Cost here cost there. Well we all talk about total costs, not the highlighting single once.
For example defining a standard is a cost. But not having a standard is in the long run a much higher cost. Depending on closed software XYZ from cooperation Z can cost you a lot.
A national office system not having a software department to service and help other departments will cost them all a lot.
"""Well..., I would guess the security umbrella the US has provided to Europe to fend off the commies, for example, was acceptable."""
Bla, bla, bla First this has nothing to do with national security. I'm sick if this Ammi military propaganda bullshit.
Are you saying all the world should depend their national security on the US. Or the US has the right to let other countries having their national security depending on them.
"My guess is that the precieved risk of buying proprietary software from IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc, is pretty low on the list of security concerns in comparison."
Well as you said it, it is your guess. I do not want to have my national security depend on a guess.
"I think native hardware development capability is more important. That's why China tried (is trying) to build their own CPU, 'cuz of that...other... monopoly: Intel"
No it's both, hardware and software. Ain't that logical. If you can control the hardware and not the software, you don't have any control. viceversa detto.
" If closed-source software is prohibited, there's no way for companies to buy their way into Brazil."
Why to people always say company, when they think of the current program-once-sell-many-times buisness model. First of all there are a lot of private persons doing closed source projects, and the are companies doing open sourced stuff.
Look for remittance projects it's often the case the buyer of the project also gets the code, including full or shared rights. That are also companies doing that!
Nonsense, as you said with MS Office you have to pay also, now where is the difference to redhat support? Next MS support is mostly not cheap, and eitherway all they end up is telling you to reinstall. Buh!
And no no company gives you guarenteed product support if you buy a product, a guarenteed support is legally an own contract, where you usually pay extra. If the software itself is open or closed source actually changes nothing on the product, so why do you imply a difference on support?
If software is not written for the customer for whom is it written then?
I mean exactly this issue is currently a drawback on most free projects. Commercial software is written with the costumer in mind, however free software is mostly written for to scratch an itch for the author or for fun.
Since the software is written by developers, with needs in the mind a developer has. It is no surprise that most developers once really learned to use a GNU/Linux system just love it. (Excluding the ones that just grew up with windows since they were kids, and making knee-jerk reactions with the fear as base they would have to learn something new, they would loose they status as know-it-all on a windows system, or they would need admit they made a wrong decision for years).
However the free developer usually has most times not the joe-user in mind when developing. Thats why as joe-user you still have a hard time here and there using linux.
Guy thats what you need is to define interfaces and standards. The data file has an (inhouse) standard, which needs to be specified. A "standard" definition like it's the way our properitary software creates it right now is very poor. As long all application read/write the standard in the right way, it's no problem.
Note that with properitary software no one in all of the country can make a change. Using opensource software does not automatically say each departmants can or even wants to change it, but you can install a software department, that maintains the software for your system. With properitary software you are dependant on an importet technology, and if it is security relevant software you are putting your national security in the hands of an another country.
Well it depends worst is of course to show a user an uncommented page you know it's likely to not function proparly.
It's at least better to warn them, that their tools are out of date. If you refuse them access or let them enter at own risk is a matter of choice and depends. I hated a local site that one day refused me to enter with an older browser, since I needed the information badly.
Well this also works markeint technically. What is marketing, it is (looking up in my marketing bible, the simple definition, freely translated): The model of marketing is the exchange in free decision under fair conditions of contractually capable partners to gain value for both.
There you have it gain value! To market more is to help the costumer to have highe value gain, this can include the advice in browser use. Giving advice is not telling him to be wrong, well at least it is the same only said a lot nicer, and how does not need ever any advice? huh?
You define your social reality as you want. I dont find the words aggressive, but the way you use it to agress people and their arguments.
"no, that's how YOU took it."
No, that how you took it false. Especially when comparing the risk of a mobile to cause a plane crash. POINT, thats not a better be safe than sorry.
Read my words, "which might be actually true" what does the word _might_ tell you? MIGHT! Does this get in your head what it expresses! Now what does pull out of your ass to a might expression tell anyone?
"you're gonna have a tough time in the real world sonny"
Well maybe we live in different places. Now to the way you argue. What tunrs me is that I am not your dude anytime, not am I full of anything (read the post back), nor is anybody here your baby as you posted in other posts. I find this stuff inappropriate. Interaction rules are defined by the group, and well/. crowd has it's own. However I guess you even violate these. Well get it the way you want. One has a better time in the world if he does not acquiesce everything, and then the guy repling, "well thats the boy".
So for me this stupid thread is closed. Tell me what you want, I will not waste my time on you and read any of your posts anymore. Maybe you will learn in future how to treat some people to gain respect instead of disgust. Bye.
So, not just because it's written in the internet it is necesarly true, but here is a link. - http://college.hmco.com/history/readersc omp/rcah/h tml/ah_073400_railroads.htm
The acceptance of railroads came quickly in the 1830s, although there was some opposition: divines preached against the "iron horse," doctors warned of the excessive speed, and canal, turnpike, and coaching companies, of course, were hostile. -
". nobody made the argument that "better safe than sorry" applied under every situation."
No, thats all this stupid thread was about. The xmda guy in the beginning made just this statement.
Well the exact chance of getting shot is irrelevant, but the argument is not. The number is just as you said "pulled out of my ass", as your 50% get shot in hour argument is "pulled out of your ass". See and thats what I meant having to learn about social behaviour, telling me pulling numbers out of my ass I find agressive and vulgar, especially when you apply other measurements to your self as others. Sorry I just can't stand such behaviour.
Is there something special you want to point out? Scroll back to parent and read my original posts. I said (with more words) it would be coincidence if the light of a "normal" scanner not designed for CD's would match the one needed for a CD. As the very original was obviously not aware that wavelengths do matter when reading a CD.
Neither have I said that such special scanner exists or does not, nor did I analyze if such a technology could work in principle or not.
goofball _you_ have a lot to learn about social behaviour. You do not seem to have a lot of skill interacting with others, however as usual with people like you, lacking that skill you are not able to inpered others reaction proparly and so do not notice your own lack. Well it is very common phenomoen under us technicans.
Again if there is a in example 0.000000000001% chance of getting shot when leaving the door (which might be actually true) you and I would still do that, and not be a "better safe than sorry" moron.
Well most of our local newspapers adding comments is possible. Altough in difference nobody reads them, since they are normally bullshit and a waste of time, the story itself was already well researched.
The differnce on/. is that usually I read the headline, fly of the story as is it usually incomplete and/or inmature, and then read some +5 score posts to get a true picture from the topic.
Well the basic idea is in principle not that bad, combining scanner technology with cd technology, could be interesting to be evaluated in research&development.
However what I wanted to point out it is unlikely that you ever are able to read a CD in a "standard" scanner no matter how much pixels/inch it has.
I additionally think the most companies to not put effort in it, since the user benefit is becoming smaller and smaller, while the prices to archive higher transfer rates are rising. We are currently concentrating on the DVD, where due to much higher density with 48x rotation speed tranfer speeds will multiply.
What we know from physics you can very well tell if you are spinning or the universe is spinning around you. (you can also determine that you are spinning while beeing in a black box, which is in contrast by speed not possible)
Well there is a chance that you get shot when you leave the door. Recently I just I've come across this stuff, it's called risk-calculation.
You have to take the risk against the benefit. Take for example the risk of your hourse burning off if not having an insurrance, and the benefit for not having to pay for it. If in example the risk is 10% in 10 years, your wealth will differ in the two possible weigthed by their likehood. Result 1, the house burned off, your wealth is your wealth in 10 years minus the wealth of the house. Result 2, the house did not burn off but you paid the insurrance, your wealth is your normal wealth minus the insurrance costs.
bla bla bla bla.... I guess you are not interested in insurrance math, do I really know to much.
In contrast you have just to compare the risk of being shot against the benefit of being able to walk around freely. Okay both are difficult to measure. But depending on the risk and the benefit your decission changes. Also your decission changes on your personal attitude. Risky x0 persons.
So example also for handies in the airplane, one has to compare the possible damage, the risk of it, and the benefit, instead of a "better be safe than sorry" attidue where you never leave your house, and better hide under your bed or in the cellar, since there is the risk of beeing shot is the smallest.
Well I doubt the wavelength the scanner uses matches the CD. Note that there aren't any real black pits on the CD. Only a reflective layer, and a semi reflective layer with a distance of exactly lambda/4. Now when the laser in a classical cd player "looks" at the cd where the semi reflective layer has a "pit" it gets reflected as whole on the reflective layer. If there is not a pit, half of the light gets reflected, half passes through gets reflected on the second layer, goes back and gosh it interferes destructive with the light that got reflected on the first layer. Thats why wave length and distance between the layers need to match each other.
What I wanted to tell this better be safe than sorry stuff is total bullshit. In each case you have to look at the actual dangers not the far possible.
Look when you leave your house there is a possiblity you get hit with a metorit, or a lighting.
Stay home! Better be safe than sorry!
Not get me wrong. I am example also a foe of atomar power. IMHO the dangers outweigh the uses, and of course you do not only have the dangers, you have very sure the atomar mess nobody yet really knows what to do with it. Or other stuff where the risks are proofen to be too high. But a general better be safe than sorry stuff is bullshit.
For you xmda, just do not step into the plane at all, better be safe than sorry.
Do not get me with logic, since the argument itself was inlogical (remember einstein, speed does not matter at al).
However in the train history it was written that at this times of the first trains the medicine warned the people note to use them, since they can not tell what such tremendous speeds do to the body, and some published that they believed 20 mph was the border the human body could take without danger.
But who knows if there is really any danger?
Better be safe than sorry!
What I wanted to tell this better be safe than sorry stuff is total bullshit. In each case you have to look at the actual dangers not the possible.
Look when you leave your house there is a possiblity you get hit with a metorit, or a lighting.
Well there are other possibillities too for attacking a plane, note that 300 passenger keep their cell phones on. But usually most of them do not call out for themselfes.
Now hitchhike the passenger list on the airport, get a telephone book, and when you want the plane to crash call all the passengers at the same time. (you need a system for this, or 300 co-workers).
Or in europe more easy, send all of them multiple SMS'es in short time.
Slashdot Mirror
Cost here cost there. Well we all talk about total costs, not the highlighting single once.
...other... monopoly: Intel"
For example defining a standard is a cost. But not having a standard is in the long run a much higher cost. Depending on closed software XYZ from cooperation Z can cost you a lot.
A national office system not having a software department to service and help other departments will cost them all a lot.
"""Well..., I would guess the security umbrella the US has provided to Europe to fend off the commies, for example, was acceptable."""
Bla, bla, bla First this has nothing to do with national security. I'm sick if this Ammi military propaganda bullshit.
Are you saying all the world should depend their national security on the US. Or the US has the right to let other countries having their national security depending on them.
"My guess is that the precieved risk of buying proprietary software from IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc, is pretty low on the list of security concerns in comparison."
Well as you said it, it is your guess. I do not want to have my national security depend on a guess.
"I think native hardware development capability is more important. That's why China tried (is trying) to build their own CPU, 'cuz of that
No it's both, hardware and software. Ain't that logical. If you can control the hardware and not the software, you don't have any control. viceversa detto.
"
If closed-source software is prohibited, there's no way for companies to buy their way into Brazil."
Why to people always say company, when they think of the current program-once-sell-many-times buisness model. First of all there are a lot of private persons doing closed source projects, and the are companies doing open sourced stuff.
Look for remittance projects it's often the case the buyer of the project also gets the code, including full or shared rights. That are also companies doing that!
Nonsense, as you said with MS Office you have to pay also, now where is the difference to redhat support? Next MS support is mostly not cheap, and eitherway all they end up is telling you to reinstall. Buh!
And no no company gives you guarenteed product support if you buy a product, a guarenteed support is legally an own contract, where you usually pay extra. If the software itself is open or closed source actually changes nothing on the product, so why do you imply a difference on support?
If software is not written for the customer for whom is it written then?
I mean exactly this issue is currently a drawback on most free projects. Commercial software is written with the costumer in mind, however free software is mostly written for to scratch an itch for the author or for fun.
Since the software is written by developers, with needs in the mind a developer has. It is no surprise that most developers once really learned to use a GNU/Linux system just love it. (Excluding the ones that just grew up with windows since they were kids, and making knee-jerk reactions with the fear as base they would have to learn something new, they would loose they status as know-it-all on a windows system, or they would need admit they made a wrong decision for years).
However the free developer usually has most times not the joe-user in mind when developing. Thats why as joe-user you still have a hard time here and there using linux.
Guy thats what you need is to define interfaces and standards. The data file has an (inhouse) standard, which needs to be specified. A "standard" definition like it's the way our properitary software creates it right now is very poor. As long all application read/write the standard in the right way, it's no problem.
Note that with properitary software no one in all of the country can make a change. Using opensource software does not automatically say each departmants can or even wants to change it, but you can install a software department, that maintains the software for your system. With properitary software you are dependant on an importet technology, and if it is security relevant software you are putting your national security in the hands of an another country.
Well it depends worst is of course to show a user an uncommented page you know it's likely to not function proparly.
It's at least better to warn them, that their tools are out of date. If you refuse them access or let them enter at own risk is a matter of choice and depends. I hated a local site that one day refused me to enter with an older browser, since I needed the information badly.
Well this also works markeint technically. What is marketing, it is (looking up in my marketing bible, the simple definition, freely translated): The model of marketing is the exchange in free decision under fair conditions of contractually capable partners to gain value for both.
There you have it gain value! To market more is to help the costumer to have highe value gain, this can include the advice in browser use. Giving advice is not telling him to be wrong, well at least it is the same only said a lot nicer, and how does not need ever any advice? huh?
You define your social reality as you want. I dont find the words aggressive, but the way you use it to agress people and their arguments.
/. crowd has it's own. However I guess you even violate these. Well get it the way you want. One has a better time in the world if he does not acquiesce everything, and then the guy repling, "well thats the boy".
"no, that's how YOU took it."
No, that how you took it false. Especially when comparing the risk of a mobile to cause a plane crash. POINT, thats not a better be safe than sorry.
Read my words, "which might be actually true" what does the word _might_ tell you? MIGHT! Does this get in your head what it expresses! Now what does pull out of your ass to a might expression tell anyone?
"you're gonna have a tough time in the real world sonny"
Well maybe we live in different places. Now to the way you argue. What tunrs me is that I am not your dude anytime, not am I full of anything (read the post back), nor is anybody here your baby as you posted in other posts. I find this stuff inappropriate. Interaction rules are defined by the group, and well
So for me this stupid thread is closed. Tell me what you want, I will not waste my time on you and read any of your posts anymore. Maybe you will learn in future how to treat some people to gain respect instead of disgust. Bye.
So, not just because it's written in the internet it is necesarly true, but here is a link.c omp/rcah/h tml/ah_073400_railroads.htm
-
http://college.hmco.com/history/readers
The acceptance of railroads came quickly in the 1830s, although there was some opposition: divines preached against the "iron horse," doctors warned of the excessive speed, and canal, turnpike, and coaching companies, of course, were hostile.
-
". nobody made the argument that "better safe than sorry" applied under every situation."
No, thats all this stupid thread was about. The xmda guy in the beginning made just this statement.
Well the exact chance of getting shot is irrelevant, but the argument is not. The number is just as you said "pulled out of my ass", as your 50% get shot in hour argument is "pulled out of your ass". See and thats what I meant having to learn about social behaviour, telling me pulling numbers out of my ass I find agressive and vulgar, especially when you apply other measurements to your self as others. Sorry I just can't stand such behaviour.
Is there something special you want to point out? Scroll back to parent and read my original posts. I said (with more words) it would be coincidence if the light of a "normal" scanner not designed for CD's would match the one needed for a CD. As the very original was obviously not aware that wavelengths do matter when reading a CD.
Neither have I said that such special scanner exists or does not, nor did I analyze if such a technology could work in principle or not.
goofball _you_ have a lot to learn about social behaviour. You do not seem to have a lot of skill interacting with others, however as usual with people like you, lacking that skill you are not able to inpered others reaction proparly and so do not notice your own lack. Well it is very common phenomoen under us technicans.
Again if there is a in example 0.000000000001% chance of getting shot when leaving the door (which might be actually true) you and I would still do that, and not be a "better safe than sorry" moron.
Redhat has a monopoly on linux distributions selled with a red hat on the package.
"""Try that at your favorite newspaper site""".
/. is that usually I read the headline, fly of the story as is it usually incomplete and/or inmature, and then read some +5 score posts to get a true picture from the topic.
Well most of our local newspapers adding comments is possible. Altough in difference nobody reads them, since they are normally bullshit and a waste of time, the story itself was already well researched.
The differnce on
Well the basic idea is in principle not that bad, combining scanner technology with cd technology, could be interesting to be evaluated in research&development.
However what I wanted to point out it is unlikely that you ever are able to read a CD in a "standard" scanner no matter how much pixels/inch it has.
I additionally think the most companies to not put effort in it, since the user benefit is becoming smaller and smaller, while the prices to archive higher transfer rates are rising. We are currently concentrating on the DVD, where due to much higher density with 48x rotation speed tranfer speeds will multiply.
No rotation is not relativistic.
What we know from physics you can very well tell if you are spinning or the universe is spinning around you. (you can also determine that you are spinning while beeing in a black box, which is in contrast by speed not possible)
Well there is a chance that you get shot when you leave the door. Recently I just I've come across this stuff, it's called risk-calculation.
....
You have to take the risk against the benefit. Take for example the risk of your hourse burning off if not having an insurrance, and the benefit for not having to pay for it. If in example the risk is 10% in 10 years, your wealth will differ in the two possible weigthed by their likehood. Result 1, the house burned off, your wealth is your wealth in 10 years minus the wealth of the house. Result 2, the house did not burn off but you paid the insurrance, your wealth is your normal wealth minus the insurrance costs.
x = (Wnormal - Whouse) * riskburn - (Wnormal - Winsurrance) * (1 - riskburn)
bla bla bla bla
I guess you are not interested in insurrance math, do I really know to much.
In contrast you have just to compare the risk of being shot against the benefit of being able to walk around freely. Okay both are difficult to measure. But depending on the risk and the benefit your decission changes. Also your decission changes on your personal attitude. Risky x0 persons.
So example also for handies in the airplane, one has to compare the possible damage, the risk of it, and the benefit, instead of a "better be safe than sorry" attidue where you never leave your house, and better hide under your bed or in the cellar, since there is the risk of beeing shot is the smallest.
huh? do not get what you mean. in english please.
Exactly! Thats the technical explanation.
:o)
The explanation with scattering pits, and focus are for the masses who do not know what destructive interefence is
Will not function likely with a standard scanner since the wavelength do not match, just have explained that.
h ol d=0&commentsort=3&tid=137&mode=thread&pid=6168826# 6169070
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=67125&thres
Well I doubt the wavelength the scanner uses matches the CD. Note that there aren't any real black pits on the CD. Only a reflective layer, and a semi reflective layer with a distance of exactly lambda/4. Now when the laser in a classical cd player "looks" at the cd where the semi reflective layer has a "pit" it gets reflected as whole on the reflective layer. If there is not a pit, half of the light gets reflected, half passes through gets reflected on the second layer, goes back and gosh it interferes destructive with the light that got reflected on the first layer. Thats why wave length and distance between the layers need to match each other.
Sorry I do not mean posted, i mean rated.
lol, what cruel world /. has come to now everything is posted as a flamebeit?
Okay again.
What I wanted to tell this better be safe than sorry stuff is total bullshit. In each case you have to look at the actual dangers not the far possible.
Look when you leave your house there is a possiblity you get hit with a metorit, or a lighting.
Stay home! Better be safe than sorry!
Not get me wrong. I am example also a foe of atomar power. IMHO the dangers outweigh the uses, and of course you do not only have the dangers, you have very sure the atomar mess nobody yet really knows what to do with it. Or other stuff where the risks are proofen to be too high. But a general better be safe than sorry stuff is bullshit.
For you xmda, just do not step into the plane at all, better be safe than sorry.
Do not get me with logic, since the argument itself was inlogical (remember einstein, speed does not matter at al).
However in the train history it was written that at this times of the first trains the medicine warned the people note to use them, since they can not tell what such tremendous speeds do to the body, and some published that they believed 20 mph was the border the human body could take without danger.
But who knows if there is really any danger?
Better be safe than sorry!
What I wanted to tell this better be safe than sorry stuff is total bullshit. In each case you have to look at the actual dangers not the possible.
Look when you leave your house there is a possiblity you get hit with a metorit, or a lighting.
Stay home! Better be safe than sorry!
Well there are other possibillities too for attacking a plane, note that 300 passenger keep their cell phones on. But usually most of them do not call out for themselfes.
Now hitchhike the passenger list on the airport, get a telephone book, and when you want the plane to crash call all the passengers at the same time. (you need a system for this, or 300 co-workers).
Or in europe more easy, send all of them multiple SMS'es in short time.
Different people want different products you can never chagne that. we all do not drive the same car also. But yet they are compatible to each other.