If the computer is on a network with malware or other threats, you are exposing an unpatched computer with no admin password to them.
Advanced users can judge whether that's a risk (e.g., 'this computer is the only one on this network behind a NAT router'), but many users won't anticipate many risks such as other computers with infections that nobody has noticed, malware on other devices (handhelds, etc.), unknown users on open wifi, or the exposure from publicly routable Internet addresses.
Rather than risk an error and infecting the computer from the start, setting an admin password isn't much burden. It takes seconds to enter it.
In general, I think you are right about sports in higher education, but...
More is spent on sports then is received back to students as services
I'm not sure what you mean, but Michigan's athletic department pays for itself and makes a profit. Nothing is taken away from the rest of the university.
One challenge schools have is that sports programs are great publicity. Win and applications increase. As a simple example, who heard of Gonzaga before they started winning basketball games?
Authorities such as major companies and governments have adopted a new paternalism: They know what is best for you, and will do it without your consent and often with transparency.
Consider the greatly diminished respect for privacy (e.g., the tracking and monitoring by government and corporations alike), for end-user control (authorities decide what software you can install, whether and when it updates, what websites you can visit, what files you can store, etc.).
From Apple to government, they claim it provides a better user experience. Your computer works better, you are more secure, etc. And they don't reveal what they know or are doing.
As long as the user experience is good, no one seems to mind.
if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.
No serious party is making those predictions or proposals. Only the deniers characterize the argument that way. Read the actual science and proposals, instead of the characterizations by their political opponents; for example read the IPCC reports (or just the summaries, which are relatively short); they are what you are looking for.
Your assurance doesn't help in the face of the facts. Also, the free market would work better if those emitting carbon had to pay for it, instead of dumping the cost on everyone else: It creates a false incentive to the emitters (carbon emission is free!) and runs up my taxes and bills.
They are the reason environmentalism has lost its credibility, and the public doesn't even hear about issues much more pressing than global warming like pollution, habitat destruction, overfishing/hunting and global extinction.
The reason is an extensive FUD campaign by the carbon industries. In no way are the impacts and risks of those other issues greater than climate change.
Why do so many critics of climate change mainstream resort to name calling? I think it's a rhetorical tactic, to appear uncompromising and intimidating. But at the same time, it undermines credibility -- it seems like you have nothing to say and are falling back on tactics.
It's far cleaner (and greener) than coal, which is what we call "compromise" and taking "baby steps". These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand
Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.
There is a very straightforward solution: Sensible policies.
I know what you are thinking: 'That's politically impossible'. That's what obstructionists want you to think, that nothing can get done. Don't be so easily intimidated and demoralized. If you want it done, it will happen. Every other advanced economy manages it; we can too.
The obstructionists are out of steam; their tactics are obvious and they have little left to say. I think Churchill said, 'America always does the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities'. I think we're just about at that point.
Natural gas is not clean energy. I seem to remember that the greenhouse gasses emitted during extraction and processing of shale gas, which is the source of most of our current boom IIRC, offsets any benefits. Does anyone know?
You appear to be assuming that the cycle will repeat eternally just because it has done so over a finite term?
A fair question, but no. There is a very strong theoretical and empirical basis for it; it has occurred since the dawn of humanity. Career options not only have changed since 1980 and 1900, but look back to 1850, 1776, the Romans, hunter-gatherers -- anyone need a horse trainer? Slave overseer? Stonemason for cobblestone roads? Flint spear maker?
I will say this: While it works in aggregate, it is hard on individuals. When your skills become obsolete or demand for them moves to another continent, society benefits from efficiency but you pay the price.
Assuming that the Stuxnet/Flame attackers are trying to avoid being detected and are not announcing their presence with cheap pranks, the report, if true, would mean someone else has broken into Iranian nuclear weapons research systems, and that it's someone so unprofessional and unskilled that they are doing it as a prank.
Those systems may contain data that nuclear proliferators would love. If they are that insecure, then everything the Iranians have learned could spread rapidly.
As farming declined, new jobs were created in war (World War 2) and manufacturing (first for the war, then for civilian use). Why do you assume history will repeat?
It's fundamental economics. It repeats over and over again, across place and time. Look up 'creative destruction'.
It has repeated in the U.S. many times since then; look at jobs people had in the 1950s, or 1980s -- many or most are now gone, replaced by new jobs. Where do all those software developers and web designers come from? I suspect that most of the jobs of Slashdot readers didn't exist in 1980.
There are plenty of places in the world where farming jobs have not been replaced by something else. Brazil is a good example.
Brazil is an interesting choice. The unemployment rate is under 6% and it's one of the great economic success stories in the world, maybe in the history of the world. Tens of millions of people have been lifted out of abject poverty.
Not that the comparisons count for much, but it's disappointing that Slashdot's headline says "Notably Improved" when Firefox won the three previous comparisons and finished second this time:
I've been told that this trick works very well with double-hung windows: Put both panes of glass in the middle of window, leaving gaps at the top and bottom. In theory the hot air goes out the top, pulling in cooler air at the bottom, and it efficiently cools rooms (or at least equalizes the temperature inside and out).
Does anyone know? I have to buy new screens before I try it here.
(Of course, it requires that the air outside is cooler than the air inside.)
I've also been a pair Networks customer for many years. While their network availability is very good, which is why we use them, but their support is only fair and very frustrating. (Their email availability on shared servers is only fair, with so many long delays that our users have started using personal webmail accounts.) Our experiences are so consistent over so long, I have a hard time believing what the others are posting here. Every support request receives the following responses, in order:
1) The problem you report isn't occurring 2) The problem is your fault 3) (Sometimes:) There is nothing we can do about the problem 4) They look into the problem, if it's still occurring at this point, and often fix it.
it's so consistent that it is a running joke in our organization; we bet on what excuses they will use.
Many support personal lack basic IT knowledge, like reading email headers and understanding traceroutes. And they often do *not* read emails carefully. It's a struggle to get support, and timely support is impossible -- it takes a day at least to get to step 4.
What do SEALs have to do with it? Are they going to infiltrate the datacenters of privacy violators and blow them up? Secure this company's underwater cables? Now some NSA or CIA signals intelligence veterans might be helpful.
Search the list for "Amazon" and you'll find "Amazon EU S.Ã r.l" applying for many generic domains (as well as.amazon,.aws, and.imdb, which suggests it is the same business as Amazon.com), some related to their business and some not:
If you would respond respectfully and constructively, I would take your comments seriously. Unfortunately, any ideas and intelligence are overshadowed by the ugliness.
But I suspect this is a "have cake and eat it" moment. I imagine a nature preserve that both offers great birdwatching and good views of exciting rocket launches is going to be a bit more popular than either possibility taken separately.
Slashdot Mirror
End user control of their data, and the confidentiality, integrity and reliability that goes with it.
There's also fraud, which isn't exactly polled for either.
Apparently there's not a lot of fraud, because the vote pretty much matched the polls.
If the computer is on a network with malware or other threats, you are exposing an unpatched computer with no admin password to them.
Advanced users can judge whether that's a risk (e.g., 'this computer is the only one on this network behind a NAT router'), but many users won't anticipate many risks such as other computers with infections that nobody has noticed, malware on other devices (handhelds, etc.), unknown users on open wifi, or the exposure from publicly routable Internet addresses.
Rather than risk an error and infecting the computer from the start, setting an admin password isn't much burden. It takes seconds to enter it.
2. install Windows and create a user you will use for the "root" work. Call ist root, if you like, or boss orbwhatever. Do NOT set a password yet!
Why not? Setting a strong admin password is usually the first thing I do.
More and more people work on mobile platforms. Is OpenOffice going to provide them with a solution?
In general, I think you are right about sports in higher education, but ...
More is spent on sports then is received back to students as services
I'm not sure what you mean, but Michigan's athletic department pays for itself and makes a profit. Nothing is taken away from the rest of the university.
One challenge schools have is that sports programs are great publicity. Win and applications increase. As a simple example, who heard of Gonzaga before they started winning basketball games?
Authorities such as major companies and governments have adopted a new paternalism: They know what is best for you, and will do it without your consent and often with transparency.
Consider the greatly diminished respect for privacy (e.g., the tracking and monitoring by government and corporations alike), for end-user control (authorities decide what software you can install, whether and when it updates, what websites you can visit, what files you can store, etc.).
From Apple to government, they claim it provides a better user experience. Your computer works better, you are more secure, etc. And they don't reveal what they know or are doing.
As long as the user experience is good, no one seems to mind.
if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.
No serious party is making those predictions or proposals. Only the deniers characterize the argument that way. Read the actual science and proposals, instead of the characterizations by their political opponents; for example read the IPCC reports (or just the summaries, which are relatively short); they are what you are looking for.
Your assurance doesn't help in the face of the facts. Also, the free market would work better if those emitting carbon had to pay for it, instead of dumping the cost on everyone else: It creates a false incentive to the emitters (carbon emission is free!) and runs up my taxes and bills.
They are the reason environmentalism has lost its credibility, and the public doesn't even hear about issues much more pressing than global warming like pollution, habitat destruction, overfishing/hunting and global extinction.
The reason is an extensive FUD campaign by the carbon industries. In no way are the impacts and risks of those other issues greater than climate change.
Why do so many critics of climate change mainstream resort to name calling? I think it's a rhetorical tactic, to appear uncompromising and intimidating. But at the same time, it undermines credibility -- it seems like you have nothing to say and are falling back on tactics.
It's far cleaner (and greener) than coal, which is what we call "compromise" and taking "baby steps". These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand
Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.
There is a very straightforward solution: Sensible policies.
I know what you are thinking: 'That's politically impossible'. That's what obstructionists want you to think, that nothing can get done. Don't be so easily intimidated and demoralized. If you want it done, it will happen. Every other advanced economy manages it; we can too.
The obstructionists are out of steam; their tactics are obvious and they have little left to say. I think Churchill said, 'America always does the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities'. I think we're just about at that point.
Natural gas is not clean energy. I seem to remember that the greenhouse gasses emitted during extraction and processing of shale gas, which is the source of most of our current boom IIRC, offsets any benefits. Does anyone know?
You appear to be assuming that the cycle will repeat eternally just because it has done so over a finite term?
A fair question, but no. There is a very strong theoretical and empirical basis for it; it has occurred since the dawn of humanity. Career options not only have changed since 1980 and 1900, but look back to 1850, 1776, the Romans, hunter-gatherers -- anyone need a horse trainer? Slave overseer? Stonemason for cobblestone roads? Flint spear maker?
I will say this: While it works in aggregate, it is hard on individuals. When your skills become obsolete or demand for them moves to another continent, society benefits from efficiency but you pay the price.
If it is true, it's bad news:
Assuming that the Stuxnet/Flame attackers are trying to avoid being detected and are not announcing their presence with cheap pranks, the report, if true, would mean someone else has broken into Iranian nuclear weapons research systems, and that it's someone so unprofessional and unskilled that they are doing it as a prank.
Those systems may contain data that nuclear proliferators would love. If they are that insecure, then everything the Iranians have learned could spread rapidly.
As farming declined, new jobs were created in war (World War 2) and manufacturing (first for the war, then for civilian use). Why do you assume history will repeat?
It's fundamental economics. It repeats over and over again, across place and time. Look up 'creative destruction'.
It has repeated in the U.S. many times since then; look at jobs people had in the 1950s, or 1980s -- many or most are now gone, replaced by new jobs. Where do all those software developers and web designers come from? I suspect that most of the jobs of Slashdot readers didn't exist in 1980.
There are plenty of places in the world where farming jobs have not been replaced by something else. Brazil is a good example.
Brazil is an interesting choice. The unemployment rate is under 6% and it's one of the great economic success stories in the world, maybe in the history of the world. Tens of millions of people have been lifted out of abject poverty.
Sorry for the typo; here is Grand Prix 8:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/macbook-air-chrome-16-firefox-9-benchmark,3108-18.html
Not that the comparisons count for much, but it's disappointing that Slashdot's headline says "Notably Improved" when Firefox won the three previous comparisons and finished second this time:
* Grand Prix 7
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-7-web-browser,3037-17.html
* Grand Prix 8
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-17-firefox-10-ubuntu,3129-18.html
* Grand Prix 9
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-17-firefox-10-ubuntu,3129-18.html
I've been told that this trick works very well with double-hung windows: Put both panes of glass in the middle of window, leaving gaps at the top and bottom. In theory the hot air goes out the top, pulling in cooler air at the bottom, and it efficiently cools rooms (or at least equalizes the temperature inside and out).
Does anyone know? I have to buy new screens before I try it here.
(Of course, it requires that the air outside is cooler than the air inside.)
I've also been a pair Networks customer for many years. While their network availability is very good, which is why we use them, but their support is only fair and very frustrating. (Their email availability on shared servers is only fair, with so many long delays that our users have started using personal webmail accounts.) Our experiences are so consistent over so long, I have a hard time believing what the others are posting here. Every support request receives the following responses, in order:
1) The problem you report isn't occurring
2) The problem is your fault
3) (Sometimes:) There is nothing we can do about the problem
4) They look into the problem, if it's still occurring at this point, and often fix it.
it's so consistent that it is a running joke in our organization; we bet on what excuses they will use.
Many support personal lack basic IT knowledge, like reading email headers and understanding traceroutes. And they often do *not* read emails carefully. It's a struggle to get support, and timely support is impossible -- it takes a day at least to get to step 4.
What do SEALs have to do with it? Are they going to infiltrate the datacenters of privacy violators and blow them up? Secure this company's underwater cables? Now some NSA or CIA signals intelligence veterans might be helpful.
Search the list for "Amazon" and you'll find "Amazon EU S.Ã r.l" applying for many generic domains (as well as .amazon,.aws, and .imdb, which suggests it is the same business as Amazon.com), some related to their business and some not:
.app
.audible
.author
.book
.bot
.box
.buy
.call
.circle
.cloud
.coupon
.deal
.dev
.drive
.fast
.fire
.free
.game
.got
.group
.hot
... I stopped there.
So sure, it's better than China. But not by much.
Not by much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_revolution
If you would respond respectfully and constructively, I would take your comments seriously. Unfortunately, any ideas and intelligence are overshadowed by the ugliness.
But I suspect this is a "have cake and eat it" moment. I imagine a nature preserve that both offers great birdwatching and good views of exciting rocket launches is going to be a bit more popular than either possibility taken separately.
"suspect" and "imagine", but why would someone believe it, other than hope. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2891075&cid=40196247