Seriously - how many physicians, even among the specialists, keep themselves up to date on the latest research? Many of them do, many of them are passionate, geeky about what they do, and in their spare time they'll be reading up on the latest research, they'll go to conferences, etc., like a passionate geeky programmer would. But many, and i'd say most, just don't. Their knowledge is whatever they were taught. And that wasn't necessarily the state of the art at the time they graduated - that depends on how up to date their *teachers* were. So, yeah, wikipedia might be misleading; it might be out of date in certain places - in many places, even. But i don't necessarily think your physician will be more up to date. And i'm not sure how to fix that, either, because they *should* be!
in bigger companies, it's a CM team that handles these things. neither dev nor it can do the deployment. CM will testify that the release has been tested (which can be done by a testing group in dev, or a test department), and they will have a handle on everything that is installed right now and has ever been. They have the final word on whether something should be deployed. They build the packages going to the clients, if need be. And you can always go to them and ask "where's the code that's running right now?". they'll also keep track of what documentation corresponds to what. you usually can't trust the developpers for things like that.
you need a CM team, even if they're not full-time CM.
at work we have desks that are adjustable in height. if i find myself uncomfortable at some point in the day, i'll just lift the desk (we have spring-loaded and motorized versions, both almost effortless to operate) and work standing for a while. does wonders.
oh man, do i. i have 4 cats and 5 computers. one of them LOVES! phone cables for some reason.
The best method is not to protect your stuff - that becomes ridiculous as the amount of crap you use grows. No, what you need to do is provide better targets. Observe what they prefer, and give it to them. They'll have a preference, i guarantee it. If it's VGA cables, then keep the ones they busted, and hang it somewhere they can play with it and gnaw it as much as they want. they should leave the new one alone. it works!
if you make a big tar then bzip2-it, then store the file on a CD. then 2 years later you want the data back. there's a read-error at some point within the.tar.bz2, and it gives you some garbage data. bunzip2 will actually be able to recover all other 900kB chunks of the original tar file, except for this missing chunk or part of it. Tar will just choke at that point and you lost everything past the read error. bunzip2 was able to recover the data past the error, but tar can't use the data. It's quite frustrating.
"each battery weighs more than 12 stones..." if you were wondering about this like me ("what size of stone":) ), i just found out about that unit of mass (here: http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccmass.htm) and 12 stones is 168lbs or 76.2 kg. and i thought slugs were the weirdest invention in that backwards unit system... please convert to SI!!!:)
As flash storage drops in price, especially wrt motherboard costs, and the way i see it, there isn't _that_ much more functionality to add to the BIOS, when will we see a nice bootloader being integrated in the BIOS (from the manufacturer), or why won't we see it?
i'm talking about integrating the equivalent of grub in the BIOS, along with maybe 16MB of flash to hold a few kernels and ramdisks. You'd also (of course) include utilities for changing the menu, loading/deleting files to/from flash, for most OSes (as this would be relatively simple code: do a nice GUI for windows but a simple command-line utility could be written that easily recompiles in linux, *BSD (including OSX), etc. - we'll do the rest and slap a GUI to call the cmdline program). I would LOVE that, and it really doesn't seem that hard - there are indeed a few projects doing it already, it should be quite cheap for you to do, so we'd see it in motherboards off-the-shelf... I agree it might not be able to load windows, but.... who cares. it would at least be able to include a menu item for it, if it can't hold the 'windows kernel' (however big that is - haven't got a clue).
Why stop there? why is it that there still isn't a minimalist linux system with busybox in every modern BIOS, which would allow booting a diskless station into enough functionality to at least re-partition a hard drive? That's a whole single MB of flash!
my question really is: i would have expected that by now, why don't i see it?
(please, don't flame me with "it exists already" - i want to hear the manufacturer on this! most people would never dare re-flash their BIOS with something else - they barely have the courage to flash BIOS updates from the mfgr!)
In Quebec with Videotron at least, digital tv has packages, but can be bought a-la-carte. You do need to get a base package which includes a few channels (like all on-air stations), but that's about CAN$10. You then have to choice to buy any channels you want. Most cost, if i remember correctly, CAN$1.50, but things like Playboy will cost you more. I found i still preferred to get a big package, though, just because i like to have lots of channels around. But someone who only wants the essential plus HBO wouldn't have to buy a package.
The entertainment industry execs each get ONE (1) vote because they each are one citizen, not 1e6 because they each gave 1e6 $$$ to the campaign!!!
Who are his employers???? It's the people, stupid!!!!!!
This is so wrong.
Don't reply telling me "you're an idealist, THIS is how it really works". I know, i know it does! Your comment reflects the implied reality of the situation, but the paragraph comparing it to our job is SO bad... there's no way you can even suggest that it's the same thing, there's no way the congressman should be allowed to think like that, and you shouldn't encourage him. We _are_ being paid by our employers. If the employer does something truely illegal, you should report him, but sometimes, true, we might do something borderline shaky that we don't approve. But it's the job, and he's paying us. But the officials are paid by us, by taxes. The industry pays taxes too, true, but the officials aren't elected with votes proportional to taxes paid, they're elected by votes coming from every citizen who does vote.
This bill is so wrong, i wouldn't know where to start; there just isn't ANY way it can be spun to show that it's needed for the economy or to protect you americans.
I'm from Montreal, so what do i care? If those sorts of bills pass down south, the pression will be tremendous up here too. +, i care about you:)
I'm sure you don't think it's ok, no more than i do, and i'm not implying you sold your soul... i just had to react to how wrong it felt reading your comment:)
Perhaps someone can help me with a little problem as well...
I've been using an ATI TV Wonder and recording shows as well. I'm not building a Tivo-like thingy, it's just for replacing the VCR. And in that sense, it's really quite cool to use 'at' and cron and batch to record your shows.
I'm using lavrec, from mjpeg-tools, to do the recording (fully command-line), but: - in lower resolution (352x240), it barfs after 37 minutes - in higher res, (480x480) it's after _7_ minutes!
The 'barfing' in question is lavrec complaining that the audio ring buffer is full. I've tried runnning lavrec as root with nice --10, to no avail. I've tried with nothing running (no X) and still, same problem, and it's always after the same amount of time! So it's not something stupid like being interrupted for too long...
What do others use for recording? Have you had this problem? how did you solve it? Are my resolutions ok? What are the correct ones for VCD and SVCD???
(hey, this is the text that should have been under the main title, instead of a CDRW question... i've had the same problem with CDRW but i don't expect the DVD drive to be that good at reading cdrw's anyways).
As far as CDRW's go, with the prices for CDR's we have now, why bother? Just burn your Alias episodes onto CDR's and you can watch them more than once and not bother with re-writing CDRW's....
Here in Montral, the Paramount theater (on Ste-Catherine) has many movie screens and an IMAX screen. They have a 35mm projector in the IMAX room, and the cool movies are shown a couple of weeks in the beginning in the IMAX theater as well as 3 or 4 other rooms in theaters. So i saw Final Fantasy and LOTR:FOTR on an IMAX screen.
The quality is very good (though not as good as real IMAX movies: the 35mm gets blown up more than on a standard theater screen and it does show a little) and the sound is AMAZING. And you're right in the action, it's absolutely amazing! i love it. I'll check the listings for LOTR:TTT for sure.
Not many people in Montreal seem to know about this, though, and it's not really advertised (and it doesn't show as an 'IMAX showing' on the automated box office thingies).
I'm sure other cities have theaters with both 35 mm and IMAX screens with a 35mm projo in the IMAX room.
Looking at space station software (i work in the operations group for the MSS - but this is a personnal opinion, not engaging anyone else), there are signs of things that should be done by anyone claiming to be writing safe software:
- Clear methodology: the system is completely specified, and software requirements then flow from that. Requirements are inspected by a team of people and are detailed. Validation test specification tokens flow from the requirements. Each requirement will be tested. The validation specs are written. Only then can software be written, along with test equipment software. The software itself must be configuration controlled. Once baselined, the software can't be changed other than with the writing of software non-conformances (SNC: it says "oops, this function doesn't quite conform to its spec) or software enhancements (SE: it would be nice if it did this). In other words, the flow is controlled and you can't just hack to code: each piece of code flows from design specs to requirements to code, and in parallel from req'ts to validation spec to test results and documentation.
- Clear documentation: design docs, sofware specs that related to system requirements, test specs, test reports that clearly trace each requirement through and shows they've all been satisfied and all work, etc.
- The test systems themselves need to follow the same methodology
Basically, i don't think you can use criteria like "uses UNIX, uses good lib, etc". You need to see if everything has been thought out, everything has been validated, nothing's bloated. I'd say language of implementation would figure into this as well, but if you do it right, you can write very safe code in c; it's just that you might find more errors in testing than in building, which is not the case with Ada. Traceability is a huge part. Preventing disasters is one thing; making sure every little glitch can be traced back and fixed is another. If that software has excellent design, requirements and test traces that are configuration-controlled, and has good, documented methodologies, you're still not assured there won't be any faults (there can still be discreptancies in the requirements, for example), but you know they'll be able to find the root of the problems that might pop up.
I'd say one hell of a reason to say that linux is more secure, by a longshot, is the control you have over it. A hole exists in IIS, for example, allowing anyone to look at all files on your system. Crackers found the hole and decide to play with it. They might play with it for months, possibly stealing a heap of documents from you. Then someone else discovers it and publicizes it. How much more time before you get a fix from M$? They might first say it's not a hole. Then they'll admit it at some point. Then they'll get to the patch. This is either time where you take the risk of leaving your server open, or accept downtime.
On Linux: first, there's people looking at the code of Apache out of Apache: it's so much easier to find holes by looking at the code than from the outside (which might be reason #1 that holes make it to things like bugtrak more often!), so you have a good chance that more people will find the hole, which makes your chances higher that someone nice will be among the bunch, which means it's publicized more quickly.
Then you can very, very easily down- or side-grade to a version that doesn't have the hole, and in any case, chances are a new version will be out within hours!!!
So chance of being cracked are very much lower. And i call that higher security.
Another thing to consider is the fact that you should look at the holes discovered in, say only a specific set of versions of Debian 2.2 for example. Then the # goes down significantly. Looking at all linux bugs vs windows bugs would be like having people running ALL builds of ALL windows versions around the world: wouldn't they find HEAPS and TONS of bugs and holes then?
If you want to be serious, look at Windows 2k vs Debian 2.2 (again, for example, you pick one), and look at bugs that would actually have had any time period in which it could have been exploited before a fix was available. They weren't serious about this.
For me, IT is the department that doesn't want me to install Linux and instead tries to force expensive Win2K solutions where Apache, CVS, PHP, the gcc suite and all their friends do a better job. They're the ones who don't talk to me and go to my boss because the background of a webpage isn't the mandatory white. They're the ones who say i've got a server because my computer hosts a cvs tree, because they don't offer any versioning system, and they're the only ones who can have a so-called server so i can't do this. They're the ones who withhold my ordered computers for months because they must install win2k on it, only for me to then fdisk the whole thing to ext3-land, but they still won't give me the computers sooner if i tell them; but IT says installing Red Hat is "ok". As long as it doesn't do any server things, like hosting a cvs tree for the coop students...
Fortunately, my boss knows i'm doing all this because the existing solutions aren't applicable and are too expensive, so i didn't get fired yet.
"For people who are doing serious business with this--companies using it for mission-critical needs and need a higher degree of quick support turnaround--we will have custom pricing," Muglia told CNET News.com.
Do i need to add anything before you start laughing, or is it just me? mission-critical? A.NET heart-lung machine perhaps? It'll cancel all further appointments if things go wrong.
it's a period where the orbit the shuttle ends up in after launching is too far from the ISS's orbit, and it would be too costly / long to change orbit planes to the ISS's, and then back for landing.
It's still possible, it just isn't a good time.
Orbital mechanics is the mathematics of orbiting bodies.
why they're doing this.
I see their side, and many posts here, saying "they have to do this to remain competitive". I use almost exclusively linux, but and almost the only one where i work doing so, and i therefore talk to a lot of windows-lovers. And unanimously, they'll tell me that they hate the instability, but they "have to", because of Word but also because of a LOT of third-party software they need. I just seems to me that Microsoft has all those people in their pockets, but those people want ONE thing from M$: that they _IMPROVE!!!_ their product: rewrite the kernel, make it lighter, get remote display to work natively, make it leaner. And yet, M$ does the opposite, and more and more of the windows'ers are starting to ask themselves (and ask me): "what's missing in linux that prevents me from the doing the jump". That's more people to help OSS, in one way or another, but still: why is M$ adding fat that's already available (FREE!) thirdparty in their OS instead of doing the one thing the third parties can't do and that their users ahve been asking for since 3.11 ???
There's really a few issues with this: -the name "engineer" -the practice -recognition
The NAME -- I work in Quebec (Canada), and studied in Ontario. In Canada, you cannot call yourself an engineer, or even imply that you are one, without belonging to a PE association. The associations have inspectors and sue people on a regular basis because they advertise themselves as engineers without belonging to a PE association. The "Microsoft Certified Engineer" programm for example is named "MS Certified Technician" here, for that exact reason: the program doesn't lead to a degree that would let you be a PE. It always suprises me that in the US, technicians call themselves engineers. We're no better than they are of course, but i wouldn't call myself a nurse for example, because i am not.
The PRACTICE -- Everyone would like their bridges and buildings to be safe. And to make absolutely sure that they are, the law puts the responsibility on ONE person: the one who designed it (structurally, not architecturally). This is why people who sign plans for the building of a bridge must be engineers. There must two such signatures. If the contractor doesn't apply the plans exactly, of course they'll be responsible. But if the engineer is there and sees that the plan is not applied exactly, then HE is responsible. Even if the contractor, his boss, says it's too expensive to use that type of beams for example: you have to say no and then go above your boss and company, to the law. You represent the public. The PE associations will support you if you have to go to court because your boss fired you afterwards, because he can't. You don't want the foreman to start making plans for a 5-lane bridge. You want someone who knows the deeper issues. The engineer might not be as good to actually build it, but he sure knows how it's supposed to hold through a tornado. This is why you HAVE to be a PE to sign stuff like that. Now, if you're an EE, or CS engineer (you actually went through CS ENGINEERING in university, not just CS), it's less likely that your work can kill people (or maybe that's the purpose of your work!), so most employers don't really care about you being a PE, except for one point: if you're actually a PE, it takes a 1 minute phone call to check your badge # and name and see if you really are a PE, which then attests that you really do have that diploma and experience. My boss cares about that. Also, being a PE requires an going through an ethics and law exam (at least up here).
This is also about RECOGNITION. Your resumé looks better, i think, if you're a PE, even if you're not better than any other engineer who's not a PE. Here, you can't even say you're an EE if you're not a PE.... It sets you apart and attests that you went through a pretty though program and survived it. I for one think that a bit more studying and a few hundred $ a year are very much worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously - how many physicians, even among the specialists, keep themselves up to date on the latest research? Many of them do, many of them are passionate, geeky about what they do, and in their spare time they'll be reading up on the latest research, they'll go to conferences, etc., like a passionate geeky programmer would. But many, and i'd say most, just don't. Their knowledge is whatever they were taught. And that wasn't necessarily the state of the art at the time they graduated - that depends on how up to date their *teachers* were.
So, yeah, wikipedia might be misleading; it might be out of date in certain places - in many places, even. But i don't necessarily think your physician will be more up to date. And i'm not sure how to fix that, either, because they *should* be!
in bigger companies, it's a CM team that handles these things. neither dev nor it can do the deployment. CM will testify that the release has been tested (which can be done by a testing group in dev, or a test department), and they will have a handle on everything that is installed right now and has ever been. They have the final word on whether something should be deployed. They build the packages going to the clients, if need be. And you can always go to them and ask "where's the code that's running right now?".
they'll also keep track of what documentation corresponds to what. you usually can't trust the developpers for things like that.
you need a CM team, even if they're not full-time CM.
at work we have desks that are adjustable in height. if i find myself uncomfortable at some point in the day, i'll just lift the desk (we have spring-loaded and motorized versions, both almost effortless to operate) and work standing for a while.
does wonders.
oh man, do i. i have 4 cats and 5 computers.
one of them LOVES! phone cables for some reason.
The best method is not to protect your stuff - that becomes ridiculous as the amount of crap you use grows. No, what you need to do is provide better targets. Observe what they prefer, and give it to them. They'll have a preference, i guarantee it. If it's VGA cables, then keep the ones they busted, and hang it somewhere they can play with it and gnaw it as much as they want.
they should leave the new one alone.
it works!
if you make a big tar then bzip2-it, then store the file on a CD. .tar.bz2, and it gives you some garbage data.
then 2 years later you want the data back.
there's a read-error at some point within the
bunzip2 will actually be able to recover all other 900kB chunks of the original tar file, except for this missing chunk or part of it.
Tar will just choke at that point and you lost everything past the read error. bunzip2 was able to recover the data past the error, but tar can't use the data.
It's quite frustrating.
"each battery weighs more than 12 stones..." :) ), i just found out about that unit of mass (here: http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccmass.htm) and 12 stones is 168lbs or 76.2 kg. :)
if you were wondering about this like me ("what size of stone"
and i thought slugs were the weirdest invention in that backwards unit system...
please convert to SI!!!
As flash storage drops in price, especially wrt motherboard costs, and the way i see it, there isn't _that_ much more functionality to add to the BIOS, when will we see a nice bootloader being integrated in the BIOS (from the manufacturer), or why won't we see it?
.... who cares. it would at least be able to include a menu item for it, if it can't hold the 'windows kernel' (however big that is - haven't got a clue).
i'm talking about integrating the equivalent of grub in the BIOS, along with maybe 16MB of flash to hold a few kernels and ramdisks. You'd also (of course) include utilities for changing the menu, loading/deleting files to/from flash, for most OSes (as this would be relatively simple code: do a nice GUI for windows but a simple command-line utility could be written that easily recompiles in linux, *BSD (including OSX), etc. - we'll do the rest and slap a GUI to call the cmdline program).
I would LOVE that, and it really doesn't seem that hard - there are indeed a few projects doing it already, it should be quite cheap for you to do, so we'd see it in motherboards off-the-shelf...
I agree it might not be able to load windows, but
Why stop there? why is it that there still isn't a minimalist linux system with busybox in every modern BIOS, which would allow booting a diskless station into enough functionality to at least re-partition a hard drive? That's a whole single MB of flash!
my question really is: i would have expected that by now, why don't i see it?
(please, don't flame me with "it exists already" - i want to hear the manufacturer on this! most people would never dare re-flash their BIOS with something else - they barely have the courage to flash BIOS updates from the mfgr!)
In Quebec with Videotron at least, digital tv has packages, but can be bought a-la-carte. You do need to get a base package which includes a few channels (like all on-air stations), but that's about CAN$10. You then have to choice to buy any channels you want. Most cost, if i remember correctly, CAN$1.50, but things like Playboy will cost you more.
I found i still preferred to get a big package, though, just because i like to have lots of channels around. But someone who only wants the essential plus HBO wouldn't have to buy a package.
NOOOOOOO!!!!
:)
:)
That's just _WRONG_, it's so wrong!
The entertainment industry execs each get ONE (1) vote because they each are one citizen, not 1e6 because they each gave 1e6 $$$ to the campaign!!!
Who are his employers????
It's the people, stupid!!!!!!
This is so wrong.
Don't reply telling me "you're an idealist, THIS is how it really works". I know, i know it does! Your comment reflects the implied reality of the situation, but the paragraph comparing it to our job is SO bad... there's no way you can even suggest that it's the same thing, there's no way the congressman should be allowed to think like that, and you shouldn't encourage him.
We _are_ being paid by our employers. If the employer does something truely illegal, you should report him, but sometimes, true, we might do something borderline shaky that we don't approve. But it's the job, and he's paying us.
But the officials are paid by us, by taxes. The industry pays taxes too, true, but the officials aren't elected with votes proportional to taxes paid, they're elected by votes coming from every citizen who does vote.
This bill is so wrong, i wouldn't know where to start; there just isn't ANY way it can be spun to show that it's needed for the economy or to protect you americans.
I'm from Montreal, so what do i care?
If those sorts of bills pass down south, the pression will be tremendous up here too.
+, i care about you
I'm sure you don't think it's ok, no more than i do, and i'm not implying you sold your soul... i just had to react to how wrong it felt reading your comment
Perhaps someone can help me with a little problem as well...
I've been using an ATI TV Wonder and recording shows as well. I'm not building a Tivo-like thingy, it's just for replacing the VCR. And in that sense, it's really quite cool to use 'at' and cron and batch to record your shows.
I'm using lavrec, from mjpeg-tools, to do the recording (fully command-line), but:
- in lower resolution (352x240), it barfs after 37 minutes
- in higher res, (480x480) it's after _7_ minutes!
The 'barfing' in question is lavrec complaining that the audio ring buffer is full.
I've tried runnning lavrec as root with nice --10, to no avail. I've tried with nothing running (no X) and still, same problem, and it's always after the same amount of time! So it's not something stupid like being interrupted for too long...
What do others use for recording?
Have you had this problem? how did you solve it?
Are my resolutions ok? What are the correct ones for VCD and SVCD???
(hey, this is the text that should have been under the main title, instead of a CDRW question... i've had the same problem with CDRW but i don't expect the DVD drive to be that good at reading cdrw's anyways).
As far as CDRW's go, with the prices for CDR's we have now, why bother? Just burn your Alias episodes onto CDR's and you can watch them more than once and not bother with re-writing CDRW's....
Weta were looking for geeks and artists alike a couple of months back....
Here in Montral, the Paramount theater (on Ste-Catherine) has many movie screens and an IMAX screen. They have a 35mm projector in the IMAX room, and the cool movies are shown a couple of weeks in the beginning in the IMAX theater as well as 3 or 4 other rooms in theaters. So i saw Final Fantasy and LOTR:FOTR on an IMAX screen. The quality is very good (though not as good as real IMAX movies: the 35mm gets blown up more than on a standard theater screen and it does show a little) and the sound is AMAZING. And you're right in the action, it's absolutely amazing! i love it. I'll check the listings for LOTR:TTT for sure. Not many people in Montreal seem to know about this, though, and it's not really advertised (and it doesn't show as an 'IMAX showing' on the automated box office thingies). I'm sure other cities have theaters with both 35 mm and IMAX screens with a 35mm projo in the IMAX room.
Looking at space station software (i work in the operations group for the MSS - but this is a personnal opinion, not engaging anyone else), there are signs of things that should be done by anyone claiming to be writing safe software:
- Clear methodology: the system is completely specified, and software requirements then flow from that. Requirements are inspected by a team of people and are detailed. Validation test specification tokens flow from the requirements. Each requirement will be tested. The validation specs are written. Only then can software be written, along with test equipment software. The software itself must be configuration controlled. Once baselined, the software can't be changed other than with the writing of software non-conformances (SNC: it says "oops, this function doesn't quite conform to its spec) or software enhancements (SE: it would be nice if it did this). In other words, the flow is controlled and you can't just hack to code: each piece of code flows from design specs to requirements to code, and in parallel from req'ts to validation spec to test results and documentation.
- Clear documentation: design docs, sofware specs that related to system requirements, test specs, test reports that clearly trace each requirement through and shows they've all been satisfied and all work, etc.
- The test systems themselves need to follow the same methodology
Basically, i don't think you can use criteria like "uses UNIX, uses good lib, etc". You need to see if everything has been thought out, everything has been validated, nothing's bloated. I'd say language of implementation would figure into this as well, but if you do it right, you can write very safe code in c; it's just that you might find more errors in testing than in building, which is not the case with Ada. Traceability is a huge part. Preventing disasters is one thing; making sure every little glitch can be traced back and fixed is another. If that software has excellent design, requirements and test traces that are configuration-controlled, and has good, documented methodologies, you're still not assured there won't be any faults (there can still be discreptancies in the requirements, for example), but you know they'll be able to find the root of the problems that might pop up.
I'd say one hell of a reason to say that linux is more secure, by a longshot, is the control you have over it. A hole exists in IIS, for example, allowing anyone to look at all files on your system. Crackers found the hole and decide to play with it. They might play with it for months, possibly stealing a heap of documents from you. Then someone else discovers it and publicizes it. How much more time before you get a fix from M$? They might first say it's not a hole. Then they'll admit it at some point. Then they'll get to the patch. This is either time where you take the risk of leaving your server open, or accept downtime.
On Linux: first, there's people looking at the code of Apache out of Apache: it's so much easier to find holes by looking at the code than from the outside (which might be reason #1 that holes make it to things like bugtrak more often!), so you have a good chance that more people will find the hole, which makes your chances higher that someone nice will be among the bunch, which means it's publicized more quickly.
Then you can very, very easily down- or side-grade to a version that doesn't have the hole, and in any case, chances are a new version will be out within hours!!!
So chance of being cracked are very much lower. And i call that higher security.
Another thing to consider is the fact that you should look at the holes discovered in, say only a specific set of versions of Debian 2.2 for example. Then the # goes down significantly. Looking at all linux bugs vs windows bugs would be like having people running ALL builds of ALL windows versions around the world: wouldn't they find HEAPS and TONS of bugs and holes then?
If you want to be serious, look at Windows 2k vs Debian 2.2 (again, for example, you pick one), and look at bugs that would actually have had any time period in which it could have been exploited before a fix was available. They weren't serious about this.
For me, IT is the department that doesn't want me to install Linux and instead tries to force expensive Win2K solutions where Apache, CVS, PHP, the gcc suite and all their friends do a better job. They're the ones who don't talk to me and go to my boss because the background of a webpage isn't the mandatory white. They're the ones who say i've got a server because my computer hosts a cvs tree, because they don't offer any versioning system, and they're the only ones who can have a so-called server so i can't do this. They're the ones who withhold my ordered computers for months because they must install win2k on it, only for me to then fdisk the whole thing to ext3-land, but they still won't give me the computers sooner if i tell them; but IT says installing Red Hat is "ok". As long as it doesn't do any server things, like hosting a cvs tree for the coop students...
Fortunately, my boss knows i'm doing all this because the existing solutions aren't applicable and are too expensive, so i didn't get fired yet.
But IT will never invite me to their BBQ.
"For people who are doing serious business with this--companies using it for mission-critical needs and need a higher degree of quick support turnaround--we will have custom pricing," Muglia told CNET News.com.
.NET heart-lung machine perhaps? It'll cancel all further appointments if things go wrong.
Do i need to add anything before you start laughing, or is it just me? mission-critical? A
it's a period where the orbit the shuttle ends up in after launching is too far from the ISS's orbit, and it would be too costly / long to change orbit planes to the ISS's, and then back for landing.
It's still possible, it just isn't a good time.
Orbital mechanics is the mathematics of orbiting bodies.
why they're doing this.
I see their side, and many posts here, saying "they have to do this to remain competitive". I use almost exclusively linux, but and almost the only one where i work doing so, and i therefore talk to a lot of windows-lovers. And unanimously, they'll tell me that they hate the instability, but they "have to", because of Word but also because of a LOT of third-party software they need. I just seems to me that Microsoft has all those people in their pockets, but those people want ONE thing from M$: that they _IMPROVE!!!_ their product: rewrite the kernel, make it lighter, get remote display to work natively, make it leaner. And yet, M$ does the opposite, and more and more of the windows'ers are starting to ask themselves (and ask me): "what's missing in linux that prevents me from the doing the jump". That's more people to help OSS, in one way or another, but still: why is M$ adding fat that's already available (FREE!) thirdparty in their OS instead of doing the one thing the third parties can't do and that their users ahve been asking for since 3.11 ???
There's really a few issues with this:
-the name "engineer"
-the practice
-recognition
The NAME --
I work in Quebec (Canada), and studied in Ontario. In Canada, you cannot call yourself an engineer, or even imply that you are one, without belonging to a PE association. The associations have inspectors and sue people on a regular basis because they advertise themselves as engineers without belonging to a PE association. The "Microsoft Certified Engineer" programm for example is named "MS Certified Technician" here, for that exact reason: the program doesn't lead to a degree that would let you be a PE. It always suprises me that in the US, technicians call themselves engineers. We're no better than they are of course, but i wouldn't call myself a nurse for example, because i am not.
The PRACTICE --
Everyone would like their bridges and buildings to be safe. And to make absolutely sure that they are, the law puts the responsibility on ONE person: the one who designed it (structurally, not architecturally). This is why people who sign plans for the building of a bridge must be engineers. There must two such signatures. If the contractor doesn't apply the plans exactly, of course they'll be responsible. But if the engineer is there and sees that the plan is not applied exactly, then HE is responsible. Even if the contractor, his boss, says it's too expensive to use that type of beams for example: you have to say no and then go above your boss and company, to the law. You represent the public. The PE associations will support you if you have to go to court because your boss fired you afterwards, because he can't.
You don't want the foreman to start making plans for a 5-lane bridge. You want someone who knows the deeper issues. The engineer might not be as good to actually build it, but he sure knows how it's supposed to hold through a tornado. This is why you HAVE to be a PE to sign stuff like that.
Now, if you're an EE, or CS engineer (you actually went through CS ENGINEERING in university, not just CS), it's less likely that your work can kill people (or maybe that's the purpose of your work!), so most employers don't really care about you being a PE, except for one point: if you're actually a PE, it takes a 1 minute phone call to check your badge # and name and see if you really are a PE, which then attests that you really do have that diploma and experience. My boss cares about that. Also, being a PE requires an going through an ethics and law exam (at least up here).
This is also about RECOGNITION. Your resumé looks better, i think, if you're a PE, even if you're not better than any other engineer who's not a PE. Here, you can't even say you're an EE if you're not a PE.... It sets you apart and attests that you went through a pretty though program and survived it.
I for one think that a bit more studying and a few hundred $ a year are very much worth it.