The main fault here was that they had fail-over and called it backups.
There is no one dogmatic way to look at backups. If you think there is, good luck finding a job in 10 years when conditions have changed.
An offsite copy to a backup server behind a firewall with an entirely different setup is pretty secure, especially if any access info is stored on that server in a pull config and the server does not have the ability to push backups.
When you have two nearly identical machines and consider that a backup... well, go back and read the original post.
1) You are right. I don't know what I am talking about.
2) Evidently neither do scientists if there isn't a workable definition of species.
In that case, evolution does exist because it could describe hereditary changes within a 'species' to a different 'species' better suited to a particular climate over time. That's a point I made earlier.
I guess the confusion is all in the semantics. I remember when Pluto was a planet.
Evolution is a process of change in generation severe enough to result in the arise of new species.
Hereditary change within a species is very proven and isn't a debately point to me.
So, the two issues that are debateable are origin of life and the origin of a species.
Thus, hereditary change amongst fruit flies doesn't prove that a new species could evolve from these changes.
If evolution was an active, random force, we would see many more mutated and/or sterile offspring to account for the amount of randomity that would have to occur to make pools large enough to breed new species from.
We do see species develop into sub-species when they are moved to a different environment with different factors. I do not know if we've had observations of tracking the start of a new species through generations of change though.
The tailoring of a species to a specific environment over generations actually to me proves that generational change isn't random but is somehow activated when it is needed. That argues for some sort of intelligence in the process that is explained by neither creationism or evolutionism.
Yeah, unfortunately what is taught in public education passes through the filter of an elected legislature that is not scientific.
It isn't the most proved theory that gets taught, it is the one that has caught sway in the media and pop culture which sometimes does happen to be the most proved theory, especially since grant money is influenced by similar factors.
The problem is that the origins of life theory is taught in school... at least, it was covered in my high school textbook. The first cells converged magically from the primal ooze being struck by lightening, or something along those lines.
I think there is too much evidence to deny that life changes from generation to generation.
However, the lack of a random pool that the selection would occur from available to study in present time disproves the concept that it occurs as randomly and directionlessly as it was explained to me in school.
Well, no theory can be complete without practical application. Neither creationists or evolutions can create new life or spawn new species. The ideas of heredity are used in breeding of plants and animals. Thus, there is proof that life in plants and animals can be altered from generation to generation.
Perhaps the cirriculum should include a discussion of the theory, alternate theories, holes in the major ones, etc. and leave it up for the student to decide for himself.
However, that would change the way most public education works too drastically where one is spoon fed the current hegemony.
I feel the same way if you start with the assumption evolution is a process of selection from a random pool.
I would think there would be a much larger number of mutant babies in any given species if that were the case.
I don't see how that can be explained away with starting the assumption that there are forces that trigger mutation that just aren't present now. Perhaps species evolve past the need for random evolution as a survival mechanism.
If so, wouldn't there be some level of life low enough to observe this phenomenon in its raw random nature with mutations occuring, even in mitosis.
There is a real lack of evidence for random evolution in my opinion which makes me feel that there is intelligence behind it somewhere, not necessarily 'God, the Creator' waving his hands, but some force other than random physics and chemistry.
How does modern evolution theory address this dilemma?
So, it is bad to provoke thought and questions regarding evolution? Gosh, that would lead people to possibly re-evaluate observations. That would be dangerous because.... We have a lot more recorded data than Darwin had available to him in much more widely accessible forms. Obviously, challenging his conclusions and conclusions based on his conclusions is bad. It would almost be, well, blasphemy? The science community sure seems unscientific some time.
I agree... you need to learn how to use your resources.
If you, as a peer, find someone on a team that is unsufferable for these sort of generic reasons, you would be served best to do things and opening your mouth to lambast them.
A) People often scream most loudly at others for those crimes that they themselves are committing. Before you scream at Josh, take a look at your habits. Are you just jealous because he is better at 'bullying others into compliance'?
B) Look at the business you are in and take a hard objective look at what he brings to the table and understand that upper management looks at the current bottom line and will never get too caught up in details, like documentation.
So, this sort of stuff boils down to how a team is managed. If there is still a justifiable grievance, take it up with the team manager or lead. No one starts off as a perfect team member but villianizing them only makes it harder for the team to form as you are busily choosing sides for people.
Finally, keep in mind A above. If your sole intention is to make Josh pay for his sloppiness and don't really care too much about team building, you are probably in that category.
I concur. Advertising is a driving force for a lot of services that would not survive with out it.
Broadcast television would never have made it long term. Likewise, premium channels wouldn't have taken off if there was an established user base for the free content.
Radio is free because it is paid for by the marketers.
Newspapers are largely supported by advertisement with a minimal amount of revenue coming from the distribution.
Trying to remove advertising from free services can be far more damaging to our economy than piracy or theft because it is a meme that grabs popular emotion (who does want to be bothered by unwanted communication) without any insight in to what the driving forces of our economy are.
Make no mistake, this is intended to force Tom Tom to violate the GPL, or change to Microsoft embedded software
There are other embedded kernel choices besides Linux or Microsoft. The FreeBSD license is much less restrictive than the GPL and wouldn't be broken by most, if not all, cross licensing.
Why must slashdot polarize things so incorrectly and ignorantly?
The problem with religion, science and other forms of popular thought is that once they are in the hands of the massives, they cease to be a fluid body of knowledge that can be shared, experienced and grown, into something more formulated that can be readily grasped, identified with and pointed to as an authority.
People who proclaim Darwinism blindly with no personal investigation of the theory and associated facts have the same affliction as a neo-conservative who blindly states that the Earth is 100,000 years old and a large military with an aggressive foreign policy is the only way to protect America.
You want to encrypt everything across the boards, regardless of level of classification or how many people need to access it.
In essence, that is going to create an environment where everything is as secure as they are on a password protected environment with much more computational overhead.
The reason for this is that there is no classification between what should be encrypted and what shouldn't be encrypted. Those that need uniform access to unspecified, disparate data across the network (i.e. system administrators) are going to need some easy-to-use convention to get access to debug issues.
Either there needs to be some sort of root/administrator access or you are going to destroy the supportability of your systems. Maybe the user just gives his encryption key to the IT help desk on a regular basis... that couldn't be broken through simple social engineering.
Maybe that isn't necessary... maybe there is a feature that allows unauthenticated access to the encrypted data that only your teckies know.
Basically, too much security equals too little usablility. Thus, too much of the wrong security backfires and becomes bypassed because of the need for maintaining usability.
Accelerando answers the posed question very well
on
Daemon
·
· Score: 1
"What if someone who grokked our culture and understood our tech wrote something? Would it be great, or would it just get bogged down in the techno babble?"
From the original article - "In this situation, the promiscuous women quickly caught the virus and became a sort of viral clearinghouse, spreading HIV to every man with whom they had contact."
I really am amazing at the commonly portrayed concept that AIDS is 100% communicable. Have there been any studies done to show the actual percentage chance of transmission of the HIV virus from one infected individual to one who isn't? Also, are there different probabilities for different types of sexual activity?
The media makes a lot of issues look like bad science with their hype, whether it be global warming or SARS.
Does anyone know where to get the solid scientific data regarding this issue?
It seems she clearly ignored the policies on sending out mass emails to the faculty. She even stated that she would not discontinue her actions.
She is clearly fighting a political fight of protest where her entire intent is to get as many eyeballs on her grievance as possible.
It isn't so much as an issue of free speech. She isn't being censored for her opinions. She is being reprimanded for a breach of use in computer systems. What she has done quite successfully is gotten a much larger audience on the original issue than would care otherwise.
As far as I know it is illegal to drive with a cell phone to your ear. I do not think it is illegal to look at the screen. This is one of those poorly written laws that covers one particularly bad behavoir but leaves the door open for related ones even more dangerous, such as texting.
The story contains some interesting observations such as, 'This was the paradox of artificial intelligence: any system simple enough to be understandable will not be complicated enough to behave intelligently; and any system complicated enough to behave intelligently will not be simple enough to understand.'
I have a problem with this 'interesting observation'. This is basically asserting that the system behind human intelligence is too complex to understand. This is based that engineers, subscribing to modern psychology and biological theories assume that the physical components of the body are what comprise the total sum of that which is human and thus which is intelligence.
I would posit that anything not sufficiently understood looks complex. Greater understanding brings greater simplicity. If you have a branch of research or knowledge that is leading into greater and greater complexities, you can be assured that there is basic data in the area that is either missing or is false.
I think the concept of intelligence, artificial or otherwise, could be easily understood if those studying intelligence applied more science and less reliance on proven 'authorities' and 'established' patterns of scientific thought.
Today's scientists are taught in an environment that stresses the importance of known data over a self-determined approach to phenomenon. What crazy world is it that reading other people's papers, writing your own without doing any actual real world observation, can be called research?
Slashdot Mirror
The main fault here was that they had fail-over and called it backups.
There is no one dogmatic way to look at backups. If you think there is, good luck finding a job in 10 years when conditions have changed.
An offsite copy to a backup server behind a firewall with an entirely different setup is pretty secure, especially if any access info is stored on that server in a pull config and the server does not have the ability to push backups.
When you have two nearly identical machines and consider that a backup... well, go back and read the original post.
Hey, if someone can give a plausible (not probable) explanation of pending disaster, we better sit up and listen!
Facts are for ... well, idiots who don't see the need for radical change of the status quo.
Thank you.
For once a post that said exactly what I would said... only better.
1) You are right. I don't know what I am talking about.
2) Evidently neither do scientists if there isn't a workable definition of species.
In that case, evolution does exist because it could describe hereditary changes within a 'species' to a different 'species' better suited to a particular climate over time. That's a point I made earlier.
I guess the confusion is all in the semantics. I remember when Pluto was a planet.
He is confusing selective breeding with evolution, that is why.
Evolution seeks to define creation of new species.
All of the samples he mentioned support Mendel's work but not necessarily Darwin's.
You can not create a new species through breeding because by definition species can not interbreed.
Let's classify what we are talking about.
Evolution is a process of change in generation severe enough to result in the arise of new species.
Hereditary change within a species is very proven and isn't a debately point to me.
So, the two issues that are debateable are origin of life and the origin of a species.
Thus, hereditary change amongst fruit flies doesn't prove that a new species could evolve from these changes.
If evolution was an active, random force, we would see many more mutated and/or sterile offspring to account for the amount of randomity that would have to occur to make pools large enough to breed new species from.
We do see species develop into sub-species when they are moved to a different environment with different factors. I do not know if we've had observations of tracking the start of a new species through generations of change though.
The tailoring of a species to a specific environment over generations actually to me proves that generational change isn't random but is somehow activated when it is needed. That argues for some sort of intelligence in the process that is explained by neither creationism or evolutionism.
Yeah, unfortunately what is taught in public education passes through the filter of an elected legislature that is not scientific.
It isn't the most proved theory that gets taught, it is the one that has caught sway in the media and pop culture which sometimes does happen to be the most proved theory, especially since grant money is influenced by similar factors.
You see in real science we observe, then experiment and finally draw conclusions.
You say this in a world where a lot of scientific research is done on a per hire basis to validate a preconceived notion.
The problem is that the origins of life theory is taught in school... at least, it was covered in my high school textbook. The first cells converged magically from the primal ooze being struck by lightening, or something along those lines.
I think there is too much evidence to deny that life changes from generation to generation.
However, the lack of a random pool that the selection would occur from available to study in present time disproves the concept that it occurs as randomly and directionlessly as it was explained to me in school.
Well, no theory can be complete without practical application. Neither creationists or evolutions can create new life or spawn new species. The ideas of heredity are used in breeding of plants and animals. Thus, there is proof that life in plants and animals can be altered from generation to generation.
Perhaps the cirriculum should include a discussion of the theory, alternate theories, holes in the major ones, etc. and leave it up for the student to decide for himself.
However, that would change the way most public education works too drastically where one is spoon fed the current hegemony.
I feel the same way if you start with the assumption evolution is a process of selection from a random pool.
I would think there would be a much larger number of mutant babies in any given species if that were the case.
I don't see how that can be explained away with starting the assumption that there are forces that trigger mutation that just aren't present now. Perhaps species evolve past the need for random evolution as a survival mechanism.
If so, wouldn't there be some level of life low enough to observe this phenomenon in its raw random nature with mutations occuring, even in mitosis.
There is a real lack of evidence for random evolution in my opinion which makes me feel that there is intelligence behind it somewhere, not necessarily 'God, the Creator' waving his hands, but some force other than random physics and chemistry.
How does modern evolution theory address this dilemma?
So, it is bad to provoke thought and questions regarding evolution? Gosh, that would lead people to possibly re-evaluate observations. That would be dangerous because .... We have a lot more recorded data than Darwin had available to him in much more widely accessible forms. Obviously, challenging his conclusions and conclusions based on his conclusions is bad. It would almost be, well, blasphemy? The science community sure seems unscientific some time.
I agree... you need to learn how to use your resources.
If you, as a peer, find someone on a team that is unsufferable for these sort of generic reasons, you would be served best to do things and opening your mouth to lambast them.
A) People often scream most loudly at others for those crimes that they themselves are committing. Before you scream at Josh, take a look at your habits. Are you just jealous because he is better at 'bullying others into compliance'?
B) Look at the business you are in and take a hard objective look at what he brings to the table and understand that upper management looks at the current bottom line and will never get too caught up in details, like documentation.
So, this sort of stuff boils down to how a team is managed. If there is still a justifiable grievance, take it up with the team manager or lead. No one starts off as a perfect team member but villianizing them only makes it harder for the team to form as you are busily choosing sides for people.
Finally, keep in mind A above. If your sole intention is to make Josh pay for his sloppiness and don't really care too much about team building, you are probably in that category.
I concur. Advertising is a driving force for a lot of services that would not survive with out it.
Broadcast television would never have made it long term. Likewise, premium channels wouldn't have taken off if there was an established user base for the free content.
Radio is free because it is paid for by the marketers.
Newspapers are largely supported by advertisement with a minimal amount of revenue coming from the distribution.
Trying to remove advertising from free services can be far more damaging to our economy than piracy or theft because it is a meme that grabs popular emotion (who does want to be bothered by unwanted communication) without any insight in to what the driving forces of our economy are.
Make no mistake, this is intended to force Tom Tom to violate the GPL, or change to Microsoft embedded software
There are other embedded kernel choices besides Linux or Microsoft. The FreeBSD license is much less restrictive than the GPL and wouldn't be broken by most, if not all, cross licensing.
Why must slashdot polarize things so incorrectly and ignorantly?
The problem with religion, science and other forms of popular thought is that once they are in the hands of the massives, they cease to be a fluid body of knowledge that can be shared, experienced and grown, into something more formulated that can be readily grasped, identified with and pointed to as an authority.
People who proclaim Darwinism blindly with no personal investigation of the theory and associated facts have the same affliction as a neo-conservative who blindly states that the Earth is 100,000 years old and a large military with an aggressive foreign policy is the only way to protect America.
Oh lord, let's hope there are similar law suites against Safari in MacOS, Iceweasel in Debian, Firefox in RedHat, etc. etc. etc.
Just where is the dividing line between package choice in putting together a desktop environment for a user and a monopoly?
This whole thing is bollocks to me.
You want to encrypt everything across the boards, regardless of level of classification or how many people need to access it.
In essence, that is going to create an environment where everything is as secure as they are on a password protected environment with much more computational overhead.
The reason for this is that there is no classification between what should be encrypted and what shouldn't be encrypted. Those that need uniform access to unspecified, disparate data across the network (i.e. system administrators) are going to need some easy-to-use convention to get access to debug issues.
Either there needs to be some sort of root/administrator access or you are going to destroy the supportability of your systems. Maybe the user just gives his encryption key to the IT help desk on a regular basis... that couldn't be broken through simple social engineering.
Maybe that isn't necessary... maybe there is a feature that allows unauthenticated access to the encrypted data that only your teckies know.
Basically, too much security equals too little usablility. Thus, too much of the wrong security backfires and becomes bypassed because of the need for maintaining usability.
He needs to use the shower version though.
"What if someone who grokked our culture and understood our tech wrote something? Would it be great, or would it just get bogged down in the techno babble?"
Unfortunately, the latter in Strauss's case.
From the original article - "In this situation, the promiscuous women quickly caught the virus and became a sort of viral clearinghouse, spreading HIV to every man with whom they had contact."
I really am amazing at the commonly portrayed concept that AIDS is 100% communicable. Have there been any studies done to show the actual percentage chance of transmission of the HIV virus from one infected individual to one who isn't? Also, are there different probabilities for different types of sexual activity?
The media makes a lot of issues look like bad science with their hype, whether it be global warming or SARS.
Does anyone know where to get the solid scientific data regarding this issue?
It seems she clearly ignored the policies on sending out mass emails to the faculty. She even stated that she would not discontinue her actions.
She is clearly fighting a political fight of protest where her entire intent is to get as many eyeballs on her grievance as possible.
It isn't so much as an issue of free speech. She isn't being censored for her opinions. She is being reprimanded for a breach of use in computer systems. What she has done quite successfully is gotten a much larger audience on the original issue than would care otherwise.
As far as I know it is illegal to drive with a cell phone to your ear. I do not think it is illegal to look at the screen. This is one of those poorly written laws that covers one particularly bad behavoir but leaves the door open for related ones even more dangerous, such as texting.
Organized public protest is actually illegal in France without a permit. You can be arrested for being in a group larger than three last I heard.
The story contains some interesting observations such as, 'This was the paradox of artificial intelligence: any system simple enough to be understandable will not be complicated enough to behave intelligently; and any system complicated enough to behave intelligently will not be simple enough to understand.'
I have a problem with this 'interesting observation'. This is basically asserting that the system behind human intelligence is too complex to understand. This is based that engineers, subscribing to modern psychology and biological theories assume that the physical components of the body are what comprise the total sum of that which is human and thus which is intelligence.
I would posit that anything not sufficiently understood looks complex. Greater understanding brings greater simplicity. If you have a branch of research or knowledge that is leading into greater and greater complexities, you can be assured that there is basic data in the area that is either missing or is false.
I think the concept of intelligence, artificial or otherwise, could be easily understood if those studying intelligence applied more science and less reliance on proven 'authorities' and 'established' patterns of scientific thought.
Today's scientists are taught in an environment that stresses the importance of known data over a self-determined approach to phenomenon. What crazy world is it that reading other people's papers, writing your own without doing any actual real world observation, can be called research?