In any real project, application requirements change.
It's just not realistic to think that you can absolutely get it right the first time around except for the most trivial applications.
One important reason to refactor code is that when application requirements change, sometimes the best way to keep an existing code base clean is to refactor some of the internal interfaces in order to support the new requirements without tacking on ugly special case crap.
Anyone who works on software should have a good understanding of the refactoring process and I highly recommend this book.
A big problem is that if you turn on selinux, you need to have profiles for everything running on the system and that's nowhere near complete yet.
Also, X needs hooks patched into it in order to make it useable with selinux. RH has apparently contracted out for that to be done, but I have no idea how far along it is.
I never said you had to be a thief. Many computer security professionals (like Raven, for example) were never blackhats.
But you do have to be able to think a lot more creatively and deviously than a normal programmer if you're going to be good at this stuff. There's a lot more to computer security than brute-force or kiddy-scripts.
I think you're getting hung up on the "hacker" term. How about "computer security researcher" instead?
Admittedly, my only experience working with her was spending three days on the same team as her during last year's capture-the-flag contest at defcon, but it was pretty clear that she's very good at what she does.
The kind of stuff she does is far above and beyond the sort of "easy pickings" you're imagining.
Don't project your own script-kiddyness onto people actually have skills.
Halton Arp, an award winning astronomer who used to be Edwin Hubble's assistant, has spent years documenting physically connected astronomical bodies with vastly different redshifts. That's simply impossible under the current theories. But they exist.
He's published several books on the subject including Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science which presents considerable information that's been surpressed by astronomers whose theories have been threatened.
In Seeing Red, he also lays out an alternate, simplified theory, which is a _slight_ modification of the general theory of relativity that ends up predicting the real world observations without resorting to magic constants, curved space, "dark matter", and other kludges that the currently accepted theories need.
A big problem with the design of the Chernobyl reactor was that when the temperature rises, the speed of the reaction increases, causing a run-away effect. Not good.
Also, they were explictly overriding safety controls to perform a test. It failed, obviously.
The plant at Three-Mile Island had an intrinsically safer design where if the core temperature rises, the reaction is automatically shut down.
The people in the area surrounding TMI actually received less radiation from that accident than you'll receive simply taking a flight from LA to NYC.
Re:The reactor casing is also a problem
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 1
not only that, but coal burning plants in the USA release more radioactive particles into the atmosphere every year than all of the US nuclear power plants use as fuel combined.
if that horribly poorly constructed sentence made any sense.
Install it as a user, just put it in ~/ns6 or something. It should work fine then. My girlfriend ran into this same problem. She tried installing it as root, but then running it as a user didn't work and just segfaulted.
I was wrong about it being 19,000 scientists. It's actually "only" 17,100 scientists.
Here's the explanation with some stats on the people signing the petition--
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.
This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.
Myth: 2,500 of the world's leading scientists agree that human-induced global warming is underway.
Fact: Contrary to numerous press reports, there has never been a group of 2,500 scientists claiming that human-induced global warming is underway. Several thousand people did endorse the findings of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1995 report that found a "discernable" human influence on climate change. But most of these endorsers were not scientists, but social scientists, economists, public relations experts and government functionaries. In fact, no more than 100 climate scientists are listed among the IPCC report's signers. Even fewer climate scientists would have been listed as endorsers of the report, however, if they had known their views were going to be misrepresented. Significant changes were made to the report after these scientists endorsed it.
For real information from the Global Warming Earth Summit in Buenos Aires, look at the fact sheet and the rest of the info about the Kyoto treaty.
And for information about a petition signed by 19,000 scientists claiming that global warming is more based in scare tactics than reality, check this out.
I'm using Linux and window.open() has been working for ages.
I've been using mozilla as my primary brower for quite a while now. I've had a couple days where my cvs build had problems that made it unusable, but lately, it's been far more stable than 4.7x for me.
More gibbering fundie crap. Just because it is written in the bible does not mean that it is true.
Sheesh, could you at least try to attack the issue? I have no respect for people who resort to namecalling rather than dealing with the substance of the matter.
The link I pointed to doesn't claim that just because it's written in the bible that it's true, but rather points out problems that evolution has based on physical evidence.
Just because it's written in the bible doesn't mean it's not true either. Look at the facts instead of ranting mindlessly.
it just does NOT muster the required experiemental evidentiary requirements
Well, if you actually look at it, one of the requirements for scientific work is that your theories are testable and that you can verify the correctness of your theories through experimentation.
We can't exactly reproduce the entire evolution of our species from the absolute beginning...
All we really have are guesses.
There's evidence that points both directions.
We've done carbon dating and other methods to determine ages of different things and think we have an idea about how the the universe started and we ended up here, but there are weird exceptions.
As an example, the first tool-making humans were supposedly around 2 million years ago and confined to Africa, but there have been a number of archeological finds that just don't fit those numbers, like tools and artifacts assumed to be made by humans in France from 50-55 million years ago and a human skeleton in switzerland from 38-45 million years ago.
Also, if you get into population genetics and look at mitrochondrial DNA which is passed unchanged from mother to child and looking at actual observed mutation rates, you find out that to get the population diversity we currently have would take around 6,000 years.
A number of articles showed up in Scientific American and other places a year or so ago when this info turned up.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not refactoring if you're changing essential parts of functionality.
And as gross as some of the hardware quirks you need to deal with are, that doesn't mean the code that implements them has to be crap.
Encapsulation is a form of refactoring.
In any real project, application requirements change.
It's just not realistic to think that you can absolutely get it right the first time around except for the most trivial applications.
One important reason to refactor code is that when application requirements change, sometimes the best way to keep an existing code base clean is to refactor some of the internal interfaces in order to support the new requirements without tacking on ugly special case crap.
Anyone who works on software should have a good understanding of the refactoring process and I highly recommend this book.
A big problem is that if you turn on selinux, you need to have profiles for everything running on the system and that's nowhere near complete yet.
Also, X needs hooks patched into it in order to make it useable with selinux. RH has apparently contracted out for that to be done, but I have no idea how far along it is.
I never said you had to be a thief. Many computer security professionals (like Raven, for example) were never blackhats.
But you do have to be able to think a lot more creatively and deviously than a normal programmer if you're going to be good at this stuff. There's a lot more to computer security than brute-force or kiddy-scripts.
I think you're getting hung up on the "hacker" term. How about "computer security researcher" instead?
Are you really that dense?
Who do you think tests the security of things like car alarms and bank computers to try to make them better and more secure?
People who are really good at breaking past existing security systems.
People like Raven.
You have to think like a car-thief in order to make a better car security system, but that doesn't make you one.
Admittedly, my only experience working with her was spending three days on the same team as her during last year's capture-the-flag contest at defcon, but it was pretty clear that she's very good at what she does.
The kind of stuff she does is far above and beyond the sort of "easy pickings" you're imagining.
Don't project your own script-kiddyness onto people actually have skills.
Naw, some of us are still around
:)
Coincidentally enough, I even work for Crispin.
Halton Arp, an award winning astronomer who used to be Edwin Hubble's assistant, has spent years documenting physically connected astronomical bodies with vastly different redshifts. That's simply impossible under the current theories. But they exist.
He's published several books on the subject including Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science which presents considerable information that's been surpressed by astronomers whose theories have been threatened.
In Seeing Red, he also lays out an alternate, simplified theory, which is a _slight_ modification of the general theory of relativity that ends up predicting the real world observations without resorting to magic constants, curved space, "dark matter", and other kludges that the currently accepted theories need.
Here's some other info about it.
A big problem with the design of the Chernobyl reactor was that when the temperature rises, the speed of the reaction increases, causing a run-away effect. Not good.
Also, they were explictly overriding safety controls to perform a test. It failed, obviously.
The plant at Three-Mile Island had an intrinsically safer design where if the core temperature rises, the reaction is automatically shut down.
The people in the area surrounding TMI actually received less radiation from that accident than you'll receive simply taking a flight from LA to NYC.
not only that, but coal burning plants in the USA release more radioactive particles into the atmosphere every year than all of the US nuclear power plants use as fuel combined.
if that horribly poorly constructed sentence made any sense.
The article here on /. has a typo in it. Crispin is actually at crispin@wirex.com, not wizex.com.
Install it as a user, just put it in ~/ns6 or something. It should work fine then. My girlfriend ran into this same problem. She tried installing it as root, but then running it as a user didn't work and just segfaulted.
And link to the petition directly is here.
I was wrong about it being 19,000 scientists. It's actually "only" 17,100 scientists.
Here's the explanation with some stats on the people signing the petition--
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.
This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.
Myth: 2,500 of the world's leading scientists agree that human-induced global warming is underway.
Fact: Contrary to numerous press reports, there has never been a group of 2,500 scientists claiming that human-induced global warming is underway. Several thousand people did endorse the findings of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1995 report that found a "discernable" human influence on climate change. But most of these endorsers were not scientists, but social scientists, economists, public relations experts and government functionaries. In fact, no more than 100 climate scientists are listed among the IPCC report's signers. Even fewer climate scientists would have been listed as endorsers of the report, however, if they had known their views were going to be misrepresented. Significant changes were made to the report after these scientists endorsed it.
For real information from the Global Warming Earth Summit in Buenos Aires, look at the fact sheet and the rest of the info about the Kyoto treaty.
And for information about a petition signed by 19,000 scientists claiming that global warming is more based in scare tactics than reality, check this out.
that's INTERCAL.
I'm using Linux and window.open() has been working for ages.
I've been using mozilla as my primary brower for quite a while now. I've had a couple days where my cvs build had problems that made it unusable, but lately, it's been far more stable than 4.7x for me.
Sheesh, could you at least try to attack the issue? I have no respect for people who resort to namecalling rather than dealing with the substance of the matter.
The link I pointed to doesn't claim that just because it's written in the bible that it's true, but rather points out problems that evolution has based on physical evidence.
Just because it's written in the bible doesn't mean it's not true either. Look at the facts instead of ranting mindlessly.
Wow, I don't actually think I've ever met a Christian who claimed that the Bible contained "everything". Heh.
You can find a number of technical articles in favor of creationism at http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/.
Well, if you actually look at it, one of the requirements for scientific work is that your theories are testable and that you can verify the correctness of your theories through experimentation.
We can't exactly reproduce the entire evolution of our species from the absolute beginning...
All we really have are guesses.
There's evidence that points both directions.
We've done carbon dating and other methods to determine ages of different things and think we have an idea about how the the universe started and we ended up here, but there are weird exceptions.
As an example, the first tool-making humans were supposedly around 2 million years ago and confined to Africa, but there have been a number of archeological finds that just don't fit those numbers, like tools and artifacts assumed to be made by humans in France from 50-55 million years ago and a human skeleton in switzerland from 38-45 million years ago.
Also, if you get into population genetics and look at mitrochondrial DNA which is passed unchanged from mother to child and looking at actual observed mutation rates, you find out that to get the population diversity we currently have would take around 6,000 years.
A number of articles showed up in Scientific American and other places a year or so ago when this info turned up.
Interesting stuff.
One place with some evidence for creationism including technical rationals is available at http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/.
And in some applications, my PII 400 can't keep up with my 7.14Mhz A500. :)