Well, one of the benefits of the sim series is that it teaches some cause and effect; and could also impart some sense of the necessity for order in a society/microcosm. For juvenile defenders, this is probably the thing they lack most.
Porn, mp3, etc. are all things that a given corporation has a right (and in the case of porn, a responsibility) to keep out of its network. And before you go off on those two, they're just part of a MUCH greater whole. The only way to do this is to allow monitoring/filtering. Because you can't just apply that allowance to people you think are bad people (how would you defend that in court?), you have to apply it to everybody. Not everything is a conspiracy. This monitoring thing becomes a very practical issue very quickly, and quite frankly, has very little to do with power. To dismiss it as such is to oversimplify it without giving it due thought. In other words, to say that it's all about power and the man is just lazy.
I agree completely. As the employer, it is MY computer that you're using, and as such, anything that happens on that computer is MY business. If I choose not to impose monitoring on you, then I'm a heck of a guy. But while you're using MY computer and MY bandwidth, it is not your God-given right to surf wherever you want and without oversight from me. How in God's name would I maintain any control over the network if I'm not allowed to monitor it? Even recording the target addresses of outgoing traffic would constitute a violation of privacy. So what do I do? Do I go around asking each person "Hey, did you do anything I should punish you for today?" Give me a break. Most of us operate under some policy that allows our employer to monitor/control our network use, and don't make a federal case of it. We just behave and go on. It's just that the ego of a federal judge is somewhere on the 40th floor compared to us.
Integration is probably the best part of AIX. By that, I mean using AIX on IBM hardware, and interfacing with IBM products. Granted, the downside of that is the expense of IBM stuff; but you get a robustness that linux really can't yet compete with.
Now, in step with the comment from IBM that if Linux could do everything theirs could, and do it as well, they'd be satisfied... well, I would too. But I think that's a big "if" right now.
You can be a zealot all you want, and you can argue points of philosophy and theory; but I work with both of them extensively, and AIX is MUCH more stable.
Again, if Linux reaches a point where it can honestly compete, I'm happy to use it. But it's got a ways to go.
The catch to that argument is that the companies ultimately pay those bills, not necessarily the government. The taxes and "insurances" paid by employers is pretty impressive when it comes to entitlements. Also, she wasn't suing the company to get disability from the government. She was suing the company to get money from them.
Although I've never had a class on the subject, practical experience tells me that you're right. There are a lot of old wood and fabric airplanes out there, as well as some composites that show up just fine on radar. Also, we locate precipitation with radar. So if water reflects radar, I'm going to have to assume that the composites they used in this thing would also.
Yes, the tough thing about freedom is that if it's implemented without responsibility (read: laws and rules to ensure that your freedom doesn't come at the expense of mine) it becomes self-destructive. You're freedom allows you to do something that I perceive as taking mine away, so I kill you. Your brother rightly perceives me as having taken some freedom from you, and kills me. In the end, the guy with the fastest gun wins, and well, what do you have then that resembles freedom?
So we set up these rules and elect people we trust enough to vote for. We elect them to oversee the rules, so that we all have some input. Also, we have debates like this one to encourage eachother to vote as we would; because just having an opinion doesn't get anything done.
So you don't end up with freedom. You end up with democracy, which is not the same thing. Ideally, democracy comes as close to freedom as possible, without letting it become self-destructive.
So if we don't like DMCA, or any other law/legislation, we need to be more aggressive about getting out the vote. If we cry and cry and cry, and nobody changes things; then we need to deal with the fact that we're currently a minority opinion, and keep working to change it. And that, my friends, is what's happening. The U.S. may use the word "freedom" in its dealings around the world; but it really means democracy. And I think we can teach some other countries a few things about that.
The social aspects of your comment are important, as is maturity. I can't have my programming staff skipping work because they were out at the concert last night and just didn't feel like coming in. I can't have them calling in because Mom needed the car. I can't have them calling in because their parents said they need to cut down on work and concentrate on school. I can't have my programmers physically fighting eachother because they can't get along. I can't have them arguing with my every directive (why can't I wear parachute pants? Long hair is freedom of speech, Man. You can't make me cut it.)
And before you go off half-cocked about those statements, understand that I have dealt with every one of them at some point. It's easy enough (and valid) to say that adults can behave immaturely as well, and can cause as many problems as teen-agers; but the fact remains that it happens more often with younger people. It's horribly unfair to the young people who work hard, and are mature; but everybody else in the company depends on me to make it run well. They all have jobs and feed their families, just as I do, because the company is healthy. It's my responsibility to keep from screwing that up; and if it's easier to fulfill that responsibility by hiring adults, why wouldn't I? Adults are talented too.
I honestly don't mean this as a flame. It's just a simple statement. There are just fewer headaches per capita when you hire adults.
The irony extends farther than just those of us who go back as far as you mention. Katz was right, who better to discuss the self-appointed 15 year-old experts of the world, than the world headquarters for self-appointed experts?
If you had a worm that propogated through the DNS servers on the net, then at some point activated to disrupt the DNS services, that would come about as close to bringing the net down as you could get, for practical purposes. Between Bind and Windows DNS, you could do some real damage. So while I agree that the media coverage of Code Red was pretty sensationalized, I don't think that the net at large is all that invulnerable.
If you want a great read, and a real eye-opener about how the military tests systems, read "The Pentagon Wars" by James Burton. An example: The testing specs for the Bradley Fighting vehicle specified that the fuel tanks were supposed to be full during a test in which a missile was to be fired into it. So they did fill them... with sand. It's a great book. Carries my highest recommendation.
Most aircraft that fly high do so because it saves fuel. I know that probably sounds counter-intuitive; but it's true. Aerodynamics aren't quite as straight forward as many people think.
It is true that at lower altitudes, there is more drag at say, 350kts ground speed. But the airplane doesn't fly by ground speed. It flies by airspeed. Because the wing works with air molecules, it needs to go faster through thin air to get enough to do the job.
So, 350kts airspeed at sea level, and 350kts airspeed at 25,000 feet will produce the same drag.
The neat little fuel trick is also related to air density. As we climb, the air obviously gets thinner. For a while, the engine can keep up; because it doesn't typically use all of its power at sea level anyhow. Eventually, however, it reaches a point where its performance starts to drop because it doesn't have as much air to work with. At all times you're looking for the best combustible mixture of fuel and air; so as the air decreases in density, it makes sense to decrease the amount of fuel added to it. We've all heard the saying that you can actually put a fire out with gasoline; and it's true. The same thing can happen inside your engine if you don't adjust for the thinning air. Even with the extra fuel spent to climb to a cruising altitude, it results in a substantial fuel savings to fly high.
The solotrek will have a ballistic recovery chute attached to it and helicopters can autorotate (within certain parameters). I agree that a thorough pre-flight ought to be done before flying any aircraft. Maybe with some luck, the people who can afford these exotic machines will have enough sense to inspect them before each flight. But I've seen people hop into their airplanes without pre-flighting, so I tend to have a fairly jaded view of society's common-sense level.
I've been following the developement of the solotrek, and it looks really cool. Not a toy; but it could be that first really personal aircraft. I was going to watch the video of the tether test; but I see the site has been slashdotted.
Nobody would (or should) argue that the Florida debacle was ridiculous; but please understand that we don't share the same system of government with the UK. Voting, even for federal offices, is a local matter, as spelled out in the constitution. One of the basic premises of our government is that the larger federal government intrude into local government only when necessary. In reality, that means that we deal with federal government quite a bit. But many things, including voting, are still dealt with at a lower level. It reduces potential pressures the incumbent could apply to the process.
Well, I've heard those theories before; and I've seen some of the evidence to suggest it. But it doesn't seem as likely to me as simply getting lost. She took off with a bad adf, a worn airplane, and a drunk of a navigator. We kind of take the modern conveniences (VOR's, GPS's, even modern ADF's) for granted. She wasn't feeling good when she left. The airplane had been through numerous maintenance "skwaks." The ADF was dead. Noonan was undoubtedly as tired and worn as she was (and maybe back on the bottle.) Honestly, It doesn't have to be anything more elaborate than getting lost. Fate is conspiratorial enough.
The first mini-series was done about as well as could be done with such a broad expanse of a book. It was as faithful as it could be without being unintelligible to people who hadn't read the series. Very few screen adaptations are able to pull that off. Probably "The World According to Garp" is the only one I've seen that so closely mirrored the book's tone, and story.
Agreed. You are the sole determinant of how much attention you do or don't have. Barring medical issues, you are in complete control of what gets your attention. If my attention span is shortening, there's nothing the media can do about it. I just have to re-focus. That's why we take vacations, have weekends, etc. It's not (normally) because we're too weak to go on physically. It's because we need to regain some of the focus that family life or leisure gives us.
AIX only runs on a limited amount of hardware. While that does make it tough to do certain things (don't expect a driver for that cheese-dip ethernet card you picked up for $20), it also makes it more reliable. AIX doesn't try to be everything to everyone; and IBM has a much better shot at supporting it on a known platform. What a debacle that could be "Well, I'm having a hard time getting my TSM server to migrate the storage pool on my shark to my 3494 tape library. Say what? Oh, it's a Dell Itanium with a RealTek fibre-channel card..." etc. I love Linux; but I also see a great deal of benefit in such a robust and stable OS as AIX running on a defined set of hardware. Hopefully, I can continue to rely on that.
I'll probably get flamed a little; but here goes. I don't think it counts as art, mostly because part of my definition of art (again, part of...) relates to the artists own precision. Such things as how the artist mixes paints, moves the brush, or otherwise physically interacts with the finished piece. The cold mathematics of telling the computer to draw an arc from A to B is kind of a turnoff. And without some standards, you discredit art. Look at the literary arts. Becoming a published poet these days is more a matter of postage stamps than talent.
Well I guess that accurately sums up both situations. Understanding the mistakes, successes and lessons of history requires more than understanding facts, dates and numbers. Each moment has its context also. You should probably understand both of the issues you mentioned in more depth before making a declaration like the one you just did. Despite how passionate and politically self-indulgent it sounds to say that we went to Vietnam just because we hadn't killed any Asians in a while, and we didn't carpet-bomb Sweden because they were our aryan brothers, neither of those statements accurately reflects anything about how either of those situations developed. You should probably get your history from more than just that little 3 hour lecture class you audited last semester.
I'm curious about the ramifications of conflicting laws. If the legal responsibility of one country violates the legal freedom of another country, how is it resolved? Imagine a site that disparages Islam. That would be illegal in a half dozen countries; but on the contrary, it would be illegal for the government to ban that site in the U.S. There must be some process of dispute for how those types of issues are resolved. Personally, I don't ever see it getting ratified, much less implemented. We have every reason (and even a responsibility) to take notice and oppose these sorts of things; but history says that in the real world (especially on a global scale) things like this treaty don't happen. They're too general in such a complex world.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one of the benefits of the sim series is that it teaches some cause and effect; and could also impart some sense of the necessity for order in a society/microcosm. For juvenile defenders, this is probably the thing they lack most.
Ha! You should be modded hire than you are.
Porn, mp3, etc. are all things that a given corporation has a right (and in the case of porn, a responsibility) to keep out of its network. And before you go off on those two, they're just part of a MUCH greater whole. The only way to do this is to allow monitoring/filtering. Because you can't just apply that allowance to people you think are bad people (how would you defend that in court?), you have to apply it to everybody. Not everything is a conspiracy. This monitoring thing becomes a very practical issue very quickly, and quite frankly, has very little to do with power. To dismiss it as such is to oversimplify it without giving it due thought. In other words, to say that it's all about power and the man is just lazy.
I agree completely. As the employer, it is MY computer that you're using, and as such, anything that happens on that computer is MY business. If I choose not to impose monitoring on you, then I'm a heck of a guy. But while you're using MY computer and MY bandwidth, it is not your God-given right to surf wherever you want and without oversight from me. How in God's name would I maintain any control over the network if I'm not allowed to monitor it? Even recording the target addresses of outgoing traffic would constitute a violation of privacy. So what do I do? Do I go around asking each person "Hey, did you do anything I should punish you for today?" Give me a break. Most of us operate under some policy that allows our employer to monitor/control our network use, and don't make a federal case of it. We just behave and go on. It's just that the ego of a federal judge is somewhere on the 40th floor compared to us.
Welcome to the modern workplace, your Honor.
Integration is probably the best part of AIX. By that, I mean using AIX on IBM hardware, and interfacing with IBM products. Granted, the downside of that is the expense of IBM stuff; but you get a robustness that linux really can't yet compete with.
Now, in step with the comment from IBM that if Linux could do everything theirs could, and do it as well, they'd be satisfied... well, I would too. But I think that's a big "if" right now.
You can be a zealot all you want, and you can argue points of philosophy and theory; but I work with both of them extensively, and AIX is MUCH more stable.
Again, if Linux reaches a point where it can honestly compete, I'm happy to use it. But it's got a ways to go.
The catch to that argument is that the companies ultimately pay those bills, not necessarily the government. The taxes and "insurances" paid by employers is pretty impressive when it comes to entitlements. Also, she wasn't suing the company to get disability from the government. She was suing the company to get money from them.
Although I've never had a class on the subject, practical experience tells me that you're right. There are a lot of old wood and fabric airplanes out there, as well as some composites that show up just fine on radar. Also, we locate precipitation with radar. So if water reflects radar, I'm going to have to assume that the composites they used in this thing would also.
Yes, the tough thing about freedom is that if it's implemented without responsibility (read: laws and rules to ensure that your freedom doesn't come at the expense of mine) it becomes self-destructive. You're freedom allows you to do something that I perceive as taking mine away, so I kill you. Your brother rightly perceives me as having taken some freedom from you, and kills me. In the end, the guy with the fastest gun wins, and well, what do you have then that resembles freedom?
So we set up these rules and elect people we trust enough to vote for. We elect them to oversee the rules, so that we all have some input. Also, we have debates like this one to encourage eachother to vote as we would; because just having an opinion doesn't get anything done.
So you don't end up with freedom. You end up with democracy, which is not the same thing. Ideally, democracy comes as close to freedom as possible, without letting it become self-destructive.
So if we don't like DMCA, or any other law/legislation, we need to be more aggressive about getting out the vote. If we cry and cry and cry, and nobody changes things; then we need to deal with the fact that we're currently a minority opinion, and keep working to change it. And that, my friends, is what's happening. The U.S. may use the word "freedom" in its dealings around the world; but it really means democracy. And I think we can teach some other countries a few things about that.
The social aspects of your comment are important, as is maturity. I can't have my programming staff skipping work because they were out at the concert last night and just didn't feel like coming in. I can't have them calling in because Mom needed the car. I can't have them calling in because their parents said they need to cut down on work and concentrate on school. I can't have my programmers physically fighting eachother because they can't get along. I can't have them arguing with my every directive (why can't I wear parachute pants? Long hair is freedom of speech, Man. You can't make me cut it.)
And before you go off half-cocked about those statements, understand that I have dealt with every one of them at some point. It's easy enough (and valid) to say that adults can behave immaturely as well, and can cause as many problems as teen-agers; but the fact remains that it happens more often with younger people. It's horribly unfair to the young people who work hard, and are mature; but everybody else in the company depends on me to make it run well. They all have jobs and feed their families, just as I do, because the company is healthy. It's my responsibility to keep from screwing that up; and if it's easier to fulfill that responsibility by hiring adults, why wouldn't I? Adults are talented too.
I honestly don't mean this as a flame. It's just a simple statement. There are just fewer headaches per capita when you hire adults.
The irony extends farther than just those of us who go back as far as you mention. Katz was right, who better to discuss the self-appointed 15 year-old experts of the world, than the world headquarters for self-appointed experts?
If you had a worm that propogated through the DNS servers on the net, then at some point activated to disrupt the DNS services, that would come about as close to bringing the net down as you could get, for practical purposes. Between Bind and Windows DNS, you could do some real damage. So while I agree that the media coverage of Code Red was pretty sensationalized, I don't think that the net at large is all that invulnerable.
If you want a great read, and a real eye-opener about how the military tests systems, read "The Pentagon Wars" by James Burton. An example: The testing specs for the Bradley Fighting vehicle specified that the fuel tanks were supposed to be full during a test in which a missile was to be fired into it. So they did fill them... with sand. It's a great book. Carries my highest recommendation.
Most aircraft that fly high do so because it saves fuel. I know that probably sounds counter-intuitive; but it's true. Aerodynamics aren't quite as straight forward as many people think.
It is true that at lower altitudes, there is more drag at say, 350kts ground speed. But the airplane doesn't fly by ground speed. It flies by airspeed. Because the wing works with air molecules, it needs to go faster through thin air to get enough to do the job.
So, 350kts airspeed at sea level, and 350kts airspeed at 25,000 feet will produce the same drag.
The neat little fuel trick is also related to air density. As we climb, the air obviously gets thinner. For a while, the engine can keep up; because it doesn't typically use all of its power at sea level anyhow. Eventually, however, it reaches a point where its performance starts to drop because it doesn't have as much air to work with. At all times you're looking for the best combustible mixture of fuel and air; so as the air decreases in density, it makes sense to decrease the amount of fuel added to it. We've all heard the saying that you can actually put a fire out with gasoline; and it's true. The same thing can happen inside your engine if you don't adjust for the thinning air. Even with the extra fuel spent to climb to a cruising altitude, it results in a substantial fuel savings to fly high.
The solotrek will have a ballistic recovery chute attached to it and helicopters can autorotate (within certain parameters). I agree that a thorough pre-flight ought to be done before flying any aircraft. Maybe with some luck, the people who can afford these exotic machines will have enough sense to inspect them before each flight. But I've seen people hop into their airplanes without pre-flighting, so I tend to have a fairly jaded view of society's common-sense level.
I've been following the developement of the solotrek, and it looks really cool. Not a toy; but it could be that first really personal aircraft. I was going to watch the video of the tether test; but I see the site has been slashdotted.
Agreed. A quick search on Google returns almost 5,000 hits for "Elvis works at my gas station."
Nobody would (or should) argue that the Florida debacle was ridiculous; but please understand that we don't share the same system of government with the UK. Voting, even for federal offices, is a local matter, as spelled out in the constitution. One of the basic premises of our government is that the larger federal government intrude into local government only when necessary. In reality, that means that we deal with federal government quite a bit. But many things, including voting, are still dealt with at a lower level. It reduces potential pressures the incumbent could apply to the process.
Well, I've heard those theories before; and I've seen some of the evidence to suggest it. But it doesn't seem as likely to me as simply getting lost. She took off with a bad adf, a worn airplane, and a drunk of a navigator. We kind of take the modern conveniences (VOR's, GPS's, even modern ADF's) for granted. She wasn't feeling good when she left. The airplane had been through numerous maintenance "skwaks." The ADF was dead. Noonan was undoubtedly as tired and worn as she was (and maybe back on the bottle.) Honestly, It doesn't have to be anything more elaborate than getting lost. Fate is conspiratorial enough.
I sounds to me as though you need to get out more.
The first mini-series was done about as well as could be done with such a broad expanse of a book. It was as faithful as it could be without being unintelligible to people who hadn't read the series. Very few screen adaptations are able to pull that off. Probably "The World According to Garp" is the only one I've seen that so closely mirrored the book's tone, and story.
Agreed. You are the sole determinant of how much attention you do or don't have. Barring medical issues, you are in complete control of what gets your attention. If my attention span is shortening, there's nothing the media can do about it. I just have to re-focus. That's why we take vacations, have weekends, etc. It's not (normally) because we're too weak to go on physically. It's because we need to regain some of the focus that family life or leisure gives us.
AIX only runs on a limited amount of hardware. While that does make it tough to do certain things (don't expect a driver for that cheese-dip ethernet card you picked up for $20), it also makes it more reliable. AIX doesn't try to be everything to everyone; and IBM has a much better shot at supporting it on a known platform. What a debacle that could be "Well, I'm having a hard time getting my TSM server to migrate the storage pool on my shark to my 3494 tape library. Say what? Oh, it's a Dell Itanium with a RealTek fibre-channel card..." etc. I love Linux; but I also see a great deal of benefit in such a robust and stable OS as AIX running on a defined set of hardware. Hopefully, I can continue to rely on that.
I'll probably get flamed a little; but here goes. I don't think it counts as art, mostly because part of my definition of art (again, part of...) relates to the artists own precision. Such things as how the artist mixes paints, moves the brush, or otherwise physically interacts with the finished piece. The cold mathematics of telling the computer to draw an arc from A to B is kind of a turnoff. And without some standards, you discredit art. Look at the literary arts. Becoming a published poet these days is more a matter of postage stamps than talent.
Well I guess that accurately sums up both situations. Understanding the mistakes, successes and lessons of history requires more than understanding facts, dates and numbers. Each moment has its context also. You should probably understand both of the issues you mentioned in more depth before making a declaration like the one you just did. Despite how passionate and politically self-indulgent it sounds to say that we went to Vietnam just because we hadn't killed any Asians in a while, and we didn't carpet-bomb Sweden because they were our aryan brothers, neither of those statements accurately reflects anything about how either of those situations developed. You should probably get your history from more than just that little 3 hour lecture class you audited last semester.
I'm curious about the ramifications of conflicting laws. If the legal responsibility of one country violates the legal freedom of another country, how is it resolved? Imagine a site that disparages Islam. That would be illegal in a half dozen countries; but on the contrary, it would be illegal for the government to ban that site in the U.S. There must be some process of dispute for how those types of issues are resolved. Personally, I don't ever see it getting ratified, much less implemented. We have every reason (and even a responsibility) to take notice and oppose these sorts of things; but history says that in the real world (especially on a global scale) things like this treaty don't happen. They're too general in such a complex world.
I agree. If you want to talk about election coverage this year, The Onion had the best!