While the various researchers who submitted SMTP-STS may be associated with Google, Yahoo!, LinkedIn, etc., the IETF does not recognize corporations or governments. Each individual speaks for themselves. The draft RFC may imply that the companies employing these folks back this protocol, but it just isn't the case that they actually do.
Interesting point - is verbal abuse the only way to get an incompetent or obstructive person out of the flow of an open source project, where you can't fire people? Would it be possible to politely say, "Go away until you actually know what you are doing?" (I know; just imagine I said it politely), and actually make it stick? I have my doubts...
IIRC, in the case you're referring to, the US government booby-trapped code it knew a hostile power was going to steal - that's a long way from putting a backdoor into open market software
Unfortunately, "college graduate" and "educated" aren't synonyms. Most liberal arts majors couldn't tell you how a vaccine works. I had a close friend who was an honor student at a decent college, who thought the atom bomb was dropped in 1900. Millions of "educated" Americans think the theory of evolution may be in doubt, a far larger percentage than anywhere else in the world - a larger percentage than in the Vatican.
You can't change a person's mind with evidence, if they're invested in their position; they'll just dismiss you. The Vaxxers desperately want someone to blame for their childrens' conditions, and they've chosen vaccination as the goat.
What I would like to know is how this change in measured convection rate affects our models of solar lifecycles. Granted, this may be a methodology error; IANAP (anymore), so I can't answer that question, but it seems to me some important new questions arise as a result of this finding. Does this mean stars age slower than we thought, or faster - or is the rate unchanged? Is the overall heat transfer is slower, is some other known mechanism transferring more heat, or is there some unknown transfer mechanism we have yet to discover? There's a lot of work for some lucky grad students out there.
Why not just call Chuck Norris a wimp? I've never heard of Schneier being described as naive (except, perhaps, by the TSA), much less a fool. While it's possible for very educated and accomplished people to be foolish, I think Bruce's long history of excellent work in the field, his written work, as well as his job history with the US DoD, BT, and Counterpane Security would lead me to at least respect his opinion, even if I disagreed with it.
Speak for yourself; I'd had a Mac for almost 8 years, and I had a connection to a Vax Cluster. My buddy in the apartment across the hall had a MicroVax in his office. Sun pizza boxes running Solaris 5.0 were all the rage.
This assumes that faith and reason operate on the same level; they don't. Open-mindedness and Religiosity are orthogonal. You can either present facts, or make an appeal to faith, not both. This is the same argument that people use to advocate for teaching Creationism in schools, and it's just as false in this case.
The 4icu.org rankings are based on popularity, with one of the factors being Google's page rank. That's hardly a valid way to judge a university, unless you're judging their web sites.
One thing interesting that isn't mentioned specifically: This work, using "optical tweezers", is based on research done by Nobel Laureate Steven Chu's group at Berkeley. Dr. Chu also happens to currently be the US Secretary of Energy.
No job too big, no job too small, Steve Chu does 'em all.
I would think that very early on in his career, he may have realized that he works in a realm where very few people can be taught what he's currently working on. He may feel it's a better use of his time to push out the boundaries of knowledge, and let other folks do the teaching.
I've met a number of physics Nobel Prize winners, and very few of the theoreticians were good teachers. Feynman was an outlier
I just bought my wife an HP dv7t 17" laptop. Quad core, 2.0GHz Intel, 6GB RAM, 320GB HD, and a gigabyte ATI video card. She loves it. But it costs $1350, weighs a ton, and I think this model is being discontinued (though I'm not sure of that).
On the other hand, I love my MacBook, and the unibody MacBook Pros. For me, after the processor speed, the max memory spec is the most important. Nowadays, don't settle for less than 8GB max. Both the HP and the MacBook Pros max out at 8GB RAM. I haven't seen anything other than the core i7's carrying more.
I just re-read your question (RTFA). FAT32 is your first mistake. RAID instead of backup is your second. Your data is more at risk from a users' actions than from hardware failure (given a burn-in period). Figure out how much work you can afford to lose, then use that to create a schedule to backup to some other media, be it disk or tape, that you can take offline.
They've been doing RAID in hardware for quite some time now - the hardware may fail, but I don't think it'll mess up your data. Think of it this way: The hardware controller only has to do one thing, which is to serve RAID. The OS, on the other hand, has to do a bunch of things, any one of which could go bad and kill your RAID.
I've done both hardware and software RAID-1 in the past, with Windows, Solaris, OS X, and Linux. For Windows, go for the hardware RAID.
At some point in time, aren't we going to have to port COBOL to some other language? We're going to be losing COBOL experts to old age soon, for goodness sake, never mind the machines they run on may become unsupportable!
Personally, I've started poking at COBOL, just so I can understand the process of migrating our computing infrastructure to new systems. We don't have as much COBOL code as others may, but what we do have is at the core of our reporting infrastructure.
Whenever I see people advising functional languages as a means to expanding one's programming experience, I always see Lisp, Haskell and Erlang. Everyone seems to ignore Ocaml and F#. In particular, with many commenters advising.Net exploration, I'm surprised F# doesn't come up more often. A bunch of Microsoft's financial extensions to Excel are written in F#. Many F# programs are valid Ocaml.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but find it curious that these two languages are mostly omitted.
And it will continue to not count that much...right up until a killer app is released for the Android platform which can't be ported to the iPhone because of the restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
While the various researchers who submitted SMTP-STS may be associated with Google, Yahoo!, LinkedIn, etc., the IETF does not recognize corporations or governments. Each individual speaks for themselves. The draft RFC may imply that the companies employing these folks back this protocol, but it just isn't the case that they actually do.
I'm against true bomb threats, too. Just sayin'
Interesting point - is verbal abuse the only way to get an incompetent or obstructive person out of the flow of an open source project, where you can't fire people? Would it be possible to politely say, "Go away until you actually know what you are doing?" (I know; just imagine I said it politely), and actually make it stick? I have my doubts...
IIRC, in the case you're referring to, the US government booby-trapped code it knew a hostile power was going to steal - that's a long way from putting a backdoor into open market software
Unfortunately, "college graduate" and "educated" aren't synonyms. Most liberal arts majors couldn't tell you how a vaccine works. I had a close friend who was an honor student at a decent college, who thought the atom bomb was dropped in 1900. Millions of "educated" Americans think the theory of evolution may be in doubt, a far larger percentage than anywhere else in the world - a larger percentage than in the Vatican.
You can't change a person's mind with evidence, if they're invested in their position; they'll just dismiss you. The Vaxxers desperately want someone to blame for their childrens' conditions, and they've chosen vaccination as the goat.
What I would like to know is how this change in measured convection rate affects our models of solar lifecycles. Granted, this may be a methodology error; IANAP (anymore), so I can't answer that question, but it seems to me some important new questions arise as a result of this finding. Does this mean stars age slower than we thought, or faster - or is the rate unchanged? Is the overall heat transfer is slower, is some other known mechanism transferring more heat, or is there some unknown transfer mechanism we have yet to discover? There's a lot of work for some lucky grad students out there.
Why not just call Chuck Norris a wimp? I've never heard of Schneier being described as naive (except, perhaps, by the TSA), much less a fool. While it's possible for very educated and accomplished people to be foolish, I think Bruce's long history of excellent work in the field, his written work, as well as his job history with the US DoD, BT, and Counterpane Security would lead me to at least respect his opinion, even if I disagreed with it.
Speak for yourself; I'd had a Mac for almost 8 years, and I had a connection to a Vax Cluster. My buddy in the apartment across the hall had a MicroVax in his office. Sun pizza boxes running Solaris 5.0 were all the rage.
Now, get off of my lawn!
This assumes that faith and reason operate on the same level; they don't. Open-mindedness and Religiosity are orthogonal. You can either present facts, or make an appeal to faith, not both. This is the same argument that people use to advocate for teaching Creationism in schools, and it's just as false in this case.
But how do you really feel?
That's not quite true: they're very good at alienating their customers - and, apparently, their employees.
The 4icu.org rankings are based on popularity, with one of the factors being Google's page rank. That's hardly a valid way to judge a university, unless you're judging their web sites.
One thing interesting that isn't mentioned specifically: This work, using "optical tweezers", is based on research done by Nobel Laureate Steven Chu's group at Berkeley. Dr. Chu also happens to currently be the US Secretary of Energy.
No job too big, no job too small, Steve Chu does 'em all.
I would think that very early on in his career, he may have realized that he works in a realm where very few people can be taught what he's currently working on. He may feel it's a better use of his time to push out the boundaries of knowledge, and let other folks do the teaching.
I've met a number of physics Nobel Prize winners, and very few of the theoreticians were good teachers. Feynman was an outlier
I just bought my wife an HP dv7t 17" laptop. Quad core, 2.0GHz Intel, 6GB RAM, 320GB HD, and a gigabyte ATI video card. She loves it. But it costs $1350, weighs a ton, and I think this model is being discontinued (though I'm not sure of that).
On the other hand, I love my MacBook, and the unibody MacBook Pros. For me, after the processor speed, the max memory spec is the most important. Nowadays, don't settle for less than 8GB max. Both the HP and the MacBook Pros max out at 8GB RAM. I haven't seen anything other than the core i7's carrying more.
I just re-read your question (RTFA). FAT32 is your first mistake. RAID instead of backup is your second. Your data is more at risk from a users' actions than from hardware failure (given a burn-in period). Figure out how much work you can afford to lose, then use that to create a schedule to backup to some other media, be it disk or tape, that you can take offline.
They've been doing RAID in hardware for quite some time now - the hardware may fail, but I don't think it'll mess up your data. Think of it this way: The hardware controller only has to do one thing, which is to serve RAID. The OS, on the other hand, has to do a bunch of things, any one of which could go bad and kill your RAID.
I've done both hardware and software RAID-1 in the past, with Windows, Solaris, OS X, and Linux. For Windows, go for the hardware RAID.
I still remember John Kemeny's "BASIC" plate from when he was the president of Dartmouth College.
At some point in time, aren't we going to have to port COBOL to some other language? We're going to be losing COBOL experts to old age soon, for goodness sake, never mind the machines they run on may become unsupportable!
Personally, I've started poking at COBOL, just so I can understand the process of migrating our computing infrastructure to new systems. We don't have as much COBOL code as others may, but what we do have is at the core of our reporting infrastructure.
Whenever I see people advising functional languages as a means to expanding one's programming experience, I always see Lisp, Haskell and Erlang. Everyone seems to ignore Ocaml and F#. In particular, with many commenters advising .Net exploration, I'm surprised F# doesn't come up more often. A bunch of Microsoft's financial extensions to Excel are written in F#. Many F# programs are valid Ocaml.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but find it curious that these two languages are mostly omitted.
In a previous Slashdot posting, some DC residents commented that he was the real deal. He knows his stuff, and gets things done.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1097003&cid=26519833
There's also a Washington Post article about Kundra linked to in the comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401235.html
Of all the biases exhibited here at Slashdot---and there are many!---the bias favoring low-id users is probably the most idiotic.
Interesting, but I'd accept your premise a lot more readily if you had a 5-digit id...
Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligations. They track real debt, but are completely made up. Look what they've done to us already.
Guinea pigs are cute little mammals, but I am scared of the furry death.
They just really startle me.
And it will continue to not count that much...right up until a killer app is released for the Android platform which can't be ported to the iPhone because of the restrictions.
Does cut and paste qualify?