Well.. neither am I. But that's what science is about. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc.
It's not BACKWARDS. It's a big universe.. so we need to have a good idea of what to look for.
I think it was perhaps thought that, if this 'normal matter' accounted for what we saw, we would SEE MORE OF IT, because it's not hidden.
Oh. BTW. We observe electrons, quarks, and the rest of the subatomic particles only through your so-called 'conjectural' observations. Same with some of the 'properties' of these particles.. they exist purely in a mathematical model that works for a certain set of cases; it's not complete.
The point is that they think it's likely that, given the amount of 'missing' matter from what we have observed to date, there may be some 'exotic' reason we can't see it.
Yes. Nothing to hide. And, unfortunately, it is exactly that attitude that furthers the 'If you have nothing to hide, why do you insist on us having a search warrant? Why not just let us in?' attitude used increasingly more often by cops everywhere.
This has nothing to do (as others pointed out) with the Uncertainty Principle.
The Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment is totally different.
ANd how does this bother the Cat problem at all? It doesn't.. if you observe the Cat in the box, in any way whatsoever, you have now observed it, and hence, caused it to assume a known state.
I would ask congress to leave it alone. It's not their problem to fix. The networks belong to who they belong to, and it's up to them to decide how to use it.
THe point of the IDS is not so you can crack down on anyone trying some exploit against your site.. it's so you might actually detect someone actually breaking into your servers.
The point is to be aware, not to come down on them. If they knocked on the door, trying some exploit.. it's not worth your time to chase them down if it has no effect. On the other hand.. what if it turns out to be a rival company?
I think the general idea is to be aware of what's going on. If you are aware, you can be prepared.
If you look at a system like SNORT... it's not *really* and IDS. It's just something that checks for many, many common attack signatures. It tells you *nothing* about whether someone has intruded into your system. It's not really an IDS.
Now. the Linux IDS stuff... that locks certain files at the kernel level and notifies admin if anything tries to change.. THAT is an intrusion detection system. Someone has intruted, tried to modify something they shouldn't.. now you KNOW you have an intruder.
Triggers and such set up in some systems to detect when someone is where they shouldn't be is the real goal of an IDS.. not to tell you some new worm is trying to exploit your webserver.
The one thing that really gets ME about java (which I like, btw)..... is how damn confusing it is to figure out what Sun is talking about most of the time.
Now.. I'm not a software engineer... I'm not a professional programmer.. though I do code quite a bit. But I'm very computer savvy... and I find it *very* difficult, in reading through sun's Java stuff, to figure out what the hell they are talking about. I know there is something there... I know they have some really nice ideas and stuff.. but.. it's very, very confusing.
And I just have to wonder.. if I can't figure it out.. who can?
You see. that's where MS comes in... even if they sacrifice technical superiority.... It seems to me that Sun's stuff is just aimed at too high a level. You need some serious software engineering people to figure out how to use some of Sun's stuff.. with MS.. it's a level or two lower (and yes, less sophisticated)
Well.. you are trying to apply a moral philosophy to programming that could be applied to anything else in this world. Should people invest in companies that engage in questionalbe practices? Should the shareholders of Microsoft be at fault because of MS's anti-comptetitive practices? What about those who invest in weapons companies. They should all be guilty as well?
The GPL is about freedom of software. To restrict it's use is subjective. Is using it for weapons systems wrong? What if it's the only thing protecting you from some totalitarian regime trying to take over your country? Is it still wrong?
I mean seriously.. if the price of the Oracle software is what stands in the way of the powers that be rolling out such a system, they have a serious problem already.
I also don't see the big controversy. The government already HAS huge databases, analyzed by supercomputers, to figure out things like taxes, and whatnot.. what's another database? The issue is how things are used, not that they exist.
Re:Arrogance more powerful than its technology?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
I agree.
I think it's a cool device, for sure, I'd love to try one.
But it's not, fundamentally, much different for society than if we all had motorized scooters, or even bicycles. Oh sure, I can see why this could be a hit where the traditional motorized scooter ins't.. it's neat.. but.
WE've *long* had the option of building cities with other modes of transportation in mind. It just doesn't seem to happen. THe modern city is based on the Car, primarily, and the Pedestrian + mass transit secondarily. Yes, it sucks, but that's how it goes.
ON a side note.. I was really impressed by Amsterdam (Which is in the Netherlands, in case you don't know). Everywehre there is a road, there is a bike path. There appear to be more bikes than cars, by quite a large percentage.. (confusing for a westerner.. you keep walking from the sidewalk onto the bike path, then get angry dutch people dinging their bells at you to get out of the way)
It can turn faster. (turning radius of 0, or the same as a pedestrian)
The control system is more intuitive (if it works as described). Less 'rough' than a scooter. Less like driving, more like walking.
And I don't think you can speak as to whether it's more reliable or not until you've used one, or at least until we have some statistical data. I tried closing my eyes and imaginging using these thigns (I have a good imagination)... seems more appealing than a scooter to me.
I'm trying to answer that.. but I don't see what you mean.
Definitions in the english language are based on what is generally accepted as the meaning of said words. Many words evolve into having many different meanings.
"Hacker", to most people in the English world, means someone who 'hacks into computers'
You know.. I used to think that.
But I have yet to see one, single security-minded 'hacker' tackle a real sysadmin job and do it any differently than those he previously lambasted for being 'dumb'.
Will you zealots learn that 'hacker' has different contexts, and that the majority of people view someone who breaks into computers as a 'hacker', therefore, THATS A VALID MEANING.
Simply put... there's no such thing as an absolute value.
The Canadian dollar is worth less? Well, yes. But the average canadian salary is ALSO less, and the cost of living is different.
In the US, you have 10x the population, and enough people who can afford those higher prices.
Comparing $ to $ is not valid.. you have to look at the overall picture. Yes, equipemt cost more if you break it down per cusotmer, because they make less of each customer.. but that's about it. Plus, you have to take into account the simpler telecom infrastructure.. I suspect we have less taxes and less beurocracy.
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs..
on
.museum TLDs are Live
·
· Score: 2
Yes... I understand this.
Just pointing out that it's confusing for some.
Those are not 'critical' applications, and not the traditional embedded market either.
If a slot machine crashes, and needs to be restarted, it's not a disaster. The same for an ATM. SO long as neither will hand out oodles of cash for no reason, it's okay.
However, the flight control mechanims on a billion dollar spacecraft, or passenger jet, or fighter jet, those are *real* embedded systems.
The OS on your pacemaker, the computer in your car that controls the ABS... these are the kinds of things he means when he speaks of the 'traditional' embedded market.
Or how I like to think if it, 'computers inside things that aren't computers'. (A slot machine is kind of a computer, so is an ATM. but a car?)
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs..
on
.museum TLDs are Live
·
· Score: 2
Funny, that, considering CNAME means 'Canonical Name'
I know well the quite common argument that EULA's are not 'enforcable' because it's not a real contract. No negotiation, no signatures, etc.
And certain facets of EULA's have been overturned in certain courts. However...
other parts of them can and will be enforced.
So.. when I buy an 'upgrade' version of XP, but find out I can do a tiny little hack and install the real thing.. I"m not breaking any rules, right? I bought the 'hardware' (CD) legitimately, and whatever I click on is not binding.. so..
I have no problem whatsoever with these 'restricted CD' things as long as they are clearly labeled as such, so I know they aren't a normal CD. No problem whatsoever.
Yes.. but isn't that how the entire @home network works? It's all different cable copmanies with some shared backbone.
Like, the IP addresses belong to @home, no?
Certainly, the infrastructure in a given place belongs to that cable company, and they have the equipment to proceed, but not necessarily the upstream network links, which may belong to excite..
Slashdot Mirror
Well.. neither am I. But that's what science is about. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc.
It's not BACKWARDS. It's a big universe.. so we need to have a good idea of what to look for.
I think it was perhaps thought that, if this 'normal matter' accounted for what we saw, we would SEE MORE OF IT, because it's not hidden.
Oh. BTW. We observe electrons, quarks, and the rest of the subatomic particles only through your so-called 'conjectural' observations. Same with some of the 'properties' of these particles.. they exist purely in a mathematical model that works for a certain set of cases; it's not complete.
The point is that they think it's likely that, given the amount of 'missing' matter from what we have observed to date, there may be some 'exotic' reason we can't see it.
Maybe you should go out there to the battlefield and SHOW THEM how to do it right?
Easy to preach from the armchair, eh?
Yes. Nothing to hide. And, unfortunately, it is exactly that attitude that furthers the 'If you have nothing to hide, why do you insist on us having a search warrant? Why not just let us in?' attitude used increasingly more often by cops everywhere.
This has nothing to do (as others pointed out) with the Uncertainty Principle.
The Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment is totally different.
ANd how does this bother the Cat problem at all? It doesn't.. if you observe the Cat in the box, in any way whatsoever, you have now observed it, and hence, caused it to assume a known state.
I would ask congress to leave it alone. It's not their problem to fix. The networks belong to who they belong to, and it's up to them to decide how to use it.
THe point of the IDS is not so you can crack down on anyone trying some exploit against your site.. it's so you might actually detect someone actually breaking into your servers.
The point is to be aware, not to come down on them. If they knocked on the door, trying some exploit.. it's not worth your time to chase them down if it has no effect. On the other hand.. what if it turns out to be a rival company?
I think the general idea is to be aware of what's going on. If you are aware, you can be prepared.
If you look at a system like SNORT... it's not *really* and IDS. It's just something that checks for many, many common attack signatures. It tells you *nothing* about whether someone has intruded into your system. It's not really an IDS.
Now. the Linux IDS stuff... that locks certain files at the kernel level and notifies admin if anything tries to change.. THAT is an intrusion detection system. Someone has intruted, tried to modify something they shouldn't.. now you KNOW you have an intruder.
Triggers and such set up in some systems to detect when someone is where they shouldn't be is the real goal of an IDS.. not to tell you some new worm is trying to exploit your webserver.
The one thing that really gets ME about java (which I like, btw)..... is how damn confusing it is to figure out what Sun is talking about most of the time.
Now.. I'm not a software engineer... I'm not a professional programmer.. though I do code quite a bit. But I'm very computer savvy... and I find it *very* difficult, in reading through sun's Java stuff, to figure out what the hell they are talking about. I know there is something there... I know they have some really nice ideas and stuff.. but.. it's very, very confusing.
And I just have to wonder.. if I can't figure it out.. who can?
You see. that's where MS comes in... even if they sacrifice technical superiority.... It seems to me that Sun's stuff is just aimed at too high a level. You need some serious software engineering people to figure out how to use some of Sun's stuff.. with MS.. it's a level or two lower (and yes, less sophisticated)
I'll be the first to say that, all jokes aside.. as a Canadian, I find Americans, in general, to respect us as a country, and neighbor.
However.. ever heard of "manifest destiny"?
IT has long been part of the American culture tha the whole continent should be the United States.
Well.. you are trying to apply a moral philosophy to programming that could be applied to anything else in this world. Should people invest in companies that engage in questionalbe practices? Should the shareholders of Microsoft be at fault because of MS's anti-comptetitive practices? What about those who invest in weapons companies. They should all be guilty as well?
The GPL is about freedom of software. To restrict it's use is subjective. Is using it for weapons systems wrong? What if it's the only thing protecting you from some totalitarian regime trying to take over your country? Is it still wrong?
Pacifism is great, but it ignores reality.
I mean seriously.. if the price of the Oracle software is what stands in the way of the powers that be rolling out such a system, they have a serious problem already.
I also don't see the big controversy. The government already HAS huge databases, analyzed by supercomputers, to figure out things like taxes, and whatnot.. what's another database? The issue is how things are used, not that they exist.
I agree.
I think it's a cool device, for sure, I'd love to try one.
But it's not, fundamentally, much different for society than if we all had motorized scooters, or even bicycles. Oh sure, I can see why this could be a hit where the traditional motorized scooter ins't.. it's neat.. but.
WE've *long* had the option of building cities with other modes of transportation in mind. It just doesn't seem to happen. THe modern city is based on the Car, primarily, and the Pedestrian + mass transit secondarily. Yes, it sucks, but that's how it goes.
ON a side note.. I was really impressed by Amsterdam (Which is in the Netherlands, in case you don't know). Everywehre there is a road, there is a bike path. There appear to be more bikes than cars, by quite a large percentage.. (confusing for a westerner.. you keep walking from the sidewalk onto the bike path, then get angry dutch people dinging their bells at you to get out of the way)
Definately very cool though.
It can turn faster. (turning radius of 0, or the same as a pedestrian)
The control system is more intuitive (if it works as described). Less 'rough' than a scooter. Less like driving, more like walking.
And I don't think you can speak as to whether it's more reliable or not until you've used one, or at least until we have some statistical data. I tried closing my eyes and imaginging using these thigns (I have a good imagination)... seems more appealing than a scooter to me.
Only wierdo organized religion freaks think humans are 'special' because of their awareness of 'god'.
Humans are the only creatures gullible enough to be convinced there IS a god.
I'm trying to answer that.. but I don't see what you mean.
Definitions in the english language are based on what is generally accepted as the meaning of said words. Many words evolve into having many different meanings.
"Hacker", to most people in the English world, means someone who 'hacks into computers'
You know.. I used to think that.
But I have yet to see one, single security-minded 'hacker' tackle a real sysadmin job and do it any differently than those he previously lambasted for being 'dumb'.
Will you zealots learn that 'hacker' has different contexts, and that the majority of people view someone who breaks into computers as a 'hacker', therefore, THATS A VALID MEANING.
That's just a declaration of who owns copyright to things seen on the site.
Simply put... there's no such thing as an absolute value.
The Canadian dollar is worth less? Well, yes. But the average canadian salary is ALSO less, and the cost of living is different.
In the US, you have 10x the population, and enough people who can afford those higher prices.
Comparing $ to $ is not valid.. you have to look at the overall picture. Yes, equipemt cost more if you break it down per cusotmer, because they make less of each customer.. but that's about it. Plus, you have to take into account the simpler telecom infrastructure.. I suspect we have less taxes and less beurocracy.
Yes... I understand this.
Just pointing out that it's confusing for some.
Those are not 'critical' applications, and not the traditional embedded market either.
If a slot machine crashes, and needs to be restarted, it's not a disaster. The same for an ATM. SO long as neither will hand out oodles of cash for no reason, it's okay.
However, the flight control mechanims on a billion dollar spacecraft, or passenger jet, or fighter jet, those are *real* embedded systems.
The OS on your pacemaker, the computer in your car that controls the ABS... these are the kinds of things he means when he speaks of the 'traditional' embedded market.
Or how I like to think if it, 'computers inside things that aren't computers'. (A slot machine is kind of a computer, so is an ATM. but a car?)
Funny, that, considering CNAME means 'Canonical Name'
is the stupidest new domain yet.
Now take a deep breath. Better, yes?
I know well the quite common argument that EULA's are not 'enforcable' because it's not a real contract. No negotiation, no signatures, etc.
And certain facets of EULA's have been overturned in certain courts. However...
other parts of them can and will be enforced.
So.. when I buy an 'upgrade' version of XP, but find out I can do a tiny little hack and install the real thing.. I"m not breaking any rules, right? I bought the 'hardware' (CD) legitimately, and whatever I click on is not binding.. so..
I have no problem whatsoever with these 'restricted CD' things as long as they are clearly labeled as such, so I know they aren't a normal CD. No problem whatsoever.
Yes.. but isn't that how the entire @home network works? It's all different cable copmanies with some shared backbone.
Like, the IP addresses belong to @home, no?
Certainly, the infrastructure in a given place belongs to that cable company, and they have the equipment to proceed, but not necessarily the upstream network links, which may belong to excite..