Iris scanning is very fast, and can be done from a distance of several meters. It is typically setup such that people can walk up to an iris scanner controled door and be identified without missing a step. Iris scanners are used in some airports to identify and admit crew to the departure area. Aircrew love the scanners.
Re:last time we had financial problems on slashdot
on
SGI Faces Bankruptcy
·
· Score: 1
SGI is is not a takeover target, and won't be turned around. SGI has some fantastic technology that they will sell off to pay the creditors. After that there is nothing left other then the name. The management isn't worth anything. The customer list is too short. The engineers can be picked up by headhunters on the cheap. There is a very limited market for a turn around. Few organizations need big single address space machines. Most have found that cheap clusters work almost as well for a lot less money.
SGI's demise has little to do with Microsoft. SGI lost their edge in the mid nineties. They did not see the trend to cheap commodity hardware until it was too late. SGI made some fantastic technically excellent hardware without a market for it.
As an amature you will be hard pressed to measure radiation in the 2.4 GHz band. (Microwave is anything beyond 1GHz BTW.) You would need a good HP scope with high impedance probes that probably costs 100K. Better engineering universities will have this equipment. Some university profs are actually geeks so they might be willing to help if you ask nicely.
As others have pointed out the radiation level will be quite low. Various standars have required low EM radiation.
Computers are ideally suited to assist the blind. Computers can quickly manipulate text and data into form better suited for the blind. Text to braille and text to speech are obvious examples. The problem is that the common software it not at all suited for the blind. It is all possible, it is all practical but no one has done it.
The big problem is unless you are blind it is virtually impossible to imagine how a blind person would best use a computer.
Unfortunately while VoiceOver looks neat it dosen't actually work in practice. Try it some time. Turn off your monitor and try to do something simple like read and send an email. Bonus points for using the address book.
There are two problems with VoiceOver and Magnifier. These tools were designed by people who have good vision. The bigger problem is that computers are visually very intensive. Not just gui apps, but most programs since the one line at a time teletype make heavy use of a display.
What visually impaired (both blind and nearly blind) people need are applications designed specifically for them. It is much harder then it sounds.
Even if Austici used SSL keys with a passphrase Aruba could have still compromised the SSL software to copy all of the unencrypted data.
The ISP Aruba was much more then an ISP hosting a server machine. Aruba was also providing the physical security of the server. Aruba had physical access to the server, the encryption keys, the encryption software, and the clear text data. Austici had to trust Aruba for the security of the entire system. If Austici wants a secure system they must keep the encryption physically secure. Usually this requires that the servers are in a location that they control and monitor.
We always suspected that they [the isp Aruba] weren't trustworthy...
Why did they think their system was secure?
This article highlights why physical security is so important. Cryptography is a work around for poor physical security. It is not a replacement. As the server held encryption keys the security of the system was completely dependant on the physical security of that server.
Unfortunately this group hasn't learned their lesson:
We will, as soon as possible, reactivate all the services on a new server, cleaned and sanitized, hosted by a different provider.
This service will still be susceptible to the very same attack.
The submitted summary is an incoherent run on sentence. If the article is important the editors should have take the time to re-write the user submitted summary. When Slashdot started that is what the editors did.
I thought that he comments on the brokeness of the IETF were more controversial. I like his idea that customer demand for good patent free protocols would remove the need for the IETF. Unfortunately I don't see it happening in practice.
At two million boards a month (about 1 a second) they do not test every board. Especially a functional test as shown in the pictures. Functional tests are very expensive. Even visual testing is expensive. The Hexus guys were probably shown a prototype run. Before a board goes into full production they will run several batches of boards to detect and correct any last minute production issues.
Much of the Windows core functions are acessible from the command line. Microsoft has been loath to document any of it, and it is not pretty. But much of it is there. I have seen more then a few voodoo command lines from Microsoft that bypass the gui. The really sick stuff uses rundll.
This dosen't help if you are trying to script a 3rd party app, but *nix and MacOS are in a similar boat. All three systems have features to expose functions, but those features aren't always used.
The idea that Lucas was take in by his own hype makes sense. It would explain his own contradictions such as when he stated that the series of 9 (or 12) parts was really about the two droids. If Lucas did have the ep 1-3 mapped out when he created ep4 I am pretty certain we didn't see those episodes on film.
I am not convinced that Lucas had more then one episode in mind when he created "A New Hope." I think Lucas told the producers that he had more films in mind when he was trying to convince them to let him film more movies. Eventually he believed it himself. It is not even certain if Lucas had 9 episodes in mind or 12. Much like Lucas has tried to erase the past versions of ep4-6 and various spinoffs, Lucas has tried to rewrite his own words.
Neither of the lines I quoted are the "Advertising Clause." You can't take BSD code and claim it as your own. You must "credit the author" by including the copyright notice.
Almost. You must credit the copyright holder. From a BSD license template:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Solaris has fault tollerance features that aren't found in Linux. Solaris has support for isolating failing hardware and hotswaping everything includeing cpu boards. Big IBM, and SGI/Cray iron support this as well. To be fair most Linux developers don't have access to a Sun E10k. So it is understandable if they don't fully support it. Solaris zones are nice and currently better then Linux/Xen, and much better then usermode linux or VMware. On the userland side Solaris has excellent nis/nfs support that I have yet to find in any Linux distro.
However Solaris is big, stubborn, and ugly. I would rather admin three machines each with a different Linux distro then a single Solaris box.
Linux has other strenghts, but on big servers Solaris is best.
You stated "I don't think Linus, or any other coder on the kernel would grab BSD code..." By your own admission this is false. Is a contributor to the Linux kernel not a "coder on the kernel"[sic]? Doesn't this show that Linus and many other developers don't care about writing code for fun, but are more interested in building a kernel that works?
There is a lot of BSD code in the linux kernel. Search for BSD in the source tree.
If Linux was ever about "building it from scratch" it was a brief blip in Linux history. Linus quickly adopted his current mentality of build stuff that works. In the early days in particular Linus shameless pulled code from any source. He has never cared about writing code himself for fun. He always cared about code that worked.
Slashdot Mirror
Iris scanning is very fast, and can be done from a distance of several meters. It is typically setup such that people can walk up to an iris scanner controled door and be identified without missing a step. Iris scanners are used in some airports to identify and admit crew to the departure area. Aircrew love the scanners.
SGI is is not a takeover target, and won't be turned around. SGI has some fantastic technology that they will sell off to pay the creditors. After that there is nothing left other then the name. The management isn't worth anything. The customer list is too short. The engineers can be picked up by headhunters on the cheap. There is a very limited market for a turn around. Few organizations need big single address space machines. Most have found that cheap clusters work almost as well for a lot less money.
SGI's demise has little to do with Microsoft. SGI lost their edge in the mid nineties. They did not see the trend to cheap commodity hardware until it was too late. SGI made some fantastic technically excellent hardware without a market for it.
As an amature you will be hard pressed to measure radiation in the 2.4 GHz band. (Microwave is anything beyond 1GHz BTW.) You would need a good HP scope with high impedance probes that probably costs 100K. Better engineering universities will have this equipment. Some university profs are actually geeks so they might be willing to help if you ask nicely.
As others have pointed out the radiation level will be quite low. Various standars have required low EM radiation.
Computers are ideally suited to assist the blind. Computers can quickly manipulate text and data into form better suited for the blind. Text to braille and text to speech are obvious examples. The problem is that the common software it not at all suited for the blind. It is all possible, it is all practical but no one has done it.
The big problem is unless you are blind it is virtually impossible to imagine how a blind person would best use a computer.
Unfortunately while VoiceOver looks neat it dosen't actually work in practice. Try it some time. Turn off your monitor and try to do something simple like read and send an email. Bonus points for using the address book.
There are two problems with VoiceOver and Magnifier. These tools were designed by people who have good vision. The bigger problem is that computers are visually very intensive. Not just gui apps, but most programs since the one line at a time teletype make heavy use of a display.
What visually impaired (both blind and nearly blind) people need are applications designed specifically for them. It is much harder then it sounds.
Even if Austici used SSL keys with a passphrase Aruba could have still compromised the SSL software to copy all of the unencrypted data.
The ISP Aruba was much more then an ISP hosting a server machine. Aruba was also providing the physical security of the server. Aruba had physical access to the server, the encryption keys, the encryption software, and the clear text data. Austici had to trust Aruba for the security of the entire system. If Austici wants a secure system they must keep the encryption physically secure. Usually this requires that the servers are in a location that they control and monitor.
We always suspected that they [the isp Aruba] weren't trustworthy...
Why did they think their system was secure?
This article highlights why physical security is so important. Cryptography is a work around for poor physical security. It is not a replacement. As the server held encryption keys the security of the system was completely dependant on the physical security of that server.
Unfortunately this group hasn't learned their lesson:
We will, as soon as possible, reactivate all the services on a new server, cleaned and sanitized, hosted by a different provider.
This service will still be susceptible to the very same attack.
The submitted summary is an incoherent run on sentence. If the article is important the editors should have take the time to re-write the user submitted summary. When Slashdot started that is what the editors did.
That is fucked. The law is setup to force a person convicted of a felon to a life of crime. How else are they supposed to survive?
Well two of us read it.
I thought that he comments on the brokeness of the IETF were more controversial. I like his idea that customer demand for good patent free protocols would remove the need for the IETF. Unfortunately I don't see it happening in practice.
At two million boards a month (about 1 a second) they do not test every board. Especially a functional test as shown in the pictures. Functional tests are very expensive. Even visual testing is expensive. The Hexus guys were probably shown a prototype run. Before a board goes into full production they will run several batches of boards to detect and correct any last minute production issues.
Much of the Windows core functions are acessible from the command line. Microsoft has been loath to document any of it, and it is not pretty. But much of it is there. I have seen more then a few voodoo command lines from Microsoft that bypass the gui. The really sick stuff uses rundll.
This dosen't help if you are trying to script a 3rd party app, but *nix and MacOS are in a similar boat. All three systems have features to expose functions, but those features aren't always used.
Except that The Hobbit was written before The Lord of the Rings. Wikipedia has some details.
The idea that Lucas was take in by his own hype makes sense. It would explain his own contradictions such as when he stated that the series of 9 (or 12) parts was really about the two droids. If Lucas did have the ep 1-3 mapped out when he created ep4 I am pretty certain we didn't see those episodes on film.
I am not convinced that Lucas had more then one episode in mind when he created "A New Hope." I think Lucas told the producers that he had more films in mind when he was trying to convince them to let him film more movies. Eventually he believed it himself. It is not even certain if Lucas had 9 episodes in mind or 12. Much like Lucas has tried to erase the past versions of ep4-6 and various spinoffs, Lucas has tried to rewrite his own words.
Neither of the lines I quoted are the "Advertising Clause." You can't take BSD code and claim it as your own. You must "credit the author" by including the copyright notice.
*smile*
a naked shoulder will get you fired? Where the hell do you work?
If you want to go all fancy pants you could use plexi. :-)
We used cardboard, and later 1/4" plywood.
those AC units with vent hoses are actually quite nice. they allow you to move the unit around to the room you are in.
Solaris has fault tollerance features that aren't found in Linux. Solaris has support for isolating failing hardware and hotswaping everything includeing cpu boards. Big IBM, and SGI/Cray iron support this as well. To be fair most Linux developers don't have access to a Sun E10k. So it is understandable if they don't fully support it. Solaris zones are nice and currently better then Linux/Xen, and much better then usermode linux or VMware. On the userland side Solaris has excellent nis/nfs support that I have yet to find in any Linux distro.
However Solaris is big, stubborn, and ugly. I would rather admin three machines each with a different Linux distro then a single Solaris box.
Linux has other strenghts, but on big servers Solaris is best.
You stated "I don't think Linus, or any other coder on the kernel would grab BSD code..." By your own admission this is false. Is a contributor to the Linux kernel not a "coder on the kernel"[sic]? Doesn't this show that Linus and many other developers don't care about writing code for fun, but are more interested in building a kernel that works?
There is a lot of BSD code in the linux kernel. Search for BSD in the source tree.
If Linux was ever about "building it from scratch" it was a brief blip in Linux history. Linus quickly adopted his current mentality of build stuff that works. In the early days in particular Linus shameless pulled code from any source. He has never cared about writing code himself for fun. He always cared about code that worked.
It is amazing how little gentlemen's attire has changed in the past 150 years.