What we're looking at here is the one Cabinet-level department specifically charged with maintaining IT infrastructure getting nailed by their IG for having a security profile slightly better than your average baby's candy protection perimeter.
?!? Where are you getting this analogy from? ?!?
Can't you think of an appropriate car-themed analogy?
Major Linux distributions ask their users to install a kernel update roughly once each month. Before Uptrack, each such update required a reboot. Until a system can be updated, it remains vulnerable to security flaws. By allowing users to install kernel updates without downtime, Uptrack slashes the cost of system administration [...]
Slashes the cost how? So... your sysadmins are all working on putting out fires caused by attacks on vulnerabilities, since they didn't get the patches in right away? Or they're just sitting around idle, waiting for the exact, once-a-month moment to reboot the computer.
You'll still need the sysadmin to apply these updates anyway, Ksplice or not. It's not like Ksplice will come to your machine room and install the updates themselves. And it's not like applying the updates the moment they are released will guard you against all exploits either.
You need sysadmins to fix things when attackers break it. You need sysadmins to fix things when users break it. You need sysadmins to fix things when it breaks itself. Preventative maintenance, housekeeping, and not to mention updates to every other piece of software on a server other than the kernel. Seriously, rebooting a machine takes up the least amount of my time. I type `sudo reboot`, enter my password, and the machine does the rest. If I've done my job correctly I don't have to sit there and hand-hold the machine while it boots itself.
Some may argue that the same could be said about a child- we 'create' it and then 'program' it with what we want to, but I think this trivializes humanity.
I'm glad I don't share your viewpoint on what constitutes 'trivial'. To me, when we can understand something in more detail, such as how a child learns and grows, this knowledge of seemingly simple, but innately complex processes makes these events all the more exhilarating.
Children begin processing information at a rate that we are incapable of quantifying before they even learn a language.
So when we can quantify the rate at which children process information, and in the event that computer process information faster than we can quantify, the computer is alive and the children are not?
We can create an AI that has the ability to learn, and an AI that can masquerade or exude human characteristics and behavior, but it's all an act. It's a toy. It isn't 'alive' in the sense that we are alive (whatever that sense may be).
I think this is your problem right here. You don't actually know what constitutes 'alive' and what does not. Neither do I, but I'm open to debate it. You just say that humans are alive, and computers are not, and therefore never will be. Also, I think you're mixing two ideas here; one is the idea of Artificial Intelligence, and the other the creation of a computer that 'is' a human. I agree with you that an AI mimicking human reactions is in fact just 'acting' like a human, and is not an actual human, but I don't see what this has to do with being 'alive'. My cat does not (at least not when I'm around) "exude human characteristics and behavior", but even if it were, it would still be alive.
Human characteristics are not the defining characteristics of being alive.
The idea that we could create an AI that could think 'outside' of the box that we create it in is, to me, a childish sci fi fantasy. [...] I rest assured that this is one of those that we can safely say will never come to pass.
I don't see what's stopping us? Just because we can't see the finish line, it doesn't mean it isn't there. So far your argument for what is 'alive' and what isn't is that what you say is 'alive' is, and everything else isn't, even things (computers of the future) that don't exist yet. I don't think any single person has jurisdiction over what is considered alive and what isn't.
Likewise with a "thinking" computer, it is still just silicon and lines of code, not a living being
Surely you must have heard the argument where humans are likened to 'organic' computers, made of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, etc. and lines of DNA? Again, you must find that this trivializes the miracle of life. I just find that it adds to it.
What I mean is; how much Helium is getting trapped in some form that is not reclaimable? It's not like Helium is burnt, and I don't know what kind of compounds have Helium bonds or otherwise trap a Helium molecule. So where is the Helium going that we are using up?
To use another element as an example, take Gold. There's only so much Gold on the planet, we know that, and Gold is constantly being bought and sold, melted and reformed, used and then reclaimed. If Gold is 'used', say, for plating electrical connectors, once it is no longer needed it can be recycled, resold, and reused. It is never destroyed, just schlepped around from one place to another. Why isn't it the same for another element like Helium?
I'm obviously no Helium expert, which is why I'm asking so many questions, but I've never heard of a 'Helium mine', so I'm assuming that most of the Helium we have wasn't trapped in gas pockets underground, so we must have distilled it from the atmosphere. So can't we do it again after the Helium has fulfilled it's 'use'? Like melting down circuit boards to make jewelery?
My conclusion would be that if there is only so much Helium, and it does not get destroyed, and our supply is running out, then our Helium requirements must be on the rise. Or it must be trapped in some form or another that is still considered a 'use' and therefore cannot be recycled.
So what use of Helium is growing so fast that we are running out, and that does not release the Helium from it's bondage in a timely matter for recycling?
I can engineer a dead flower by leaving a live flower on a table without water for a week. Can you reverse engineer a living flower from that dead flower?
Web 2.0 is a bunch of existential meta-crap. No wonder they don't care about it.
It's like any generation since the 1930s' not giving a damn about electricity. It's just always there. Kids today are interested in the Internet about as much as we're interested in our power bill. It's there, it's useful, but we don't make no never mind about it as long as it works.
This is why I dropped out of a CS degree so many years back. Kids just take CS classes because it's either expected or their parents think it will make them lots of money. The real interest is gone, and unfortunately the curriculum has changed to reflect this. When you start to teach kids the real nitty-gritty of being a sysadmin or programmer, they loose interest fast.
I dropped out of university classes so that I could actually work a job that would let me pursue my interests in computers and the Internet. Now I work for the same university I dropped out of, as a computer technician.
Responsible disclosure is not too much to ask for, but you should be demanding it from your own government, so that you don't have to ask for it (or anything else) from WikiLeaks.
Seeing as they just woke up, I guess that would depend upon whether or not they're morning people. But I'm guessing when you're in space, those lines start to blur.
What's weird about jumper cables in space? A set of heavy gauge wires that can take lots of current, with universal connectors on either end? Sounds incredibly versatile. I'd never leave Earth with out them, packed right next to my towel.
You much be one of those people who take your car to the dealer to get an oil change.
First off, I'll admit, I recently had my licence reinstated after a six-month suspension. Speeding is fun. Video games are fun. Teenagers like to have fun. This also extends to other things like sex, drugs, and (I guess) rock and roll. Driving at 170Km/h (105MPH) for over an hour on the 401 was fun. If we want kids to be safe drivers, we'd have to teach them that fun is bad. Now that I have my licence back, fun is over. Time for video games I guess.
WHAT! I can't believe I actually read that! Of course parents should wish to read and discuss important and historical topics with their children! Even if they don't/wish/ to, they should see it as their obligation for creating a new life form.
Children require guidance; they don't yet have the knowledge to make important decisions. This is how they learn, parents need to teach their children how to make educated decisions. If you plonk a kid down in front of the constitution, and they've never seen it or anything like it before, they won't have the slightest clue of it's importance or what it means.
I agree with your remark about symbolism and the language of the document. It was designed for the average voter, but CHILDREN AREN'T VOTERS, and for good reason. They BECOME voters with help from their parents.
I strongly think that many people are way too lax when it comes to raising their children these days. And I don't mean lax on strictness, I mean lax on involvement. So many shirk off their responsibility and blame others when things go wrong. Your kid shot another kid at school? Oh, well, it must be the video games and the rap music, and the schools' fault for not noticing signs of anti-social behaviour sooner.
Ubuntu's one main focus has always been on ease of use of the average user (read: people who are generally not aware of Linux, or even Windows for that matter*) People want a stable experience, that runs on their netbook, stores their stuff so that they can always access it, and looks good while doing it.
Are you saying that 10.04 is unstable, doesn't work at all on a netbook, and has no support for cloud computing?
I wouldn't say these are half-baked ideas, I'd say they're more like milestones. I don't think that a distro should focus too much on doing one thing very well, as it will inevitably leave other things very lacking. Ubuntu is going after people who don't have specific interests in any one aspect of computing. These people rate their computer experience not by how well their computer does a task, but by how badly it does it. In short, people won't notice if Ubuntu does something extremely well, they'll just assume that's normal. They will, however, notice when the list of failures starts to grow too long.
This is why I use Debian. It does many things very well:P
* User calls the office: My email is broken. (several minutes go by as I try to figure out what's wrong with their mail program, just to find out that they don't actually know what a mail program is or what they normally do to check their mail. How people/know/ that their mail is "broken" when they don't actually know how to check their mail is beyond me.) Me: We should check that your Internet connection is working. Do you know what operating system you are using? User: Uhh... Dell. Me: No. What shows up on screen when you first turn your computer on? Do you see blue with clouds and the words Windows XP? User: I don't know. Me: Is your computer on now? User: No. Me: Can you turn it on? User: No, the computer's at home and I'm at work. Me: (facepalms) Bring your computer into our office and we'll sort it out for you. (Turns out it was Windows 2000, what fun.)
Slashdot Mirror
What we're looking at here is the one Cabinet-level department specifically charged with maintaining IT infrastructure getting nailed by their IG for having a security profile slightly better than your average baby's candy protection perimeter.
?!? Where are you getting this analogy from? ?!?
Can't you think of an appropriate car-themed analogy?
Major Linux distributions ask their users to install a kernel update roughly once each month. Before Uptrack, each such update required a reboot. Until a system can be updated, it remains vulnerable to security flaws. By allowing users to install kernel updates without downtime, Uptrack slashes the cost of system administration [...]
Slashes the cost how? So... your sysadmins are all working on putting out fires caused by attacks on vulnerabilities, since they didn't get the patches in right away? Or they're just sitting around idle, waiting for the exact, once-a-month moment to reboot the computer.
You'll still need the sysadmin to apply these updates anyway, Ksplice or not. It's not like Ksplice will come to your machine room and install the updates themselves. And it's not like applying the updates the moment they are released will guard you against all exploits either.
You need sysadmins to fix things when attackers break it. You need sysadmins to fix things when users break it. You need sysadmins to fix things when it breaks itself. Preventative maintenance, housekeeping, and not to mention updates to every other piece of software on a server other than the kernel. Seriously, rebooting a machine takes up the least amount of my time. I type `sudo reboot`, enter my password, and the machine does the rest. If I've done my job correctly I don't have to sit there and hand-hold the machine while it boots itself.
Well, you learn something new everyday.
Thanks!
Some may argue that the same could be said about a child- we 'create' it and then 'program' it with what we want to, but I think this trivializes humanity.
I'm glad I don't share your viewpoint on what constitutes 'trivial'. To me, when we can understand something in more detail, such as how a child learns and grows, this knowledge of seemingly simple, but innately complex processes makes these events all the more exhilarating.
Children begin processing information at a rate that we are incapable of quantifying before they even learn a language.
So when we can quantify the rate at which children process information, and in the event that computer process information faster than we can quantify, the computer is alive and the children are not?
We can create an AI that has the ability to learn, and an AI that can masquerade or exude human characteristics and behavior, but it's all an act. It's a toy. It isn't 'alive' in the sense that we are alive (whatever that sense may be).
I think this is your problem right here. You don't actually know what constitutes 'alive' and what does not. Neither do I, but I'm open to debate it. You just say that humans are alive, and computers are not, and therefore never will be. Also, I think you're mixing two ideas here; one is the idea of Artificial Intelligence, and the other the creation of a computer that 'is' a human. I agree with you that an AI mimicking human reactions is in fact just 'acting' like a human, and is not an actual human, but I don't see what this has to do with being 'alive'. My cat does not (at least not when I'm around) "exude human characteristics and behavior", but even if it were, it would still be alive.
Human characteristics are not the defining characteristics of being alive.
The idea that we could create an AI that could think 'outside' of the box that we create it in is, to me, a childish sci fi fantasy. [...] I rest assured that this is one of those that we can safely say will never come to pass.
I don't see what's stopping us? Just because we can't see the finish line, it doesn't mean it isn't there. So far your argument for what is 'alive' and what isn't is that what you say is 'alive' is, and everything else isn't, even things (computers of the future) that don't exist yet. I don't think any single person has jurisdiction over what is considered alive and what isn't.
Likewise with a "thinking" computer, it is still just silicon and lines of code, not a living being
Surely you must have heard the argument where humans are likened to 'organic' computers, made of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, etc. and lines of DNA? Again, you must find that this trivializes the miracle of life. I just find that it adds to it.
How much Helium are we actually 'using'?
What I mean is; how much Helium is getting trapped in some form that is not reclaimable? It's not like Helium is burnt, and I don't know what kind of compounds have Helium bonds or otherwise trap a Helium molecule. So where is the Helium going that we are using up?
To use another element as an example, take Gold. There's only so much Gold on the planet, we know that, and Gold is constantly being bought and sold, melted and reformed, used and then reclaimed. If Gold is 'used', say, for plating electrical connectors, once it is no longer needed it can be recycled, resold, and reused. It is never destroyed, just schlepped around from one place to another. Why isn't it the same for another element like Helium?
I'm obviously no Helium expert, which is why I'm asking so many questions, but I've never heard of a 'Helium mine', so I'm assuming that most of the Helium we have wasn't trapped in gas pockets underground, so we must have distilled it from the atmosphere. So can't we do it again after the Helium has fulfilled it's 'use'? Like melting down circuit boards to make jewelery?
My conclusion would be that if there is only so much Helium, and it does not get destroyed, and our supply is running out, then our Helium requirements must be on the rise. Or it must be trapped in some form or another that is still considered a 'use' and therefore cannot be recycled.
So what use of Helium is growing so fast that we are running out, and that does not release the Helium from it's bondage in a timely matter for recycling?
Watching that video made me want cheeseburgers.
What does JITB stand for in this case?
I can engineer a dead flower by leaving a live flower on a table without water for a week. Can you reverse engineer a living flower from that dead flower?
Web 2.0 is a bunch of existential meta-crap. No wonder they don't care about it.
It's like any generation since the 1930s' not giving a damn about electricity. It's just always there. Kids today are interested in the Internet about as much as we're interested in our power bill. It's there, it's useful, but we don't make no never mind about it as long as it works.
This is why I dropped out of a CS degree so many years back. Kids just take CS classes because it's either expected or their parents think it will make them lots of money. The real interest is gone, and unfortunately the curriculum has changed to reflect this. When you start to teach kids the real nitty-gritty of being a sysadmin or programmer, they loose interest fast.
I dropped out of university classes so that I could actually work a job that would let me pursue my interests in computers and the Internet. Now I work for the same university I dropped out of, as a computer technician.
Hear, hear!
And thus Sarge was born.
Responsible disclosure is not too much to ask for, but you should be demanding it from your own government, so that you don't have to ask for it (or anything else) from WikiLeaks.
Good example. I once fixed a car door latch with a hair elastic. Held for years.
This is why my office is so messy, you never know what 'junk' will be useful in a pinch.
Seeing as they just woke up, I guess that would depend upon whether or not they're morning people.
But I'm guessing when you're in space, those lines start to blur.
What's weird about jumper cables in space? A set of heavy gauge wires that can take lots of current, with universal connectors on either end? Sounds incredibly versatile. I'd never leave Earth with out them, packed right next to my towel.
You much be one of those people who take your car to the dealer to get an oil change.
<sarcasm>
Much simpler.
</sarcasm>
Better?
They should develop artificial gravity. That way their absorption chillers won't need pumps.
Much simpler.
and provides an alternative to Comcast digital cable?
Hmm, sounds like a book to me.
Lots of driving yesterday, no sleep last night, totally thought it was an article about how Microsoft fails.
First off, I'll admit, I recently had my licence reinstated after a six-month suspension.
Speeding is fun. Video games are fun. Teenagers like to have fun. This also extends to other things like sex, drugs, and (I guess) rock and roll.
Driving at 170Km/h (105MPH) for over an hour on the 401 was fun.
If we want kids to be safe drivers, we'd have to teach them that fun is bad.
Now that I have my licence back, fun is over. Time for video games I guess.
We already have weapons based on nuclear fusion. We call it the H-bomb.
I doubt there's much point in trying to develop a 'bigger' H-bomb 'cause well, it a fucking H-bomb.
WHAT! I can't believe I actually read that! Of course parents should wish to read and discuss important and historical topics with their children! Even if they don't /wish/ to, they should see it as their obligation for creating a new life form.
Children require guidance; they don't yet have the knowledge to make important decisions. This is how they learn, parents need to teach their children how to make educated decisions. If you plonk a kid down in front of the constitution, and they've never seen it or anything like it before, they won't have the slightest clue of it's importance or what it means.
I agree with your remark about symbolism and the language of the document. It was designed for the average voter, but CHILDREN AREN'T VOTERS, and for good reason. They BECOME voters with help from their parents.
I strongly think that many people are way too lax when it comes to raising their children these days. And I don't mean lax on strictness, I mean lax on involvement. So many shirk off their responsibility and blame others when things go wrong. Your kid shot another kid at school? Oh, well, it must be the video games and the rap music, and the schools' fault for not noticing signs of anti-social behaviour sooner.
Ubuntu's one main focus has always been on ease of use of the average user (read: people who are generally not aware of Linux, or even Windows for that matter*) People want a stable experience, that runs on their netbook, stores their stuff so that they can always access it, and looks good while doing it.
Are you saying that 10.04 is unstable, doesn't work at all on a netbook, and has no support for cloud computing?
I wouldn't say these are half-baked ideas, I'd say they're more like milestones. I don't think that a distro should focus too much on doing one thing very well, as it will inevitably leave other things very lacking. Ubuntu is going after people who don't have specific interests in any one aspect of computing. These people rate their computer experience not by how well their computer does a task, but by how badly it does it. In short, people won't notice if Ubuntu does something extremely well, they'll just assume that's normal. They will, however, notice when the list of failures starts to grow too long.
This is why I use Debian. It does many things very well :P
* User calls the office: My email is broken. /know/ that their mail is "broken" when they don't actually know how to check their mail is beyond me.)
(several minutes go by as I try to figure out what's wrong with their mail program, just to find out that they don't actually know what a mail program is or what they normally do to check their mail. How people
Me: We should check that your Internet connection is working. Do you know what operating system you are using?
User: Uhh... Dell.
Me: No. What shows up on screen when you first turn your computer on? Do you see blue with clouds and the words Windows XP?
User: I don't know.
Me: Is your computer on now?
User: No.
Me: Can you turn it on?
User: No, the computer's at home and I'm at work.
Me: (facepalms) Bring your computer into our office and we'll sort it out for you. (Turns out it was Windows 2000, what fun.)