It's interesting you would mention the CNN Story. This was discussed earlier on/. The general consenses seems to be that the study lacks any real meaning due to an inability to properly define "productivity" an a meaningful way (ie: more lines of code != more productivity).
As a side note, the BBC article you mentioned states:
But while US workers still lead the world in terms of productivity, European workers are closing the gap, despite working fewer hours.
According to the article, US workers in fact lead in productivity. However, they also work longer hours and Europeans are discovering that longer hours does not mean more production. It's an old lesson. Heck - even the US miltiary knows it. I'm sure American industry would do well to learn it too (as well as a few readers here).
Perhapse you could offer some quotes from these economists before wrapping yourself up in the American flag?
Honestly, this spawn reads like flamebait. The thread didn't say "foreigners work harder than Americans." If anything, people pointed out that Americans weren't the only IT workers to be had on the globe. To stear this converstation into a "who works harder" direction is just asking for nationalism and bigotry. There's enough of that noise to be had elsewhere. I don't see it contributing to anything here.
Kids growing up today make their own web pages for fun... what's going to happen to "web designers" when everyone knows how to do it?
I hear they're teaching kids how to use watercolors and colored pencils in kindegarten and gradeschool. Suppose all those Graphic Artists know about this? Bet they're counting THEIR days...
Yep. Old info. Been covered before. But then, its one of those texts that should be in all IT folks' digital library. But unlike other "must have" works, I don't see it referred to very often. Since I'm sure/. readership has expanded since this piece's last mention, it might be worth mentioning again.
Granted... this won't stop a flood of "this is OLD NEWS!" posts.:)
I saw a blurb on TV about this the other night. At the end of it, they had a mention of a simular show the company did that involved a deserted island. Apparently, one of the "cast members" commitied suicide (officials assured that this wouldn't happen with the Big Brother show due to psycological testing each candidate gets before being accepted).
That is what the tell you. Do you believe that? Do you believe the government that you have known to lie to you over and over again?
Yep. The military complex is really just a big country club of spooks. They spend their time sipping Mai-Tais and lacing the public water supply with paranoia-inducing drugs. The last thing they want to deal with is pesky issues like information security and classifications.
Who is to say that something is classified or not?
The military is actually quite aware of how sensitive information is. And they're quite good at deturmining a classification level. But stamping a classification on a document isn't all - ensuring the document is handled properly is the problem.
One mans junk is another mans treasure, sure some things might not be classified (according to the liars) but how dangerous are these information? Could be very dangerous, shipment orders might not be classified, but obtaining a list of these could give you an idea of what they are buying and what they will be build from what they are buying, perhaps what they are trying to build is classified?
Once again, you might be interested to know that this is hardly an unknown concept to the military. They refer to it as "essential elements of friendly information" (EEFI). When enough elements of unclassified information is gathered, classified information may be revealed.
Lets look at a common example of EEFI. Say a unit is going to be deployed to SandLand. Those orders are classified. However, observers are able to note changes in work schedules and large movments of equipment. They also know the unit is a rapid deployment unit. Furthermore, it is coming on winter. Yet, military personnel are observed buying a lot of warm-weather gear (shorts, shirts, sandels, sun screen, sunglasses). Its obvious that the unit is preparing to deploy to a hot climate. Scanning CNN reveals that there is some recent unrest in SandLand. Its a safe bet that the unit being observed will be deploying to SandLand.
Secure information is compromised without the actual involvement of secure documents.
What does the military do about EEFI? Classifying all and every document within the military would make day to day operations near impossible. Instead, the military attempts to keep aware of the dangers of EEFI and, via that awareness, try to limit the amount of information made available.
Sometimes personnel are the weak link. People can cause a "bridge" between systems without understanding the implications.
I remember reading about an event that happened several years ago. You'll have to forgive me - I'm fuzzy on the details (maybe someone else has read the same account and can fill in the gaps). But it went something like this...
Some guy was tracking down attacks on his systems (University, I think). Amoung the jump-points of the attacks was a Naval research facility. The guy met with the facility's COMSEC person. After some audit of their networked systems, the COMSEC guy was horrified to find the amount of data that had crossed from their "air firewall" systems to the networked systems. People transferred data on their own accord to make their jobs easier. They also disregarded security.
Now, this certainly doesn't mean that some Navy public web site is also a secret harbor of highly classified documents. And the press sure doesn't do much to limit this kind of wrong impression. However, one also has to be aware that despite rules and regulations, sensitive data might still be vulnerable.
...but it apears that I go to the Apple page to look into the new iMacs and I'm greeted by a crowd of brash, brightly dressed, young computers. And they're mooning me. Hmph. Kids these days.
The other book I would recommend in this light is Unix System Administration Handbook. It's red with badly drawn cartoon characters. I've heard people refer to it as "The Red Book".
I have a hard time picking a favorite between O'Reilly's "Armadillo Book" and "The Red Book". Both are great. Both are a bit dated (The Red Book published Jan 1995, Armadillo 2nd Edition Dec 1996). Nevertheless, both provide invaluable information about general Unix administration (including how to deal with variations in flavors).
Having said that... I'm partial to O'Reilly & Associates as a company. And the Armadillo book can be picked up for much cheaper. If you're on a budget, buy only the Armadillo Book. If your budget allows, pick up The Red Book too. Both are worth the expense.
The plan for one moon rover was that the scientists would get to use it for 50% of the time, and the remaining time would be available for said yuk-yuk provider to sell to overly-rich yahoos, who could tele-drive it around for my yearly income per minute. or maybe hour.
"Yes, yes... I'm sure it looks like possible evidence of a past civilisation to your scientists. However, your times up. My client thinks this 'evidence' looks like a pile of scrap metal and he would much rather drive over to where they're planning on projecting a laser advertisement. He likes to give his progects that 'personal touch'..."
So I head over to the Lessons Learned section as mentioned. I'm note entirely sure what to think of the whole thing. I found myself following the old routine where an audience goes "Yay!", then "Boo!", then "Yay!" again as an event unfolds. "Hey! They've got a clue... oh.. wait... no, they don't... they Don't Get It... no... here, they understood it here... wait, no... clueles..." I feel manipulated.
In the end, I figured out that the real Lesson Learned is that NT is from Mars, and Linux is from Venus. OK. Maybe not. But they're very different worlds. They foster very different attitudes and outlooks. The illustrating point is in comparing Hot Fixes and Service Packs to Patches.
Instead of "RedHat had lots of security fixes available Real Soon after the exploit was announced", its "RedHat had soooo many fixes! The sheer numbers dazed and confused us!" I suppose the numbers can be a bit daunting. Sun and HP offer tools to bounce your configuration against their patch database and help manage this issue (of course - this is for an added fee). As mentioned, Debian offeres deselect. FreeBSD has had something simular for some time as I understand it. Perhapse RedHat offers a simular option that the PCWeek folks weren't aware of?
Of course, the big issue seems to be in comparing RedHat's fixes to Microsoft's practices with Hotfixes and Serve Packs. First, MS tends to have a slower release schedule with these things. If this is the environment one is used to, comparing 5 Service Packs to the mentioned 20 RedHat patches seems... excessive. This is compounded by PCWeek's statment:
Large companies often spend weeks or months testing service packs from Microsoft before they are deployed. Imagine the volume of work involved in integrating twenty-one separate fixes into a change process to be deployed across an enterprise.
They're right. Service Packs require extensive testing before being implemented in a production environment. Hotfixes even more so. That's not Microsoft-bashing, its simple truth. If one was expecting the same from RedHat, 20 fixes would be monsterous. However, its been my experience that patches don't require the same cautions. Of course, I don't use RedHat. Perhapse someone else with more experience can comment?
In all, PCWeek's comments are less insightfull for what they say and more for the points of view they express.
I am not sure I can see any reason for the Linux community to be so worked up about "World Domination" Why do we need everyone and their grandmother to be able to use Linux.
Call it "economy of scale".
If you have a Hot New Product (be it software or hardware) being introduced into the Home and Buisness computing marketplace, it will support Windows. Why? Everybody and their grandmother uses it. Most likely your potential customers do too.
It would be nice if that situation changed. If every other person and their grandmother used Linux, Hot New Products will most likely support Linux too. If it doesn't, there's a good bet that a competative product will. We, as Linux users, get more choices. Choice is good.
We as professional IT workers could bennifit also. I would love to make my living off supporting Linux platforms. Right now I support Solaris and HPUX systems. My organization's IT budget is amazingly slim. Linux could help us augment our existing environment at a price we could afford. However, the apps we use aren't available in Linux... yet. The developer for our primary app has made some noise about doing a Linux port. Why? Everybody and their boss is interested in it.
"World Domination" is good for Linux. And one key aspect about Linux' version of Domination lies in its configurability; if you don't like the features that lead to "World Domination", don't use them. Its all about choices. Its all good.
So, next time you buy something, realize that that serial number is being tied to your sales receipt, which is tied to an invoice for a distributer, which is tied to the manufacturer.
In these cases, that serial number is stamped physically on the case of the item. AFAIK, your average HD isn't able to report its SN. Or can it? Maybe I've missed some advancement in the hardware industry here....
Where did this "Privacy Is The Be All And End All" mind set come from? My mom and dad used to be able to hear me with my girlfriends at night... they had the good taste not to mention anything. I'm sure most people *don't* snoop.
Information is power. Today, that statement is more true than ever before. Entire companies are built on information. No other products; no widgets, no foodstuff... just information. Therefore, anything and everything a company can record about you is worth money... to someone. And they will record it. Even if it has no use today, tommorow it might be invaluable. And every step is an invasion into your privacy.
I'm sure you can trust your parents. And I'm sure there are a lot of other considerate, non-snooping people out there. However, I can't say the same for corporations. If there is value, they will snoop. And information warehouses have already shown a complete disreguard for privacy and safeguarding the information they sell.
Identity theft was science fiction in the past. Now its a real problem. If databases of personal information didn't exist, or were at least better guarded, the problem wouldn't exist. But it does. And many advances in data technology simply adds to the ease of generating these databases. This is why we SHOULD be aware of our privacy.
Where did this "Privacy Is The Be All And End All" mind set come from? Its a sign of the times.
It's not possible to be 100% secure with your data. Period. It's all a matter of "degree". How "secure" do you want to be?
Agreed. Security is more a exercise in risk management than an absolute. The goal is to lower the risk as much as possible within reasonable contraints as set by the environment. That environment may involve, for example, security vs. functionality or security vs. cost.
Sure, this solution is secure, but it's not *as* secure as other, unexportable alternatives. In ten years, "real security" will mean something entirely different. The original poster was using the term "real security" by saying the key sizes allowed by this chip were inadequate for truly sensitive data. I was simply saying that IBM is not marketing this mechanism for people that regularly make use of truly sensitive data.
The "cost" difference between exportable and "real" security is pretty close to nothing in functionality. That is, the two implementations do not differ in cost to produce or functionality. The "cost" is US law. So what we end up is an inferior system pushed out to the public as a "solution" for their data. The trouble is, it shouldn't matter if that data is trade secrets, credit card data, or Aunt Nellie's secret chocolate chip cookie recipe. The solution IBM provides should be the best possible. This isn't it.
Instead of providing "real" security, IBM is providing a false sense of security. Your Average Joe doesn't understand encryption. They'll read about this "secure" solution IBM is providing them and they'll use it. They'll feel secure. They aren't. If the worse happens and their data is compromised, they'll feel shocked, violated, and vulnerable. Those evil hackers have managed to defeat even IBM! Even if the worse doesn't happen, Average Joe will skip along happy and "secure" and the demand on the US Gov't to drop their artificial anti-export laws will never manifest in the general public.
IBM is not providing a solution. They're providing marketing fluff.
This chip isn't being marketed at all as any "real" security solution. The article explicitely states this. In the event a consumer needs a more secure solution, IBM has add-ons and other products to suit them. The cryptography, they say, should be adequate for 80% of their customers. I agree.
Why shouldn't a customer expect a "'real' security solution" to be "adequate"? Put another way - why bother with security if it is, in fact, not "real" security?
This "solution" just leads to a false sense of security. Furthermore, it leads to confusion and sensationalism when that false security is shattered by a compromise.
That quote comes to mind when I see people bitching about corporations not doing enough for or giving enough to the Linux "community". Honestly, some people sound like spoiled little brats who want the world handed to them on a platter, and when they get it, they complain about the shape of the platter.
While god knows our community has its fair share of "spoiled brats", I don't believe this subject is an example of it.
To begin with, what we see here is mostly folks preaching caution. They show a historical reason for that caution. And they state what it would take to ease their cautious nature. Granted - that's not likely to happen. And that's fine.
This caution is important to our environment. Development happens because someone FEELS that it needs to happen. Scratch an itch. Seek the approval of one's peers. A company who seeks to play a bait-and-switch game delays the process by decreasing the need.
If Sun has a hidden agenda, we should be aware of it. If StarOffice is something we can count on - then great. All solutions don't neccessarily have to be Open Source. But then, Open Source does provide one with the assurance that a product CAN be relied on.
A final note - table scraps on a silver platter are still table scraps. The starving may be appreciative of them, and credit may be due. But he who served table scraps should not be credited for a banquet. Some companies seem to be trying to do just that.
I believe that what has changed is that the fire has gone away at NASA. People are treating it as their jobs, not as "I'm so lucky to be here. I'm going to do the best I can." Maybe by taking the space program private would help in this regard. But, I'm not entirely sure. If people really, really truly love space, they will work for any amount of money to be close to their dream. The only thing privatization (which I can't spell) achieves is the fact that they could lure "better" people with their better pools of money. Not sure that that will help at all...
I believe you're pointing your critism in the wrong direction. You imply that looking at what you do as "a job" and a love for space are somehow exclusive to each other. Furthermore, you seem to be saying that the "in the trenches" workers are ineffective. I believe you're wrong on both accounts.
To begin with, most of those I've dealt with at NASA are very much into space. They like working for NASA. Its something special to them. If not, a good deal of the engineers (as well as those in other occupations) would do great bennifit to their salary by quitting NASA and working downtown. Many of them do. But, again, many of them don't. They're good at what they do. They work for less than they're worth. And they do it because they like, if not love, space.
So why refer to working at NASA as "a job"? To some, this is completely true - their job is "just another job"; interchangable with any other task that results in a paycheck. However, my experience at NASA has shown that this is a rareity. But let's not forget - even working at NASA is work. It is, in fact, "a job". Ask a professional soldier what they do and I'm sure you'll find enough that refer to their occupation as their "job". That's not to say that they've forgotten the unique nature of their job, nor the implications of their actions. The same goes for NASA employees. For many of them, their "job" just happens to be something they love doing. Its where they want to be. And they're proud to be there. But it's still work; it's still their job.
So why do we even talk about NASA's "drive", or a lack thereof? Why is NASA's history of the Apollo years refered to in the sense of past glory? Why isn't the NASA then the NASA of today?
It's not the people. It's the management.
You have to understand - that is an amazingly powerfull thing to say within NASA. It's also damning. NASA is an unltimate beuocracy. And true to the definition of a beuocracy, it has a management system that sometimes seems to be more about sustaining itself than performing the task for which the beuocracy was formed. Pointing this out brings instant doom to one's career.
I suspect its because the emporor, in fact, has no clothes.
If you truely want to know what is wrong with NASA, look deeply at Challenger. Look at the decission process that lead up to that tragedy. Even Slashdot has had some interesting things posted on it concerning this subject. The answer to why of today is not the NASA of yesterday is there.
Since NASA is probably going to dissipate into nothing more than a place to launch commercial satellites instead of doing scientific research, it's likely they're looking for somebody to pass the torch of scientific exploration on to.
If anything, NASA is trying to get away from the commercial aspects of space and get back to research and exploration. This was even stated during the award of the CSOC contract to Lockheed/Martin (CSOC manages operations to include Mission Control). I would suspect this is the motivation behind NASA's "turn around" towards private space interests.
Humm so now everyone knows the freqs used by the French military....interesting
The issue really isn't what frequency range is being used. That should be pretty easy to deturmine even as a civilian.
What's of concern when it comes to that kind of thing is the EXACT frequency being used for EXACTLY what application (and what kind of intelligence signal is being used for said application). That's the information that'll get stamped with the big security classification stamp.
There's plenty of room in the world for products for intelligent people as well as "the Masses". If you wanna make linux for dummies fine. Branch off and make your own distro. But dont go trying to ruin the other versions with your "improvements".
I agree. One of the things I like so much about Linux is its ability to change.
When a company, Microsoft for example, develops a product - the entire line usually goes in that direction. If down the line the company changes its mind... the whole product line will also change to reflect the "new best way".
Linux isn't like that. When RedHat decides "we need an easier desktop interface" they invest in development of Gnome. Does that mean I now must have Gnome? Nope - even if that means going with another distro. Want no GUI? Don't install it or look for a distro that specializes in it. Need a thin install? Look for the several distro-on-a-floppy setups available.
Just because someone out there is trying to sell their version of "The Way", doesn't mean you have to stear YOUR version of linux in that same direction.
Customization - the power of Linux.
On a side note - with the idea of customization in mind, it kills me when people say "Linux needs a standard GUI."
I love the cars and computers comparison, because this is where it comes in.:)
I don't CARE what the difference is between 10W30 and 10W40 motor oil is. I don't care what my "CV joint" is. I don't have to know the difference between shocks and struts to drive my car. I never want to have to do more than put gas and windshield wiper fluid in my car in order to drive it. When I use my car, I want to get in, turn the key and go somewhere. Yes, I *do* have to know about the steering wheel, turn signal, gas and break pedals, but I don't have to know anything technical about the vehicle to use it properly.
The car analogy works in other ways, too.
When I did tech support for an ISP, it amazed me how often people moaned "Oh, this is SO hard" over the phone. I would tell them "click here... click there... click 'ok'" and get "Ohhh... this is sooo hard. How do you learn all this?" But I'm a "computer person" and they're not - why should I be amazed?
When's the last time you heard a reporter on TV moan or joke about the complexities of cars? "Yes Corky... I know what you mean. Last night I went for a little drive and there was a light blinking on the dash. By the time I figured out I needed something called 'gas', I THEN had to figure out what 'octane' to buy! Those cars are sure difficult" (group chuckle).
I'm sure this kind of car conversation wouldn't be as out of place if it were 70 or 80 years earlier. But these days, its ludicrous. Furthermore, no respecting "intelligent" public figure would repeat such absurdity. Cars are old hat. EVERYONE knows how to operate them. If they break, most people shrug and hire someone to fix them. When we're "car newbies", we take Driver's Ed. classes to get the basics. Then we build on the basic knowledge with experience. Its all very simple.
Welcome to the "computer generation". Pundits used to love talking about how computers will be in everyone's life during the 80s. We're there now. And how does popular culture refer to computers? "Ohhh... they're so HARD!"
Hobbiests are going to enjoy the ins and outs of their chosen interest. They'll tweak and tinker. And they'll smirk at those who don't have their understanding. Even if that hobby involves what others see as simple tools. But that works well for the hobbiest - they can make their interest their profession. Provide the casual user with a simplified interface so they can use their tool. Then take over from them if their tool breaks. It works for cars; it'll work for computers.
What we don't need is the continued absurdity that, in this day and age, computers are "too hard" fostered on us by popular culture.
Slashdot Mirror
As a side note, the BBC article you mentioned states:
According to the article, US workers in fact lead in productivity. However, they also work longer hours and Europeans are discovering that longer hours does not mean more production. It's an old lesson. Heck - even the US miltiary knows it. I'm sure American industry would do well to learn it too (as well as a few readers here).Honestly, this spawn reads like flamebait. The thread didn't say "foreigners work harder than Americans." If anything, people pointed out that Americans weren't the only IT workers to be had on the globe. To stear this converstation into a "who works harder" direction is just asking for nationalism and bigotry. There's enough of that noise to be had elsewhere. I don't see it contributing to anything here.
I hear they're teaching kids how to use watercolors and colored pencils in kindegarten and gradeschool. Suppose all those Graphic Artists know about this? Bet they're counting THEIR days...
Granted... this won't stop a flood of "this is OLD NEWS!" posts. :)
When "reality" gets too real.
Yep. The military complex is really just a big country club of spooks. They spend their time sipping Mai-Tais and lacing the public water supply with paranoia-inducing drugs. The last thing they want to deal with is pesky issues like information security and classifications.
The military is actually quite aware of how sensitive information is. And they're quite good at deturmining a classification level. But stamping a classification on a document isn't all - ensuring the document is handled properly is the problem.
Once again, you might be interested to know that this is hardly an unknown concept to the military. They refer to it as "essential elements of friendly information" (EEFI). When enough elements of unclassified information is gathered, classified information may be revealed.
Lets look at a common example of EEFI. Say a unit is going to be deployed to SandLand. Those orders are classified. However, observers are able to note changes in work schedules and large movments of equipment. They also know the unit is a rapid deployment unit. Furthermore, it is coming on winter. Yet, military personnel are observed buying a lot of warm-weather gear (shorts, shirts, sandels, sun screen, sunglasses). Its obvious that the unit is preparing to deploy to a hot climate. Scanning CNN reveals that there is some recent unrest in SandLand. Its a safe bet that the unit being observed will be deploying to SandLand.
Secure information is compromised without the actual involvement of secure documents.
What does the military do about EEFI? Classifying all and every document within the military would make day to day operations near impossible. Instead, the military attempts to keep aware of the dangers of EEFI and, via that awareness, try to limit the amount of information made available.
I remember reading about an event that happened several years ago. You'll have to forgive me - I'm fuzzy on the details (maybe someone else has read the same account and can fill in the gaps). But it went something like this...
Some guy was tracking down attacks on his systems (University, I think). Amoung the jump-points of the attacks was a Naval research facility. The guy met with the facility's COMSEC person. After some audit of their networked systems, the COMSEC guy was horrified to find the amount of data that had crossed from their "air firewall" systems to the networked systems. People transferred data on their own accord to make their jobs easier. They also disregarded security.
Now, this certainly doesn't mean that some Navy public web site is also a secret harbor of highly classified documents. And the press sure doesn't do much to limit this kind of wrong impression. However, one also has to be aware that despite rules and regulations, sensitive data might still be vulnerable.
I have a hard time picking a favorite between O'Reilly's "Armadillo Book" and "The Red Book". Both are great. Both are a bit dated (The Red Book published Jan 1995, Armadillo 2nd Edition Dec 1996). Nevertheless, both provide invaluable information about general Unix administration (including how to deal with variations in flavors).
Having said that... I'm partial to O'Reilly & Associates as a company. And the Armadillo book can be picked up for much cheaper. If you're on a budget, buy only the Armadillo Book. If your budget allows, pick up The Red Book too. Both are worth the expense.
What? You mean like that "Real" logo?
I'll buy products from any company who will make "humorous additions" to that image. ;)
"Yes, yes... I'm sure it looks like possible evidence of a past civilisation to your scientists. However, your times up. My client thinks this 'evidence' looks like a pile of scrap metal and he would much rather drive over to where they're planning on projecting a laser advertisement. He likes to give his progects that 'personal touch'..."
In the end, I figured out that the real Lesson Learned is that NT is from Mars, and Linux is from Venus. OK. Maybe not. But they're very different worlds. They foster very different attitudes and outlooks. The illustrating point is in comparing Hot Fixes and Service Packs to Patches.
Instead of "RedHat had lots of security fixes available Real Soon after the exploit was announced", its "RedHat had soooo many fixes! The sheer numbers dazed and confused us!" I suppose the numbers can be a bit daunting. Sun and HP offer tools to bounce your configuration against their patch database and help manage this issue (of course - this is for an added fee). As mentioned, Debian offeres deselect. FreeBSD has had something simular for some time as I understand it. Perhapse RedHat offers a simular option that the PCWeek folks weren't aware of?
Of course, the big issue seems to be in comparing RedHat's fixes to Microsoft's practices with Hotfixes and Serve Packs. First, MS tends to have a slower release schedule with these things. If this is the environment one is used to, comparing 5 Service Packs to the mentioned 20 RedHat patches seems... excessive. This is compounded by PCWeek's statment:
They're right. Service Packs require extensive testing before being implemented in a production environment. Hotfixes even more so. That's not Microsoft-bashing, its simple truth. If one was expecting the same from RedHat, 20 fixes would be monsterous. However, its been my experience that patches don't require the same cautions. Of course, I don't use RedHat. Perhapse someone else with more experience can comment?In all, PCWeek's comments are less insightfull for what they say and more for the points of view they express.
Call it "economy of scale".
If you have a Hot New Product (be it software or hardware) being introduced into the Home and Buisness computing marketplace, it will support Windows. Why? Everybody and their grandmother uses it. Most likely your potential customers do too.
It would be nice if that situation changed. If every other person and their grandmother used Linux, Hot New Products will most likely support Linux too. If it doesn't, there's a good bet that a competative product will. We, as Linux users, get more choices. Choice is good.
We as professional IT workers could bennifit also. I would love to make my living off supporting Linux platforms. Right now I support Solaris and HPUX systems. My organization's IT budget is amazingly slim. Linux could help us augment our existing environment at a price we could afford. However, the apps we use aren't available in Linux... yet. The developer for our primary app has made some noise about doing a Linux port. Why? Everybody and their boss is interested in it.
"World Domination" is good for Linux. And one key aspect about Linux' version of Domination lies in its configurability; if you don't like the features that lead to "World Domination", don't use them. Its all about choices. Its all good.
This brings back to mind the quotes concerning "public trust" of traditional journalism and said jouralist qualifications. This guy's qualifications?
No knowledge of contemporary PCs. And he's a tech journalist. Now THATs funny.
In these cases, that serial number is stamped physically on the case of the item. AFAIK, your average HD isn't able to report its SN. Or can it? Maybe I've missed some advancement in the hardware industry here....
Information is power. Today, that statement is more true than ever before. Entire companies are built on information. No other products; no widgets, no foodstuff... just information. Therefore, anything and everything a company can record about you is worth money... to someone. And they will record it. Even if it has no use today, tommorow it might be invaluable. And every step is an invasion into your privacy.
I'm sure you can trust your parents. And I'm sure there are a lot of other considerate, non-snooping people out there. However, I can't say the same for corporations. If there is value, they will snoop. And information warehouses have already shown a complete disreguard for privacy and safeguarding the information they sell.
Identity theft was science fiction in the past. Now its a real problem. If databases of personal information didn't exist, or were at least better guarded, the problem wouldn't exist. But it does. And many advances in data technology simply adds to the ease of generating these databases. This is why we SHOULD be aware of our privacy.
Where did this "Privacy Is The Be All And End All" mind set come from? Its a sign of the times.
The "cost" difference between exportable and "real" security is pretty close to nothing in functionality. That is, the two implementations do not differ in cost to produce or functionality. The "cost" is US law. So what we end up is an inferior system pushed out to the public as a "solution" for their data. The trouble is, it shouldn't matter if that data is trade secrets, credit card data, or Aunt Nellie's secret chocolate chip cookie recipe. The solution IBM provides should be the best possible. This isn't it.
Instead of providing "real" security, IBM is providing a false sense of security. Your Average Joe doesn't understand encryption. They'll read about this "secure" solution IBM is providing them and they'll use it. They'll feel secure. They aren't. If the worse happens and their data is compromised, they'll feel shocked, violated, and vulnerable. Those evil hackers have managed to defeat even IBM! Even if the worse doesn't happen, Average Joe will skip along happy and "secure" and the demand on the US Gov't to drop their artificial anti-export laws will never manifest in the general public.
IBM is not providing a solution. They're providing marketing fluff.
Why shouldn't a customer expect a "'real' security solution" to be "adequate"? Put another way - why bother with security if it is, in fact, not "real" security?
This "solution" just leads to a false sense of security. Furthermore, it leads to confusion and sensationalism when that false security is shattered by a compromise.
While god knows our community has its fair share of "spoiled brats", I don't believe this subject is an example of it.
To begin with, what we see here is mostly folks preaching caution. They show a historical reason for that caution. And they state what it would take to ease their cautious nature. Granted - that's not likely to happen. And that's fine.
This caution is important to our environment. Development happens because someone FEELS that it needs to happen. Scratch an itch. Seek the approval of one's peers. A company who seeks to play a bait-and-switch game delays the process by decreasing the need.
If Sun has a hidden agenda, we should be aware of it. If StarOffice is something we can count on - then great. All solutions don't neccessarily have to be Open Source. But then, Open Source does provide one with the assurance that a product CAN be relied on.
A final note - table scraps on a silver platter are still table scraps. The starving may be appreciative of them, and credit may be due. But he who served table scraps should not be credited for a banquet. Some companies seem to be trying to do just that.
I believe you're pointing your critism in the wrong direction. You imply that looking at what you do as "a job" and a love for space are somehow exclusive to each other. Furthermore, you seem to be saying that the "in the trenches" workers are ineffective. I believe you're wrong on both accounts.
To begin with, most of those I've dealt with at NASA are very much into space. They like working for NASA. Its something special to them. If not, a good deal of the engineers (as well as those in other occupations) would do great bennifit to their salary by quitting NASA and working downtown. Many of them do. But, again, many of them don't. They're good at what they do. They work for less than they're worth. And they do it because they like, if not love, space.
So why refer to working at NASA as "a job"? To some, this is completely true - their job is "just another job"; interchangable with any other task that results in a paycheck. However, my experience at NASA has shown that this is a rareity. But let's not forget - even working at NASA is work. It is, in fact, "a job". Ask a professional soldier what they do and I'm sure you'll find enough that refer to their occupation as their "job". That's not to say that they've forgotten the unique nature of their job, nor the implications of their actions. The same goes for NASA employees. For many of them, their "job" just happens to be something they love doing. Its where they want to be. And they're proud to be there. But it's still work; it's still their job.
So why do we even talk about NASA's "drive", or a lack thereof? Why is NASA's history of the Apollo years refered to in the sense of past glory? Why isn't the NASA then the NASA of today?
It's not the people. It's the management.
You have to understand - that is an amazingly powerfull thing to say within NASA. It's also damning. NASA is an unltimate beuocracy. And true to the definition of a beuocracy, it has a management system that sometimes seems to be more about sustaining itself than performing the task for which the beuocracy was formed. Pointing this out brings instant doom to one's career.
I suspect its because the emporor, in fact, has no clothes.
If you truely want to know what is wrong with NASA, look deeply at Challenger. Look at the decission process that lead up to that tragedy. Even Slashdot has had some interesting things posted on it concerning this subject. The answer to why of today is not the NASA of yesterday is there.
If anything, NASA is trying to get away from the commercial aspects of space and get back to research and exploration. This was even stated during the award of the CSOC contract to Lockheed/Martin (CSOC manages operations to include Mission Control). I would suspect this is the motivation behind NASA's "turn around" towards private space interests.
The issue really isn't what frequency range is being used. That should be pretty easy to deturmine even as a civilian.
What's of concern when it comes to that kind of thing is the EXACT frequency being used for EXACTLY what application (and what kind of intelligence signal is being used for said application). That's the information that'll get stamped with the big security classification stamp.
I agree. One of the things I like so much about Linux is its ability to change.
When a company, Microsoft for example, develops a product - the entire line usually goes in that direction. If down the line the company changes its mind... the whole product line will also change to reflect the "new best way".
Linux isn't like that. When RedHat decides "we need an easier desktop interface" they invest in development of Gnome. Does that mean I now must have Gnome? Nope - even if that means going with another distro. Want no GUI? Don't install it or look for a distro that specializes in it. Need a thin install? Look for the several distro-on-a-floppy setups available.
Just because someone out there is trying to sell their version of "The Way", doesn't mean you have to stear YOUR version of linux in that same direction.
Customization - the power of Linux.
On a side note - with the idea of customization in mind, it kills me when people say "Linux needs a standard GUI."
The car analogy works in other ways, too.
When I did tech support for an ISP, it amazed me how often people moaned "Oh, this is SO hard" over the phone. I would tell them "click here... click there... click 'ok'" and get "Ohhh... this is sooo hard. How do you learn all this?" But I'm a "computer person" and they're not - why should I be amazed?
When's the last time you heard a reporter on TV moan or joke about the complexities of cars? "Yes Corky... I know what you mean. Last night I went for a little drive and there was a light blinking on the dash. By the time I figured out I needed something called 'gas', I THEN had to figure out what 'octane' to buy! Those cars are sure difficult" (group chuckle).
I'm sure this kind of car conversation wouldn't be as out of place if it were 70 or 80 years earlier. But these days, its ludicrous. Furthermore, no respecting "intelligent" public figure would repeat such absurdity. Cars are old hat. EVERYONE knows how to operate them. If they break, most people shrug and hire someone to fix them. When we're "car newbies", we take Driver's Ed. classes to get the basics. Then we build on the basic knowledge with experience. Its all very simple.
Welcome to the "computer generation". Pundits used to love talking about how computers will be in everyone's life during the 80s. We're there now. And how does popular culture refer to computers? "Ohhh... they're so HARD!"
Hobbiests are going to enjoy the ins and outs of their chosen interest. They'll tweak and tinker. And they'll smirk at those who don't have their understanding. Even if that hobby involves what others see as simple tools. But that works well for the hobbiest - they can make their interest their profession. Provide the casual user with a simplified interface so they can use their tool. Then take over from them if their tool breaks. It works for cars; it'll work for computers.
What we don't need is the continued absurdity that, in this day and age, computers are "too hard" fostered on us by popular culture.