NASA's budget is less than.5% of the entire federal budget, and JPL is worried about the taxpayer burden they are being??? How completely asinine. Why aren't all the meaningless bureaucratic positions in the Department of Commerce, the Export Import Bank, and all the other do-nothing federal agencies expressing this kind of worry over the taxpayer burden they pose?
At least JPL help keep us at the forefront of various technologies for 40+ years. What has the Department of Commerce ever done for the average American?
I work for the California...
on
California Hax0red
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I actually do tech support for a field office. I've never been impressed by the security mindset of state network admins. They are paranoid about giving access to those who really need it, while ignoring much of the easier ways people can break in (such as proper use of passwords, account maintenance and monitoring, etc..). But I'm sure this would be true of any network admin who's paid and supervised as little as they are.
Interesting side note: Our last chief of IT was hired even though his resume revealed not one shred of experience with information technology. His degree was in finance, and from what it appeared he had no experience running a network. That's just how it goes when you have a governor who needs to bestow favors on those who supported him during his campaign.
By Microsoft lobbying hard to keep the department of defense using MS software, from a socio-political point of view? I mean, what better way to lobby congress or the judicial system to protect Microsoft from the law than to ensure Windows is used in critical national security functions? In fact, what better way to control government period than to ensure they use your software for their classified, even critically secret operations?
"Stoker has said they did not find evidence of chlorophyll or any evidence of life on Mars," the spokesperson said. "There's really nothing to report. I think they [the BBC] read more into the abstract than is really there."
I was just trying to pick the brain of a lawyer for my own curiosity. I've never really enjoyed law like a lawyer does, but the issue of states-rights-vs-whatever has always fascinated me.
The disagreement is only over what is done to Microsoft, over their punishment for breaking the law. Why should states-rights-vs-constitution even enter into the picture here? Since they've already been convicted, what difference does it make WHO is suggesting their punishment so long as it is one of the original plaintiffs?
IANAL, but I am somewhat of a history buff. It would seem to me that the question of who is suggesting MS' punishment shouldn't even be an issue so long as it is one of the original plaintiffs. They have already been found guilty, so all the judge has to do now is decide how best to punish them. All these motions to discredit or undermine proposed punishments would seem to be nothing but hot air to me. (meaning Lawyers are getting paid for making meaningless paper)
The planet needs new propulsion for space missions, with it we go forward, without it we stagnate. Manned missions are getting trimmed because the Space Shuttle is a huge white elephant and noone is willing to admit it (the russians put the same size payloads into orbit for FAR cheaper than the Shuttle). If we go back to the basics (researching new propulsion), then everyone wins, including (ultimately) manned missions elsewhere.
It's just the idea of people propogating viruses by accidentally running a binary they were given as root is absurdly silly to me. I can understand accidentally double-clicking on an email attachment, but generally the people who have root on a system are the people protecting it from such attacks. The difference in vulnerability was so night and day, it hardly qualifies as a virus, IMHO.
All news is slanted, learn it, deal with it, read a variety so you don't fall prey to slant. Let Slashdot be Slashdot. They may lose credibility for offering slant, but you're not going to suddenly reverse that trend by posting telling them to stop.
All news is slanted, read a variety and if you're lucky you'll get a reasonable perspective.
Just last week, Microsoft's corporate security officer, Howard Schmidt, expressed frustration about continuing threats from overflows. ``I'm still amazed that we allow these things to occur,'' he said at a conference of technology executives. Schmidt is expected soon to resign from Microsoft to work for President Bush's top computer security adviser.
Funny that SOMEONE at Microsoft is finally, publicly, admitting that there's a pattern to Microsoft vulnerabilites.
GUI applications don't differ all that much, and their learning curve is far less than you infer. StarOffice handles much like MS office, even uses similar formulas in Excel, and it even loads *.DOC files. If set up correctly, there really isn't much re-learning for end-users on a linux desktop as opposed to a windows desktop.
Why create a competing system? Are there flaws in existing GPS? I'm honestly curious, someone explain to me why someone would go through the time/money/trouble to create a competing system.
They seem to be drawing a large distinction between the "security community" and the "customers". From my point of view, no distinction can be made. Your customers, who actually use your software for their critical business operations, need security. This makes them part and parcel of the security community because not only are they exposed themselves, but many times they are able to recognize vulnerabilities when they have been exploited and warn others. Your customers are your security community, and vice versa.
Amazon mentioned their switch was mostly in their server department. Switching the platform on which a server runs only necessitates that you train your admins on the new software. Doesn't sound that expensive to me.
But if Amazon saved some $20+ million switching from Unix to Linux, I would imagine even more could be saved switching from Windows to Linux. Besides, there are many many other stories of small businesses switching to linux and gaining added capabilities, as well as saving money. Most of these stories originate from stuff that IBM or RedHat does, but they are no less meaningful.
The actual quote has Gore saying, "when I was in congress, I took the initiative in creating the world wide web." Which is actually a fairly accurate thing to say, since it was legislation he supported that opened up the internet for people to change.
I mistakenly equated configuration/installation with use. I apologize. It's all those years of working with windows boxes that have blurred that line for me, sorry.
But he fails to acknowledge the reality that sometimes a linux desktop makes real business sense. Yes, that market is small, and yes if you're looking at it as a war, Microsoft has won. However, in the words of Phil Jackson, "You are only a success for the moment you achieve something."
Users do want simplicity and ease of use. And it is also true that Linux can't give them this right now. But it's even more true that this can change.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA's budget is less than .5% of the entire federal budget, and JPL is worried about the taxpayer burden they are being??? How completely asinine. Why aren't all the meaningless bureaucratic positions in the Department of Commerce, the Export Import Bank, and all the other do-nothing federal agencies expressing this kind of worry over the taxpayer burden they pose?
At least JPL help keep us at the forefront of various technologies for 40+ years. What has the Department of Commerce ever done for the average American?
I actually do tech support for a field office. I've never been impressed by the security mindset of state network admins. They are paranoid about giving access to those who really need it, while ignoring much of the easier ways people can break in (such as proper use of passwords, account maintenance and monitoring, etc..). But I'm sure this would be true of any network admin who's paid and supervised as little as they are.
Interesting side note: Our last chief of IT was hired even though his resume revealed not one shred of experience with information technology. His degree was in finance, and from what it appeared he had no experience running a network. That's just how it goes when you have a governor who needs to bestow favors on those who supported him during his campaign.
By Microsoft lobbying hard to keep the department of defense using MS software, from a socio-political point of view? I mean, what better way to lobby congress or the judicial system to protect Microsoft from the law than to ensure Windows is used in critical national security functions? In fact, what better way to control government period than to ensure they use your software for their classified, even critically secret operations?
Back before you were born, computer movies were about real computer components with real terms;
You mean, perhaps, "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" with Kurt Russel?
I was just trying to pick the brain of a lawyer for my own curiosity. I've never really enjoyed law like a lawyer does, but the issue of states-rights-vs-whatever has always fascinated me.
The disagreement is only over what is done to Microsoft, over their punishment for breaking the law. Why should states-rights-vs-constitution even enter into the picture here? Since they've already been convicted, what difference does it make WHO is suggesting their punishment so long as it is one of the original plaintiffs?
IANAL, but I am somewhat of a history buff. It would seem to me that the question of who is suggesting MS' punishment shouldn't even be an issue so long as it is one of the original plaintiffs. They have already been found guilty, so all the judge has to do now is decide how best to punish them. All these motions to discredit or undermine proposed punishments would seem to be nothing but hot air to me. (meaning Lawyers are getting paid for making meaningless paper)
sorry if that sounds troll-ish.
The planet needs new propulsion for space missions, with it we go forward, without it we stagnate. Manned missions are getting trimmed because the Space Shuttle is a huge white elephant and noone is willing to admit it (the russians put the same size payloads into orbit for FAR cheaper than the Shuttle). If we go back to the basics (researching new propulsion), then everyone wins, including (ultimately) manned missions elsewhere.
It's just the idea of people propogating viruses by accidentally running a binary they were given as root is absurdly silly to me. I can understand accidentally double-clicking on an email attachment, but generally the people who have root on a system are the people protecting it from such attacks. The difference in vulnerability was so night and day, it hardly qualifies as a virus, IMHO.
Ya, I run lots of unknown binaries while logged in as root, it's my favorite activity.
That a division VP of Microsoft doesn't understand you can highlight-copy-paste to get around any forward tracking he's devised.
All news is slanted, learn it, deal with it, read a variety so you don't fall prey to slant. Let Slashdot be Slashdot. They may lose credibility for offering slant, but you're not going to suddenly reverse that trend by posting telling them to stop.
All news is slanted, read a variety and if you're lucky you'll get a reasonable perspective.
Funny that SOMEONE at Microsoft is finally, publicly, admitting that there's a pattern to Microsoft vulnerabilites.
GUI applications don't differ all that much, and their learning curve is far less than you infer. StarOffice handles much like MS office, even uses similar formulas in Excel, and it even loads *.DOC files. If set up correctly, there really isn't much re-learning for end-users on a linux desktop as opposed to a windows desktop.
It makes you wonder...
Why create a competing system? Are there flaws in existing GPS? I'm honestly curious, someone explain to me why someone would go through the time/money/trouble to create a competing system.
...can't make up for all of that.
"I can't do it Raymond, I can't kill my own father." - Linux Community
"Then the empire has already won, you were our only hope." - - Obi Wan Raymond
"IBM spoke of another." - - Hacker Community
"The other he spoke of is your twin sister"
"-but I have no sis-"
"To protect you both from the emperor you were hidden when you were born. That is why your sister remains safely anonymous."
"BSD... BSD is my sister."
"Your netcraft surveys server you well. Bury your usage statistics deep down. They do you credit, but they could be used to server the emperor...."
He's trying to outsell something that's free to keep his job.
They seem to be drawing a large distinction between the "security community" and the "customers". From my point of view, no distinction can be made. Your customers, who actually use your software for their critical business operations, need security. This makes them part and parcel of the security community because not only are they exposed themselves, but many times they are able to recognize vulnerabilities when they have been exploited and warn others. Your customers are your security community, and vice versa.
Amazon mentioned their switch was mostly in their server department. Switching the platform on which a server runs only necessitates that you train your admins on the new software. Doesn't sound that expensive to me.
But if Amazon saved some $20+ million switching from Unix to Linux, I would imagine even more could be saved switching from Windows to Linux. Besides, there are many many other stories of small businesses switching to linux and gaining added capabilities, as well as saving money. Most of these stories originate from stuff that IBM or RedHat does, but they are no less meaningful.
The actual quote has Gore saying, "when I was in congress, I took the initiative in creating the world wide web." Which is actually a fairly accurate thing to say, since it was legislation he supported that opened up the internet for people to change.
I mistakenly equated configuration/installation with use. I apologize. It's all those years of working with windows boxes that have blurred that line for me, sorry.
But he fails to acknowledge the reality that sometimes a linux desktop makes real business sense. Yes, that market is small, and yes if you're looking at it as a war, Microsoft has won. However, in the words of Phil Jackson, "You are only a success for the moment you achieve something."
Users do want simplicity and ease of use. And it is also true that Linux can't give them this right now. But it's even more true that this can change.