"The proliferation of Linux within the on-line server community coupled with inadequate knowledge of how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third-party applications is contributing to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers," mi29 chairman D.K. Matai said.
I must confess that the first linux server that I set up was hacked for the very reason mentioned: my ambition exceeded my knowledge.
Imagine my chagrin when I got email from a couple of companies stating that an attack had been launched on their servers from my system! Let me tell you, I fixed that right quick!
I find it interesting to note the low number of Unix boxes that the article mentions as attack victims. Based on the experience of my own personal ignorance, I figure Unix operators are probobly more savvy, ergo tighter security and fewer successful attacks. Personally, I haven't been able to figure out how to configure a Unix server in a usable manner (having tried FreeBSD and failed miserably). I find Linux easier to work with, which, perhaps, invites disaster when someone with limited savvy (such as I, once upon a time) decides to roll out a server and expose it to the wild west Internet.
[For those who wonder, the incident involved someone setting up an IRC server app on my system, which then attempted to install itself, apparantly, on other systems that were better-secured than my own. Thereafter, I put everything behind a linux firewall that was locked down tighter than a nun's dainty underthings. I hope this humble and frank admission of ignorance will learn y'all to lock those ports down TIGHT!]
Let's talk retro, let's talk what might have been
on
The Return of Apollo?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Here is one of my favorite web sites, which this article reminded me of, and which I thought some of you might enjoy: http://www.astronautix.com.
The place is filled with tons of mad info about programs that are, were, and never got out of blueprint stage. I am sure this will satisy those readers for whom the two paltry links in the story are far from satisfying. Lotsa cool pictures and thingies.
I know these thoughts will entertain some and enrage others, but I will post them anyhow.
The fact that a 12-year old girl in 'government housing' is being sued seems to indicate that the file-sharing issue is not an 18-24 age group issue. It is apparant to me that people of ALL ages are sharing files, some of which are music.
I had an argument with a friend of mine recently. He lives in LA, and is, like EVERYONE there, it would seem, affiliated loosely with the entertainment industry. His stance was that the artists are working and ought to be paid. If not for the RIAA, their music wouldn't get distribution. To make money, they require distribution, and the RIAA is the only one in town through whom they can find it.
My perspective, being in Michigan, unaffiliated with the music business, experienced with technology and trained in the performing arts (theatre degree--marketable as galoshes in the Mojave), is vastly different. I understand that artists, like everyone, are working for pay. However, the advance of technology has been marginalizing the RIAA/record producers for some time now. I believe that technology has come to the point where artists, assuming they are enterprising and not lazy asses, can entirely circumvent the recording houses. Sure, they might not have instant distribution, but AFAI am concerned, when they take it upon themselves to market themselves and what art they have produced, any success is well-earned and not as likely to crumble or fade, as would an artificial creation of the industry (Menudo, Brittney, Tiffany, etc.). Additionally, since they chart their own course, they are free to take whatever artistic tangent they care to explore. In my opinion, the RIAA stifles artistic expression in all but the few artists whom they have contracted whilst on cocaine binges, and who would sign anything to get more blow.
I can't really elaborate any better, seeing as my boss is sure to see me typing madly on non-company business. But, in short, I believe that the RIAA, etc., are close to joining the buggy whip industry: their raison d'etre is about to expire, thanks to technological advances, and their realization of this threat of extinction is evidenced by their willingness to blindly sue a 12-year old, financially disenfranchised girl. When a corporation feels it must go after kids to get its pound of flesh, I believe that its social contract to provide whatever useful services to society has effectively expired or must be revoked.
I think you will find that most officials want their vote to be as anonymous as possible for a public official. In my last job (public library administrator/netadmin), I was THE force behind getting our library policy manual and board meeting minutes online. To my credit, it is a habit they continue to this day (although it may be because they lack even an ounce of creativity there, which would be required to conceive of doing things differently and removing the documents).
On another note, I truly believe that technology has brought us to a point where we could effectively replace the current governmental structure without changing the Constitution: let each US Representative serve from INSIDE their home district. This would cause a cascading cost savings and increase each person's share of the Democratic process:
1.: No Georgetown condo needed, so you can reduce the pay of the Congressman (additionally, travel costs to and from DC would be marginalized).
2.: Working from home, Congressmen will be under the eye of constituents ALL THE TIME.
3.: With the per-Congressman costs reduced, one could afford to create smaller, more easily represented districts, each with a new, lower-paid Congressman.
3.: With smaller districts, candidates would require less cash to market themselves in a campaign. Less cash needed=less special interest involvement. Additionally, lower campaign costs would open up the process to those of us without piles of cash to bathe in.
4.: By sending Congress home to work, special interests would be eliminated from the equation (by following Ronald Reagan's anti-Soviet stratagem: spend them into oblivion). Rather than maintaining one central office, special interests would have to maintain hundreds, if not thousands, of district offices (and operate under the watchful eye and on the home turf of wary citizens).
Finally, with Congress de-centralized, there would be FAR less anxiety about how to protect the government in case of a catastrophe.
It is only by force of habit and playing up to personal egos that we continue to employ horse-and-buggy government in an age of silicon chips and carbon nanotubes.
Obviously, I have given this subject much thought. And, just as obviously, very little of that thought went into the improvised composition of this little tract of mine.;-)
"What are the odds of losing both the crew and cargo shuttles during the same mission"
I believe you are confused, based on my reading of the article and understanding of the US space program. The advice was, as I understood it, a call to run parallel mission tracks: one to deliver astronauts back and forth, and another (presumably unmanned) to deliver cargo. I don't think they intend to fly two shuttles at once, or if they even intend both tracks to involve shuttles. To be honest, I think flying two shuttles at one time is beyond NASA's current capability.
I assume the intent is not so much to reduce the cost of potential losses, or even to make them safer. By removing the human element from primarily hardware-delivery missions, one removes the emotional impact of losing an astronaut. Cargo loss does not carry the same emotional charge as loss of a crew--how many satellite losses have brought the space program to a near-halt? Not many that I know of.
As for the wisdom of separate missions, I think it is quite wise. Although I love manned flight in concept, unmanned missions are certainly the way to go for cargo delivery--humans only complicate the situation (life support considerations, g-force load restrictions, etc.) As I wrote this response, I thought, "Could ISS parts be placed by an unmanned shuttle?" And I think the answer is, yes, remote operation from the ground (or even the ISS) could almost surely become a reality, given that today's technology FAR outpaces the tech of the shuttle fleet, as built in the 70s-80s.
I am imagining that MS is doing some heavy closed-door scrambling to bring security to a level where it will pass the sniff test.
However, in the next few years, I can see the following possibility playing out:
2004: Next Windows iteration released with minor UI changes, possibly new licensing terms;
2005-2008: MS licenses a *nix variant to do the heavy lifting under the UI (a la Apple/OSX), coupled with the next major UI overhaul (new flashy GUI w/.Net/subscription-based application delivery). This would lend stability at less cost, allow programmers to move towards non-kernel programming projects in support of.Net/applications (not that I know anything about this matter, but it don't stop me from blathering)
2006-2008: Also about this time, if MS licenses a *nix for core services, I would expect Apple to release Marklar on the world. I'll let someone else pick up the fantasy from there.
This is simply my own fantasizing. Your mileage may vary.;-)
Hey now, don't go nosing around the U.S. Code, for Heaven's sake!
They don't like you finding out how the screws are kept nice 'n' tight! Bad citizen! No more reading for you!
Ok, enough. Rant finished. I think everyone should spend more time reading the USC and the Constitution. Interesting to compare the two, and see where they converge and diverge. However, it sometimes requires a strong stomache, if you are concerned for civil liberties that hang by a whisp of smoke and a prayer. Not that I think the end for civil liberties is nigh, but our general situation could be improved if the citizenry read these things and understood how the machinery of government works.
I have been intrigued with the notion of general lighting via LED for a few years now. I look to this as an opportunity for lighting enthusiasts to break out of the mold of chandeliers and lampshades, etc. Conventional light sources today run far too hot and with very limited control gradations. LED makes just enough sense while being also just crazy enough to work. I just wish I had the $$ to invest now, before the LED market explodes in a market event/orgy of Dionysian proportions.
I read an article at theDetroit Free Press site just now (http://www.freep.com/news/metro/main18_20030818.h tm) which, although it doesn't explicitly say so (and perhaps the writers haven't themselves realized the implication), implies to me that, again, blame for this American-style failure seems to lay squarely at the feet of management.
The article claims that, "as other high-voltage lines succumbed in northern Ohio, an alarm that was supposed to warn an Ohio utility of the line failures -- and perhaps stop them from spreading -- remained silent."
Elsewhere in the same article, they say, "A FirstEnergy [FirstEnergy being the company owning the first line to fail. -pjt] official said Sunday that she could not explain why the alarm system was not working. But, spokeswoman Kristen Baird said, the lack of a working alarm was irrelevent because company controllers were monitoring the line failures and working to correct them."
Ever notice how, whether it is NASA or an energy utility (whose media faces are always nameless and blameless), they always claim they cannot (or will not) identify the problem, which usually winds up being a failure of the human element, in this age of drones and automatons who refuse to act independently (OR, I'll hasten to add, are PREVENTED from acting, by other management types).
Why the hell have the blinkenlightzen when the managers watching said blinkenlightzen are incapable of independent action when the blinkenlightzen fail and all other indicators are telling them FEAR! FIRE! FLOOD!
Just my $.02. Time for me to get back to serving MY corporate masters, now.;-)
About a half-hour prior to the blackout, I was reading an article online--I forgot the URL completely--which discussed the use of superconductors to augment the circuit breaking elements of the power transmission system.
Now, IANA Electrical Engineer, however, I found it interesting, in hind sight especially, that these superconductive elements would be used to soften the blow on circuit breakers, which sometimes cannot react to an overwhelming surge, which will blow right through them.
I won't go into the details, especially as I don't have the article before me for cut-n-paste cheating. However, it was intriguing that superconductors, in this case, were proposed for use not as conductors, but instead to react by becoming less-conductive with the increase in flow, etc, in a much faster manner than the mechanical breakers.
Now, if we could only get some wind farms up and running here in Michigan, and in substantial numbers... (I've seen the one in Southeast Wyoming, and it was truly awe-inspiring!)
"Why-oh-why can't people patch? Shouldn't broadband providers be sending emails to their clients with a link in them?"
People don't patch because, quite simply (not that it is true by any means), Windows is supposed to be perfect already, needing no further work. "Where do you want to go today" (besides offline)?
Also, I would hazard to guess that most broadband providers don't know the email addresses of their customers (would YOU give up your addy to Comcrap? Not ME, bub!). Broadband providers care not a bit about communicating with customers, unless it is to request payment for services rendered.
"You'd think every hotmail account would get a message saying "Plug that hole" from whoever it is that runs hotmail. "
Microsoft runs Hotmail. I have a Hotmail account, but I use an iMac, therefore it doesn't apply to me, so I would not want to get that message.
Besides... It would be just another message in my/your 'other Hotmail folder,' meaning it would be ignored as just another spam mail.
I agree with an earlier post, though. Everyone who says "Linux isn't ready for your grandma" should be forced to do community service cleaning this crap up. AND maybe doing weekly patches on all the Wintel machines in his/her neighborhood. AND maybe making sure certain ports are closed on those same PCs.
This reminds me of the GR show, Earth:Final Conflict, where they fly spacecraft via interactive holographic display panels. I find this another funny way in which GR 'predicted' technology (although I am sure it is possible it appeared elsewhere earlier.. I just happened to catch it in EFC).
Just curious... Is there any opinion (informed, not the usual guesswork type) as to who will make the trip first, and survive to collect the prize money? I have followed X-Prize news over the last few years, but recently I have been too busy in my soul-robbing, non-tech job to take notice!
This was the most ill-informed posting I have read today. Most Americans probobly couldn't spell 'conservative' let alone vote that way. The 'conservatism' you speak of is really fascism, re.: the long arm of the law reaching up into a woman's uterus. People might be in favor of it for others, but when the bacon hits the pan, they want nothing to DO with that form of nonsense in their own lives.
The only popularity of Fox(hole) News and others is the popularity you measure when you count the number of times neo-cons rave about such pablum (Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! RAWWWCKK! no spin zone! RAWWCCKKKK! Polly wants a mideast war! SQUAWK!). I believe that most people of half-wit level and above understand that Fox News and the rest are just apologists for the disaster that is Neo-Conservatism (and a distraction from the failures of neoconservatism).
As for coloring Liberals by claiming Ms. Streisand as their "elite" leader, you show an incredible lack of understanding for anything other than the menu fed to you (and gobbled up, apparantly) by Fox News, Murdoch, and the rest of the fascists who would have us pepper our language with copyright symbols and patent pending disclaimers. Streisand is simply the easy target Bill O'Reilly, et al, have set up for those who don't want to (or can't) evaluate the Liberal landscape with even the smallest dose of intellectual curiousity, a landscape which contains a great many progressive, hardcore patriotic people who think that there should be some things left untainted by corporatia, and unowned by individuals of unfathomable wealth and power.
As for me, I am in favor of any progressive politician willing to buck the status quo (I voted for McCain in our primary, Gore in the general election). If that means Dean, then I am all for him. Many of us are waiting to see if Wesley Clarke throws his helmet into the ring, though. If so, all bets are off.
I always wondered why my friends who married became dull and unentertaining almost overnight. Once, while on my death bed with a horrible flu, a recently-married friend called to regail me with his tale of putting plastic up on his second-floor condo windows. Man, til then I hadn't had so much fun--NOT!
I have yet to see a friend become MORE interesting after marriage, or even manage to tread water and remain a good ol' guy.
And now, a study supports my theory. Of course, I am still waiting eagerly for some chickie to come along and make ME a bore...
If you don't like DRM, don't buy the product. If you really like good art, find some locally. Believe it or not, California is not the mother lode of all art. There is great music, theatre, etc., being created all over the US and the world. The more you patronize local artists, the less Hollywierd profits from your patronage. The more $$ local artists receive from you, the better equipment they can purchase. The better the equipment (such as for recording) the easier it is for you to enjoy their art outside the pub/bar/city park concert.
In short, the best way to fight RIAA and MPAA is to simply stop eating the shit they are labeling as art.
Additionally, the more money that is spent within the local community for artists, the more money remains in the community, thus helping local economies. I mean, who the fuck believes that sending money to California is gonna help people eat in the heartland? I certainly don't. I'd rather help out when a band passes the hat in the local pub than spend blood money for some Hollywood hack art/music that I will actually listen to about twice before converting it to a dust-collection unit.
Why, oh tell me, WHY, did I have to follow that Katy link? I have never seen such vapid, insipid claptrap so well chrystalized into evidenciary form.
I mean, the 'Miss Vermont' story, as entertaining as it is, is certainly self-involved, but that Katy link just made me embarrassed to have ever had ANYTHING to do with information technology, period. What a waste of pixels... What a waste of B A N D W I D T H...
More to the point, with M$ workin it, you'll have to block EVERYONE except who you want to get mail from, and you'd better hope they don't have any typos in the return address, cuz then it won't get through.
"BTW, there are plenty of locally-owned radio stations that operate part of the day fully automated as well. How would they have reacted to this emergency? The same way."
As much of a fan of the broad brushstroke of generalization as I am, I contest this. The essential nature of locally-owned ANYTHING is that the local concern will act in accordance with local needs and desires--mostly due to the fact that the owner/operators are local residents. In some markets, sure, the local station might simply buzz and hiss on, entirely unmanned, spewing out it's preprogrammed pablum--AND THAT LOCAL OWNER/OPERATOR WILL CATCH HELL, at the supermarket, in church, at the auto shop, etc.. Meanwhile, in another market, the GM might drop his/her donut and break into programming (all the while fumbling at controls while reading board operation manuals) in order to get the word out--probably because the GM grew up and lives in said market. THAT owner/operator may then become the talk of the town, for having done his/her job and saved the day, just as everyone who knows them KNEW they would.
"Moreover, there are plenty of non-locally-owned radio and television stations that are staffed at all times, and can break into local programming with news flashes, even if most of their operations are centrally controlled."
Certainly, this may be true, but who is to say that the employees HAVE the authority to break in (gotta call the Boss and check)? I argue that the non-local owners PROBOBLY don't realize that, for example, a derailed train (spewing forth ghastly clouds of death) is either up- or down-wind of, say, Sam Jones Elementary School, or perhaps that it is blocking a primary or secondary escape route from the area. To expand on this example, if *I*, living as I do in Southeast Michigan, owned AND operated a radio station in, say, the Beulah/Empire area (up near Traverse City), and some emergency broke out, I wouldn't have the first clue as to who was endangered, or what news to tell them. And, surely, non-local ownership being driven by cost-consciousness, who is to say that whoever is on hand is anything more than a janitor/attendent with no clue as to station operations, or even a rudimentary knowledge of the area being served?? These changes shift the control without any apparant responsibility AND penalties for endangering the public throgh owner ignorance. Do I get to sue Rupert Murdock if my child is killed because the local radio station, owned by Rupy, played Norah Jones instead of "Get the Hell outta here, the place is going DOWN"?
"Why didn't the local government activate the Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcast that all radio and TV stations have by law?"
Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the local governemtn was 1.: busy managing the emergency, and 2.: local government couldn't FIND the owner/operator, who is out of town vacationing in the Bahamas.
Now, if they would open up micro-broadcasting, so that, say, I could run a station just for my apartment complex, well, that might soothe things a bit....
As always, this is just my $.02. I am posting them now, before my thinking becomes and more muddled...
"But a lot of Westerners apparently think it's ok to bash the chinese for protecting their people, there's so many of them what's a million prematurely dead?"
Well, that philosophy worked for the Chinese during the Korean War. Why else do you think we never fought the Chinese (officially)? There were too many of them, and they were all too willing to just keep sending Chinese soldiers 'over the hill' to their deaths in any conflict. We had limited human resources, and were never so committed to the war as to send millions of Americans back 'over the hill.'
I would say, given the number of homeless children, society's unwanted, that there are down there, and how they are mistreated, that, yeah, freedom is a scarce commodity.
My question is, "Why did/does Brazil need an aircraft carrier?" Aren't such things needed by nations who would fear other nations trying to muscle in on 'em? I mean, hey, who REALLY wants to go to Brazil and stay?
I can't imagine Brazil having need for such a ting. Maybe that's why they got rid of it. I certainly hope they didn't spend MORE money and a fancier ship that they don't need, seeing as Brazil ain't the richest of nations (or the free-est, for that matter), and really doesn't face a threat of imminent invasion. Seems they have better things to spend money on than aircraft carriers.
Anyhow... Anyone who buys this had better be planning on moving in for the long haul. They also better be rich as fuck, and with a healthy incoming cash flow, as you would need to hire LOTS of people to crew this thing and to maintain it, regardless of whether it ever went out to sea again or not. I wonder if the US will actually allow it to be sold--or should I say, perhaps, 'delivered." I guess one way to get attention from Uncle Sam, if you want it, would be to buy an old aircraft carrier.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, now, don't forget the TI-994/A! Insert the Extended Basic cartridge, and, WHAMMO! You just doubled your memory to 32k!
Cool beans, dude.
"The proliferation of Linux within the on-line server community coupled with inadequate knowledge of how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third-party applications is contributing to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers," mi29 chairman D.K. Matai said.
I must confess that the first linux server that I set up was hacked for the very reason mentioned: my ambition exceeded my knowledge.
Imagine my chagrin when I got email from a couple of companies stating that an attack had been launched on their servers from my system! Let me tell you, I fixed that right quick!
I find it interesting to note the low number of Unix boxes that the article mentions as attack victims. Based on the experience of my own personal ignorance, I figure Unix operators are probobly more savvy, ergo tighter security and fewer successful attacks. Personally, I haven't been able to figure out how to configure a Unix server in a usable manner (having tried FreeBSD and failed miserably). I find Linux easier to work with, which, perhaps, invites disaster when someone with limited savvy (such as I, once upon a time) decides to roll out a server and expose it to the wild west Internet.
[For those who wonder, the incident involved someone setting up an IRC server app on my system, which then attempted to install itself, apparantly, on other systems that were better-secured than my own. Thereafter, I put everything behind a linux firewall that was locked down tighter than a nun's dainty underthings. I hope this humble and frank admission of ignorance will learn y'all to lock those ports down TIGHT!]
Here is one of my favorite web sites, which this article reminded me of, and which I thought some of you might enjoy: http://www.astronautix.com.
The place is filled with tons of mad info about programs that are, were, and never got out of blueprint stage. I am sure this will satisy those readers for whom the two paltry links in the story are far from satisfying. Lotsa cool pictures and thingies.
Understood. I refer to the RIAA kind of as the hired thugs of the music racket.
To be frank, I wish someone would go after the RIAA, etc., with a RICO suit.
I know these thoughts will entertain some and enrage others, but I will post them anyhow.
The fact that a 12-year old girl in 'government housing' is being sued seems to indicate that the file-sharing issue is not an 18-24 age group issue. It is apparant to me that people of ALL ages are sharing files, some of which are music.
I had an argument with a friend of mine recently. He lives in LA, and is, like EVERYONE there, it would seem, affiliated loosely with the entertainment industry. His stance was that the artists are working and ought to be paid. If not for the RIAA, their music wouldn't get distribution. To make money, they require distribution, and the RIAA is the only one in town through whom they can find it.
My perspective, being in Michigan, unaffiliated with the music business, experienced with technology and trained in the performing arts (theatre degree--marketable as galoshes in the Mojave), is vastly different. I understand that artists, like everyone, are working for pay. However, the advance of technology has been marginalizing the RIAA/record producers for some time now. I believe that technology has come to the point where artists, assuming they are enterprising and not lazy asses, can entirely circumvent the recording houses. Sure, they might not have instant distribution, but AFAI am concerned, when they take it upon themselves to market themselves and what art they have produced, any success is well-earned and not as likely to crumble or fade, as would an artificial creation of the industry (Menudo, Brittney, Tiffany, etc.). Additionally, since they chart their own course, they are free to take whatever artistic tangent they care to explore. In my opinion, the RIAA stifles artistic expression in all but the few artists whom they have contracted whilst on cocaine binges, and who would sign anything to get more blow.
I can't really elaborate any better, seeing as my boss is sure to see me typing madly on non-company business. But, in short, I believe that the RIAA, etc., are close to joining the buggy whip industry: their raison d'etre is about to expire, thanks to technological advances, and their realization of this threat of extinction is evidenced by their willingness to blindly sue a 12-year old, financially disenfranchised girl. When a corporation feels it must go after kids to get its pound of flesh, I believe that its social contract to provide whatever useful services to society has effectively expired or must be revoked.
I think you will find that most officials want their vote to be as anonymous as possible for a public official. In my last job (public library administrator/netadmin), I was THE force behind getting our library policy manual and board meeting minutes online. To my credit, it is a habit they continue to this day (although it may be because they lack even an ounce of creativity there, which would be required to conceive of doing things differently and removing the documents).
;-)
On another note, I truly believe that technology has brought us to a point where we could effectively replace the current governmental structure without changing the Constitution: let each US Representative serve from INSIDE their home district. This would cause a cascading cost savings and increase each person's share of the Democratic process:
1.: No Georgetown condo needed, so you can reduce the pay of the Congressman (additionally, travel costs to and from DC would be marginalized).
2.: Working from home, Congressmen will be under the eye of constituents ALL THE TIME.
3.: With the per-Congressman costs reduced, one could afford to create smaller, more easily represented districts, each with a new, lower-paid Congressman.
3.: With smaller districts, candidates would require less cash to market themselves in a campaign. Less cash needed=less special interest involvement. Additionally, lower campaign costs would open up the process to those of us without piles of cash to bathe in.
4.: By sending Congress home to work, special interests would be eliminated from the equation (by following Ronald Reagan's anti-Soviet stratagem: spend them into oblivion). Rather than maintaining one central office, special interests would have to maintain hundreds, if not thousands, of district offices (and operate under the watchful eye and on the home turf of wary citizens).
Finally, with Congress de-centralized, there would be FAR less anxiety about how to protect the government in case of a catastrophe.
It is only by force of habit and playing up to personal egos that we continue to employ horse-and-buggy government in an age of silicon chips and carbon nanotubes.
Obviously, I have given this subject much thought. And, just as obviously, very little of that thought went into the improvised composition of this little tract of mine.
"What are the odds of losing both the crew and cargo shuttles during the same mission"
I believe you are confused, based on my reading of the article and understanding of the US space program. The advice was, as I understood it, a call to run parallel mission tracks: one to deliver astronauts back and forth, and another (presumably unmanned) to deliver cargo. I don't think they intend to fly two shuttles at once, or if they even intend both tracks to involve shuttles. To be honest, I think flying two shuttles at one time is beyond NASA's current capability.
I assume the intent is not so much to reduce the cost of potential losses, or even to make them safer. By removing the human element from primarily hardware-delivery missions, one removes the emotional impact of losing an astronaut. Cargo loss does not carry the same emotional charge as loss of a crew--how many satellite losses have brought the space program to a near-halt? Not many that I know of.
As for the wisdom of separate missions, I think it is quite wise. Although I love manned flight in concept, unmanned missions are certainly the way to go for cargo delivery--humans only complicate the situation (life support considerations, g-force load restrictions, etc.) As I wrote this response, I thought, "Could ISS parts be placed by an unmanned shuttle?" And I think the answer is, yes, remote operation from the ground (or even the ISS) could almost surely become a reality, given that today's technology FAR outpaces the tech of the shuttle fleet, as built in the 70s-80s.
I am imagining that MS is doing some heavy closed-door scrambling to bring security to a level where it will pass the sniff test.
.Net/applications (not that I know anything about this matter, but it don't stop me from blathering)
;-)
However, in the next few years, I can see the following possibility playing out:
2004: Next Windows iteration released with minor UI changes, possibly new licensing terms;
2005-2008: MS licenses a *nix variant to do the heavy lifting under the UI (a la Apple/OSX), coupled with the next major UI overhaul (new flashy GUI w/.Net/subscription-based application delivery). This would lend stability at less cost, allow programmers to move towards non-kernel programming projects in support of
2006-2008: Also about this time, if MS licenses a *nix for core services, I would expect Apple to release Marklar on the world. I'll let someone else pick up the fantasy from there.
This is simply my own fantasizing. Your mileage may vary.
Hey now, don't go nosing around the U.S. Code, for Heaven's sake!
They don't like you finding out how the screws are kept nice 'n' tight! Bad citizen! No more reading for you!
Ok, enough. Rant finished. I think everyone should spend more time reading the USC and the Constitution. Interesting to compare the two, and see where they converge and diverge. However, it sometimes requires a strong stomache, if you are concerned for civil liberties that hang by a whisp of smoke and a prayer. Not that I think the end for civil liberties is nigh, but our general situation could be improved if the citizenry read these things and understood how the machinery of government works.
I have been intrigued with the notion of general lighting via LED for a few years now. I look to this as an opportunity for lighting enthusiasts to break out of the mold of chandeliers and lampshades, etc. Conventional light sources today run far too hot and with very limited control gradations. LED makes just enough sense while being also just crazy enough to work. I just wish I had the $$ to invest now, before the LED market explodes in a market event/orgy of Dionysian proportions.
I read an article at theDetroit Free Press site just now (http://www.freep.com/news/metro/main18_20030818.h tm) which, although it doesn't explicitly say so (and perhaps the writers haven't themselves realized the implication), implies to me that, again, blame for this American-style failure seems to lay squarely at the feet of management.
;-)
The article claims that, "as other high-voltage lines succumbed in northern Ohio, an alarm that was supposed to warn an Ohio utility of the line failures -- and perhaps stop them from spreading -- remained silent."
Elsewhere in the same article, they say, "A FirstEnergy [FirstEnergy being the company owning the first line to fail. -pjt] official said Sunday that she could not explain why the alarm system was not working. But, spokeswoman Kristen Baird said, the lack of a working alarm was irrelevent because company controllers were monitoring the line failures and working to correct them."
Ever notice how, whether it is NASA or an energy utility (whose media faces are always nameless and blameless), they always claim they cannot (or will not) identify the problem, which usually winds up being a failure of the human element, in this age of drones and automatons who refuse to act independently (OR, I'll hasten to add, are PREVENTED from acting, by other management types).
Why the hell have the blinkenlightzen when the managers watching said blinkenlightzen are incapable of independent action when the blinkenlightzen fail and all other indicators are telling them FEAR! FIRE! FLOOD!
Just my $.02. Time for me to get back to serving MY corporate masters, now.
About a half-hour prior to the blackout, I was reading an article online--I forgot the URL completely--which discussed the use of superconductors to augment the circuit breaking elements of the power transmission system.
Now, IANA Electrical Engineer, however, I found it interesting, in hind sight especially, that these superconductive elements would be used to soften the blow on circuit breakers, which sometimes cannot react to an overwhelming surge, which will blow right through them.
I won't go into the details, especially as I don't have the article before me for cut-n-paste cheating. However, it was intriguing that superconductors, in this case, were proposed for use not as conductors, but instead to react by becoming less-conductive with the increase in flow, etc, in a much faster manner than the mechanical breakers.
Now, if we could only get some wind farms up and running here in Michigan, and in substantial numbers... (I've seen the one in Southeast Wyoming, and it was truly awe-inspiring!)
"Why-oh-why can't people patch? Shouldn't broadband providers be sending emails to their clients with a link in them?"
People don't patch because, quite simply (not that it is true by any means), Windows is supposed to be perfect already, needing no further work. "Where do you want to go today" (besides offline)?
Also, I would hazard to guess that most broadband providers don't know the email addresses of their customers (would YOU give up your addy to Comcrap? Not ME, bub!). Broadband providers care not a bit about communicating with customers, unless it is to request payment for services rendered.
"You'd think every hotmail account would get a message saying "Plug that hole" from whoever it is that runs hotmail. "
Microsoft runs Hotmail. I have a Hotmail account, but I use an iMac, therefore it doesn't apply to me, so I would not want to get that message.
Besides... It would be just another message in my/your 'other Hotmail folder,' meaning it would be ignored as just another spam mail.
I agree with an earlier post, though. Everyone who says "Linux isn't ready for your grandma" should be forced to do community service cleaning this crap up. AND maybe doing weekly patches on all the Wintel machines in his/her neighborhood. AND maybe making sure certain ports are closed on those same PCs.
I could go on (but I won't).
This reminds me of the GR show, Earth:Final Conflict, where they fly spacecraft via interactive holographic display panels. I find this another funny way in which GR 'predicted' technology (although I am sure it is possible it appeared elsewhere earlier.. I just happened to catch it in EFC).
Just curious... Is there any opinion (informed, not the usual guesswork type) as to who will make the trip first, and survive to collect the prize money? I have followed X-Prize news over the last few years, but recently I have been too busy in my soul-robbing, non-tech job to take notice!
This was the most ill-informed posting I have read today. Most Americans probobly couldn't spell 'conservative' let alone vote that way. The 'conservatism' you speak of is really fascism, re.: the long arm of the law reaching up into a woman's uterus. People might be in favor of it for others, but when the bacon hits the pan, they want nothing to DO with that form of nonsense in their own lives.
The only popularity of Fox(hole) News and others is the popularity you measure when you count the number of times neo-cons rave about such pablum (Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! RAWWWCKK! no spin zone! RAWWCCKKKK! Polly wants a mideast war! SQUAWK!). I believe that most people of half-wit level and above understand that Fox News and the rest are just apologists for the disaster that is Neo-Conservatism (and a distraction from the failures of neoconservatism).
As for coloring Liberals by claiming Ms. Streisand as their "elite" leader, you show an incredible lack of understanding for anything other than the menu fed to you (and gobbled up, apparantly) by Fox News, Murdoch, and the rest of the fascists who would have us pepper our language with copyright symbols and patent pending disclaimers. Streisand is simply the easy target Bill O'Reilly, et al, have set up for those who don't want to (or can't) evaluate the Liberal landscape with even the smallest dose of intellectual curiousity, a landscape which contains a great many progressive, hardcore patriotic people who think that there should be some things left untainted by corporatia, and unowned by individuals of unfathomable wealth and power.
As for me, I am in favor of any progressive politician willing to buck the status quo (I voted for McCain in our primary, Gore in the general election). If that means Dean, then I am all for him. Many of us are waiting to see if Wesley Clarke throws his helmet into the ring, though. If so, all bets are off.
I always wondered why my friends who married became dull and unentertaining almost overnight. Once, while on my death bed with a horrible flu, a recently-married friend called to regail me with his tale of putting plastic up on his second-floor condo windows. Man, til then I hadn't had so much fun--NOT!
I have yet to see a friend become MORE interesting after marriage, or even manage to tread water and remain a good ol' guy.
And now, a study supports my theory. Of course, I am still waiting eagerly for some chickie to come along and make ME a bore...
What aircraft has 12+ windows in the cockpit?
If you don't like DRM, don't buy the product. If you really like good art, find some locally. Believe it or not, California is not the mother lode of all art. There is great music, theatre, etc., being created all over the US and the world. The more you patronize local artists, the less Hollywierd profits from your patronage. The more $$ local artists receive from you, the better equipment they can purchase. The better the equipment (such as for recording) the easier it is for you to enjoy their art outside the pub/bar/city park concert.
In short, the best way to fight RIAA and MPAA is to simply stop eating the shit they are labeling as art.
Additionally, the more money that is spent within the local community for artists, the more money remains in the community, thus helping local economies. I mean, who the fuck believes that sending money to California is gonna help people eat in the heartland? I certainly don't. I'd rather help out when a band passes the hat in the local pub than spend blood money for some Hollywood hack art/music that I will actually listen to about twice before converting it to a dust-collection unit.
Why, oh tell me, WHY, did I have to follow that Katy link? I have never seen such vapid, insipid claptrap so well chrystalized into evidenciary form.
I mean, the 'Miss Vermont' story, as entertaining as it is, is certainly self-involved, but that Katy link just made me embarrassed to have ever had ANYTHING to do with information technology, period. What a waste of pixels... What a waste of B A N D W I D T H...
More to the point, with M$ workin it, you'll have to block EVERYONE except who you want to get mail from, and you'd better hope they don't have any typos in the return address, cuz then it won't get through.
"BTW, there are plenty of locally-owned radio stations that operate part of the day fully automated as well. How would they have reacted to this emergency? The same way."
As much of a fan of the broad brushstroke of generalization as I am, I contest this. The essential nature of locally-owned ANYTHING is that the local concern will act in accordance with local needs and desires--mostly due to the fact that the owner/operators are local residents. In some markets, sure, the local station might simply buzz and hiss on, entirely unmanned, spewing out it's preprogrammed pablum--AND THAT LOCAL OWNER/OPERATOR WILL CATCH HELL, at the supermarket, in church, at the auto shop, etc.. Meanwhile, in another market, the GM might drop his/her donut and break into programming (all the while fumbling at controls while reading board operation manuals) in order to get the word out--probably because the GM grew up and lives in said market. THAT owner/operator may then become the talk of the town, for having done his/her job and saved the day, just as everyone who knows them KNEW they would.
"Moreover, there are plenty of non-locally-owned radio and television stations that are staffed at all times, and can break into local programming with news flashes, even if most of their operations are centrally controlled."
Certainly, this may be true, but who is to say that the employees HAVE the authority to break in (gotta call the Boss and check)? I argue that the non-local owners PROBOBLY don't realize that, for example, a derailed train (spewing forth ghastly clouds of death) is either up- or down-wind of, say, Sam Jones Elementary School, or perhaps that it is blocking a primary or secondary escape route from the area. To expand on this example, if *I*, living as I do in Southeast Michigan, owned AND operated a radio station in, say, the Beulah/Empire area (up near Traverse City), and some emergency broke out, I wouldn't have the first clue as to who was endangered, or what news to tell them. And, surely, non-local ownership being driven by cost-consciousness, who is to say that whoever is on hand is anything more than a janitor/attendent with no clue as to station operations, or even a rudimentary knowledge of the area being served?? These changes shift the control without any apparant responsibility AND penalties for endangering the public throgh owner ignorance. Do I get to sue Rupert Murdock if my child is killed because the local radio station, owned by Rupy, played Norah Jones instead of "Get the Hell outta here, the place is going DOWN"?
"Why didn't the local government activate the Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcast that all radio and TV stations have by law?"
Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the local governemtn was 1.: busy managing the emergency, and 2.: local government couldn't FIND the owner/operator, who is out of town vacationing in the Bahamas.
Now, if they would open up micro-broadcasting, so that, say, I could run a station just for my apartment complex, well, that might soothe things a bit....
As always, this is just my $.02. I am posting them now, before my thinking becomes and more muddled...
"But a lot of Westerners apparently think it's ok to bash the chinese for protecting their people, there's so many of them what's a million prematurely dead?"
Well, that philosophy worked for the Chinese during the Korean War. Why else do you think we never fought the Chinese (officially)? There were too many of them, and they were all too willing to just keep sending Chinese soldiers 'over the hill' to their deaths in any conflict. We had limited human resources, and were never so committed to the war as to send millions of Americans back 'over the hill.'
Just my $.02!
I would say, given the number of homeless children, society's unwanted, that there are down there, and how they are mistreated, that, yeah, freedom is a scarce commodity.
My question is, "Why did/does Brazil need an aircraft carrier?" Aren't such things needed by nations who would fear other nations trying to muscle in on 'em? I mean, hey, who REALLY wants to go to Brazil and stay?
I can't imagine Brazil having need for such a ting. Maybe that's why they got rid of it. I certainly hope they didn't spend MORE money and a fancier ship that they don't need, seeing as Brazil ain't the richest of nations (or the free-est, for that matter), and really doesn't face a threat of imminent invasion. Seems they have better things to spend money on than aircraft carriers.
Anyhow... Anyone who buys this had better be planning on moving in for the long haul. They also better be rich as fuck, and with a healthy incoming cash flow, as you would need to hire LOTS of people to crew this thing and to maintain it, regardless of whether it ever went out to sea again or not. I wonder if the US will actually allow it to be sold--or should I say, perhaps, 'delivered." I guess one way to get attention from Uncle Sam, if you want it, would be to buy an old aircraft carrier.