
Sorry, no, that's a false analogy.
The right to free speech is limited *only* in the case where your exercising your right to free speech infringes on one of my rights. Which is, of course, why shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is illegal: by exercising that right, you infringe on the rights of others to be safe and secure (thanks to the stampede that would ensue).
But in no way does my owning a nuclear weapon infringe on any of your rights (unless, of course, that weapon is stored unsafely, but that applies to regular ol' ammunition, too... after all, if you keep your bullets near your furnace and they go off, burning your house down, you very well may take mine with it). As such, there is absolutely no grounds to limit the right to own *any* weapon, as per the second amendment, unless the simple ownership of that weapon infringes upon the rights of others (eg, leaking canisters of sarin, etc).
Again. So what? Obviously MAC-based filtering is a stupid idea (assuming you're faced with an educated attacker), but who cares? VPNs were invented for a reason.
Yep, and you're also giving everyone within your network's airspace to sniff every packet you send, and it's trivial to spoof your MAC address at which point they're on your network and identified as you
Huh? They aren't identified as anything. It's just a device identified by a MAC. Anything that's sensitive would be firewalled away and only accessible over VPN, ssh, or SSL.
No, it wouldn't be. The very fact you think so tells me you don't work in the software development world (or you work for a company that produces shitty software).
Five days is barely enough to fully characterize an issue and propose a solution, let alone perform a complete impact analysis and begin the testing cycle to ensure you don't introduce regressions along the way.
No, it's the "look, seriously, give me some time before you tell everyone how to pick our locks" approach. 5 days is a *ridiculously* short time in which to expect MS to turn around a fix, doubly so given they've been burned in the past by fixes hosing obscure configurations.
What's the "right" number? I don't know... 15 days is probably more reasonable, but it really depends on the scope of the issue. But 5 days is *clearly* too short... well, at least to anyone with half a brain and experience in the software industry (which, evidentally, doesn't describe many of the commentors in this particular article).
Because, if Linus is to be believed, with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.
Honestly, your attitude is fucking ridiculous. By your definition, *any* bug found in a piece of software by someone other than the author(s) indicates some sort of failing in those who wrote it.
Except given the sheer volume of hardware and OS configurations MS has to support, fixing any bug and fully regression testing the fix in five days is utterly ridiculous.
I mean, honestly, around here, people bitch if MS doesn't fix bugs fast enough. And then they bitch when a fix busts someone's configuration. But you can't have it both ways. Either you take the time to test these fixes, thus extending the period in which systems in the wild are vulnerable, or you risk fucking up people's machines. That's life. Welcome to the real world.
Alright, well, if you can find a way to, say, lock down specific features in Firefox, or perform fine-grained manipulation of, say, what's available in the OS program menu (ie, Gnomes or KDEs menus) across an entire organization without resorting to custom-written hacks, I'll be very impressed.
Frankly, I find it amusing that you think that ACLs and shell scripts can somehow replicate the level of control group policies provide over individual software and OS features. You can't script something for which the hook doesn't exist in the first place.
And as a quick aside, before you accuse me of being an MS shill again (which you seem so fond of doing), I'm actually career Unix guy and have been running Linux for, oh... 15 years, now, give or take. But I'm personally willing to accept when Microsoft does a good job with something, and the group policy system is, IMHO, an impressive piece of work.
Ah, I see, you missed my point in your need to deride Windows and GUI users.
So I shall restate it more simply: Microsoft and Windows offer enterprise-level management features unavailable in other products.
No, it's not just that it's harder, or that it requires the command-line to get things done. It's that Microsoft provides capabilities that are plain and simply unavailable in competitor's products. Period.
This is a little less defined in the Unix world than it is in Windows, but still manageable
Yeah, no.
If there's one thing Microsoft does exceedingly well, it's centralized management like this. The level of control an administrator can exert on end hosts is pretty remarkable, and heads and shoulders above what's available for any other platform.
Now, granted, not everyone needs this level of control. But if you feel you have that requirement, the capabilities Microsoft provides aren't equaled anywhere, AFAIK.
This is actually the same reason you see IE still deeply entrenched in the corporate space (aside from momentum generated by internal apps that don't support more modern browsers). Just as Windows provides centralized management features, IE provides a wealth of capabilities for centralizing deployment and configuration, and nothing else comes close (yet).
Re:XP is the 90's?
on
Time To Dump XP?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
And from a user perspective, integrated indexing is *very* nice, the new Start menu is a vast improvement (quick access to integrated search, and application-specific recent documents lists are both very very nice), the ability to customize libraries is long overdue, the new explorer interface is, IMHO, much improved (not the least of which, the fact that the explorer shell doesn't hang up whilst in the middle of file operations)...
Granted, much of this was present in Vista, too, but it was such a shitshow in general that the improvements were overshadowed. Win7 brings all the aforementioned advances along from Vista while polishing up the experience substantially.
Why is it a good thing to take away people's freedom to decide for themselves which is which?
People *can't* decide for themselves which is which, because they don't have the necessary education or information to do so. Which is why people still fall for chelation, homeopathy, and other charlatanism.
The free market requires equal information among all parties in order to work effectively. That is *clearly* not the case, here.
Slashdot Mirror
PBS had a great show called Dimming the Sun and IIRC they delve into showing how the 9/11 air traffic halt raised the temperature in American cities by 1 or 2 degrees.
Err, no, that's not right.
What they found was that the night-day temperature difference increased by about a degree, which makes sense if contrails are insulating the atmosphere (due to less heat escaping at night).
Yeah, pity you're actually reading the fucking results wrong. *sigh* To quote wikipedia:
The daytime temperature didn't increase. The difference between night and day increased. And guess what? That matches expectations! Why? Because:
So when there are contrails, it stays warmer at night, due to radiative forcing effects. No contrails? It gets colder at night. End result? *Larger night-day temperature difference*.
But, hey, let's actually look at your study, shall we? Hey, here's a choice quote from the abstract:
Hey, look at that... that's what they fucking found. Science at work: scientists make prediction. Scientists have convenient experiment. Observations match predictions. The system works.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your "skepticism".
Too fucking bad for those of us who cared, we just saw it too late to make a difference.
So, what, you think you need to protect all those poor, ignorant pleebs from themselves? Gee wiz, how nice of you.
Hey, here's an idea: Why don't you worry about your own privacy, and let everyone else worry about there's. If someone wants to post every little piece of minutiae of their lives on the internet, who the fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't? Are they curtailing your ability to preserve your own privacy? No. So fuck off. What they do with their personal information is their own god damned business, just as what you do with your personal information is yours.
Ugh, ignore the fucking Telegraph article, it's a piece of shit.
The NASA article makes no claim that this solar maximum will be any worse than previous ones. Their point is that, due to the deep penetration of technology in our lives, our society is more sensitive than ever to peak solar activity, and so solar weather forecasting is now more important than ever.
the only security I would have is some kind of "promise"
It's a legally binding statement. If that isn't enough for you, nothing will be. But I suspect that's already a given, so there's no sense in trying to convince you.
But it doesn't matter, because this is a complete aside. Your claim was that the only thing that makes useful is all the non-CP-covered APIs. I pointed out that, no, Mono is interesting simply as a Linux development platform. So you decided to change the subject. But that doesn't change the fact that Mono provides an interesting development platform, whether or not *you* find it personally distasteful because of its connection to Microsoft.
We could talk about the "strong" IDE if either Microsoft or Mono provide one that can catch up with Eclipse or NetBeans.
LOLFR! Wow, that's... interesting. Like it or not, Microsoft has been the market leader in IDEs for, well... ever. Both Eclipse and NetBeans exist to try and duplicate functionality Microsoft pioneered.
Seriously, I get the anti-Microsoft sentiment, but wow, revisionist history much?
The language is a matter of taste, but if you don't like Java than you can always use other languages (for example, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, Scala, Groovy, and so on) and have the whole JDK and the java tools (like ant and maven) for you.
What part of "Java doesn't make for good desktop applications" don't you understand? Did you choose to ignore that fact because it's inconvenient, or did you not actually read my post?
What about .NET, Asp.net, Windows Forms, which make C# any useful in the first place?
Well, ignoring the fact that ".NET" isn't actually anything specifically...
None of those things "make C# ... useful in the first place". The language, by itself, is very nice. What makes it useful is whatever APIs and dev environment are available on top of it. And guess what? Mono provides a full OSS application stack that's *very* good, in addition to a solid IDE that's getting better and better.
If you want a managed and widely available language and framework, why you don't just use Java, Python, Php, Perl, Ruby and so on
Well, gee, why use Java, Python, Php, Perl, or Ruby when there's good ol' C?
Oh yeah... because choice is good, and different languages have different strengths. For example, Java has truly shit-tacular native GUI support, making it terrible for desktop application development. Meanwhile, the IDEs for those scripting languages you list pale in comparison to those available for statically typed languages (their dynamic nature makes static code analysis a lot more difficult, and so things like code completion are a lot tougher).
The other question is, why anyone should even use Mono in the first place?
Because it combines a very very good language with a strong IDE and an excellent set of bindings to OSS libraries.
Let me guess, you've never used it, have you?
Yes, no threats so long as you ignore the three thousand lives we lost, the two towers and several buildings around them, and a chunk of the Pentagon. No actual threats indeed.
Yeah, and a multi-billion-dollar strategic fighter jet or a missile defense shield is exactly what's needed to fight that kind of threat...
Yes, because it's the western corporations that caused local politicians and warlords to become corrupt dickholes.
Hint: Corporations aren't the root problem. Large amounts of sudden wealth under the control of petty dictators is.
I'm using Kubuntu btw, so I couldn't care less about F-Spot.
Well, thanks for taking the time to post a comment in an article about a product you "couldn't care less about". That's very generous of you, and I'm sure we're all better for reading your insightful words.
Meh, as long as F-Spot and Mono remain in the repository, I have little issue with them moving to Shotwell if they feel it's the better product (for whatever reason, be it phantom legal issues, or legitimate stability issues).
Well, unless you're Google, in which case you're raked over the coals and accused of being at the right hand of the devil himself...
I disagree. The right to arms is not absolute in a similar way as the right to free speach isn't absolute.
Sorry, no, that's a false analogy.
The right to free speech is limited *only* in the case where your exercising your right to free speech infringes on one of my rights. Which is, of course, why shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is illegal: by exercising that right, you infringe on the rights of others to be safe and secure (thanks to the stampede that would ensue).
But in no way does my owning a nuclear weapon infringe on any of your rights (unless, of course, that weapon is stored unsafely, but that applies to regular ol' ammunition, too... after all, if you keep your bullets near your furnace and they go off, burning your house down, you very well may take mine with it). As such, there is absolutely no grounds to limit the right to own *any* weapon, as per the second amendment, unless the simple ownership of that weapon infringes upon the rights of others (eg, leaking canisters of sarin, etc).
Again. So what? Obviously MAC-based filtering is a stupid idea (assuming you're faced with an educated attacker), but who cares? VPNs were invented for a reason.
It's a simple little patch. See from the disclosure:
Except, of course, Microsoft has already stated that the claimed patch a) doesn't work, and b) doesn't address the root cause of the issue.
But, yeah, let's take the word of a guy who's never actually seen a line of Microsoft's code over Microsoft themselves. Good call, dude.
Yep, and you're also giving everyone within your network's airspace to sniff every packet you send, and it's trivial to spoof your MAC address at which point they're on your network and identified as you
Huh? They aren't identified as anything. It's just a device identified by a MAC. Anything that's sensitive would be firewalled away and only accessible over VPN, ssh, or SSL.
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
How long should you wait?
One patch cycle. In the case of MS, one month.
Next question?
If ms was concerned, 5 days would be enough.
No, it wouldn't be. The very fact you think so tells me you don't work in the software development world (or you work for a company that produces shitty software).
Five days is barely enough to fully characterize an issue and propose a solution, let alone perform a complete impact analysis and begin the testing cycle to ensure you don't introduce regressions along the way.
No, it's the "look, seriously, give me some time before you tell everyone how to pick our locks" approach. 5 days is a *ridiculously* short time in which to expect MS to turn around a fix, doubly so given they've been burned in the past by fixes hosing obscure configurations.
What's the "right" number? I don't know... 15 days is probably more reasonable, but it really depends on the scope of the issue. But 5 days is *clearly* too short... well, at least to anyone with half a brain and experience in the software industry (which, evidentally, doesn't describe many of the commentors in this particular article).
Because, if Linus is to be believed, with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.
Honestly, your attitude is fucking ridiculous. By your definition, *any* bug found in a piece of software by someone other than the author(s) indicates some sort of failing in those who wrote it.
Except given the sheer volume of hardware and OS configurations MS has to support, fixing any bug and fully regression testing the fix in five days is utterly ridiculous.
I mean, honestly, around here, people bitch if MS doesn't fix bugs fast enough. And then they bitch when a fix busts someone's configuration. But you can't have it both ways. Either you take the time to test these fixes, thus extending the period in which systems in the wild are vulnerable, or you risk fucking up people's machines. That's life. Welcome to the real world.
Alright, well, if you can find a way to, say, lock down specific features in Firefox, or perform fine-grained manipulation of, say, what's available in the OS program menu (ie, Gnomes or KDEs menus) across an entire organization without resorting to custom-written hacks, I'll be very impressed.
Frankly, I find it amusing that you think that ACLs and shell scripts can somehow replicate the level of control group policies provide over individual software and OS features. You can't script something for which the hook doesn't exist in the first place.
And as a quick aside, before you accuse me of being an MS shill again (which you seem so fond of doing), I'm actually career Unix guy and have been running Linux for, oh... 15 years, now, give or take. But I'm personally willing to accept when Microsoft does a good job with something, and the group policy system is, IMHO, an impressive piece of work.
Ah, I see, you missed my point in your need to deride Windows and GUI users.
So I shall restate it more simply: Microsoft and Windows offer enterprise-level management features unavailable in other products.
No, it's not just that it's harder, or that it requires the command-line to get things done. It's that Microsoft provides capabilities that are plain and simply unavailable in competitor's products. Period.
This is a little less defined in the Unix world than it is in Windows, but still manageable
Yeah, no.
If there's one thing Microsoft does exceedingly well, it's centralized management like this. The level of control an administrator can exert on end hosts is pretty remarkable, and heads and shoulders above what's available for any other platform.
Now, granted, not everyone needs this level of control. But if you feel you have that requirement, the capabilities Microsoft provides aren't equaled anywhere, AFAIK.
This is actually the same reason you see IE still deeply entrenched in the corporate space (aside from momentum generated by internal apps that don't support more modern browsers). Just as Windows provides centralized management features, IE provides a wealth of capabilities for centralizing deployment and configuration, and nothing else comes close (yet).
And from a user perspective, integrated indexing is *very* nice, the new Start menu is a vast improvement (quick access to integrated search, and application-specific recent documents lists are both very very nice), the ability to customize libraries is long overdue, the new explorer interface is, IMHO, much improved (not the least of which, the fact that the explorer shell doesn't hang up whilst in the middle of file operations)...
Granted, much of this was present in Vista, too, but it was such a shitshow in general that the improvements were overshadowed. Win7 brings all the aforementioned advances along from Vista while polishing up the experience substantially.
Why is it a good thing to take away people's freedom to decide for themselves which is which?
People *can't* decide for themselves which is which, because they don't have the necessary education or information to do so. Which is why people still fall for chelation, homeopathy, and other charlatanism.
The free market requires equal information among all parties in order to work effectively. That is *clearly* not the case, here.