Maybe MS will provide us with a solution. Maybe when it finds a bad site, it will take you to a special screen. Perhaps a single bright color that will get your attention. With a little message in the middle of the screen.
%"Y452HG4G534535634tg3rve54$YNQ#%UYq3yq/3oyQ#%Yq3u by
;
Whoops, sorry about that, I guess they already implemented that feature.
Aren't there certain technical limitations that need to be overcome for this stuff to work correctly. Such as the interpretation of words in the context they are being used in.
In the "Second Amendment" site linked above, it sees the words militia, violent and gun. The software would need to not just search for instances of those words, but identify their meaning in the sentance.
I don't support filters. It may be a halfway decent idea but it's poorly implemented. Besides, there could be better ways, such as site ratings in the http header. And don't get on my case for trying to regulate anything, I just think the idea of filters reading a site to determine if it needs to be rejected is stupid. We all know that software running on a clients machine can't handle the task of simulating a human's eyes.
The only practical purpose I can see for a filter, is not to reject sites, but to possibly remove certain bad words from text, or deny a site based on a bad word being in the url.
I live in a small town (6,000 people) and whenever I go to the hospital, they always have to call over to the "other" buildings to get the paper records. I wouldn't see any problem using open source software to access patient records in a database. It's just doing a query against a DB. It would be more effecient. And if the server went down (they should have a backup anyways) then you could go to the paper.
Obviously you can't allow the general public to play around with source code for monitoring systems or regulators.
Of course, I must admit that if I had to endure an extended stay at a hospital, it might be fun to jack my laptop into my monitoring equipment and get an on-screen read out. Maybe make some graphs and setup a website for it. Is there a bed-pan-cam.com out there yet?
The fact that a project is open source or not seems to be irrelavant. I would think that the size of the project would be the biggest consideration as to whether or not something is fully planned and documented prior to implementation.
Example: Where I work, we don't plan out anything. Then again, our projects are not that large and it's a niche market we're going after. If we took the time to flowchart everything it would kill any profits. Besides, there is a big difference in keeping track of 100,000 lines of code, than it is to manage 1,000,000 lines.
Another factor would be the size of your team. If you are looking for a large team to get a project done quickly, the flowcharts and documentation would be a good thing, just to make sure everybody has the same idea. If it's just you and a friend or two, chances are you're already thinking on the same wavelength.
Also, the complexity of the project and the target audience size also must be taken into consideration. If you have a large audience, then planning would definitely help organize the needs of all the end users. Especially is what you are developing is a product designed for other developers.
It needs to hire people that know what they're doing. If any part of the government is going to be involved with customized software or hardware, there should be people in-house to handle those needs. Maybe not at the local level, but at least at the state a federal levels. The fact that jobs get contracted out to the lowest bidder is stupid, as many things in government are.
One of the contributing problems is that nobody wants to work for the government due to the red tape. Those that do, only do so mainly because they see the money, and realize that there is nobody there to verify their work.
Example: Local town clerks office hired a consultant group to network all the machines together and setup a way to get e-mail through just one computer on a dial-up. The consultants installed Exchange server and then couldn't figure out how to set it up. So, they called the company I work for (ISP that provided the dial-up) and expected us to spend hours on the phone trying to get Exchange server configured. The consultants were on that job for over 4 weeks, and I don't know the exact cost, but I would assume at least $35+ an hour.
Anybody that has "Consultant" in their title should automatically be disqualified from working on any technological project.
Back to the topic though. What would be the purpose of the government open-sourcing all it's code. It's not "their" code. The code was created by somebody that was awarded a contract to do the job. Who would manage the code if it was opened. If the government appointed somebody to manage the code, what are the chances that they would be qualified enough. They could let some hackers back-door into the code base and where would that get us? Then we'd need a peer review system, and who would be part of that?
Truth is, the government should spend more resources on doing whatever needs to be done to make everything run more effeciently throughout the country. It's easy for everybody on/. to condemn the government for having inadequate security, since we deal with it on a regular basis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing up for them, but websites shouldn't get the governments primary responsibility. Everybody's getting caught up in the web, and they're trying to turn it into something magical instead of something functional. Look at Samsung or HP. They chose to focus on making a static image fairly appealing. However, it's not functional.
Ok, it's late and I'm out of caffiene. I think I spelled out enough problems here, and while they probably aren't grammatically correct, or show a proper thought process, I hope you get what I'm saying. Basically, the whole system sucks, and who freaking cares, because whatever they do, we complain about, and whatever we do, they complain about.
C'mon. This is company, a business, trying to make a fortune. Read their pages. This isn't Henry Hacker and William Webmaster sitting in a basement trying to come up with the BEST program. Look at the name. It just smacks of marketing ooze. Anybody notice the Austin Powers ref in the name?
What ever happened to computers making our lives easier. Every time I want to download a file there has to be a social interaction? Go start a web-commune or something. You can run ethernet, or wireless if you're also concerned about the environment, between your tents and burn anti-MS songs onto CDRs.
Bye, Bye, MS Anti-trust lies,
Installed Windows yesterday, and the computer just died.
And the tech support boys were drinking whiskey and wine, saying,
Can I have you credit card, for my time.
Maybe I'm getting confused by the overuse of the word "said" and "derived" in their patent. Can somebody explain what the element blending patent actually refers to? I've read it, and to me it seems as though it may be something like Adobe's ability to link layers, and then by scaling one, you scale another. Is this a correct analogy?
Can anybody explain to me why ALL screenshots for console systems are captured in medium quality jpeg? Aren't they support to be advertising how great the graphics are?
Why should the body need to shutdown? Can't we produce the necessary chemicals to essentially replace the biological process our bodies undergo when we are sleeping?
At least getting away from a recommended 8 hours sleep to maybe 2 hours would be enough for me.
21 hours to code, 1 hour to eat, 2 hours to sleep... Would still have to bypass bathing.
Or what if I link to a perl script that generates the source code?
What if I don't link, but just put the URL in plain text?
What if I put half the code on one site, and half the code on the other?
What if a virus is spread around like melissa, that contains the code, wouldn't that be funny?
What if I post the code right here in the comments section.
What if the current code is obfuscated, does it still fall under Kaplan's ruling, or doesn't the exact syntax matter?
What if I take out a couple ads in the New York Times that clearly displays the code?
What if I get the code tatooed into my skin, would I have to be put to death?
If we all sent the MPAA an e-mail containing the source and told them that's our only copy, would they believe that?
What if enough people all changed their names to a line of code in the program, and they all stood next to each other while wearing name tags?
What if I made an DVD with the code to decrypt DVDs on it?
Kaplan sux! 1D10T!!!
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.boysstuff.co.uk/pages /to rch_card.asp
Maybe MS will provide us with a solution. Maybe when it finds a bad site, it will take you to a special screen. Perhaps a single bright color that will get your attention. With a little message in the middle of the screen.
u by
%"Y452HG4G534535634tg3rve54$YNQ#%UYq3yq/3oyQ#%Yq3
; Whoops, sorry about that, I guess they already implemented that feature.
Aren't there certain technical limitations that need to be overcome for this stuff to work correctly. Such as the interpretation of words in the context they are being used in.
In the "Second Amendment" site linked above, it sees the words militia, violent and gun. The software would need to not just search for instances of those words, but identify their meaning in the sentance.
I don't support filters. It may be a halfway decent idea but it's poorly implemented. Besides, there could be better ways, such as site ratings in the http header. And don't get on my case for trying to regulate anything, I just think the idea of filters reading a site to determine if it needs to be rejected is stupid. We all know that software running on a clients machine can't handle the task of simulating a human's eyes.
The only practical purpose I can see for a filter, is not to reject sites, but to possibly remove certain bad words from text, or deny a site based on a bad word being in the url.
I live in a small town (6,000 people) and whenever I go to the hospital, they always have to call over to the "other" buildings to get the paper records. I wouldn't see any problem using open source software to access patient records in a database. It's just doing a query against a DB. It would be more effecient. And if the server went down (they should have a backup anyways) then you could go to the paper.
Obviously you can't allow the general public to play around with source code for monitoring systems or regulators.
Of course, I must admit that if I had to endure an extended stay at a hospital, it might be fun to jack my laptop into my monitoring equipment and get an on-screen read out. Maybe make some graphs and setup a website for it. Is there a bed-pan-cam.com out there yet?
The fact that a project is open source or not seems to be irrelavant. I would think that the size of the project would be the biggest consideration as to whether or not something is fully planned and documented prior to implementation.
Example: Where I work, we don't plan out anything. Then again, our projects are not that large and it's a niche market we're going after. If we took the time to flowchart everything it would kill any profits. Besides, there is a big difference in keeping track of 100,000 lines of code, than it is to manage 1,000,000 lines.
Another factor would be the size of your team. If you are looking for a large team to get a project done quickly, the flowcharts and documentation would be a good thing, just to make sure everybody has the same idea. If it's just you and a friend or two, chances are you're already thinking on the same wavelength.
Also, the complexity of the project and the target audience size also must be taken into consideration. If you have a large audience, then planning would definitely help organize the needs of all the end users. Especially is what you are developing is a product designed for other developers.
It needs to hire people that know what they're doing. If any part of the government is going to be involved with customized software or hardware, there should be people in-house to handle those needs. Maybe not at the local level, but at least at the state a federal levels. The fact that jobs get contracted out to the lowest bidder is stupid, as many things in government are.
/. to condemn the government for having inadequate security, since we deal with it on a regular basis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing up for them, but websites shouldn't get the governments primary responsibility. Everybody's getting caught up in the web, and they're trying to turn it into something magical instead of something functional. Look at Samsung or HP. They chose to focus on making a static image fairly appealing. However, it's not functional.
One of the contributing problems is that nobody wants to work for the government due to the red tape. Those that do, only do so mainly because they see the money, and realize that there is nobody there to verify their work.
Example: Local town clerks office hired a consultant group to network all the machines together and setup a way to get e-mail through just one computer on a dial-up. The consultants installed Exchange server and then couldn't figure out how to set it up. So, they called the company I work for (ISP that provided the dial-up) and expected us to spend hours on the phone trying to get Exchange server configured. The consultants were on that job for over 4 weeks, and I don't know the exact cost, but I would assume at least $35+ an hour.
Anybody that has "Consultant" in their title should automatically be disqualified from working on any technological project.
Back to the topic though. What would be the purpose of the government open-sourcing all it's code. It's not "their" code. The code was created by somebody that was awarded a contract to do the job. Who would manage the code if it was opened. If the government appointed somebody to manage the code, what are the chances that they would be qualified enough. They could let some hackers back-door into the code base and where would that get us? Then we'd need a peer review system, and who would be part of that?
Truth is, the government should spend more resources on doing whatever needs to be done to make everything run more effeciently throughout the country. It's easy for everybody on
Ok, it's late and I'm out of caffiene. I think I spelled out enough problems here, and while they probably aren't grammatically correct, or show a proper thought process, I hope you get what I'm saying. Basically, the whole system sucks, and who freaking cares, because whatever they do, we complain about, and whatever we do, they complain about.
A cube with equal length sides of 0.1" to 7.9", or 8.1" to 300,000,000 miles, that houses smaller interconnected components.
Licensing will be available at $1000.00 per square inch. Man I hope the Borg stop by. They'll have to assimilate Gates and Ellison just to pay me!
C'mon. This is company, a business, trying to make a fortune. Read their pages. This isn't Henry Hacker and William Webmaster sitting in a basement trying to come up with the BEST program. Look at the name. It just smacks of marketing ooze. Anybody notice the Austin Powers ref in the name?
What ever happened to computers making our lives easier. Every time I want to download a file there has to be a social interaction? Go start a web-commune or something. You can run ethernet, or wireless if you're also concerned about the environment, between your tents and burn anti-MS songs onto CDRs.
Bye, Bye, MS Anti-trust lies,
Installed Windows yesterday, and the computer just died.
And the tech support boys were drinking whiskey and wine, saying,
Can I have you credit card, for my time.
Maybe I'm getting confused by the overuse of the word "said" and "derived" in their patent. Can somebody explain what the element blending patent actually refers to? I've read it, and to me it seems as though it may be something like Adobe's ability to link layers, and then by scaling one, you scale another. Is this a correct analogy?
Can anybody explain to me why ALL screenshots for console systems are captured in medium quality jpeg? Aren't they support to be advertising how great the graphics are?
How much would you be able to overclock a 366 Celeron system if you put it outside the ship, and of course, in the shade?
Why should the body need to shutdown? Can't we produce the necessary chemicals to essentially replace the biological process our bodies undergo when we are sleeping?
At least getting away from a recommended 8 hours sleep to maybe 2 hours would be enough for me.
21 hours to code, 1 hour to eat, 2 hours to sleep... Would still have to bypass bathing.
Or what if I link to a perl script that generates the source code? What if I don't link, but just put the URL in plain text? What if I put half the code on one site, and half the code on the other? What if a virus is spread around like melissa, that contains the code, wouldn't that be funny? What if I post the code right here in the comments section. What if the current code is obfuscated, does it still fall under Kaplan's ruling, or doesn't the exact syntax matter? What if I take out a couple ads in the New York Times that clearly displays the code? What if I get the code tatooed into my skin, would I have to be put to death? If we all sent the MPAA an e-mail containing the source and told them that's our only copy, would they believe that? What if enough people all changed their names to a line of code in the program, and they all stood next to each other while wearing name tags? What if I made an DVD with the code to decrypt DVDs on it? Kaplan sux! 1D10T!!!