The whole idea is to track criminals with cameras - you have to know where to point the camera to gather evidence. Obviously is no crime is committed then the recording will be overwritten.
Incidentaly the UK prides itself on street surveillance. I believe we have the highest number of surveillance cameras per capita than any other country in the world. They've started to attach speakers to the cameras now... the virtual policeman has arrived!
Surely, like all beings thought to have evolved over time, it's a case of stick them in the pan and see what survives, other than that - anything goes...
You would have thought that any being that was more able to adapt through it's surroundings (or nurture) would have an evolutionary advantage over one who doesn't (gifted through nature).
Evolution therefore states that, eventually, advances through nurture should evolve? and eventually at all levels.
--- Vote for "Anonymous Coward cannot First Post."
If so, how do you describe that almost all bullies are extremely dumb?
I don't believe bullies are dumb, in fact I don't believe there is any correlation between bullying and intelligence at all.
I have rather low opinion about society,
I see...
but the percentage of idiots in the whole society can't be _that_ high.
Whoa - hold on there, let's get back to reality. Now obviously I can't draw from your experience, but society is not there to bully you and if that's what you feel happenned it doesn't necessarily reflect the same for the rest of us.
In my experience they could only mean the receiving end... and thats how Katz read it too. Bullies and predators who prey on kids who are different or "non-normal" aren't considered dangerous...
Actually the phrase:
Have experience with chronic bullying
applies to both the bully and the bullied. There is a well known correlation between those who are bullied and those who turn into bullys - they are often one and the same thing
You're lucky to be in Germany where ISDN is quite cheap. Most households in the UK don't have ISDN and probably never will since ADSL rollout is due over the next six months.
We don't have a problem giving the NSA land to build their golf balls, but we do have a problem if they have a say as to what numbers they use on processors.
Sometimes these European Decisions are somewhat strange...
I find the case for the virus particularly Interesting
Where does the responsibility lie?
It's either the user or the developer. The user, though, can claim ignorance, not knowing that the virus was present on his diskette or system. The developer can claim that the code was only written for a closed environment and never meant for the wild.
Thanks for the discussion. I have to add that I was asked to produce something which would perform the tasks required. This involved coding, but the manager who actually set me the task did not know enought to know that it was an actual program that was required. They have a working system and that was what I was asked to produce. I don't believe I am a thief and all parties involved are happy with what they have got out of it. Perhaps: A victimless crime?
Shall I go to a police station and confess?
Also note I was employed in the UK and you cannot apply US employment law to my case.
Some of the comments in this thread are actually quite surprising to me. There is the air that every employee should always bow their heads to their managers and never do things for themselves. There also seems to be the opinion that everyone should be selfless and not look out for number one.
I confess, I don't believe in this ethos. At the end of the day all I care about is myself and those that care about me, the rest are immaterial, but they needn't go to hell.
I did do other coding in this employment and did not alter the code, leaving explanatory comments and even writing a 40 page manual of how the system worked and both user and programmer references. In all the time I was employed there my salary rose by only 3% (OVER TWO YEARS). PC Support Analyst to Developer?
And it seems I still am judged by my peers as a thief, the devil incarnate perhaps?
I have done this in the past and I had a good reason for it:
I was working in a PC Support role at the time and there was no mention of programming in my contract. I was, however, asked to write and maintain some programs written in Visual Basic for Excel. No agreement was made to provide them with the source code to the program, but it isn't possible to not provide them with the source code and VB for Excel is Interpreted at runtime and not compiled. Hence they would receive the code no matter what. I wrote well structured code where all variables were clearly defined and well named, but before unleashing the code to production I made a copy on a floppy and removed all comments from the production version. I also used global search and replace to rename all variables to a,b,c,d,e etc... The reason I did this was I kind of resented the fact that I was doing something that I wasn't been paid anything near what I should be getting for doing it. On a flip side, they never recognised my coding skills and I left the company a few years ago for better pastures. I still have the floppy and the programs are still in use, I will gladly do contract work for them to make changes. At a contract rate, of course.
This also has an analogy to contractors leaving time-bombs in systems to protect themselves. The practice is un-ethical, but hey - take a closer look at corporate life, what makes you think that's ethical? If you are dis-gruntled about doing coding when you are not being paid for it them it becomes very easy to justify this kind of practice. If you are being paid to do coding, then your contract should include an agreement to document your code according to a set of guidelines. Woe betide any foolish coder who uses the practices above while bound to such a contract.
In the case of the NT tests they used a patch to assign each card to a processor (affinity)
This option, to my knowledge, was not available to the Linux boxes. I believe that the TCP/IP stack in the Linux kernel is bound to a single processor. I still see this as a SMP problem and not the fact that they used 4 NICs. It is still correct to say that Linux has serious SMP scalability problems, even Mindcraft admit however, that these issues are being worked on in the development kernel thread 2.3 and will hopefully become a standard performance improvement feature of 2.4.
We can't blame NT for supporting a function that Linux doesn't, though it would be interesting to have a benchmark based on the following:
Using $x, contruct a system using NT and a system using Linux, tune the systems to their full ability.
With this type of benchmark, Linux can better compete, because of the following:
1. For low values of x NT will simply not run or cannot be purchased and hence is disqualified from the test.
2. The system can utilise a cluster topology, which although slightly more expensive for n systems, would at least provide a linear improvement per CPU. For n=4 and mid-range x, the recoup over costs of Enterprise NT Server, still make this viable for Linux to compete with NT.
It is also clear to note that many Internet websites have an aggregate bandwidth of 512kbps or less and seldom actually reach the loads that were reached in the benchmark tests. It's the case of the limiting factor again.
Let's get back to the real world: There are many webmasters and sysadmins who are perfectly happy running Linux on their Web Servers, they know the systems work, and they know that they don't have to monitor them as closely as one does with some other systems that are available on the market.
The major performance problems are with the TCP stack, which is single threaded in the 2.2.x Linux kernels, and with large-grained kernel locks that degrade multiprocessor performance. The Linux community is addressing these performance problems and others in their 2.3.x kernel series.
Well, I'm glad that they recognise that work is being done on this. It is very much the case that Linux does have SMP scalability problems, and I think we all knew that prior to this report.
Regardless, I still stand by the old motto, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, run Linux, run BSD, run NT, do what you will, but be sure to be happy, with what you run. I would like to see how NT fares against Linux & BSD in the real world, how about this test:
The test will last for one year. The machines will be under constant varying Web & File serving Load. The NT box will also run a 16-bit application.
I think we all know what's going to happen over time here...
You can't test NT performance over 15minutes of file/web-serving, NT may have only leaked 15Mbs of the available 1Gb in that time.
OK, I don't know whether they tested for 15minutes or not, but I did look and cannot find anything regarding the duration of the tests. Can someone please comment on this?
I would just like to join the myriad of people who have recommended this switch. I use 2 Belkin Omniview SEs (4 port) and one Belkin Omniview (4 port).
The SEs are not quite as good as the ordinary version as the cables are a bit too close together and the buttons take getting used to, but apart from that I've had no problems with the reliability of these.
They do seem to have a funny behaviour though:
The come with a power supply, but seem to work fine without it as long as you're not using 3 or more ports, when using 4 ports it started making a horrible howling noise (don't ask me! I don't understand it!!). I would recommend always plugging it in however, as I presume it will otherwise draw power from the keyboard PS/2 ports and my experience with these types of devices (although not, in this case, the Omniview) is that they can blow a fuse on the motherboard, which can become quite expensive to replace.
This is good to see. It was only last week that I was trying to take a Linux newbie through the kernel compilation experience on IRC. Now I have a great URL that I can get him to RTFM...:)
When I do a connectivity test with ping on a Cisco router the response is !!!!! (5 successful ICMP replies.) Hence I call ! ping. But you are right that ! was also pling on those BBC Model Bs with 32k RAM that you had at school... those were the days... Bring back Elite, Commander Jameson...
Slashdot Mirror
The whole idea is to track criminals with cameras - you have to know where to point the camera to gather evidence. Obviously is no crime is committed then the recording will be overwritten.
Incidentaly the UK prides itself on street surveillance. I believe we have the highest number of surveillance cameras per capita than any other country in the world. They've started to attach speakers to the cameras now... the virtual policeman has arrived!
I didn't read the article as I learned it was bogus, but this is relevant...
My share trading account with Barclay's Stockbrokers Ltd in the UK doesn't work with a Browser that doesn't have 128-bit encryption capabilities.
It's not the case that my IE/Netscape is the US version with 128-bit as standard, but it does have some 128-bit capability.
I know nothing, but 2c:
Surely, like all beings thought to have evolved over time, it's a case of stick them in the pan and see what survives, other than that - anything goes...
You would have thought that any being that was more able to adapt through it's surroundings (or nurture) would have an evolutionary advantage over one who doesn't (gifted through nature).
Evolution therefore states that, eventually, advances through nurture should evolve? and eventually at all levels.
---
Vote for "Anonymous Coward cannot First Post."
Congratulations... you just invalidated your warranty... :)
If so, how do you describe that almost all bullies are extremely dumb?
I don't believe bullies are dumb, in fact I don't believe there is any correlation between bullying and intelligence at all.
I have rather low opinion about society,
I see...
but the percentage of idiots in the whole society can't be _that_ high.
Whoa - hold on there, let's get back to reality. Now obviously I can't draw from your experience, but society is not there to bully you and if that's what you feel happenned it doesn't necessarily reflect the same for the rest of us.
In my experience they could only mean the receiving end... and thats how Katz read it too. Bullies and predators who prey on kids who are different or "non-normal" aren't considered dangerous...
Actually the phrase:
Have experience with chronic bullying
applies to both the bully and the bullied. There is a well known correlation between those who are bullied and those who turn into bullys - they are often one and the same thing
eh? 192.246.0.0 - which is registered to:
American Society of Civil Engineers
345 E 47th Street
17th Floor
New York, NY 10017-2330
And what interest do they have in my machine running a Quake server?????
Are you sure you gave the right address?
And Chris:
You're lucky to be in Germany where ISDN is quite cheap. Most households in the UK don't have ISDN and probably never will since ADSL rollout is due over the next six months.
And proportionally even fewer live in the US where call charges are not metered.
Minors racking up enormous phonebills by trying to download the file over a 28.8kbps link?
We don't have a problem giving the NSA land to build their golf balls, but we do have a problem if they have a say as to what numbers they use on processors.
Sometimes these European Decisions are somewhat strange...
Actually you'll probably find that the top ten "hacks" as C|Net define them have not yet been discovered.
:)
If your "hack" is discovered then it obviously wasn't very good
I find the case for the virus particularly Interesting
Where does the responsibility lie?
It's either the user or the developer. The user, though, can claim ignorance, not knowing that the virus was present on his diskette or system. The developer can claim that the code was only written for a closed environment and never meant for the wild.
I abhore the use of "nerd" and "geek" and prefer terms such as "techie", "coder" & "hacker" (when used in the correct sense).
You cannot take away the derogaratary sense that these words entail.
just my opinion
Thanks for the discussion. I have to add that I was asked to produce something which would perform the tasks required. This involved coding, but the manager who actually set me the task did not know enought to know that it was an actual program that was required. They have a working system and that was what I was asked to produce. I don't believe I am a thief and all parties involved are happy with what they have got out of it. Perhaps: A victimless crime?
/.
Shall I go to a police station and confess?
Also note I was employed in the UK and you cannot apply US employment law to my case.
Some of the comments in this thread are actually quite surprising to me. There is the air that every employee should always bow their heads to their managers and never do things for themselves. There also seems to be the opinion that everyone should be selfless and not look out for number one.
I confess, I don't believe in this ethos. At the end of the day all I care about is myself and those that care about me, the rest are immaterial, but they needn't go to hell.
I did do other coding in this employment and did not alter the code, leaving explanatory comments and even writing a 40 page manual of how the system worked and both user and programmer references. In all the time I was employed there my salary rose by only 3% (OVER TWO YEARS). PC Support Analyst to Developer?
And it seems I still am judged by my peers as a thief, the devil incarnate perhaps?
Oh well, lets leave this one to the archives of
I have done this in the past and I had a good reason for it:
I was working in a PC Support role at the time and there was no mention of programming in my contract. I was, however, asked to write and maintain some programs written in Visual Basic for Excel. No agreement was made to provide them with the source code to the program, but it isn't possible to not provide them with the source code and VB for Excel is Interpreted at runtime and not compiled. Hence they would receive the code no matter what. I wrote well structured code where all variables were clearly defined and well named, but before unleashing the code to production I made a copy on a floppy and removed all comments from the production version. I also used global search and replace to rename all variables to a,b,c,d,e etc... The reason I did this was I kind of resented the fact that I was doing something that I wasn't been paid anything near what I should be getting for doing it. On a flip side, they never recognised my coding skills and I left the company a few years ago for better pastures. I still have the floppy and the programs are still in use, I will gladly do contract work for them to make changes. At a contract rate, of course.
This also has an analogy to contractors leaving time-bombs in systems to protect themselves. The practice is un-ethical, but hey - take a closer look at corporate life, what makes you think that's ethical? If you are dis-gruntled about doing coding when you are not being paid for it them it becomes very easy to justify this kind of practice. If you are being paid to do coding, then your contract should include an agreement to document your code according to a set of guidelines. Woe betide any foolish coder who uses the practices above while bound to such a contract.
Anyone know whether the show will be visible from Europe, specifically the UK?
To a certain extent, you are correct, however:
In the case of the NT tests they used a patch to assign each card to a processor (affinity)
This option, to my knowledge, was not available to the Linux boxes. I believe that the TCP/IP stack in the Linux kernel is bound to a single processor. I still see this as a SMP problem and not the fact that they used 4 NICs. It is still correct to say that Linux has serious SMP scalability problems, even Mindcraft admit however, that these issues are being worked on in the development kernel thread 2.3 and will hopefully become a standard performance improvement feature of 2.4 .
We can't blame NT for supporting a function that Linux doesn't, though it would be interesting to have a benchmark based on the following:
Using $x, contruct a system using NT and a system using Linux, tune the systems to their full ability.
With this type of benchmark, Linux can better compete, because of the following:
1. For low values of x NT will simply not run or cannot be purchased and hence is disqualified from the test.
2. The system can utilise a cluster topology, which although slightly more expensive for n systems, would at least provide a linear improvement per CPU. For n=4 and mid-range x, the recoup over costs of Enterprise NT Server, still make this viable for Linux to compete with NT.
It is also clear to note that many Internet websites have an aggregate bandwidth of 512kbps or less and seldom actually reach the loads that were reached in the benchmark tests. It's the case of the limiting factor again.
Let's get back to the real world: There are many webmasters and sysadmins who are perfectly happy running Linux on their Web Servers, they know the systems work, and they know that they don't have to monitor them as closely as one does with some other systems that are available on the market.
Hey, if Sun Microsystems are the . in .com, does that mean they're going to sue us all?
:)
Mindcraft:
The major performance problems are with the TCP stack, which is single threaded in the 2.2.x Linux kernels, and with large-grained kernel locks that degrade multiprocessor performance. The Linux community is addressing these performance problems and others in their 2.3.x kernel series.
Well, I'm glad that they recognise that work is being done on this. It is very much the case that Linux does have SMP scalability problems, and I think we all knew that prior to this report.
Regardless, I still stand by the old motto, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, run Linux, run BSD, run NT, do what you will, but be sure to be happy, with what you run. I would like to see how NT fares against Linux & BSD in the real world, how about this test:
The test will last for one year.
The machines will be under constant varying Web & File serving Load.
The NT box will also run a 16-bit application.
I think we all know what's going to happen over time here...
You can't test NT performance over 15minutes of file/web-serving, NT may have only leaked 15Mbs of the available 1Gb in that time.
OK, I don't know whether they tested for 15minutes or not, but I did look and cannot find anything regarding the duration of the tests. Can someone please comment on this?
I would just like to join the myriad of people who have recommended this switch. I use 2 Belkin Omniview SEs (4 port) and one Belkin Omniview (4 port).
The SEs are not quite as good as the ordinary version as the cables are a bit too close together and the buttons take getting used to, but apart from that I've had no problems with the reliability of these.
They do seem to have a funny behaviour though:
The come with a power supply, but seem to work fine without it as long as you're not using 3 or more ports, when using 4 ports it started making a horrible howling noise (don't ask me! I don't understand it!!). I would recommend always plugging it in however, as I presume it will otherwise draw power from the keyboard PS/2 ports and my experience with these types of devices (although not, in this case, the Omniview) is that they can blow a fuse on the motherboard, which can become quite expensive to replace.
This is good to see. It was only last week that I was trying to take a Linux newbie through the kernel compilation experience on IRC. Now I have a great URL that I can get him to RTFM... :)
According to WhoIs:
The Coordinator is Transmeta Hostmaster (hostmaster@transmeta.com)
Tel: (408) 327 9830
Fax: (408) 327-9840
When I do a connectivity test with ping on a Cisco router the response is !!!!! (5 successful ICMP replies.) Hence I call ! ping. But you are right that ! was also pling on those BBC Model Bs with 32k RAM that you had at school... those were the days... Bring back Elite, Commander Jameson...
actualy ! is ping for me
hash-ping-slash-user-slash-bin-shhhhhhh....