Just because it's a bigger target doesn't mean it's a better target. Windows is a good target because it's big AND because it has a shit-ton of security flaws. You need to be a security expert to properly safeguard Windows, and most people don't have enough security expertise.
Actually, Righ Text format is still authorized. I can still send e-mail with bold, italics, colors, etc. I just can't use any embedded HTML.
For those who are interested, this is one of the (many) moves the DOD has taken over that past year or two in response to the continuing series of "F" grades DOD networks have received regarding their security. I'm the CIO at my command; I've had the "joy" of implemeting these changes - I took over the job right around the time the changes started.
I don't think DRM in this case is all that onerous. How is having a DRM ebook different than having an actual book on this point? If you bought a real book, you wouldn't be able to post it on the web, so why should this be any different?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DRM in principle. DRM for many things violates fair-use rights. I SHOULD be able to record TV shows however I want. I SHOULD be able to rip my CDs and DVDs to listen to/view them however I want.
DRM is not even so bad as poorly conceived laws *cough* DMCA *cough*. At least DRM is a mechanical means to an end, I can always use my hammer to break a lock, I can use technical means to get arond DRM.
I didn't RTFA, but I'm assuming the "books" come in some sort of data module that gets inserted into the book. So long as I can use that data module in whatever reader I want, I'm not sure how DRM is really that bad in this case. And even if I can't use it in whatever reader I want, even if I'm locked in to Sony-authorized readers... well, I don't hear too much about how people are pissed off that they can't play PS2 games on their Xbox; same here.
I was not trying to epitomize either Mormanism or Scientology as great examples of irrational, blind belief in something absurd. I actually know very little about Scientology, and I only know a little about Mormanism, and that from a friend of mine that was a Morman until HE couldn't take it, and therefor my view thereof is very skewed.
It was wrong of me to, in ignorance, take those as examples, and for any person who took my quick, unthinking comments as an attack on them personally, I am sorry.
I realized as soon as I clicked "Submit" that that perticular part of the comment probably was not what I should have said. Perhaps I should have said something right then....I don't know. I definately should not have said it in the first place.
I'll cede this argument to you for now; it's a very good point there, and I have neither the time to counter-point, nor the inclinition to try to bring down a strong and very coherent argument. It would basically boil down to how an atheist actually loses nothing, just like a believer, but, having to actually live in life, I must needs see to it.
One of these days I'll sit down and actually WRITE OUT what it was that, over the course of several years of thought, I came to believe when I was 22, and haven't shaken in the years since.
That's basically what I was saying, you're just taking the words, changing the modifier, and stating it differently. I'll demonstrate.
Let's define three states: you believe in the existence of God to some degree, you disbelieve the existence of God to some degree, and you have no idea. Then, either belief is as credible as disbelief, or belief is as incredible as disbelief.
The only difference between the two is whether you believe that belief is credible. In the fiorst form of the statement, you are saying "I don't know, but either could be right." The second form says something along the lines of "I don't know, but both are wrong."
Both cases lead to agnosticism, albeit different forms thereof. I happen to be of the former viewpoint, and your statemtnt lends itself to the latter. I yield that your viewpoint is as good as mine.
weylin
heh. after writing all this, I think I see what you were actually getting at. I apologize for the confusion; I was not trying to state that my entire viewpoint is that I believe God is a figment; rather, I consider myself to be an agnostic. I believe that one of two possibilities is true, and I don't have the necessary tools to determine which: either (a) God is a figment, and so should be derided for it's ability to cede humanities triumphs to some non-existent farce, or (b) God (or some supereme/supernatural being living outside the bounds of our own existence) is real, and I couldn't even begin to expound on the consequences that would have on existence. However, I also believe that people that take any of these as TRUTH have as much right as I do to believe what they believe, and are capable of being equally as clear-headed as I consider myself to be (though the argument thereto is for another time).
Well, what I was trying to say is that a more modern view seems to be that science is just us trying to understand God as best as we're able by trying to understand what He has done -- specifically, the rules by which He setup the universe.
I understood that an understanding of the whole of God is beyond the capability of humans, a much as the whole of humanity is beyond the understanding of an ant colony. But it is still possible for an ant to be aware of the fact that it's crawling on skin, and that the skin is soft and pliable compared to wood, even if the ant has no concept of the thought processes running through our minds. In the same way, it's possible to understand the universe, and therefor be more aware of God, even though such an understanding will only get us so far in our understanding.
I don't claim to be a historian; my view is potentially so skewed from reality as to be totally devoid thereof. However, from the few tidbits I have managed to overhear from people who do know of such things, this is the understanding I have come to.
heh. I actually find that interesting; I had not before known that.
I had heard that he was the one who originated the saying that "God does not play dice;" I always took that to mean that God doesn't do miracles, but did set the world up in a predictable manner, and Einstein was just trying to understand the rules. From that, I took it to mean that in some way, Einstein did actually believe in God.
Why do you think some of the most religious people are often absolute morons, and many intelligent, well-educated people often aren't highly religious? Idiots need an explanation for everything, intelligent people seek answers and do not believe in what they cannot prove to themselves.
You know, I used to think that, too. Then I realized that there are an awful lot of really smart people that are extremely religious, too. Albert Einstein, if I recall correctly, was a devout believer. Isaac Newton, when he was developing calculus and his theory of gravity, was trying to understand God.
It is the desire to understand God that has driven virtually all of scientific history, from Galileo to Planck, and only recently has science been transformed into only the desire to undersand our world. And even then, anyone with half a brain would see that we're really juyst trying to understand what God has given us, if you believe in God (see below). Of the viewpoint that I'm trying to expouse in this paragraph, I can't think of anything that can articulate it better the the end of the movie Contact.
I have come to the belief that religion is not about whether you can explain it or not, or even if it makes sense. If it had to make sense, there wouldn't be any Mormons or Scientologists. But all it really requires for belief in God is exactly that -- belief.
I for one do not actually believe. But I can see the draws to belief, and they are so strong that I sometimes have think twice about my reactions. Am I particularly bright? I don't think so. But neither do I think I'm really dumb.
So what's my point? Well, I guess it's that the part of your post I'm quoting was idiotic and immature, born of a sense of moral superiority for your beliefs and contempt for the viewpoints of others. I used to be the same way; only recently, I saw the errors of that way of thinking, and have become more tolerant and open-minded towards people who beilve in God, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Ra, or whatever faith you believe in. The rest of your post, on it's own merits, I belive to be accurate; however, in light of the point you were trying to make, is wholly inaccurate and inadequate as to what religion actually provides a society.
After all, after everything is said and done, you can't DISPROVE God; absence of proof is not proof of absence. Since you can't disprove it, you have to take into account that God is possible. Belief in God is just as credible -- not more than, and not less than (and that's the key point) -- as my belief that God does not actually exist, and is in fact a creation of our own minds.
Although maybe one of these days I'll be proven wrong. I look forward to that day.
Responses are welcome; this is the biggest area that I spend idle moments thinking.
actually, I've been a US submarine nuke for about 2.5 years now. right now I'm in school to become a certified nuclear engineer. luckily, this is the kind of thing I've been able to find in alternate sources so I don't mind talking about it.
I wouldn't trust the numbers though (except the beta/gama factor). i'm going off the top of my head, so things like the fission rate to get 1 R is probably a little off.
a Rem is the measure of damage caused by a Roenkgen (R) to the marrow of the thigh bone.
1 R is the amount of energy deposited by 100 ergs/cc radiation in dry air.
and, of course, 1 erg is the amount of radiation caused by 3 billion uranium-238 atoms fissioning.
or some shit like that....
the equation is REM = R*factor. for humans, the factors are:
beta/gamma: 1 neutron: 2 alpha: 10
of course, alphas get absorbed by your clothing before they ever reach you, and betas get absorbed by the dead skin in your epidermal layer, and radiation is rarely neutron, so for most cases:
heh. this is one of those few nuclear topics that I can actually comment on.
those numbers that are being quoted are for a burst dose -- ie you get it all at once. the effects change if you get a continuous, lower dose to the same levels.
I'm currently in the Navy's Nuclear Engineer school (2 more weeks and hopefully I'll be a certified nuclear engineer! hooray!). I don't have the numbers memorized, but this is along the lines of what they tell us (and yes, it's unclassified):
1 Rem = 1 mRem (milliRem)
The following are effects from burst doses
1 Rem
Prognossis: Excellent Effects: none Treatment: tell the guys he's a dumbass for thinking there's a problem
25 Rem
Prognossis: Excellent Effects: none Treatment: have him see a doctor just to make sure, but there's still really no problem. possible rise in chance to get cancer.
100 Rem
Prognossis: Good Effects: headache. 5% chance of vomitting within 4 hrs. Treatment: seek medical attention.
500 Rem
Prognossis: OK Effects: headache. 50% chance of vomitting within 2 hr. 5% chance of death within 4 months. Treatment: seek medical attention immediately.
1000 Rem
Prognossis: Guarded Effects: headache. 100% chance of vomiting within 1 hr. 50% chance of death within a short period (can't rememebr the time). Treatment: better get him to a doctor NOW!
5000 Rem
Prognossis: hopeless Effects: headache. 100% chance vomitting within 30 min. 100% chance of death within 48 hrs. Treatment: Give him sedatives. Call the morgue.
For those that are curious, the guys on K-19 probably got more than 5000 Rem.
And what do these mean? here are some numbers to compare against:
I work daily 15 feet from an operational reactor (I work on US submarines). my exposure last month: 4 mrem. my lifetime exposure:.106 (approx 1/10) Rem. (I've been doing this job for 2.5 yrs) The radiation levels in the Reactor Compartment 15 minutes after shutting down the reactor: ~50 mRem/hr (avg)
a day at the beach: 10 mRem per day smoking for a year: 1 Rem standing next to a bag of fertilizer: 2 mRem / day eating a banana: 4 mRem each
those numbers are mostly from betas and gammas. alphas only affect you if you get them inside you, which is why smokers get so much radiation, and neutron mostly is (a) really low-level and (b) passes right through you.
so what's my point?
1. I get less radiation from work that I do from living. 2. those numbers that they got from Chyrnobl are HUGE, but they can't happen on US Naval Reactors. Even if we were to completely melt down and spray our stuff all over the place, we would still be relatively clean (we use tiny reactors; we only need to power a 300' boat to 25+ knots, we don;t need to power an entire metropolis). besides, the most likely time that would occur is if we get hit with a depth charge, at which point's we'll sit on the bottom of the ocean and get covered with a whole hell of a lot of water!:-)
A few years ago, I got flooded with out-of-office replies to e-mail people were getting. the thing is, I didn't send it; someone had used one of the names on their spam list as the from: and reply-to: fields.
as I understand it, there's nothing that will stop this. Translation: this will slow down domain-spoofing spammers not in the least.
you say that you have "administered Linux web servers for several years." but:
- you don't know that the window manager and the underlying OS are different?
- you don't understand how to make the distro install work?
- you were surprised that you had to do some research when you tried to do something in linux that you had never done before?
- you were not sure what distribution you were going to install, based on your own knowledge?
I've only ever used two distros (RedHat 6, then that pissed me off and I installed LinuxFromScratch), but the first three of these are issues that I had figured out by the end of the FIRST week when I started using linux about 4 years ago.
admitedly the last issue took me a good year to figure out, but at that point it was an academic decision, not a research project to choose my next distro.
I did have the same problem when I tried to install my Lexmark Z51 about a month ago. but I knew I was ignorant on how to do what I needed to do, and I knew it was going to take a while to get things working. none of these ever caught me off gaurd.
I have never managed a web server, print server, ftp server, or any other kind of server. in fact, aside from managing my own at-home system, the only computer-related work i have ever done is about two-months of assistant administrator (in a win2k environment) between when I received my BS in CS and when I went off to the Navy's nuclear power school in Charleston, SC about 3 years ago. but the issues you pointed out, together with your surprise that they popped up, does not seem to jive with my experiences.
all that being said, i will agree with you that linux is not ready for prime time, despite what anybody ever will say. it should "just work." it should support most of the hardware that's out there actually in use. I should be able to configure everything via GUI, *if* I so chose. the big-ticket items (priting, networking, and major applications) MUST ABSOLUTELY WORK (printing is NOT there yet, the other two are close enough to be viable). we have some work to do. we are not there yet. but we are improving -- when I first started with linux, networking was just coming up to speed and office applications were cumbersome at best. and in only 4 years, we're at least close.
you actually can get two CPU coolers on any watercooling system. all you need to do is buy a 2nd waterblock, and splice it in when setting up the system. I don't know if either of the systems mentioned here sell CPU waterblocks on their own, but I do know that koolance does (that's what I'm using right now).
Think of it like this. Remember high school? Ever get picked on by the bully? Ever been the bully? Those are the two scenarios usually thought of for a military: either as a tool of aggression, or a tool of defense.
The only thing wrong with that view is that it is incorrect of the current US military.
The US military right now is like the high school quarterback: the number one guy out there, can bench 345, is an Eagle Scout, and a straight-A student (with NO "teacher-assistance"). We have the most capable equipment and the best training; the only ones that are close to us are the Brits, and they are on our side. There is NO navy that can realistically challenge ours in the open water (and little challenge near-shore), there is NO standing army that can stand up to a Marine Corps/Army assault supported by our Air Force and initial-assaulted by a power-projection-ashore provided by the navy.
So what do we actually do with that?
It used to be that this country believed in isolationism (to an extent). Before WWII, we never had a large standing military. There have been times in our history where our navy consisted of a token force that did not actually have any ships, and an army that was more for force-protection at home than power-projection abroad. What we have realised sionce then is that this DOES NOT WORK. you HAVE to maintain a decent military, or you get Pearl-Harbor attacks all the time.
But there is another benefit to being the best. We can maintain peace. there is no other country in the history of the world that has ever used their military to provide the humanitarian relief that we do. admitedly, going in guns blazing does not make people happy about things (ok, it pisses them off), but what we do is better than standing idly by. We are like that quarterback, when he finds that there's some nerd getting beat up by some bullies, who then goes in and defends the nerd.
We do not go around with a big military and bully people to do what we want (well, ok, so we DO bully people around, but with our economy, not our military). We go around and make sure that there are no gross violations of humanitarian laws (I think that's what Yugoslavia was about; there are other examples which currently elude my memory). We do this because it's the right thing to do, and it is polliticaly feasible (eh. we're not completely altruistic).
the only way to maintain our ability to do what we do is to continuously advance our weaponry and our defenses, to continuously train our troops, and to continually plan for unforseen circumstances which we just thought up.
if we let ourselves slip, we will not be able to maintain peace, and will soon find ourselves at war.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a lot of comments sugest the WIndows is easier to target because it has a larger marketshare.
This is a BS argument. Here is one example of a program with larger marketshare but fewer cracks, both attempts and percentage successes:
Apache
IIS
Just because it's a bigger target doesn't mean it's a better target. Windows is a good target because it's big AND because it has a shit-ton of security flaws. You need to be a security expert to properly safeguard Windows, and most people don't have enough security expertise.
Weylin
Actually, Righ Text format is still authorized. I can still send e-mail with bold, italics, colors, etc. I just can't use any embedded HTML.
For those who are interested, this is one of the (many) moves the DOD has taken over that past year or two in response to the continuing series of "F" grades DOD networks have received regarding their security. I'm the CIO at my command; I've had the "joy" of implemeting these changes - I took over the job right around the time the changes started.
I don't think DRM in this case is all that onerous. How is having a DRM ebook different than having an actual book on this point? If you bought a real book, you wouldn't be able to post it on the web, so why should this be any different?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DRM in principle. DRM for many things violates fair-use rights. I SHOULD be able to record TV shows however I want. I SHOULD be able to rip my CDs and DVDs to listen to/view them however I want.
DRM is not even so bad as poorly conceived laws *cough* DMCA *cough*. At least DRM is a mechanical means to an end, I can always use my hammer to break a lock, I can use technical means to get arond DRM.
I didn't RTFA, but I'm assuming the "books" come in some sort of data module that gets inserted into the book. So long as I can use that data module in whatever reader I want, I'm not sure how DRM is really that bad in this case. And even if I can't use it in whatever reader I want, even if I'm locked in to Sony-authorized readers... well, I don't hear too much about how people are pissed off that they can't play PS2 games on their Xbox; same here.
Well, to allay your hurt feelings.
I sincerely apologize.
I was not trying to epitomize either Mormanism or Scientology as great examples of irrational, blind belief in something absurd. I actually know very little about Scientology, and I only know a little about Mormanism, and that from a friend of mine that was a Morman until HE couldn't take it, and therefor my view thereof is very skewed.
It was wrong of me to, in ignorance, take those as examples, and for any person who took my quick, unthinking comments as an attack on them personally, I am sorry.
I realized as soon as I clicked "Submit" that that perticular part of the comment probably was not what I should have said. Perhaps I should have said something right then....I don't know. I definately should not have said it in the first place.
Again, I apologize..
weylin
Heh. I'll be light-hearted for a minute.
As Bill Clinton said: "It depends on what your definition of 'is,' is."
The weird thing, if you listen to his whole question/reply: he was right.
weylin
I'll cede this argument to you for now; it's a very good point there, and I have neither the time to counter-point, nor the inclinition to try to bring down a strong and very coherent argument. It would basically boil down to how an atheist actually loses nothing, just like a believer, but, having to actually live in life, I must needs see to it.
One of these days I'll sit down and actually WRITE OUT what it was that, over the course of several years of thought, I came to believe when I was 22, and haven't shaken in the years since.
weylin
heh. good point. and light-hearted, to boot. :-)
weylin
That's basically what I was saying, you're just taking the words, changing the modifier, and stating it differently. I'll demonstrate.
Let's define three states: you believe in the existence of God to some degree, you disbelieve the existence of God to some degree, and you have no idea. Then, either belief is as credible as disbelief, or belief is as incredible as disbelief.
The only difference between the two is whether you believe that belief is credible. In the fiorst form of the statement, you are saying "I don't know, but either could be right." The second form says something along the lines of "I don't know, but both are wrong."
Both cases lead to agnosticism, albeit different forms thereof. I happen to be of the former viewpoint, and your statemtnt lends itself to the latter. I yield that your viewpoint is as good as mine.
weylin
heh. after writing all this, I think I see what you were actually getting at. I apologize for the confusion; I was not trying to state that my entire viewpoint is that I believe God is a figment; rather, I consider myself to be an agnostic. I believe that one of two possibilities is true, and I don't have the necessary tools to determine which: either (a) God is a figment, and so should be derided for it's ability to cede humanities triumphs to some non-existent farce, or (b) God (or some supereme/supernatural being living outside the bounds of our own existence) is real, and I couldn't even begin to expound on the consequences that would have on existence. However, I also believe that people that take any of these as TRUTH have as much right as I do to believe what they believe, and are capable of being equally as clear-headed as I consider myself to be (though the argument thereto is for another time).
Well, what I was trying to say is that a more modern view seems to be that science is just us trying to understand God as best as we're able by trying to understand what He has done -- specifically, the rules by which He setup the universe.
I understood that an understanding of the whole of God is beyond the capability of humans, a much as the whole of humanity is beyond the understanding of an ant colony. But it is still possible for an ant to be aware of the fact that it's crawling on skin, and that the skin is soft and pliable compared to wood, even if the ant has no concept of the thought processes running through our minds. In the same way, it's possible to understand the universe, and therefor be more aware of God, even though such an understanding will only get us so far in our understanding.
I don't claim to be a historian; my view is potentially so skewed from reality as to be totally devoid thereof. However, from the few tidbits I have managed to overhear from people who do know of such things, this is the understanding I have come to.
weylin
He couldn't belive in random chance.
I think it was Einstein who said "God does not play dice."
weylin
heh. I actually find that interesting; I had not before known that.
I had heard that he was the one who originated the saying that "God does not play dice;" I always took that to mean that God doesn't do miracles, but did set the world up in a predictable manner, and Einstein was just trying to understand the rules. From that, I took it to mean that in some way, Einstein did actually believe in God.
Thank you for correcting me.
weylin
Why do you think some of the most religious people are often absolute morons, and many intelligent, well-educated people often aren't highly religious? Idiots need an explanation for everything, intelligent people seek answers and do not believe in what they cannot prove to themselves.
You know, I used to think that, too. Then I realized that there are an awful lot of really smart people that are extremely religious, too. Albert Einstein, if I recall correctly, was a devout believer. Isaac Newton, when he was developing calculus and his theory of gravity, was trying to understand God.
It is the desire to understand God that has driven virtually all of scientific history, from Galileo to Planck, and only recently has science been transformed into only the desire to undersand our world. And even then, anyone with half a brain would see that we're really juyst trying to understand what God has given us, if you believe in God (see below). Of the viewpoint that I'm trying to expouse in this paragraph, I can't think of anything that can articulate it better the the end of the movie Contact.
I have come to the belief that religion is not about whether you can explain it or not, or even if it makes sense. If it had to make sense, there wouldn't be any Mormons or Scientologists. But all it really requires for belief in God is exactly that -- belief.
I for one do not actually believe. But I can see the draws to belief, and they are so strong that I sometimes have think twice about my reactions. Am I particularly bright? I don't think so. But neither do I think I'm really dumb.
So what's my point? Well, I guess it's that the part of your post I'm quoting was idiotic and immature, born of a sense of moral superiority for your beliefs and contempt for the viewpoints of others. I used to be the same way; only recently, I saw the errors of that way of thinking, and have become more tolerant and open-minded towards people who beilve in God, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Ra, or whatever faith you believe in. The rest of your post, on it's own merits, I belive to be accurate; however, in light of the point you were trying to make, is wholly inaccurate and inadequate as to what religion actually provides a society.
After all, after everything is said and done, you can't DISPROVE God; absence of proof is not proof of absence. Since you can't disprove it, you have to take into account that God is possible. Belief in God is just as credible -- not more than, and not less than (and that's the key point) -- as my belief that God does not actually exist, and is in fact a creation of our own minds.
Although maybe one of these days I'll be proven wrong. I look forward to that day.
Responses are welcome; this is the biggest area that I spend idle moments thinking.
weylin
actually, I've been a US submarine nuke for about 2.5 years now. right now I'm in school to become a certified nuclear engineer. luckily, this is the kind of thing I've been able to find in alternate sources so I don't mind talking about it.
I wouldn't trust the numbers though (except the beta/gama factor). i'm going off the top of my head, so things like the fission rate to get 1 R is probably a little off.
weylin
I'll get to that after I fix the clogged seawater system, and the SCRAM the reactor operator inserted to fix it :-)
weylin
REM = Roenkgen Equivelant in Man
a Rem is the measure of damage caused by a Roenkgen (R) to the marrow of the thigh bone.
1 R is the amount of energy deposited by 100 ergs/cc radiation in dry air.
and, of course, 1 erg is the amount of radiation caused by 3 billion uranium-238 atoms fissioning.
or some shit like that....
the equation is REM = R*factor. for humans, the factors are:
beta/gamma: 1
neutron: 2
alpha: 10
of course, alphas get absorbed by your clothing before they ever reach you, and betas get absorbed by the dead skin in your epidermal layer, and radiation is rarely neutron, so for most cases:
1 R = 1 REM
kinda nice that they set it up that way, huh?
weylin
oops. sorry. 1 Rem = 1000 mRem.
sorry. my bad
weylin
those numbers that are being quoted are for a burst dose -- ie you get it all at once. the effects change if you get a continuous, lower dose to the same levels.
I'm currently in the Navy's Nuclear Engineer school (2 more weeks and hopefully I'll be a certified nuclear engineer! hooray!). I don't have the numbers memorized, but this is along the lines of what they tell us (and yes, it's unclassified):
1 Rem = 1 mRem (milliRem)
The following are effects from burst doses
Prognossis: Excellent
Effects: none
Treatment: tell the guys he's a dumbass for thinking there's a problem
Prognossis: Excellent
Effects: none
Treatment: have him see a doctor just to make sure, but there's still really no problem. possible rise in chance to get cancer.
Prognossis: Good
Effects: headache. 5% chance of vomitting within 4 hrs.
Treatment: seek medical attention.
Prognossis: OK
Effects: headache. 50% chance of vomitting within 2 hr. 5% chance of death within 4 months.
Treatment: seek medical attention immediately.
Prognossis: Guarded
Effects: headache. 100% chance of vomiting within 1 hr. 50% chance of death within a short period (can't rememebr the time).
Treatment: better get him to a doctor NOW!
Prognossis: hopeless
Effects: headache. 100% chance vomitting within 30 min. 100% chance of death within 48 hrs.
Treatment: Give him sedatives. Call the morgue.
For those that are curious, the guys on K-19 probably got more than 5000 Rem.
And what do these mean? here are some numbers to compare against:
I work daily 15 feet from an operational reactor (I work on US submarines).
my exposure last month: 4 mrem.
my lifetime exposure:
The radiation levels in the Reactor Compartment 15 minutes after shutting down the reactor: ~50 mRem/hr (avg)
a day at the beach: 10 mRem per day
smoking for a year: 1 Rem
standing next to a bag of fertilizer: 2 mRem / day
eating a banana: 4 mRem each
those numbers are mostly from betas and gammas. alphas only affect you if you get them inside you, which is why smokers get so much radiation, and neutron mostly is (a) really low-level and (b) passes right through you.
so what's my point?
1. I get less radiation from work that I do from living.
2. those numbers that they got from Chyrnobl are HUGE, but they can't happen on US Naval Reactors. Even if we were to completely melt down and spray our stuff all over the place, we would still be relatively clean (we use tiny reactors; we only need to power a 300' boat to 25+ knots, we don;t need to power an entire metropolis). besides, the most likely time that would occur is if we get hit with a depth charge, at which point's we'll sit on the bottom of the ocean and get covered with a whole hell of a lot of water!
weylin
This won't work.
A few years ago, I got flooded with out-of-office replies to e-mail people were getting. the thing is, I didn't send it; someone had used one of the names on their spam list as the from: and reply-to: fields.
as I understand it, there's nothing that will stop this. Translation: this will slow down domain-spoofing spammers not in the least.
weylin
I think I may be missing something.
you say that you have "administered Linux web servers for several years." but:
- you don't know that the window manager and the underlying OS are different?
- you don't understand how to make the distro install work?
- you were surprised that you had to do some research when you tried to do something in linux that you had never done before?
- you were not sure what distribution you were going to install, based on your own knowledge?
I've only ever used two distros (RedHat 6, then that pissed me off and I installed LinuxFromScratch), but the first three of these are issues that I had figured out by the end of the FIRST week when I started using linux about 4 years ago.
admitedly the last issue took me a good year to figure out, but at that point it was an academic decision, not a research project to choose my next distro.
I did have the same problem when I tried to install my Lexmark Z51 about a month ago. but I knew I was ignorant on how to do what I needed to do, and I knew it was going to take a while to get things working. none of these ever caught me off gaurd.
I have never managed a web server, print server, ftp server, or any other kind of server. in fact, aside from managing my own at-home system, the only computer-related work i have ever done is about two-months of assistant administrator (in a win2k environment) between when I received my BS in CS and when I went off to the Navy's nuclear power school in Charleston, SC about 3 years ago. but the issues you pointed out, together with your surprise that they popped up, does not seem to jive with my experiences.
all that being said, i will agree with you that linux is not ready for prime time, despite what anybody ever will say. it should "just work." it should support most of the hardware that's out there actually in use. I should be able to configure everything via GUI, *if* I so chose. the big-ticket items (priting, networking, and major applications) MUST ABSOLUTELY WORK (printing is NOT there yet, the other two are close enough to be viable). we have some work to do. we are not there yet. but we are improving -- when I first started with linux, networking was just coming up to speed and office applications were cumbersome at best. and in only 4 years, we're at least close.
weylin
EXACTLY!
It's not the size that matters, its how you use...
oh, wait...
weylin
the article on overclocker cafe talks about a system that mounts into the case with strong magnets.
so, let me get this straight: you want to put MAGNETS next to HARD DRIVES?!?!
doesn't seem like a good idea to me...
weylin
weylin
amazing. I went to the site to look at his pictures (just for the hell of it), and it returned:
/.'ed!
/. effect?
"this site temporarily suspended due to excessive bandwidth consumption"
i.e., it was cut off because it got
is this the first time that a COMMENT has caused the
weylin
You're missing the point.
Think of it like this. Remember high school? Ever get picked on by the bully? Ever been the bully? Those are the two scenarios usually thought of for a military: either as a tool of aggression, or a tool of defense.
The only thing wrong with that view is that it is incorrect of the current US military.
The US military right now is like the high school quarterback: the number one guy out there, can bench 345, is an Eagle Scout, and a straight-A student (with NO "teacher-assistance"). We have the most capable equipment and the best training; the only ones that are close to us are the Brits, and they are on our side. There is NO navy that can realistically challenge ours in the open water (and little challenge near-shore), there is NO standing army that can stand up to a Marine Corps/Army assault supported by our Air Force and initial-assaulted by a power-projection-ashore provided by the navy.
So what do we actually do with that?
It used to be that this country believed in isolationism (to an extent). Before WWII, we never had a large standing military. There have been times in our history where our navy consisted of a token force that did not actually have any ships, and an army that was more for force-protection at home than power-projection abroad. What we have realised sionce then is that this DOES NOT WORK. you HAVE to maintain a decent military, or you get Pearl-Harbor attacks all the time.
But there is another benefit to being the best. We can maintain peace. there is no other country in the history of the world that has ever used their military to provide the humanitarian relief that we do. admitedly, going in guns blazing does not make people happy about things (ok, it pisses them off), but what we do is better than standing idly by. We are like that quarterback, when he finds that there's some nerd getting beat up by some bullies, who then goes in and defends the nerd.
We do not go around with a big military and bully people to do what we want (well, ok, so we DO bully people around, but with our economy, not our military). We go around and make sure that there are no gross violations of humanitarian laws (I think that's what Yugoslavia was about; there are other examples which currently elude my memory). We do this because it's the right thing to do, and it is polliticaly feasible (eh. we're not completely altruistic).
the only way to maintain our ability to do what we do is to continuously advance our weaponry and our defenses, to continuously train our troops, and to continually plan for unforseen circumstances which we just thought up.
if we let ourselves slip, we will not be able to maintain peace, and will soon find ourselves at war.
weylin
true, but the original poster was multiplying.
of course, insanity + insanity is also insanity.
insanity could also be infinity for both of these cases; I am not sure whether infinifty is ever an identity.
ok, i'm getting too dorky for me to continue.....
weylin