Open Source projects, more than other types of projects, have serious financial constraints. Is the cost/benefit ratio of performing these labs worth it? Seeing as how Open Source projects typically form the backbone of systems and rarely form the front (user-facing) end, is it worth it to spend time and money on projects that will only be used by developers and hackers?
I recommend just sticking a firewall up at the root of your network and blocking all traffic on port 80. It cuts down on web surfing and it puts to death all those stupid ad/spybots that already infest your network.
If someone needs to access a site, have a system where they can request a site to be opened for access. Of course they will need to have a valid reason and you (as network admin) have final say as to letting them have that access or not.
The www is something that can be surfed at home on personal time. Work is for work.
Yes, if the spam originated from gmail, then the weird address is verifiably correct. However, there is no safeguard in place to prevent spoofing of gmail addresses from other domains.
I like Google a lot. I also think this kind of authentication system is absolutely necessary in the long run. I do not think that it needs to be plastered all over the news every time some obscure anti-spam safeguard goes up.
It's like the ACM except for Google. It isn't about doing their research for them (well it is, but it just doesn't be as blatant as asking them to build stuff with the Google SDK).
And lo, the tasty, translucent beasts of the sea with bright eyes traversed the oceans and came unto the place of the white bear and the fish of orange flesh. And so upon arriving the Lord sent to the land a message that whosoever eats of the beast of the sea shall bring damnation unto all men.
The men of Rome heeded not these words and boiled the beast in hot oil and leaven flour. They consumed the beast before they supped, dipping the abomination in the fruit of nightshade.
The Lord looked down upon the men in their wickedness with much anger. "Unto Noah had I promised not to destroy the world by flood. But these men in their wickedness have called down my wrath upon all men. Thus shall I destroy the earth anew with not flood but fire."
And the eigth horseman appeared in the distance carrying a great cart with no horse in his left hand and a flag of many stars and red and white stripes in his right. And he rode across the face of the earth setting aflame ice and darkening the skies.
I think I would place him as a Jewish person. He's got the same type of self-deprecating humor which is not so much directed at himself but at those who would choose to laugh at the jokes. He also seems to have a very short temper hidden underneath a thin layer of humor. Likewise, his tendency to lean to the left is a telling trait. He's a lot like Woody Allen, unfunny yet oddball enough to garner a hoity-toity following that thinks they have a higher sense of humor because they pretend to enjoy his work.
I like how he tries to tell it as it is, but sometimes I think his inability to reach for the deeper humor of a situation, instead of going for the cheap and easy toilet humor, really hampers the Daily Show. Still, the Daily Show is probably the best news program on television, which says a lot about how bad the other news programs (with the possible exception of 20/20) are these days.
I can't get enough of first person shooters! Why, there just are so many of them out there that I can't make up my mind which one to play. And it's not like they are at all similar to each other. The weapons in one are completely different from the weapons in the other ones. Also the enemies in one are completely different than the enemies in the others.
I can't wait until next year when they update this with a booster pack that includes different weapons and enemies!
I can't hear the opening bars of the John Williams theme without getting chills down my spine and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Good god, do you really have some sort of emotional bond with the original trilogy to such an extent that it affects you physically just being reminded of it? That's not insightful, that's sad.
The sage wisdom of William Shatner and Chris Elliott comes to mind when reading your drooling fanboyism, "Get a life!"
Star Wars was a good bunch of movies. But they certainly aren't anyhing to spend more than a few seconds reminiscing about.
Lucas did some extraordinary things in his career, and he definitely deserves this award for those achievements. However, crossing the line from excited interest in his work to Pavlovian drooling at the sound of his name is just, as I said earlier, sad.
Having the dumb luck to stumble into the greatest movie franchise in history, Lucas has taken that little bit of luck and transformed it into his vision of a complete alternate universe. Had he been any other short-sighted director (Spielberg, I'm looking right at you and your last half of A.I.) the Star Wars trilogy would have simply ended with the dance of the Ewoks. However, Lucas was able to transform that complete story into a more complete story by going back and fixing and editing and putting in scenes that were originally not his vision in the first place. I hate to use the word visionary, but Lucas truly has a vision.
The problem is that most people cannot understand the mind of a visionary and it isn't until long after they fade into irrelevance that they truly become appreciated. So too it is with Lucas, I believe. Many people are so worried about their childhood memories that they cry wolf every time Lucas decides to change a scene. Nevermind the fact that the whole Star Wars universe makes more sense when the updated (Director's Cut, if you will) scenes are added to the films.
Lucas truly does deserve this award not only for what rich memories he brought to us when we were still kids, but also for the memories he gives kids of the future. When we look back in 20 years and reminisce about the Star Wars Nonology we will finally see why Greedo had to shoot first and why Jar Jar was crucial to the story of Anakin Skywalker.
Linux is perhaps the most stable operating system currently on the market. In fact, in several studies that I've seen, Linux as an embedded system outperforms and crashes less often than dedicated software on traditional GPS systems.
It's cheaper to have your photos printed at the photo lab than to do it at home. The cost of a high quality photo printer more than offsets the gains per photo. Consider that you need to replace the printer after a year or so of heavy printing (these things don't last forever as we all know) and you will typically find yourself far behind what you would have saved if you had just had the photos printed by the lab.
Now, with digital you have the opportunity to select which photos you want to print, plus the ability to digitally enhance pictures before having them printed, so this saves money over film in the long run. However, printing those shots at home is just throwing money down the drain.
Google technology is so far advanced beyond what we mortals need in a search engine that most of those engineers working in the labs are not necessary. For all intents and purposes, they are done.
Now they probably need to keep the servers up and running, and that can probably be done with a few colos located in various countries with cheap labor and moved around as necessary.
So cut the workforce, move all essential server capacity to India, China, and Eastern Europe, and let those millionaires go off and start other companies. God knows they've probably got some good ideas for other products, better to see them deliver those ideas from their own small company than to see it bastardized by a large Google (product placement and marketing and all that).
Braindrain at Google could be just what our ailing tech sector needs.
First off, I fully agree with the Linux folks on this one and rebuff the MPAA demands. It is absolutely idiotic for this kind of action to be taken without even the slightest consideration of the actual infringement impossibilities of the software names.
That said, I think there's a lot to be considered when choosing a software project name. One that quickly and accurately describes or at the very least gives a hint as to the functionality of the package is great. The kinds that the open source software camp likes to choose are not so great.
Just off the bat, how would I know what Twisted or Valgrind did just from the names? In fact, if I were to search for my favorite movie Twisted I might even be tricked into clicking on the Python Twisted link and be taken to a strange land where everyone religiously used whitespace.
Make the names clear and descriptive. This is not just a software engineering mantra, it should also be the mantra of software naming engineers as well. No one is immune to this problem, especially Microsoft (MONAD??), but it doesn't take a mind reader to figure out that "creative" names are most likely to lead to confusion while simple names are easier to remember, spell, and identify the programs they label
Joining the WTO would require Iran to abide by internationally agreed upon IP regulations (Bourne Convention) and the impact of suddenly enforcing copyright law against its citizens would be very heavy.
Even limiting enforcement to the government computer systems would result in significant layouts of cash to Microsoft (and other software makers). Iran is simply not in a position to make that kind of investment.
Likewise, it is difficult to see how Microsoft could do business with the rogue nation. It is under trade sanctions by the U.S. meaning that no American company can do business there without governmental approval. Microsoft itself may not want to involve itself in the possible arming of an "enemy of the state".
But in the end, it is laughable that the Iranian government would choose Linux over anything else. Though open source, Linux is primarily developed in the U.S. by American programmers working for American companies. Even Linus, Norwegian by heritage, now lives in comfortable quarters in Silicon Valley. Just because the code base is open does not mean that it is invulnerable to back doors. The official does seem to mention this, but the rah-rah tone of the article drowns this out. The Linux codebase, composed of hundreds of different, separate modules, is virtually incomprehensible in the whole and a full audit of the source code is essentially impossible as the code itself continues to change and 'improve'.
China had the right idea: develop your own operating system. While this may lead to a problem of lack of software, it can also be considered an economic boon as the market itself will be created by the demands of the government.
Not really. The power that geeks have nowadays, with the pervasiveness of computers, not to mention the power that computers provide, storing things as innocuous as love letters to things as vital as credit card numbers, the geeks of today have an infinitely greater amount of power than the "car geeks" of 20 years ago.
Just like how media can be swapped in the blink of an eye whereas it used to take a really long time to record an album, the rules have changed and what used to be borderline-acceptable is now quite threatening.
So the choice is to whether it is important that we continue to threaten the general public as geeks, or to show our beneficence. Personally, I'd like to be looked upon as a helper and hero rather than rat and criminal. Perhaps you think otherwise. I can't help that.
Wok's are Chinese, and therefore can't be trusted as antennas! Those crazy orientals are spying on us!
J/K... But I still stand by the premise that stories that highlight how the "geek" community is fitting gadgets with cameras and microphones only leads to a type of fear of geeks on the part of the general public.
This is the same type of thing as when you hear stories of how someone figured out how to turn the volume on their cellphone camera shutter way down or off so that they can take upskirt photos with impunity. Regardless of the hack-value, it is a bad thing for the entire geek community that these aberrations come out.
Hacks are good when they produce something good. They are bad when they give the impression that geeks are some sort of weird subculture trying to exploit the mainstream through covert surveillance and sneaky upskirt cameras.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Source projects, more than other types of projects, have serious financial constraints. Is the cost/benefit ratio of performing these labs worth it? Seeing as how Open Source projects typically form the backbone of systems and rarely form the front (user-facing) end, is it worth it to spend time and money on projects that will only be used by developers and hackers?
The TV probably gained sentience and realized the crap that was being fed to it. It responded in the only way it knew how.
I recommend just sticking a firewall up at the root of your network and blocking all traffic on port 80. It cuts down on web surfing and it puts to death all those stupid ad/spybots that already infest your network.
If someone needs to access a site, have a system where they can request a site to be opened for access. Of course they will need to have a valid reason and you (as network admin) have final say as to letting them have that access or not.
The www is something that can be surfed at home on personal time. Work is for work.
It's not quite as clear cut as that.
Yes, if the spam originated from gmail, then the weird address is verifiably correct. However, there is no safeguard in place to prevent spoofing of gmail addresses from other domains.
I like Google a lot. I also think this kind of authentication system is absolutely necessary in the long run. I do not think that it needs to be plastered all over the news every time some obscure anti-spam safeguard goes up.
It's like the ACM except for Google. It isn't about doing their research for them (well it is, but it just doesn't be as blatant as asking them to build stuff with the Google SDK).
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/codejamwinner s.html
Coolness. If there was any one company I would trust to "Do no evil", it would be Google.
I like shows where the producers have enough of a clue to make the web page work properly in Firefox.
That and 24. That Jack Bauer is always in a heap of trouble!
enum Outcome
{
AMERICAWINS,
AMERICALOSES
}
int main()
{
bool voted = didYouVote();
Outcome o;
switch (voted)
{
case true:
o = AMERICAWINS;
case false:
o = AMERICALOSES;
}
return o;
}
And lo, the tasty, translucent beasts of the sea with bright eyes traversed the oceans and came unto the place of the white bear and the fish of orange flesh. And so upon arriving the Lord sent to the land a message that whosoever eats of the beast of the sea shall bring damnation unto all men.
The men of Rome heeded not these words and boiled the beast in hot oil and leaven flour. They consumed the beast before they supped, dipping the abomination in the fruit of nightshade.
The Lord looked down upon the men in their wickedness with much anger. "Unto Noah had I promised not to destroy the world by flood. But these men in their wickedness have called down my wrath upon all men. Thus shall I destroy the earth anew with not flood but fire."
And the eigth horseman appeared in the distance carrying a great cart with no horse in his left hand and a flag of many stars and red and white stripes in his right. And he rode across the face of the earth setting aflame ice and darkening the skies.
I think I would place him as a Jewish person. He's got the same type of self-deprecating humor which is not so much directed at himself but at those who would choose to laugh at the jokes. He also seems to have a very short temper hidden underneath a thin layer of humor. Likewise, his tendency to lean to the left is a telling trait. He's a lot like Woody Allen, unfunny yet oddball enough to garner a hoity-toity following that thinks they have a higher sense of humor because they pretend to enjoy his work.
I like how he tries to tell it as it is, but sometimes I think his inability to reach for the deeper humor of a situation, instead of going for the cheap and easy toilet humor, really hampers the Daily Show. Still, the Daily Show is probably the best news program on television, which says a lot about how bad the other news programs (with the possible exception of 20/20) are these days.
Why not? All you need is a pen. Don't let the condensation hold you back!
I can't get enough of first person shooters! Why, there just are so many of them out there that I can't make up my mind which one to play. And it's not like they are at all similar to each other. The weapons in one are completely different from the weapons in the other ones. Also the enemies in one are completely different than the enemies in the others.
I can't wait until next year when they update this with a booster pack that includes different weapons and enemies!
I can't hear the opening bars of the John Williams theme without getting chills down my spine and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Good god, do you really have some sort of emotional bond with the original trilogy to such an extent that it affects you physically just being reminded of it? That's not insightful, that's sad.
The sage wisdom of William Shatner and Chris Elliott comes to mind when reading your drooling fanboyism, "Get a life!"
Star Wars was a good bunch of movies. But they certainly aren't anyhing to spend more than a few seconds reminiscing about.
Lucas did some extraordinary things in his career, and he definitely deserves this award for those achievements. However, crossing the line from excited interest in his work to Pavlovian drooling at the sound of his name is just, as I said earlier, sad.
Having the dumb luck to stumble into the greatest movie franchise in history, Lucas has taken that little bit of luck and transformed it into his vision of a complete alternate universe. Had he been any other short-sighted director (Spielberg, I'm looking right at you and your last half of A.I.) the Star Wars trilogy would have simply ended with the dance of the Ewoks. However, Lucas was able to transform that complete story into a more complete story by going back and fixing and editing and putting in scenes that were originally not his vision in the first place. I hate to use the word visionary, but Lucas truly has a vision.
The problem is that most people cannot understand the mind of a visionary and it isn't until long after they fade into irrelevance that they truly become appreciated. So too it is with Lucas, I believe. Many people are so worried about their childhood memories that they cry wolf every time Lucas decides to change a scene. Nevermind the fact that the whole Star Wars universe makes more sense when the updated (Director's Cut, if you will) scenes are added to the films.
Lucas truly does deserve this award not only for what rich memories he brought to us when we were still kids, but also for the memories he gives kids of the future. When we look back in 20 years and reminisce about the Star Wars Nonology we will finally see why Greedo had to shoot first and why Jar Jar was crucial to the story of Anakin Skywalker.
Linux is perhaps the most stable operating system currently on the market. In fact, in several studies that I've seen, Linux as an embedded system outperforms and crashes less often than dedicated software on traditional GPS systems.
Is that like reading Slashdot for the trolls?
It's cheaper to have your photos printed at the photo lab than to do it at home. The cost of a high quality photo printer more than offsets the gains per photo. Consider that you need to replace the printer after a year or so of heavy printing (these things don't last forever as we all know) and you will typically find yourself far behind what you would have saved if you had just had the photos printed by the lab.
Now, with digital you have the opportunity to select which photos you want to print, plus the ability to digitally enhance pictures before having them printed, so this saves money over film in the long run. However, printing those shots at home is just throwing money down the drain.
Note the sarcasm in the title.
God help them if they ever find a bug and try to get it fixed by their vendor.
Google technology is so far advanced beyond what we mortals need in a search engine that most of those engineers working in the labs are not necessary. For all intents and purposes, they are done.
Now they probably need to keep the servers up and running, and that can probably be done with a few colos located in various countries with cheap labor and moved around as necessary.
So cut the workforce, move all essential server capacity to India, China, and Eastern Europe, and let those millionaires go off and start other companies. God knows they've probably got some good ideas for other products, better to see them deliver those ideas from their own small company than to see it bastardized by a large Google (product placement and marketing and all that).
Braindrain at Google could be just what our ailing tech sector needs.
First off, I fully agree with the Linux folks on this one and rebuff the MPAA demands. It is absolutely idiotic for this kind of action to be taken without even the slightest consideration of the actual infringement impossibilities of the software names.
That said, I think there's a lot to be considered when choosing a software project name. One that quickly and accurately describes or at the very least gives a hint as to the functionality of the package is great. The kinds that the open source software camp likes to choose are not so great.
Just off the bat, how would I know what Twisted or Valgrind did just from the names? In fact, if I were to search for my favorite movie Twisted I might even be tricked into clicking on the Python Twisted link and be taken to a strange land where everyone religiously used whitespace.
Make the names clear and descriptive. This is not just a software engineering mantra, it should also be the mantra of software naming engineers as well. No one is immune to this problem, especially Microsoft (MONAD??), but it doesn't take a mind reader to figure out that "creative" names are most likely to lead to confusion while simple names are easier to remember, spell, and identify the programs they label
Joining the WTO would require Iran to abide by internationally agreed upon IP regulations (Bourne Convention) and the impact of suddenly enforcing copyright law against its citizens would be very heavy.
Even limiting enforcement to the government computer systems would result in significant layouts of cash to Microsoft (and other software makers). Iran is simply not in a position to make that kind of investment.
Likewise, it is difficult to see how Microsoft could do business with the rogue nation. It is under trade sanctions by the U.S. meaning that no American company can do business there without governmental approval. Microsoft itself may not want to involve itself in the possible arming of an "enemy of the state".
But in the end, it is laughable that the Iranian government would choose Linux over anything else. Though open source, Linux is primarily developed in the U.S. by American programmers working for American companies. Even Linus, Norwegian by heritage, now lives in comfortable quarters in Silicon Valley. Just because the code base is open does not mean that it is invulnerable to back doors. The official does seem to mention this, but the rah-rah tone of the article drowns this out. The Linux codebase, composed of hundreds of different, separate modules, is virtually incomprehensible in the whole and a full audit of the source code is essentially impossible as the code itself continues to change and 'improve'.
China had the right idea: develop your own operating system. While this may lead to a problem of lack of software, it can also be considered an economic boon as the market itself will be created by the demands of the government.
Infineon got smacked down for price fixing its chips.
Not a good week for Infin*.
Anyone got a link that works? The phantom site seems to have disappeared into thin air.
Right. Me and every other right-thinking American.
The right-thinking Asians and Europeans will be joining me in a few hours.
Not really. The power that geeks have nowadays, with the pervasiveness of computers, not to mention the power that computers provide, storing things as innocuous as love letters to things as vital as credit card numbers, the geeks of today have an infinitely greater amount of power than the "car geeks" of 20 years ago.
Just like how media can be swapped in the blink of an eye whereas it used to take a really long time to record an album, the rules have changed and what used to be borderline-acceptable is now quite threatening.
So the choice is to whether it is important that we continue to threaten the general public as geeks, or to show our beneficence. Personally, I'd like to be looked upon as a helper and hero rather than rat and criminal. Perhaps you think otherwise. I can't help that.
Wok's are Chinese, and therefore can't be trusted as antennas! Those crazy orientals are spying on us!
J/K... But I still stand by the premise that stories that highlight how the "geek" community is fitting gadgets with cameras and microphones only leads to a type of fear of geeks on the part of the general public.
This is the same type of thing as when you hear stories of how someone figured out how to turn the volume on their cellphone camera shutter way down or off so that they can take upskirt photos with impunity. Regardless of the hack-value, it is a bad thing for the entire geek community that these aberrations come out.
Hacks are good when they produce something good. They are bad when they give the impression that geeks are some sort of weird subculture trying to exploit the mainstream through covert surveillance and sneaky upskirt cameras.