Because as soon as he was asked for the passwords by the proper person (the major) at the proper environment (face to face with him without unknown people at sight) he indeed promptly passed them out.
I would have insisted on the dome of silence before handing the paswword over to a mere mayor...
Coupled with the tendency of older employees to consider hard-copy to be "secure"...
...so it looks like this is only a problem for the geezers; after all, digital photocopiers are like magic to them. There's virtually no chance that any of the savvy young hipsters in your organization could fail to be aware of this threat.
Right now I'm using what must be one of the humblest CPUs on Slashdot, an Athlon XP 2500+. That's 1600 MHz of single-core 32-bit goodness. It's served me loyally for years with nary a complaint, and never missed a single day of work.
It still does almost everything I ask of it, but sometimes does struggle to keep up with HD video. I could help it out by getting a video card that supports VDPAU, but my equally faithful motherboard only has PCI and AGP, so there's not much room for upgrade there.
So finally it's time to retire them, and their replacements are on the way. The new kids are still pretty humble themselves, just an Athlon II X2 and a cheap AM3 motherboard. With 2GB memory, a grand total of $180. No bragging rights around here, of course, but there's nothing I'm likely to be doing for the next few years that they won't handle easily.
But here's the thing. I should be excited about bringing in the new regime, but I really feel like I'm spending my last few days with some good old friends. Should there be some kind of ceremony? Is there a computer heaven where they'll be waiting happily for me when I reach the end of my own days, along with my old 286DX25 and AMD K2? What a joyous reunion that will be...
Have to say I'm disappointed too. I wanted to know whether the i{N} naming is N=3,5,7 as in odd numbers or primes. This was going to be the chip that settled that once and for all, because it would be either the i9 or the i11. The mystery lives on.
The i3 530 is $125 at NewEgg, while the Athlon II X2 245 is $61 for maybe 2/3 the performance. Whether that's worth it to you depends on what you're doing and whether you're on a budget, obviously, but there's very little that the cheaper chip won't handle easily.
It makes sense up to the point where your needs are being met, and you have a reasonable upgrade path for the next few years. The OP just wants to run HD video on his box, and the idea that he should shell out double or triple $$$ for a Ferrari - just because it's there - when a Honda will do is a little strange.
He could put together a nice Athlon II + AM3 motherboard + 2GB DDR3 memory combo for less than $200 and it would likely do everything he asks of it, and plenty fast enough. Unless his ego is tied up in having the meanest box on the block, anything more might well be a waste of money.
There was a time when the FCC limited advertising on commercial television to something like 7 or 8 minutes of advertising per hour. With deregulation, that's now up to around 19, or nearly a third of program time. Broadcasters can do that because there apparently are enough people who are willing to sit catatonically through them all without complaint. Of course, you can take a bathroom break, visit the fridge, or take the dog out during the commercial breaks, but that would be wrong because it only hurts the people who bring you all of that fine free programming.
Mindshare has more to do with advertising and promotion than raw technical superiority. Proprietary, patent-protected technologies tend to florish simply because companies are more willing to invest in promoting them if they'll reap all of the benefits when they sell. If anyone and her brother could legally make and sell Gucci-branded handbags, then there would be no incentive for Gucci to spend $millions on advertising and you'd likely never hear about them.
Seems a bit counterintuitive, doesn't it? If I'm putting code with my name on it out there for everybody to see, I'm probably going to do my best to make it all purdy-like. OTOH, I've seen more than one corporate environment where upper management cares about nothing beyond "can we ship it?".
Your closed code may indeed be meticulously designed and documented, but unless we can see it we'll just have to take your word for it.
Well, I was not aware of this problem when I was 12, and it was also unknown to my pappy and my grandpappy before him. Therefore, it must be a hoax by the vast conspiracy of liberal scientists, all trying to win grants in return for justifying government intervention in the junkosphere.
Unless we're going to shovel money at the defense/aerospace industry to clean up this supposed mess. In that case it's of the utmost urgency and only a big blank check will do.
One could argue that the US health insurance system is set up to avoid having people do what you're trying to do.
I'm willing will be that one. Feudal lords can't own their serfs outright anymore, but they can find ways to make it difficult to leave the manor. You would think that modern corporations in the US would be falling over themselves in favor of a national single-payer system to get out from under their healthcare liabilities, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.
It should, but the truth is that it doesn't as long as the rest of the herd is doing it, too. Operating systems and office suites get chosen the same way. The only acceptable options are the ones you see advertised on teevee...
Actually, we're glad you brought that up, because frankly, we're troubled by your TV viewing habits. Most of it is harmless enough, but it has not escaped our attention that some of the programming you view has been statistically correlated with various un-american political beliefs and behaviors. While there is nothing illegal about these shows at the present time, I'm sure you can understand that your viewing of them does raise suspicions that could prove inopportune for you in the future. The company you work for might, for example, be exposed to certain risks by retaining you in its employ, and we would be remiss in our responsibilities if we failed to so alert it.
You need have nothing to fear, Citizen. By keeping your TV and web viewing well within the mainstream, you demonstrate to us and to your community that you can be trusted to live free among us in a free society. By also keeping it open to our inspection, you further show that you have nothing to hide. We thank you for your cooperation.
They may not admit it, but there's no better way to understand and explain the GOP's behavior (in and out of power) than to assume that their goal is to depress wages, destroy the middle class, and ultimately bring about a state of corporate feudalism. All of the religion, flag-waving, and bigotry are just convenient handles with which to lead the masses to their own demise.
earlier models of mainframes actually had mechanical car-like odometers that were read by a "meter reader" like the gas company, and IBM would send them a bill.
Microsoft reauthorized my OEM copy of Vista Home Premium twice when I moved the install to a new system, in spite of the license saying they don't allow that. Awfully kind of them, I thought.
Good lord. You had to ask permission from Microsoft to upgrade your own rig, and you think they're just swell because they gave it to you.
If only there was an OS that you could install on whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, without asking permission or paying a fistful of money each time. Oh, and free too. Well, that could never happen...
So, how far exactly does my "obligation" go, if I'm not to be a freeloader? Do I merely have to allow the popup, as annoying as it is, even if I close it immediately without reading it? Should I feel guilty if I don't read it carefully? Or do I actually have to buy whatever it is that's being advertised?
Seriously, I'm not trolling either. I ask this because the going rate that can be charged for ads is ultimately determined by how much advertisers expect revenue to increase by running them. Everyone who fails to buy the advertised product or service is contributing to the suppression of ad rates, thereby hurting the sites that ad revenues support.
Therefore someone like me, who has never bought anything as the result of a web ad and likely never will, would be a freeloader whether I look at ads or not. And if I'm not going to look at them, why in hell would I want them blocking the content that I do want to see?
I admit that I came to this thread just because it amazes me to see how much crap people are willing to put up with just to be part of the herd and/or avoid learning something new. The cesspool is full of flailing, complaining people, but you'll never get more than one or two to leave it no matter how pure and sparkling your little pond is.
It seems to me that what's important is the theory being modeled, the algorithms used to model it, and of course the data. The code itself isn't really useful for replicating an experiment, because it's just a particular - and possibly faulty - implementation of the model and as such is akin to the particular lab bench practices that might implement a standard protocol. Replicating a modeling experiment should involve using - and writing, if necessary - code that implements the model the original investigators intended to implement, but distinct from that which they actually used.
Running the same code on the same data demonstrates very little, and finding bugs in the original code tells you nothing about what results would/should have been achieved had the model been implemented correctly. But of course it's great for throwing stones and "discrediting" a result without actually adding anything constructive to the issue at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Because as soon as he was asked for the passwords by the proper person (the major) at the proper environment (face to face with him without unknown people at sight) he indeed promptly passed them out.
I would have insisted on the dome of silence before handing the paswword over to a mere mayor...
Well, the original submission says,
Coupled with the tendency of older employees to consider hard-copy to be "secure"...
...so it looks like this is only a problem for the geezers; after all, digital photocopiers are like magic to them. There's virtually no chance that any of the savvy young hipsters in your organization could fail to be aware of this threat.
Right now I'm using what must be one of the humblest CPUs on Slashdot, an Athlon XP 2500+. That's 1600 MHz of single-core 32-bit goodness. It's served me loyally for years with nary a complaint, and never missed a single day of work.
It still does almost everything I ask of it, but sometimes does struggle to keep up with HD video. I could help it out by getting a video card that supports VDPAU, but my equally faithful motherboard only has PCI and AGP, so there's not much room for upgrade there.
So finally it's time to retire them, and their replacements are on the way. The new kids are still pretty humble themselves, just an Athlon II X2 and a cheap AM3 motherboard. With 2GB memory, a grand total of $180. No bragging rights around here, of course, but there's nothing I'm likely to be doing for the next few years that they won't handle easily.
But here's the thing. I should be excited about bringing in the new regime, but I really feel like I'm spending my last few days with some good old friends. Should there be some kind of ceremony? Is there a computer heaven where they'll be waiting happily for me when I reach the end of my own days, along with my old 286DX25 and AMD K2? What a joyous reunion that will be...
Have to say I'm disappointed too. I wanted to know whether the i{N} naming is N=3,5,7 as in odd numbers or primes. This was going to be the chip that settled that once and for all, because it would be either the i9 or the i11. The mystery lives on.
The i3 530 is $125 at NewEgg, while the Athlon II X2 245 is $61 for maybe 2/3 the performance. Whether that's worth it to you depends on what you're doing and whether you're on a budget, obviously, but there's very little that the cheaper chip won't handle easily.
It makes sense up to the point where your needs are being met, and you have a reasonable upgrade path for the next few years. The OP just wants to run HD video on his box, and the idea that he should shell out double or triple $$$ for a Ferrari - just because it's there - when a Honda will do is a little strange.
He could put together a nice Athlon II + AM3 motherboard + 2GB DDR3 memory combo for less than $200 and it would likely do everything he asks of it, and plenty fast enough. Unless his ego is tied up in having the meanest box on the block, anything more might well be a waste of money.
There was a time when the FCC limited advertising on commercial television to something like 7 or 8 minutes of advertising per hour. With deregulation, that's now up to around 19, or nearly a third of program time. Broadcasters can do that because there apparently are enough people who are willing to sit catatonically through them all without complaint. Of course, you can take a bathroom break, visit the fridge, or take the dog out during the commercial breaks, but that would be wrong because it only hurts the people who bring you all of that fine free programming.
It's entirely possible that your hospital signed a deal with Microsoft...by exclusively using their products, they would get a discount.
We get an even bigger discount by exclusively not using Microsoft products.
Mindshare has more to do with advertising and promotion than raw technical superiority. Proprietary, patent-protected technologies tend to florish simply because companies are more willing to invest in promoting them if they'll reap all of the benefits when they sell. If anyone and her brother could legally make and sell Gucci-branded handbags, then there would be no incentive for Gucci to spend $millions on advertising and you'd likely never hear about them.
Seems a bit counterintuitive, doesn't it? If I'm putting code with my name on it out there for everybody to see, I'm probably going to do my best to make it all purdy-like. OTOH, I've seen more than one corporate environment where upper management cares about nothing beyond "can we ship it?".
Your closed code may indeed be meticulously designed and documented, but unless we can see it we'll just have to take your word for it.
With closed source/proprietary projects it usually happens for different reasons, mostly income being the reason.
Never underestimate the power of management capriciousness and/or shifting corporate priorities, though...
Well, I was not aware of this problem when I was 12, and it was also unknown to my pappy and my grandpappy before him. Therefore, it must be a hoax by the vast conspiracy of liberal scientists, all trying to win grants in return for justifying government intervention in the junkosphere.
Unless we're going to shovel money at the defense/aerospace industry to clean up this supposed mess. In that case it's of the utmost urgency and only a big blank check will do.
Shhhh... FUD is being propagated here. Don't interfere.
One could argue that the US health insurance system is set up to avoid having people do what you're trying to do.
I'm willing will be that one. Feudal lords can't own their serfs outright anymore, but they can find ways to make it difficult to leave the manor. You would think that modern corporations in the US would be falling over themselves in favor of a national single-payer system to get out from under their healthcare liabilities, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Subordinating your business interests to the business interests of your vendor seems like a pretty stupid move, and one that should have consequences.
It should, but the truth is that it doesn't as long as the rest of the herd is doing it, too. Operating systems and office suites get chosen the same way. The only acceptable options are the ones you see advertised on teevee...
You're the kind of guy who believes that physics and economics places no constraints at all on what is achievable, aren't you?
Bringing reality into the picture isn't going to make you very popular in these parts.
Actually, we're glad you brought that up, because frankly, we're troubled by your TV viewing habits. Most of it is harmless enough, but it has not escaped our attention that some of the programming you view has been statistically correlated with various un-american political beliefs and behaviors. While there is nothing illegal about these shows at the present time, I'm sure you can understand that your viewing of them does raise suspicions that could prove inopportune for you in the future. The company you work for might, for example, be exposed to certain risks by retaining you in its employ, and we would be remiss in our responsibilities if we failed to so alert it.
You need have nothing to fear, Citizen. By keeping your TV and web viewing well within the mainstream, you demonstrate to us and to your community that you can be trusted to live free among us in a free society. By also keeping it open to our inspection, you further show that you have nothing to hide. We thank you for your cooperation.
They may not admit it, but there's no better way to understand and explain the GOP's behavior (in and out of power) than to assume that their goal is to depress wages, destroy the middle class, and ultimately bring about a state of corporate feudalism. All of the religion, flag-waving, and bigotry are just convenient handles with which to lead the masses to their own demise.
Don't forget the Cadillacs that they all drive...
earlier models of mainframes actually had mechanical car-like odometers that were read by a "meter reader" like the gas company, and IBM would send them a bill.
Isn't that how "the Cloud" works?
Microsoft reauthorized my OEM copy of Vista Home Premium twice when I moved the install to a new system, in spite of the license saying they don't allow that. Awfully kind of them, I thought.
Good lord. You had to ask permission from Microsoft to upgrade your own rig, and you think they're just swell because they gave it to you.
If only there was an OS that you could install on whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, without asking permission or paying a fistful of money each time. Oh, and free too. Well, that could never happen...
So basically, you're a shameless freeloader.
So, how far exactly does my "obligation" go, if I'm not to be a freeloader? Do I merely have to allow the popup, as annoying as it is, even if I close it immediately without reading it? Should I feel guilty if I don't read it carefully? Or do I actually have to buy whatever it is that's being advertised?
Seriously, I'm not trolling either. I ask this because the going rate that can be charged for ads is ultimately determined by how much advertisers expect revenue to increase by running them. Everyone who fails to buy the advertised product or service is contributing to the suppression of ad rates, thereby hurting the sites that ad revenues support.
Therefore someone like me, who has never bought anything as the result of a web ad and likely never will, would be a freeloader whether I look at ads or not. And if I'm not going to look at them, why in hell would I want them blocking the content that I do want to see?
I admit that I came to this thread just because it amazes me to see how much crap people are willing to put up with just to be part of the herd and/or avoid learning something new. The cesspool is full of flailing, complaining people, but you'll never get more than one or two to leave it no matter how pure and sparkling your little pond is.
It seems to me that what's important is the theory being modeled, the algorithms used to model it, and of course the data. The code itself isn't really useful for replicating an experiment, because it's just a particular - and possibly faulty - implementation of the model and as such is akin to the particular lab bench practices that might implement a standard protocol. Replicating a modeling experiment should involve using - and writing, if necessary - code that implements the model the original investigators intended to implement, but distinct from that which they actually used.
Running the same code on the same data demonstrates very little, and finding bugs in the original code tells you nothing about what results would/should have been achieved had the model been implemented correctly. But of course it's great for throwing stones and "discrediting" a result without actually adding anything constructive to the issue at hand.