"because of bored teenagers and russian mafia fucking up everyone's machines."
you forgot to mention microsoft...
though you certainly have a good point. in a perfect world we would all be connected and fully exposed. but it aint perfect.
ive worked with a lot of turn-key systems and they suck when it comes to updates -- especially the imaging systems. freakin noritsu. freakin fujitsu. blah.
the fact of the matter is, anything that someone's life depends upon shouldn't really be exposed to the network, nor need it be. meaning it shouldnt really need updates very frequently, unless physical security is also a problem.
other devices and applications that facilitate in the sharing of information are not usually life critical, so they can usually be networked and patched -- assuming you have the data backed up and can restore relatively quickly...and please tell me you admins are testing your disaster recovery scenarios...
the article isnt about all computers in hospitals -- its about computerized systems and devices, that just so happen to be running crap like windows.
I am extremely familiar with this topic, as I used to work for a biotech research firm. we had a lot of these things. currently ive got a few imaging systems that are the same damned way. fujitsu is a bitch when it comes to that stuff.
some systems we have wont even let you change the default administrator password and REQUIRE auto admin login for the damned devices to come up. ridiculous...it's mainly systems like these that are horribly affected by patching the OS.
Medical *records* are one thing. Real-time access to real-time medical data is another. My dermatologist doesn't need to see my PET scan as it happens...
After the patient is done for the day, his chart can be uploaded into some sort of data repository and then sent off to a data warehouse from which any authorized medical provider could access it.
Most of these systems are sold as turn-key stand-alone systems that shouldn't be dependant upon things like the Internet. Realistically, why have a system connected to the network when people's lives depend on it? We all know how insecure anything connected to a network is.
I.e. patching systems that a person's life depends upon is ridiculous. These things shouldn't be networked to begin with. And if they are networked, they should be so highly locked down that nothing except a local exploit could harm it. And god knows they should never be on anything but a secure internal network.
Funny rebut, but it lacks much substance -- especially the hard-on part. But realistically, everyone who knows anything about Ted knows that he's a liberal. Sure. And Rupert Murdock is a conservative. Sure. Big freakin' deal. I go to both news sources, because I'm a moderate. I despise both the current CNN and FOX news because of their bias. Why can't we all just get along?:P
But it's still refreshing to see that someone on top was like "Man, F*$# this."
And how can you say he shed his honor and dignity? Yeah, he's insanely rich, but he at least puts his money to good use. http://www.tedturner.com/philanthropies.html Not many people will donate $1B to charity, and despite your probable skeptical comments about the UN Foundation, you're going to have to PROVE that its horribly corrupt and doesn't have good interests. What's so bad about teaching other countries the maladies of smoking? I'm sorry, but F the tobacco industry. I'm sick of the bastards specifically targetting youth in third world countries.
What the hell has Murdoch done, except make money and be brazenly biased?
"people who don't like liberal news filtering can leave it and go to the conservative source. And they are doing so in droves, which is why CNN's viewership is so tiny"
Are you kidding? Liberal news filtering? The conservatives do the same thing. FOX and CNN are BOTH guilty of the same thing. They're both HUGE organizations. And CNN's viewership is not "tiny", albeit it is not currently as large as FOX's. Also, CNN is generally only available though cable networks, whereas FOX has a MUCH broader broadcast base.
Regardless of partisan issues, as I don't want to start a flame war, if you had read the article or knew about Ted Turner (you can start here), then you'd know that he really doesn't control CNN or Turner Broadcasting anymore, since the AOL Time Warner merger. Yes, he got frustrated with the whole slow-moving big conglomerate BS that is typical of almost any organization, media or not. So he resigned. Despite CNN being "liberal" -- partisanship had nothing to do with it.
And no, no one will wave a magic wand, but we can certainly prevent any single company from controlling 35% of the viewship of the country. Yes it takes money. Small businesses can raise money. Small businesses can be extremely profitable. Small -- relative to the insanely large conglomerates that exist today, like AOL Time Warner...
Our country was founded on a system of checks and balances. Where the hell are the checks and balances for the media? Oh right, we took them away. And why?
I, personally, agree whole-heartedly with your response.
This is exactly the type of person the American public needs to say something of this nature. If an independant broadcaster would have written the same thing, big media would have just chalked it up to ulterior motives.
One has to admire his sense of goodwill. Ted Turner may be an eccentric, bi-polar media mogul, but his heart seems to be in the right place.
Not every billionnaire donates $1 Billion dollars to the UN for humanitarian purposes either... http://www.unfoundation.org/
Yes, CNN is slanted. It is clear. So is fox. They're both retarded.
But did you RTFA? Ted Turner (big media incarnate) is writing against big media...writing and saying it needs to be broken up. It's a pretty damned big sign when one of the largest media moguls in the world is outright stating that big media needs to be broken up. It wouldn't have the same impact if some guy from Joe's Broadcasting said it as Joe has ulterior motives. What motives does Ted Turner have? He has everything to LOSE by having big media broken up. Everything but his honor and dignity, and quite frankly I applaud his commentary.
"Did you see Bill Maher on Larry King Live last night?" Does it matter? He clearly made a point that in order to compete with big media in this market you need to be big media. He grew accordingly. His corporations became corrupted accordingly, good intentions or no.
It reminds me of the way the japanese grow watermelons to be squared...something will only grow as large as its container. And the FCC keeps increasing the size of the container for big media. If the FCC elimitated the viewer-base cap on big media altogether, then big media would turn into monopoly-media, inc. Then it would be like some totalitarian regime.
If the FCC lowered the cap, among other actions, there would certainly be more diversity in ownership, not just diversity of programming. That is the key.
I'm not sure the server could handle having that many open connections...hence its current process of providing an extremely small text file, creating a connection, transferring the file, and destroying the connection.
Then their RSS client would barf on the input and the user wouldn't see any of the previously downloaded news feeds, in some cases.
Or rather, anyone that programs an RSS reader so horribly as to make it so that every client downloads information every hour on the hour would probably also barf on the input of a 500 or 404 error.
Most RSS feeders *should* just download every hour from the time they start, making the download intervals between users more or less random and well-dispersed. And if you want it more than every hour, well then edit the source and compile it yourself:P
and my post/input is totally sensible if YOU had read all of the text and could grasp the concept that I said that the article should be aptly renamed to something like 120 years of electronic inventors/instruments rather than 120 years of electronic music.
the people referenced on the site may have changed the music world, but not through their music -- through others' use of their inventions. reading about robert moog is fine and dandy, but he alone didn't usher in a new era of electronic music. he was just some wacky inventor. Someone with musical talent and creative ideas made his instrument famous.
if anyone wants to rebut my previous statement, let me follow that up with this: naming the article 120 years of electronic music and not having kraftwerk is like having an article named 500 years of classical music and not having mozart or beethoven...sure they didnt create their instruments, but they sure as shit made it popular...
they should rename the article to 120 years of electronic music inventors...
I found my own little list of "potentially insecure" apps by opening my windows directory lol.
Seriously, just go ahead and delete whatever you want. If something breaks, you needed it. Just go to a recovery console and get it back if you have to. If not, cool, your system is likely better without it.
This rule of thumb does not hold true for your firewall or antivirus software...
You've at least got the CHOICE of whether or not to use KDE. I personally use GNOME, but that's only because I'm using Fedora, because I'm too lazy to install Debian at work...or rather I've got better things to do. Erm, where was I?
Oh right, also, KDE is open source, so you could potentially disable konqueror if you *really* wanted to, so it seems that your point is invalid...
Well, most users won't "turn chrome off" -- let alone know how to do so or that it is necessary.
As per your complaint about the big distros, I agree whole-heartedly. I personally prefer Debian (Woody) and XP Pro for gaming.
But clearly the reason for not trimming the fat is because they want to compete with Windows on a user-level basis. Joe user would prefer his digital cameras to work right off the bat and for this menus to look super-cool. Lots of overhead there.
But I personally think most of the overhead is in X and Gnome/KDE. Even with an incredible amount of RAM and unnecessary services disabled (or not even installed), the windows just aren't as snappy as those in XP. XP (Home) runs surprisingly well on my mother's piece of crap celeron with 386MB RAM. The menus and windows under Linux wouldn't fare so well -- considering they don't fare as well on my machine with 1GB RAM...
I'm not so great at C, so I'll just hope those guys can tweak it and make it faster. I'm not one to complain about free software...
Where the heck do you live? 128MB chips are practically free around here...after rebate at least. Just gotta shop around a little and go OEM. But really, for office purposes 512 should be adequate and that alone can be purchased for less than $100 online (try http://www.newegg.com).
I'd have put it this way: "That's odd. I thought they were basically the same operating system with a few essential features missing from Home...":P Home is garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
"because of bored teenagers and russian mafia fucking up everyone's machines."
you forgot to mention microsoft...
though you certainly have a good point. in a perfect world we would all be connected and fully exposed. but it aint perfect.
ive worked with a lot of turn-key systems and they suck when it comes to updates -- especially the imaging systems. freakin noritsu. freakin fujitsu. blah.
the fact of the matter is, anything that someone's life depends upon shouldn't really be exposed to the network, nor need it be. meaning it shouldnt really need updates very frequently, unless physical security is also a problem.
other devices and applications that facilitate in the sharing of information are not usually life critical, so they can usually be networked and patched -- assuming you have the data backed up and can restore relatively quickly...and please tell me you admins are testing your disaster recovery scenarios...
the article isnt about all computers in hospitals -- its about computerized systems and devices, that just so happen to be running crap like windows.
I am extremely familiar with this topic, as I used to work for a biotech research firm. we had a lot of these things. currently ive got a few imaging systems that are the same damned way. fujitsu is a bitch when it comes to that stuff.
some systems we have wont even let you change the default administrator password and REQUIRE auto admin login for the damned devices to come up. ridiculous...it's mainly systems like these that are horribly affected by patching the OS.
Medical *records* are one thing. Real-time access to real-time medical data is another. My dermatologist doesn't need to see my PET scan as it happens...
After the patient is done for the day, his chart can be uploaded into some sort of data repository and then sent off to a data warehouse from which any authorized medical provider could access it.
"everything of mine still works after I install a critical patch"
Psha.
Then you clearly aren't running BS legacy software developed and maintained by lower-rung state employee code-monkey developers.
Besides, it depends on the patch.
Most of these systems are sold as turn-key stand-alone systems that shouldn't be dependant upon things like the Internet. Realistically, why have a system connected to the network when people's lives depend on it? We all know how insecure anything connected to a network is.
I.e. patching systems that a person's life depends upon is ridiculous. These things shouldn't be networked to begin with. And if they are networked, they should be so highly locked down that nothing except a local exploit could harm it. And god knows they should never be on anything but a secure internal network.
correction: its not a *real* hangover unless the your first words after getting up are "oh yea, I married that *dude* last night"
That is much more likely given the ratio and complete inability for male nerds to get along with members of the opposite sex...
Funny rebut, but it lacks much substance -- especially the hard-on part. But realistically, everyone who knows anything about Ted knows that he's a liberal. Sure. And Rupert Murdock is a conservative. Sure. Big freakin' deal. I go to both news sources, because I'm a moderate. I despise both the current CNN and FOX news because of their bias. Why can't we all just get along? :P
But it's still refreshing to see that someone on top was like "Man, F*$# this."
And how can you say he shed his honor and dignity? Yeah, he's insanely rich, but he at least puts his money to good use. http://www.tedturner.com/philanthropies.html
Not many people will donate $1B to charity, and despite your probable skeptical comments about the UN Foundation, you're going to have to PROVE that its horribly corrupt and doesn't have good interests. What's so bad about teaching other countries the maladies of smoking? I'm sorry, but F the tobacco industry. I'm sick of the bastards specifically targetting youth in third world countries.
What the hell has Murdoch done, except make money and be brazenly biased?
"people who don't like liberal news filtering can leave it and go to the conservative source. And they are doing so in droves, which is why CNN's viewership is so tiny"
Are you kidding? Liberal news filtering? The conservatives do the same thing. FOX and CNN are BOTH guilty of the same thing. They're both HUGE organizations. And CNN's viewership is not "tiny", albeit it is not currently as large as FOX's. Also, CNN is generally only available though cable networks, whereas FOX has a MUCH broader broadcast base.
Regardless of partisan issues, as I don't want to start a flame war, if you had read the article or knew about Ted Turner (you can start here), then you'd know that he really doesn't control CNN or Turner Broadcasting anymore, since the AOL Time Warner merger. Yes, he got frustrated with the whole slow-moving big conglomerate BS that is typical of almost any organization, media or not. So he resigned. Despite CNN being "liberal" -- partisanship had nothing to do with it.
And no, no one will wave a magic wand, but we can certainly prevent any single company from controlling 35% of the viewship of the country. Yes it takes money. Small businesses can raise money. Small businesses can be extremely profitable. Small -- relative to the insanely large conglomerates that exist today, like AOL Time Warner...
Our country was founded on a system of checks and balances. Where the hell are the checks and balances for the media? Oh right, we took them away. And why?
Man, TV today sucks.
I, personally, agree whole-heartedly with your response.
This is exactly the type of person the American public needs to say something of this nature. If an independant broadcaster would have written the same thing, big media would have just chalked it up to ulterior motives.
One has to admire his sense of goodwill. Ted Turner may be an eccentric, bi-polar media mogul, but his heart seems to be in the right place.
Not every billionnaire donates $1 Billion dollars to the UN for humanitarian purposes either... http://www.unfoundation.org/
Yes, CNN is slanted. It is clear. So is fox. They're both retarded.
But did you RTFA? Ted Turner (big media incarnate) is writing against big media...writing and saying it needs to be broken up. It's a pretty damned big sign when one of the largest media moguls in the world is outright stating that big media needs to be broken up. It wouldn't have the same impact if some guy from Joe's Broadcasting said it as Joe has ulterior motives. What motives does Ted Turner have? He has everything to LOSE by having big media broken up. Everything but his honor and dignity, and quite frankly I applaud his commentary.
"Did you see Bill Maher on Larry King Live last night?" Does it matter? He clearly made a point that in order to compete with big media in this market you need to be big media. He grew accordingly. His corporations became corrupted accordingly, good intentions or no.
It reminds me of the way the japanese grow watermelons to be squared...something will only grow as large as its container. And the FCC keeps increasing the size of the container for big media. If the FCC elimitated the viewer-base cap on big media altogether, then big media would turn into monopoly-media, inc. Then it would be like some totalitarian regime.
If the FCC lowered the cap, among other actions, there would certainly be more diversity in ownership, not just diversity of programming. That is the key.
indeed, we all should...speaking of which...
I actually mentioned this method in a later another post, as I couldn't edit this one. D'oh heh.
I'm not sure the server could handle having that many open connections...hence its current process of providing an extremely small text file, creating a connection, transferring the file, and destroying the connection.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Then their RSS client would barf on the input and the user wouldn't see any of the previously downloaded news feeds, in some cases.
:P
Or rather, anyone that programs an RSS reader so horribly as to make it so that every client downloads information every hour on the hour would probably also barf on the input of a 500 or 404 error.
Most RSS feeders *should* just download every hour from the time they start, making the download intervals between users more or less random and well-dispersed. And if you want it more than every hour, well then edit the source and compile it yourself
"By far the lowest recognition rate was of Asians identifying White people."
Erm. Classic case of projection.
"Man, I look just like Xiawei and Ling Ling and Ying. Errr, wait, no, all those white people look alike...yeah..."
and my post/input is totally sensible if YOU had read all of the text and could grasp the concept that I said that the article should be aptly renamed to something like 120 years of electronic inventors/instruments rather than 120 years of electronic music.
the people referenced on the site may have changed the music world, but not through their music -- through others' use of their inventions. reading about robert moog is fine and dandy, but he alone didn't usher in a new era of electronic music. he was just some wacky inventor. Someone with musical talent and creative ideas made his instrument famous.
Its a misleading title -- that's all.
if anyone wants to rebut my previous statement, let me follow that up with this:
naming the article 120 years of electronic music and not having kraftwerk is like having an article named 500 years of classical music and not having mozart or beethoven...sure they didnt create their instruments, but they sure as shit made it popular...
they should rename the article to 120 years of electronic music inventors...
how can anyone have an article on electronic music and not mention kraftwerk? helloooo? not a very credible article imho without it...
I found my own little list of "potentially insecure" apps by opening my windows directory lol.
l s.shtml and http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/handle. shtml and http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/filemon.s html among other products.
Seriously, just go ahead and delete whatever you want. If something breaks, you needed it. Just go to a recovery console and get it back if you have to. If not, cool, your system is likely better without it.
This rule of thumb does not hold true for your firewall or antivirus software...
BTW, Sysinternals (http://www.sysinternals.com) has some really great free products that could really help in determining what files and dlls you actually need. Checkout http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/listdl
You've at least got the CHOICE of whether or not to use KDE. I personally use GNOME, but that's only because I'm using Fedora, because I'm too lazy to install Debian at work...or rather I've got better things to do. Erm, where was I?
Oh right, also, KDE is open source, so you could potentially disable konqueror if you *really* wanted to, so it seems that your point is invalid...
And unfortunately IE is integrated into Windows. Even if you use Mozilla, problems are still potentially exploitable, sadly.
Well, most users won't "turn chrome off" -- let alone know how to do so or that it is necessary.
As per your complaint about the big distros, I agree whole-heartedly. I personally prefer Debian (Woody) and XP Pro for gaming.
But clearly the reason for not trimming the fat is because they want to compete with Windows on a user-level basis. Joe user would prefer his digital cameras to work right off the bat and for this menus to look super-cool. Lots of overhead there.
But I personally think most of the overhead is in X and Gnome/KDE. Even with an incredible amount of RAM and unnecessary services disabled (or not even installed), the windows just aren't as snappy as those in XP. XP (Home) runs surprisingly well on my mother's piece of crap celeron with 386MB RAM. The menus and windows under Linux wouldn't fare so well -- considering they don't fare as well on my machine with 1GB RAM...
I'm not so great at C, so I'll just hope those guys can tweak it and make it faster. I'm not one to complain about free software...
Where the heck do you live? 128MB chips are practically free around here...after rebate at least. Just gotta shop around a little and go OEM. But really, for office purposes 512 should be adequate and that alone can be purchased for less than $100 online (try http://www.newegg.com).
I'd have put it this way: :P Home is garbage.
"That's odd. I thought they were basically the same operating system with a few essential features missing from Home..."
XP Home maybe decent with 128MB RAM. I don't think XP Pro will install with 128 MB RAM. 256 Min.
Never tried though. RAM is so darned cheap, why go with anything under 1GB?