Blatant disclaimer - I'm not an expert on this subject matter (passports, RFID, crypto, or authentication mechanisms).
I've said it before. It seems to me that the best method of ensuring that the data in whatever ID being presented is strictly representational in nature. Follow along for a moment.
The persons asking for your ID keep a repository of data that they want to verify when they want to know that you really are who you say you are. This is set up in advance, such as when you are given a passport. The passport contains an ID that only points to the data in the repository and contains no personally-identifiable data. It's just a long, ugly string of data that tells the other party *where* in their vast collection of data to find the stuff about *you*. It should contain a duplicate of the passport photo, and may contain additional information about you (as they see fit, apparently).
In this way, nobody is going to be able to snarf the code from your passport and claim to be you. If they do, it'll be more clear to the authorities that the individual is NOT who they claim to be.
Putting personally identifiable data into anything that can "transmit" (ok, so RFID can't actually transmit by itself) is a dangerous proposition that can only lead to bad things for everyone involved.
The method I've laid out still has it's problems, but duplicating passports is more difficult due primarily to the extra checks at the requesting end. The only real downside is that the government will need to collect enough data from everyone they issue the new chip-enabled IDs to, but they're doing that already. Let's just make it public and get it over with.
Huge disclaimer - I'm not college educated. I took a few courses at a local university, but I found the format, structure, and content of them to be below my minimum threshold of B.S. (and they wouldn't allow me to "test" out of those basic-level courses). It left a bitter taste in my mouth to this day, and I refuse to give money away to an institution that isn't interested in teaching me anything but to tolerate red-tape and bureaucracy.
From the side of the fence I'm on, college really doesn't seem to be much of an advange, intellectually, unless you're the type of person that's willing to go in to get the most out of it. And unless you know what you want out of it, it's impossible to get the maximum return on that investment, both in terms of time as well as money. Unfortunately, what to get out of it isn't exactly clear to most of those going in. In addition, the cost of a "quality" education (again, for those that know what they want out of it) is often prohibitively expensive.
It's pretty evident (to me, at least) that most college students are there for a few simple reasons:
1: It's expected of them by parents/peers. 2: Their friends are doing it. 3: It'll look good on their resume. 4: It might open up a network of people that will help them advance their careers. 7: They need to learn to count.
None of those reasons are why college is truely important. In high school, ideally, we re-learn how to ask, "Why?". (Remember that, in developmental childhood years, the question, "Why?" is vital to learning about the world around us and is fairly instictual.) In college, we should continue to ask, "Why?", but also form new concepts on our own and ask, "Why not?" It should be a continuation of the learning we've already done.
It is my opinion that college should be about the free exchange of ideas and concepts. Learning how things were done in the past is certainly important, but it should not be the end of all knowledge. Many truely great discoveries are not made by following established convention, but rather by going against it. Just because someone *said* something couldn't be done, doesn't make it so. It just proves that they were *unable* to do so. It's often pre-pended with the question, "What if?"
Which brings this post on-topic. I think it's great that a bunch of kids from the desert were able to put this together and win the competition. It certainly makes a good story, if nothing else. But these kids were underdogs from the start, and were not only able to put together a well-rounded machine, but were able to explain why they chose certain parts or configured their machine in a particular way in such a confident, knowledgable manner. They took the assignment and asked themselves, "What if?" and, "Why not?". Then they went out and did it. None of these kids has a college education, but they're clearly very smart. It's already impressive that they won the competition. It's even more impressive that they won it on an $800 budget. No matter how you slice it, these kids deserve some recognition for their work. They didn't know they weren't supposed to win...
It also goes to show you that a college education doesn't mean that you're smart. There are other, more meaningful measures of intelligence than a piece of paper that says you successfully enrolled in a sufficient number of classes and didn't say the wrong things to the professors. Intelligent people will always be intelligent, and they'll find ways to expand their knowledge of the world around them, even if college isn't an option. It is precisely these people that should be in college, however, and not the everyday, "me-too" types that are often found at the typical 4-year university.
1: The patches are complete and tested (as well as can be expected from MS, anyway) before being deployed to Air Force systems.
2: The patches are untested when they go to the Air Force.
Assuming the second case is true for a moment, I don't think the powers-that-be in the Air Force will be so happy about this. As noted earlier in this thread, Air Force systems will be used by MS for what is, essentially, beta testing. We're also ignoring the fact that the *really* critical systems in the U.S. Air Force are proprietary systems that run some custom flavor of Unix designed during the Reagan administration (before MS had any significant government contracts with anyone, if any). Most/All nukes should be safe from any *direct* harm an untested Windows patch would cause or would otherwise facilitate. Indirect harm, on the other hand, is a completely different story as there's nothing publicly available that says how these systems are/aren't connected to any others that *might* run some version of Windows. It's entirely possible that an improperly patched Windows system could be exploited to gain access to the "nuke" systems, but only Air Force staff (possibly contractors?) would be able to answer that with any authority.
Now, let's assume the first case is true. Why would Microsoft hold back a patch from the general public knowing that it's best to get a vulnerability fixed ASAP? There must be some hidden benefits to MS for possibly alienating their business and retail customers. We can only speculate, but I think someone earlier in this thread has a good point - This might make those that oversee government contracts feel like MS is doing the government a favor, thereby tipping the decision between choosing MS and non-MS solutions in their favor. MS would probably wind up taking a small hit in revenue from it's retail customers but would make it up in spades from the potential government contract gains.
No matter which way you slice this up, it's bad for everyone. Patches for vulnerabilities should be issued to *everyone* as soon as they're tested and ready. Knowingly holding them back from the public for a month only gives potential attackers an easy one-month run at unpatched systems. Those systems that could be compromised wind up being a threat to the patched systems, as well.
Something tells me that the technical people at MS understand this, but the sales/marketing departments are just trying to drum up more sales.
Next thing you know, we're all be in our own little groups of simulated reality. Some will figure out how to "bend the rules of the system" to give themselves superpowers of sorts.
Before too much longer after that, we'll need some way of powering the system without external sources as literally EVERYONE will be in one of these things and won't be available to run the power plants. What's the best method, considering that we're all just interfacing with a computer system? Bio-chemical/Bio-mechanical, that's what. We'll have to give control of the system TO the system just because nobody will be available to do maintenance (because they're all IN the system using it). Rembmer the phrase, "...if everyone had a million dollars, nobody would want to clean shit up."
Then just start the first Matrix movie, and you'll get a good idea of where it goes from there.
This is Slashdot - I can't believe you used the word "non-essential" to describe internet service! How DARE you, sir!
In all seriousness, however, this latest comment has only reaffirmed my faith in government agencies to do the Right Thing (tm). But only enough to be dashed by their next policy decision, whatever that might be. I hate when they get my hopes up just enough to string me along and crush me later...
It may have been mentioned elsewhere below (frankly, I just don't feel like checking), but there's still one other thing to consider:
The information in the mag-stripe (or any other data-container) may only be an ID that links to a vast database of information that wouldn't normally be accessible unless the scanner is ultimately connected to that system.
There's no reason why this can't be done, and is both encouraging and discouraging all at once.
Up front, there's no way to get any information other than the GUID itself - you lose your card, you only lose your GUID. Nothing more. Replace the card with a new one (new GUID) and unlink the old GUID to make it useless.
However, with the data being on a remote system controlled by people that don't neccessarily want to share that data (even with the person it's associated with), there's a major privacy concern.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your multiple posts, but I think you're missing one further step. You state, "...[Fox News is] simply selling a product, the Right Wing World View..."
Fox News is no longer reporting the news and is, instead, an expensive and elaborate op-ed distribution machine. In a sense, they're typical bloggers that have a TV network.
I don't disagree with your opinion in any way - I dislike them for very much the same reasons you stated directly. But it is also my opinion that they're not really reporting the news as much as they're broadcasting their own heavily boiled-down biased opinions to anyone that will listen. And that, in my opinion, shouldn't be marketed to the public as news.
The Dell Inspiron 8200 I purchased in July of '03 has Li-Ion batteries manufactured by Sony and are still going strong today (I have a pair of them that I can use concurrently). I get about 3.5 hours of run-time at full-tilt.
From my experience, Sony doesn't manufacture crappy batteries. OVERPRICED, maybe, but not crappy.
The mains power adapter is another story, however... It gets hot enough to burn skin. It's also not covered by the recent recall as it doesn't match any of the recalled part/serial numbers. If mine is this hot, how much hotter are the recalled units?! Yikes!
You're getting tons of replies already, but I'll fill in on another corner of the discussion that hasn't yet been revealed.
It's entirely possible that middle-management at MS doesn't have (or doesn't want) the type of directional control they need to get their workers to produce something that is "good".
The Upper Management/Directors/Execs/Chiefs have clearly shown themselves to be the puppeteers of the great MS show. We get laughable quotes like this new one every few weeks from these characters (literally and figuratively). And it's humorous in an, "I can't believe that you believe that" kind of way while being truely pathetic.
It's a pretty common theme among large companies, however. The people that steer the metaphorical ship don't have any real idea of what goes on at the lower levels of their organization. Nor would they want to. If we run with this metaphor, they don't really want to know how the engine produces power or the detailed physics behind why a rudder turned 15 degrees one way turns the ship at a certain rate. It doesn't help that they're typically shielded/buffered from reality by some butt-kissers looking to get a bigger slice of the pie.
Everyone from the bottom up to middle management (workers, their managers, and the managers' bosses) is where the real work is done at most companies. The directional control is usually handed down from on high by the execs, and it's up to the workers to get make it happen. The ones at the lower levels the ones with the greatest sense of reality, and can head off problems before they're really problems. It's only when the executives start meddling around the real work that things start becoming ugly.
This exact scenario is the case where I work right now. We're not an IT company, specifically, but we do rely heavily on IT to get our work done. As an IT worker, I'm forced to see the inefficiency, bureaucracy, and sheer stupidity of doing things as we currently are. This is a result of decisions from 3 levels higher in the corporate food-chain than the real worker. At some point in the past, the company needed a direction regarding a rather large software project. What we got was a level of detail that should have been left up to the workers. It wasn't as much WHAT to do that got us in this mess as the HOW that was mandated. As a result, things got much worse...
We now have many non-technical managers leading teams of VERY technical people. Decisions that determine IT's direction within the company are now made by people that have no place in IT at all, much less managing IT staff and making decisions about technology.
Things are starting to change here as the clued-in technical managers and staff realize what happened, so there is hope. But I suspect MS is caught up in the same type of situation where specifics are being decided by people that have no expertise on the matter. It would certainly explain things, anyway.
Sounds like typical system bottlenecks to me, as others have posted.
For a long time now, CPUs have not been the bottleneck in a typical computer setup. Even more so with laptops.
Generally, you'll get much better ROI if you upgrade the following components/subsystems in this order:
Disk latency Disk throughput Memory throughput Memory latency
This all depends on what you use your system for, of course. But for the average computer performing a mix of home/office tasks, this is roughly where things need to go.
Once these are sufficiently covered, we'll start seeing the CPU as a limiting factor again. However, current hardware is more than capable when handling light home/office duty, so I don't think we'll see much improvement in this area for a while. The ROI for the average computer just isn't there, yet.
The license iteself isn't too bad. It's the picture of "Gayle Elizabeth Sample" that looks fugly.
Another interesting point flying under the proverbial radar here is the new numbering system. It's no longer based on one's name, and will be re-assigned to you if you leave the state and return.
The Dell i8200 I purchased in July '02 hasn't experienced nearly the failures others have been reporting. Then again, I usually operate mine near power outlets and usually sitting on a stable, hard surface. The only problem I've had is the latch for the media bay has snapped and disappeared (probably because I usually keep a second battery in that spot, which is quite heavy).
As far as the power-supply is concerned, I have two - one with the laptop, the other with the docking station. Neither one of them is affected by the recall. However, I DO get very concerned about the heat these things generate when operating the computer and charging the batteries at the same time. Both of them get too hot to touch after just 10 minutes of use from room temps. I know that Dell has been aware of this problem before, because I've called support for this very issue. The article states that they are aware of 7 cases. I'm sure that more than 7 people have called to complain about this.
However, I'm not terribly surprised by Dell limiting the recall to just particular part numbers, even if it's a design flaw to begin with. It's the old, "Just enough to get by" mentality for Q/A.
And IBM laptops aren't immune, either. My company has a number of older X300s that have their fair share of problems. Most of them are mobo I/O errors (failing and generating errors in POST - not just memory problems) and hard drive failures. One out of four in our current supply have fatal problems. Again, it's a case of too much cost-cutting that creates a sub-standard product.
My i8200 hasn't been the greatest laptop I've ever owned, but it's far from the worst. I still use it on a daily basis and don't have very many bad things to say about it's performance and stability. And despite the problems with the power supply, I will probably buy another Dell when this has outlived it's useful life as my primary portable. It's cost/performance and cost/reliability is good from my own experience. The only other laptop I would consider is the Sony super-slim line, as my old 505TR was simply amazing and would sell my right nut for a new one. That is, if I was willing to afford a laptop that wouldn't need replacement 2 years earlier than it's larger competition.
I've been with various companies that have used many other brands of laptops. I've found that the Sony super-slims are fairly reliable, even if they're a bit behind in the CPU/RAM department. And Dell can get you half-decent computers in just about any quantity you want in a resonable timeframe. At this point, I wouldn't consider any other brands.
Quick point - My General Motors truck (yes, I'm from the U.S.) starts in either Park or Neutral.
In addition, the steering columns on most, if not all, of GM's newer trucks don't lock.
Both of these behaviors have occured in my 2001 Silverado 1500, which I traded-up in July for a new-for-2004 Yukon XL.
The reasons for the steering column not locking isn't entirely clear, but I imagine it has to do with a combination of cost-savings (fewer parts to put into the vehicle) and the addition of other security measures that reduce/eliminate the need for it, such as RFID keys for the ignition matched to the vehicle and a simple contents-theft alarm (horn goes off and lights flash if the door is unlocked and opened without the key or the keyless remote). However, the transmission CANNOT be shifted out of Park unless both of the following two conditions are met: the ignition is in the "ACC" or "RUN" position (proper RFID key isn't needed, as the engine need not be running) and the brake pedal is pressed. This is a designed safety feature.
As far as the starting in neutral or park, every vehicle I've driven with an automatic transmission operated this way - from an '88 Toyota Camry, a '90 Chevrolet Cavalier, a '99 Ford Ranger, the '01 Silverado, and the '04 Yukon. And these are only the vehicles I've owned. Others owned by my family at one point or another - a '92 Toyota Tercel, an '82 Pontiac Phoenix, a '97 Toyota Camry, a '96 Jeep Cherokee, a '00 Dodge Caravan, and a pair of '02 Saturn SCs. Every one of these are designed to start in either Park or Neutral, again, as a safety feature. Imagine this scenario:
You're driving at 60 MPH on the highway, and your engine stops, whatever the reason might be. You're still travelling at 60 MPH down the highway, although you would be slowing down. Remember, a vehicle with an automatic transmission is designed to allow you to coast in gear under reduced- or no-power situations (such as this). If you were only able to restart your engine with the transmission in "Park", you'd need to come to a complete stop to safely shift, then you would be able to restart your vehicle. With the ability to restart your car in "Neutral", however, you'd be able to get the engine started again while moving and possibly prevent any number of potential problems that a stopped vehicle on the highway might cause.
I keep my land-line going, too. I even use their Voicemail service instead of a physical answering maching at my home, though long-distance has been declined due to the less expensive service I get via my mobile phone. But I use the land-line mainly as a point of reference and emergency.
Most creditors like to have a land-line number attached to our contact information as it's *generally* less frequently changed (only changes when you move, usually).
Also, if my cell battery dies, or the mobile phone itself dies, I still have a way to make a phone call if I needed to.
As for additional services, I use my cable-provider's internet services and I won't look back. I looked at DSL, but the price/bandwidth ratio favors the cable company for my "consumer" needs.
If the local phone company were to offer something more compelling than just POTS and DSL, I'd be a bit more interested in sending them my money instead of the local cable company and my mobile carrier. I dunno - Something like FTTH would be nice... Too bad I don't live in Verizon's service area.
I don't know why this is modded as "Funny", but what the heck...
Some other interesting tidbits to note:
The IOC (AFAIK) isn't based in any one country, so where would the lawsuits take place? Under what laws would competitors be held liable? How would this be any different than the average attendee posting results on *their* blog? How would they know? Does the IOC even care?
I'm sure the IOC would be able to prevent most video and still cameras from entering the events with a non-media attendee, but they can't stop them from remembering what went on and reporting about it verbally.
I found it very sneaky that NBC has full broadcast rights to the games in the USA, and has, with the cooperation of the IOC and other online media outlets, beaten back the "official" real-time online broadcasts from entering our borders. Methinks that NBC might have something to do with this new action by the IOC.
I agree. Anytime *I* have to take anything out of production for our 1500-odd users at the company I work at, they require *AT LEAST* 12 hours notice, if not more. Usually, we give 24.
I'm pretty sure you've got your example bass-akwards. A more accurate representation (using the car analogies everyone loves so much) could be worded like so:
I remove the (not so) secret sensor on my car that prevents me from driving for free on what would ordinarily be toll roads for the rest of the public. Sure, there are cars that you can purchase legally without the sensor mounted, but why would I want one? They're so much more expensive?
Actually, I partially agree with your point. Even casual copying for purposes of distribution to your friends and/or family isn't entirely legal. However, the industry is going about prevention *completely* wrong. DRM isn't the solution, it's only a small hurdle that we'll get over within minutes.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "Make the music cheap, yet valueable enough to purchase, and people will buy it". Make it convenient, cheap, and add just enough extras so people will *want* to purchase it. Stop using just the stick, and attach the carrot - it will work better for all parties in the long run.
Hehe... Yeah. I still know a few of those kids, too. But it was really a reference to those people so old and gray that their hair starts appearing almost steel-blue in color. If they actually *had* any hair, that is. Many executives of large companies fall into this category. (Just don't flame me for making too broad a statement - after all, I qualified that with "many", not "all".)
But, I'm sure you knew that already, and you were just poking fun at the 15yo kids dying their hair blue (and other non-natural hair colors) to rebel against this\that\theOtherThing. My explaination was probably not even neccessary, right?;)
I'm gonna have to kinda disagree with you there... yeah.
Best Buy has plenty of clout in terms of retail volume. If I remember my figures correctly, they're the 2nd or 3rd largest retail chain in the world (Wal-Mart is first, I think). It would not be in Apple's best interests to suspend sales of iPods through Best Buy just because they're selling a competitor's product. Best Buy really couldn't care any less, as they're making a killing on so many other items. iPods are a proverbial drop in the bucket.
Let us not forget that Apple is making their money in iPod sales to cover their own loss-leading product, iTunes. Getting iPods out of such a large retail channel as Best Buy would hurt the bottom line a bit too much.
I saw Napster stuff on the shelves in there a couple days ago...made no sense to me then, and even less now. It was good, now its gone, let the brand die for gods sake.
Actually, this might be different than what you saw. The intention here is that Napster and Best Buy will be marketing music together, instead of idependently. This is interesting for a number of reasons:
1: Napster is currently in a rather weak position when it comes to promotion. Let's face it, their credibility is zilch with the fickle internet-enabled teens and early-twenty-somethings. Corporate brass, aka "Blue-Haired's", don't sway so easily and still see the Napster name as something the kids are into. This alone is dangerous territory. (And I agree with you, the Napster brand should just be allowed to die on it's own.) And this younger crowd is where roughly 80% of the music industry gets their paycheck.
2: Best Buy sells music as a loss leader to get people in the stores to buy other things, mainly product accessories where margins are at their highest. This loss leader approach is a proven, successful marketing technique, especially for Best Buy.
The Best Buy/Napster deal makes sense due to one last interesting item:
3: Best Buy typically buys proven, successful solutions to expand their business, instead of developing anything in-house. I cite Geek Squad as my prime example, and there are plenty of others if someone else decides to do the rest of my homework for me.
But how Best Buy can see Napster as a successful entity is beyond me. Perhaps they see value into bringing it under it's own umbrella of operations and making it work for them instead of with them. Direct control would certainly be easier, which might just be what Best Buy is aiming for.
Otherwise, I think Best Buy got wound up stuck with some magic beans...
Perhaps it's already been said in a post further down - A complete solution is to compile a custom-install CD of Windows XP that includes SP2, all current hotfixes, system drivers (better than MS-supplied ones, anyway), and any other extras you can think of. Heck, this works with DVD+/-R discs so you'll have more than enough space for those really big programs (like MS Office). Details on how to do this are all over the internet, just use Google to find it. I update my install CDs/DVDs every month. In fact, I have a CD for simple, bare installs and a DVD for more complete installs complete with applications. What about the old CD/DVD every month? I archive them and use them as a starting point if I ever have a complete loss of my systems. (Knocking on wood) Even if you only go so far as to patch up to SP2, you should patched well enough to get online and get the rest of the updates in a much more reasonable time.
Of course, this is no guarantee of true network security. For that, you'll need something between the internet source (cable modem, DSL adapter, carrier pigeon, etc.) configured appropriately to filter the traffic.
What works for me is a Netgear RT311 - a 1 WAN, 1 LAN, SPI NAT router (with the latest firmware update) - and the custom CD mentioned above. I've *never* gotten a virus during a standard Windows XP install from just being connected to the network behind the router. I can leave an unpatched system up for weeks at a time and never see a problem, not that I ever really do that. The fact that I *can* do it is a very secure feeling, indeed. And the fact that I'm, at most, 1 month from being completely up-to-date on my own systems at any given install makes the update process that much quicker and safer.
The Windows XP built-in firewall is a complete joke, as mentioned before. It's not that it doesn't work - it does. It's just that it's not a very efficient solution. Enable it on a lower-powered system, and you're going to be using almost all of your CPU time just analyzing packets of data. Besides, you really want to prevent the traffic from getting to your system in the first place, which is why I can't stand using ZoneAlarm or any other software-based firewall as a primary point of defense. It should be used as a last-resort solution or in cases where you won't have a physical firewall to protect your computer (a roaming laptop is a great example). Given a lack of other, more effective blocking, software firewalls should be a *requirement*. But it should be complementary to a proper firewall whenever possible.
I was about to post the KSI stuff until I saw this (and didn't want to be redundant). These units are *BY FAR* the easiest and most flexible solutions for a PC in the living room.
While the keyboard and touchpad/touchstick combo units aren't exactly the best for FPS games, they will get the job done. Just don't expect too much. Wanna play Q3 or UT? Go to your "real" 'puter and wax some punk's behind.
I've used these off-and-on in my work environment, and I love them. From my own experience, they're fairly durable and reliable. Granted, they're only used about 2-3 times per day, and even that's pretty light-duty stuff. Maily ppt presentations and the like.
Anyone with mod points, please send this parent post some love...
Uhhh... If I'm not mistaken, a student pays the tuition/fees to attend classes and use the facilities that the school offers. Unless there's an additional fee for network usage that wasn't paid for (and the student doesn't violate any laws and/or school policies regarding usage), there is no reason why a student couldn't use the school-provided network connection to distribute their work.
And it's not as if the student is actively pushing their work onto others and violating their right to privacy... They would only be making it available for others to download if they wanted it.
The flaw in your analogy is that the work offered on the network would not be stored on school owned equipment, just like a physical book would have to be. The means to obtain the file would still be over the school-owned network, but a student could obtain a copy of that file from any other source by using the same network that they have paid tuition and/or fees to access.
Slashdot Mirror
Blatant disclaimer - I'm not an expert on this subject matter (passports, RFID, crypto, or authentication mechanisms).
I've said it before. It seems to me that the best method of ensuring that the data in whatever ID being presented is strictly representational in nature. Follow along for a moment.
The persons asking for your ID keep a repository of data that they want to verify when they want to know that you really are who you say you are. This is set up in advance, such as when you are given a passport. The passport contains an ID that only points to the data in the repository and contains no personally-identifiable data. It's just a long, ugly string of data that tells the other party *where* in their vast collection of data to find the stuff about *you*. It should contain a duplicate of the passport photo, and may contain additional information about you (as they see fit, apparently).
In this way, nobody is going to be able to snarf the code from your passport and claim to be you. If they do, it'll be more clear to the authorities that the individual is NOT who they claim to be.
Putting personally identifiable data into anything that can "transmit" (ok, so RFID can't actually transmit by itself) is a dangerous proposition that can only lead to bad things for everyone involved.
The method I've laid out still has it's problems, but duplicating passports is more difficult due primarily to the extra checks at the requesting end. The only real downside is that the government will need to collect enough data from everyone they issue the new chip-enabled IDs to, but they're doing that already. Let's just make it public and get it over with.
Huge disclaimer - I'm not college educated. I took a few courses at a local university, but I found the format, structure, and content of them to be below my minimum threshold of B.S. (and they wouldn't allow me to "test" out of those basic-level courses). It left a bitter taste in my mouth to this day, and I refuse to give money away to an institution that isn't interested in teaching me anything but to tolerate red-tape and bureaucracy.
From the side of the fence I'm on, college really doesn't seem to be much of an advange, intellectually, unless you're the type of person that's willing to go in to get the most out of it. And unless you know what you want out of it, it's impossible to get the maximum return on that investment, both in terms of time as well as money. Unfortunately, what to get out of it isn't exactly clear to most of those going in. In addition, the cost of a "quality" education (again, for those that know what they want out of it) is often prohibitively expensive.
It's pretty evident (to me, at least) that most college students are there for a few simple reasons:
1: It's expected of them by parents/peers.
2: Their friends are doing it.
3: It'll look good on their resume.
4: It might open up a network of people that will help them advance their careers.
7: They need to learn to count.
None of those reasons are why college is truely important. In high school, ideally, we re-learn how to ask, "Why?". (Remember that, in developmental childhood years, the question, "Why?" is vital to learning about the world around us and is fairly instictual.) In college, we should continue to ask, "Why?", but also form new concepts on our own and ask, "Why not?" It should be a continuation of the learning we've already done.
It is my opinion that college should be about the free exchange of ideas and concepts. Learning how things were done in the past is certainly important, but it should not be the end of all knowledge. Many truely great discoveries are not made by following established convention, but rather by going against it. Just because someone *said* something couldn't be done, doesn't make it so. It just proves that they were *unable* to do so. It's often pre-pended with the question, "What if?"
Which brings this post on-topic. I think it's great that a bunch of kids from the desert were able to put this together and win the competition. It certainly makes a good story, if nothing else. But these kids were underdogs from the start, and were not only able to put together a well-rounded machine, but were able to explain why they chose certain parts or configured their machine in a particular way in such a confident, knowledgable manner. They took the assignment and asked themselves, "What if?" and, "Why not?". Then they went out and did it. None of these kids has a college education, but they're clearly very smart. It's already impressive that they won the competition. It's even more impressive that they won it on an $800 budget. No matter how you slice it, these kids deserve some recognition for their work. They didn't know they weren't supposed to win...
It also goes to show you that a college education doesn't mean that you're smart. There are other, more meaningful measures of intelligence than a piece of paper that says you successfully enrolled in a sufficient number of classes and didn't say the wrong things to the professors. Intelligent people will always be intelligent, and they'll find ways to expand their knowledge of the world around them, even if college isn't an option. It is precisely these people that should be in college, however, and not the everyday, "me-too" types that are often found at the typical 4-year university.
There's two ways this will "work":
1: The patches are complete and tested (as well as can be expected from MS, anyway) before being deployed to Air Force systems.
2: The patches are untested when they go to the Air Force.
Assuming the second case is true for a moment, I don't think the powers-that-be in the Air Force will be so happy about this. As noted earlier in this thread, Air Force systems will be used by MS for what is, essentially, beta testing. We're also ignoring the fact that the *really* critical systems in the U.S. Air Force are proprietary systems that run some custom flavor of Unix designed during the Reagan administration (before MS had any significant government contracts with anyone, if any). Most/All nukes should be safe from any *direct* harm an untested Windows patch would cause or would otherwise facilitate. Indirect harm, on the other hand, is a completely different story as there's nothing publicly available that says how these systems are/aren't connected to any others that *might* run some version of Windows. It's entirely possible that an improperly patched Windows system could be exploited to gain access to the "nuke" systems, but only Air Force staff (possibly contractors?) would be able to answer that with any authority.
Now, let's assume the first case is true. Why would Microsoft hold back a patch from the general public knowing that it's best to get a vulnerability fixed ASAP? There must be some hidden benefits to MS for possibly alienating their business and retail customers. We can only speculate, but I think someone earlier in this thread has a good point - This might make those that oversee government contracts feel like MS is doing the government a favor, thereby tipping the decision between choosing MS and non-MS solutions in their favor. MS would probably wind up taking a small hit in revenue from it's retail customers but would make it up in spades from the potential government contract gains.
No matter which way you slice this up, it's bad for everyone. Patches for vulnerabilities should be issued to *everyone* as soon as they're tested and ready. Knowingly holding them back from the public for a month only gives potential attackers an easy one-month run at unpatched systems. Those systems that could be compromised wind up being a threat to the patched systems, as well.
Something tells me that the technical people at MS understand this, but the sales/marketing departments are just trying to drum up more sales.
Next thing you know, we're all be in our own little groups of simulated reality. Some will figure out how to "bend the rules of the system" to give themselves superpowers of sorts.
Before too much longer after that, we'll need some way of powering the system without external sources as literally EVERYONE will be in one of these things and won't be available to run the power plants. What's the best method, considering that we're all just interfacing with a computer system? Bio-chemical/Bio-mechanical, that's what. We'll have to give control of the system TO the system just because nobody will be available to do maintenance (because they're all IN the system using it). Rembmer the phrase, "...if everyone had a million dollars, nobody would want to clean shit up."
Then just start the first Matrix movie, and you'll get a good idea of where it goes from there.
Now where did I put my foil hat...
This is Slashdot - I can't believe you used the word "non-essential" to describe internet service! How DARE you, sir!
In all seriousness, however, this latest comment has only reaffirmed my faith in government agencies to do the Right Thing (tm). But only enough to be dashed by their next policy decision, whatever that might be. I hate when they get my hopes up just enough to string me along and crush me later...
It may have been mentioned elsewhere below (frankly, I just don't feel like checking), but there's still one other thing to consider:
The information in the mag-stripe (or any other data-container) may only be an ID that links to a vast database of information that wouldn't normally be accessible unless the scanner is ultimately connected to that system.
There's no reason why this can't be done, and is both encouraging and discouraging all at once.
Up front, there's no way to get any information other than the GUID itself - you lose your card, you only lose your GUID. Nothing more. Replace the card with a new one (new GUID) and unlink the old GUID to make it useless.
However, with the data being on a remote system controlled by people that don't neccessarily want to share that data (even with the person it's associated with), there's a major privacy concern.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your multiple posts, but I think you're missing one further step. You state, "...[Fox News is] simply selling a product, the Right Wing World View..."
Fox News is no longer reporting the news and is, instead, an expensive and elaborate op-ed distribution machine. In a sense, they're typical bloggers that have a TV network.
I don't disagree with your opinion in any way - I dislike them for very much the same reasons you stated directly. But it is also my opinion that they're not really reporting the news as much as they're broadcasting their own heavily boiled-down biased opinions to anyone that will listen. And that, in my opinion, shouldn't be marketed to the public as news.
The Dell Inspiron 8200 I purchased in July of '03 has Li-Ion batteries manufactured by Sony and are still going strong today (I have a pair of them that I can use concurrently). I get about 3.5 hours of run-time at full-tilt.
From my experience, Sony doesn't manufacture crappy batteries. OVERPRICED, maybe, but not crappy.
The mains power adapter is another story, however... It gets hot enough to burn skin. It's also not covered by the recent recall as it doesn't match any of the recalled part/serial numbers. If mine is this hot, how much hotter are the recalled units?! Yikes!
You're getting tons of replies already, but I'll fill in on another corner of the discussion that hasn't yet been revealed.
It's entirely possible that middle-management at MS doesn't have (or doesn't want) the type of directional control they need to get their workers to produce something that is "good".
The Upper Management/Directors/Execs/Chiefs have clearly shown themselves to be the puppeteers of the great MS show. We get laughable quotes like this new one every few weeks from these characters (literally and figuratively). And it's humorous in an, "I can't believe that you believe that" kind of way while being truely pathetic.
It's a pretty common theme among large companies, however. The people that steer the metaphorical ship don't have any real idea of what goes on at the lower levels of their organization. Nor would they want to. If we run with this metaphor, they don't really want to know how the engine produces power or the detailed physics behind why a rudder turned 15 degrees one way turns the ship at a certain rate. It doesn't help that they're typically shielded/buffered from reality by some butt-kissers looking to get a bigger slice of the pie.
Everyone from the bottom up to middle management (workers, their managers, and the managers' bosses) is where the real work is done at most companies. The directional control is usually handed down from on high by the execs, and it's up to the workers to get make it happen. The ones at the lower levels the ones with the greatest sense of reality, and can head off problems before they're really problems. It's only when the executives start meddling around the real work that things start becoming ugly.
This exact scenario is the case where I work right now. We're not an IT company, specifically, but we do rely heavily on IT to get our work done. As an IT worker, I'm forced to see the inefficiency, bureaucracy, and sheer stupidity of doing things as we currently are. This is a result of decisions from 3 levels higher in the corporate food-chain than the real worker. At some point in the past, the company needed a direction regarding a rather large software project. What we got was a level of detail that should have been left up to the workers. It wasn't as much WHAT to do that got us in this mess as the HOW that was mandated. As a result, things got much worse...
We now have many non-technical managers leading teams of VERY technical people. Decisions that determine IT's direction within the company are now made by people that have no place in IT at all, much less managing IT staff and making decisions about technology.
Things are starting to change here as the clued-in technical managers and staff realize what happened, so there is hope. But I suspect MS is caught up in the same type of situation where specifics are being decided by people that have no expertise on the matter. It would certainly explain things, anyway.
Sounds like typical system bottlenecks to me, as others have posted.
For a long time now, CPUs have not been the bottleneck in a typical computer setup. Even more so with laptops.
Generally, you'll get much better ROI if you upgrade the following components/subsystems in this order:
Disk latency
Disk throughput
Memory throughput
Memory latency
This all depends on what you use your system for, of course. But for the average computer performing a mix of home/office tasks, this is roughly where things need to go.
Once these are sufficiently covered, we'll start seeing the CPU as a limiting factor again. However, current hardware is more than capable when handling light home/office duty, so I don't think we'll see much improvement in this area for a while. The ROI for the average computer just isn't there, yet.
The license iteself isn't too bad. It's the picture of "Gayle Elizabeth Sample" that looks fugly.
Another interesting point flying under the proverbial radar here is the new numbering system. It's no longer based on one's name, and will be re-assigned to you if you leave the state and return.
I don't know what Minnesota's illegal immigrant problem is
Mostly it's people from Wiconsin crossing the river in makeshift rafts in search of lower taxes.
Until it's time to license one's car... Apparently WI has a much lower vehicle registration cost than MN.
The Dell i8200 I purchased in July '02 hasn't experienced nearly the failures others have been reporting. Then again, I usually operate mine near power outlets and usually sitting on a stable, hard surface. The only problem I've had is the latch for the media bay has snapped and disappeared (probably because I usually keep a second battery in that spot, which is quite heavy).
As far as the power-supply is concerned, I have two - one with the laptop, the other with the docking station. Neither one of them is affected by the recall. However, I DO get very concerned about the heat these things generate when operating the computer and charging the batteries at the same time. Both of them get too hot to touch after just 10 minutes of use from room temps. I know that Dell has been aware of this problem before, because I've called support for this very issue. The article states that they are aware of 7 cases. I'm sure that more than 7 people have called to complain about this.
However, I'm not terribly surprised by Dell limiting the recall to just particular part numbers, even if it's a design flaw to begin with. It's the old, "Just enough to get by" mentality for Q/A.
And IBM laptops aren't immune, either. My company has a number of older X300s that have their fair share of problems. Most of them are mobo I/O errors (failing and generating errors in POST - not just memory problems) and hard drive failures. One out of four in our current supply have fatal problems. Again, it's a case of too much cost-cutting that creates a sub-standard product.
My i8200 hasn't been the greatest laptop I've ever owned, but it's far from the worst. I still use it on a daily basis and don't have very many bad things to say about it's performance and stability. And despite the problems with the power supply, I will probably buy another Dell when this has outlived it's useful life as my primary portable. It's cost/performance and cost/reliability is good from my own experience. The only other laptop I would consider is the Sony super-slim line, as my old 505TR was simply amazing and would sell my right nut for a new one. That is, if I was willing to afford a laptop that wouldn't need replacement 2 years earlier than it's larger competition.
I've been with various companies that have used many other brands of laptops. I've found that the Sony super-slims are fairly reliable, even if they're a bit behind in the CPU/RAM department. And Dell can get you half-decent computers in just about any quantity you want in a resonable timeframe. At this point, I wouldn't consider any other brands.
Quick point - My General Motors truck (yes, I'm from the U.S.) starts in either Park or Neutral.
In addition, the steering columns on most, if not all, of GM's newer trucks don't lock.
Both of these behaviors have occured in my 2001 Silverado 1500, which I traded-up in July for a new-for-2004 Yukon XL.
The reasons for the steering column not locking isn't entirely clear, but I imagine it has to do with a combination of cost-savings (fewer parts to put into the vehicle) and the addition of other security measures that reduce/eliminate the need for it, such as RFID keys for the ignition matched to the vehicle and a simple contents-theft alarm (horn goes off and lights flash if the door is unlocked and opened without the key or the keyless remote). However, the transmission CANNOT be shifted out of Park unless both of the following two conditions are met: the ignition is in the "ACC" or "RUN" position (proper RFID key isn't needed, as the engine need not be running) and the brake pedal is pressed. This is a designed safety feature.
As far as the starting in neutral or park, every vehicle I've driven with an automatic transmission operated this way - from an '88 Toyota Camry, a '90 Chevrolet Cavalier, a '99 Ford Ranger, the '01 Silverado, and the '04 Yukon. And these are only the vehicles I've owned. Others owned by my family at one point or another - a '92 Toyota Tercel, an '82 Pontiac Phoenix, a '97 Toyota Camry, a '96 Jeep Cherokee, a '00 Dodge Caravan, and a pair of '02 Saturn SCs. Every one of these are designed to start in either Park or Neutral, again, as a safety feature. Imagine this scenario:
You're driving at 60 MPH on the highway, and your engine stops, whatever the reason might be. You're still travelling at 60 MPH down the highway, although you would be slowing down. Remember, a vehicle with an automatic transmission is designed to allow you to coast in gear under reduced- or no-power situations (such as this). If you were only able to restart your engine with the transmission in "Park", you'd need to come to a complete stop to safely shift, then you would be able to restart your vehicle. With the ability to restart your car in "Neutral", however, you'd be able to get the engine started again while moving and possibly prevent any number of potential problems that a stopped vehicle on the highway might cause.
I keep my land-line going, too. I even use their Voicemail service instead of a physical answering maching at my home, though long-distance has been declined due to the less expensive service I get via my mobile phone. But I use the land-line mainly as a point of reference and emergency.
Most creditors like to have a land-line number attached to our contact information as it's *generally* less frequently changed (only changes when you move, usually).
Also, if my cell battery dies, or the mobile phone itself dies, I still have a way to make a phone call if I needed to.
As for additional services, I use my cable-provider's internet services and I won't look back. I looked at DSL, but the price/bandwidth ratio favors the cable company for my "consumer" needs.
If the local phone company were to offer something more compelling than just POTS and DSL, I'd be a bit more interested in sending them my money instead of the local cable company and my mobile carrier. I dunno - Something like FTTH would be nice... Too bad I don't live in Verizon's service area.
I don't know why this is modded as "Funny", but what the heck...
Some other interesting tidbits to note:
The IOC (AFAIK) isn't based in any one country, so where would the lawsuits take place?
Under what laws would competitors be held liable?
How would this be any different than the average attendee posting results on *their* blog? How would they know? Does the IOC even care?
I'm sure the IOC would be able to prevent most video and still cameras from entering the events with a non-media attendee, but they can't stop them from remembering what went on and reporting about it verbally.
I found it very sneaky that NBC has full broadcast rights to the games in the USA, and has, with the cooperation of the IOC and other online media outlets, beaten back the "official" real-time online broadcasts from entering our borders. Methinks that NBC might have something to do with this new action by the IOC.
Just a hunch, though.
I agree. Anytime *I* have to take anything out of production for our 1500-odd users at the company I work at, they require *AT LEAST* 12 hours notice, if not more. Usually, we give 24.
/. admins?
What gives,
I'm pretty sure you've got your example bass-akwards. A more accurate representation (using the car analogies everyone loves so much) could be worded like so:
I remove the (not so) secret sensor on my car that prevents me from driving for free on what would ordinarily be toll roads for the rest of the public. Sure, there are cars that you can purchase legally without the sensor mounted, but why would I want one? They're so much more expensive?
Actually, I partially agree with your point. Even casual copying for purposes of distribution to your friends and/or family isn't entirely legal. However, the industry is going about prevention *completely* wrong. DRM isn't the solution, it's only a small hurdle that we'll get over within minutes.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "Make the music cheap, yet valueable enough to purchase, and people will buy it". Make it convenient, cheap, and add just enough extras so people will *want* to purchase it. Stop using just the stick, and attach the carrot - it will work better for all parties in the long run.
Eveyone I know with blue hair is, like, 15.
;)
Hehe... Yeah. I still know a few of those kids, too. But it was really a reference to those people so old and gray that their hair starts appearing almost steel-blue in color. If they actually *had* any hair, that is. Many executives of large companies fall into this category. (Just don't flame me for making too broad a statement - after all, I qualified that with "many", not "all".)
But, I'm sure you knew that already, and you were just poking fun at the 15yo kids dying their hair blue (and other non-natural hair colors) to rebel against this\that\theOtherThing. My explaination was probably not even neccessary, right?
I'm gonna have to kinda disagree with you there... yeah.
Best Buy has plenty of clout in terms of retail volume. If I remember my figures correctly, they're the 2nd or 3rd largest retail chain in the world (Wal-Mart is first, I think). It would not be in Apple's best interests to suspend sales of iPods through Best Buy just because they're selling a competitor's product. Best Buy really couldn't care any less, as they're making a killing on so many other items. iPods are a proverbial drop in the bucket.
Let us not forget that Apple is making their money in iPod sales to cover their own loss-leading product, iTunes. Getting iPods out of such a large retail channel as Best Buy would hurt the bottom line a bit too much.
I saw Napster stuff on the shelves in there a couple days ago...made no sense to me then, and even less now. It was good, now its gone, let the brand die for gods sake.
Actually, this might be different than what you saw. The intention here is that Napster and Best Buy will be marketing music together, instead of idependently. This is interesting for a number of reasons:
1: Napster is currently in a rather weak position when it comes to promotion. Let's face it, their credibility is zilch with the fickle internet-enabled teens and early-twenty-somethings. Corporate brass, aka "Blue-Haired's", don't sway so easily and still see the Napster name as something the kids are into. This alone is dangerous territory. (And I agree with you, the Napster brand should just be allowed to die on it's own.) And this younger crowd is where roughly 80% of the music industry gets their paycheck.
2: Best Buy sells music as a loss leader to get people in the stores to buy other things, mainly product accessories where margins are at their highest. This loss leader approach is a proven, successful marketing technique, especially for Best Buy.
The Best Buy/Napster deal makes sense due to one last interesting item:
3: Best Buy typically buys proven, successful solutions to expand their business, instead of developing anything in-house. I cite Geek Squad as my prime example, and there are plenty of others if someone else decides to do the rest of my homework for me.
But how Best Buy can see Napster as a successful entity is beyond me. Perhaps they see value into bringing it under it's own umbrella of operations and making it work for them instead of with them. Direct control would certainly be easier, which might just be what Best Buy is aiming for.
Otherwise, I think Best Buy got wound up stuck with some magic beans...
Perhaps it's already been said in a post further down - A complete solution is to compile a custom-install CD of Windows XP that includes SP2, all current hotfixes, system drivers (better than MS-supplied ones, anyway), and any other extras you can think of. Heck, this works with DVD+/-R discs so you'll have more than enough space for those really big programs (like MS Office). Details on how to do this are all over the internet, just use Google to find it. I update my install CDs/DVDs every month. In fact, I have a CD for simple, bare installs and a DVD for more complete installs complete with applications. What about the old CD/DVD every month? I archive them and use them as a starting point if I ever have a complete loss of my systems. (Knocking on wood) Even if you only go so far as to patch up to SP2, you should patched well enough to get online and get the rest of the updates in a much more reasonable time.
Of course, this is no guarantee of true network security. For that, you'll need something between the internet source (cable modem, DSL adapter, carrier pigeon, etc.) configured appropriately to filter the traffic.
What works for me is a Netgear RT311 - a 1 WAN, 1 LAN, SPI NAT router (with the latest firmware update) - and the custom CD mentioned above. I've *never* gotten a virus during a standard Windows XP install from just being connected to the network behind the router. I can leave an unpatched system up for weeks at a time and never see a problem, not that I ever really do that. The fact that I *can* do it is a very secure feeling, indeed. And the fact that I'm, at most, 1 month from being completely up-to-date on my own systems at any given install makes the update process that much quicker and safer.
The Windows XP built-in firewall is a complete joke, as mentioned before. It's not that it doesn't work - it does. It's just that it's not a very efficient solution. Enable it on a lower-powered system, and you're going to be using almost all of your CPU time just analyzing packets of data. Besides, you really want to prevent the traffic from getting to your system in the first place, which is why I can't stand using ZoneAlarm or any other software-based firewall as a primary point of defense. It should be used as a last-resort solution or in cases where you won't have a physical firewall to protect your computer (a roaming laptop is a great example). Given a lack of other, more effective blocking, software firewalls should be a *requirement*. But it should be complementary to a proper firewall whenever possible.
I was about to post the KSI stuff until I saw this (and didn't want to be redundant). These units are *BY FAR* the easiest and most flexible solutions for a PC in the living room.
While the keyboard and touchpad/touchstick combo units aren't exactly the best for FPS games, they will get the job done. Just don't expect too much. Wanna play Q3 or UT? Go to your "real" 'puter and wax some punk's behind.
I've used these off-and-on in my work environment, and I love them. From my own experience, they're fairly durable and reliable. Granted, they're only used about 2-3 times per day, and even that's pretty light-duty stuff. Maily ppt presentations and the like.
Anyone with mod points, please send this parent post some love...
"MMmmmmmm.... Sacre-licious!" --Homer S.
Uhhh... If I'm not mistaken, a student pays the tuition/fees to attend classes and use the facilities that the school offers. Unless there's an additional fee for network usage that wasn't paid for (and the student doesn't violate any laws and/or school policies regarding usage), there is no reason why a student couldn't use the school-provided network connection to distribute their work.
And it's not as if the student is actively pushing their work onto others and violating their right to privacy... They would only be making it available for others to download if they wanted it.
The flaw in your analogy is that the work offered on the network would not be stored on school owned equipment, just like a physical book would have to be. The means to obtain the file would still be over the school-owned network, but a student could obtain a copy of that file from any other source by using the same network that they have paid tuition and/or fees to access.