When I read the submission it seems to me that the issue is networking. Students are able to chat amongst themselves and with outside world. Calculators are allowed, it's the network that should be banned.
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
I always access my pine from one computer. If you can check your email, you can ssh somewhere to run pine. That way I have all my email in one place - that's still under my control.
Is this really what using those wizards has brought us to. What happened to using descriptive names? Button1 is definitely not descriptive (well.. at least I know it's a button).
Ok. So we can capture comet dust and bring it back to earth, right?
Why not take a whole bunch of that aerogel, and put it up in space in big shields? Maybe even have smaller robots that use it to actively collect larger pieces? Eventualy most of the small debris will stick to it and we can deal with smaller number of larger objects.
What I would love to see is really a detailed classification. Windows versions, Linux versions, Unix versions, etc. Is it fair to throw in Gentoo and Debian in the same category? Can the same exploit be counted twice then because it's in a library both use?
From what I have seen, the Unix/Linux list contains security pertaining to:
Together with AIX, HP-UX, KDE, Mozilla, and a whole bunch of others.
Tell me, What is the point of this list if it shoves AIX, HP-UX, OS X, Solaris and a number of variants of Linux together? Just this short list constains 4+ operating systems developed by separate companies. Not to mention all the applications as well.
No wonder I don't like calculus. Obviously this makes no sense to me. If you're loosing 100 bucks per unit sold, how can you make that less by selling more? Maybe I'm just confounded...
I am amazed that nobody mentioned anything about how long the prints are expected to last. That beautiful photo you're printing as a gift - will is still look the same 5 years from now? 10 years? 20 years?
With x-forwarding you can still use graphical programs without running a local X-server. As long as the libraries are installed. It's simple - connect to one of the computers with ssh, run the program and the window (if any) appears on your local computer. I mean if you're administering any kind of a serious cluster, your interconnect is going to be fast, so that's not a problem.
At most what you're loosing with this system is a few megabytes of hard drive space. It takes no resources unless it is in active use.
I doubt it is going to be THAT sophisticated. People running this way (and shouting are OK), people running the other way (either attacking troops OR your own defecting troops) are to be shot. Easy, eh?
I guess that will also make developers think a bit. The "normal" GPL allows the user to select eg. GPL version 2 *or at his option a later version*. That is really a recipe for disaster. Who's to say that there will never be a version of GPL that assigns all rights to a commercial entity? Or that drops the requirement to share source code?
Did you know that hunter gatherers tribes only needed to work 2-4 hours a day to maintain their lifestyle?
I mean after your camp is setup, all you do is set a few traps, feed the animals you do have and cook. They were probably much happier overall as well.
There is a lot that goes into a server that is unheard of in desktop market. Like reliability, redundancy and fault management.
Real server will give you an amazing amount of remote administration. Like being able to log in to a computer after a crash (just the management piece, the main one would not come up properly), figure out that the damage is either one of the cpus and/or the related memory bank, disable that piece and bring it back? Later that day we got a replacement and swapped it out *without* turning off the machine. It's slightly better than your average desktop box.
It's not as big of an issue as you think. We have satellites that can stay up in space for years. There are ways to shield electronics from prolonged exposure to space.
Chemical engines are also very reliable. All satellites include some amount of fuel to make corrections to their orbits. Again - they can last a number of years. The only issue is space debris. Even then you're not being bombarded by it - if you're hit by a pea travelling at 18,000 mph you'll know. Existing satellites, the space shuttles are running those odds every time they go up there. You'll need some monitoring equipment to check status of pods from earth, but by sending up 3-4 you can pretty much always have enough in case of an emergency.
Here is an idea. Why not have some emergency landing capsules already in the orbit? Nothing fancy, just a capsule with minimal electronics that can land in the ocean. Proven technology from many years ago. Leave enough fuel so the capsules can stay for a decade in desired orbit. Heck, make them reusable - refit and shoot them up again.
If a similar damage happens to a shuttle - transfer people to the capsule and bring them bacak safely to earth. Decide whether to leave the shuttle in orbit for possible repairs or to bring it down as well (remotely?, crash it in an ocean?).
Re:Get with the (space) program, fellas.
on
New NASA Budget Woes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The really sad part is.. That would probably work better than most other "solutions".
The world is far too preoccupied with the "image" of things, not the substance.
There is nothing in closed source methodology that prohibits peer review. What is the value of some guy off the street reviewing code that kind of code? Very little.
What is the benefit of having an open source code in this case? Are you going to allow patches to be submitted? If so, who's going to check them? Are there going to be sufficient tests run for that kind of applications? If you don't allow code submissions... What will happen when someone forks that software. Should the company still be responsible for the modifications? I really don't want to approach this from the point of view of accountability (although it is important), but from the point of view of experience and expertise.
In this kind of model, the company would retain the required expertise to maintain the software. At that level you basically have support agreements. If one of your customers needs a modification or addition - the company is responsible for implementing it. Noone sane would accept accept a hacked up version of the code from the web. Not for this kind of appliation - with a very good reason. Open source model would give nothing to this kind of project except confusion.
I'm probably going to be flamed for taking opposite view, but I have to give this a try.
Than again, I'm probably gonig to be flamed by saing "I'm probably going to be flamed for saying this.."..
There are specific classes of software where the users should not really have access to the code. It generally involves highly specialized things. For example the code that runs the radiation machine for cancer treatment. Ideally, that code would need to be extremely well tested and researched. I know there are examples of companies that cut corners. Having some sort of review system would be beneficial, but there should be no way for customers/operators to be able to modify the code. Even by accident (or malicious hacker, whatever).
The systems I'm talking about are generally standalone for that very reason. Nobody can use them unless they need to do that specific task... Maybe that is security enough in itself. Is there ever enough security when lives are at stake though?
Failing classes should make students think a little harder about cutting class.
Let's face it. Universities have turned into trade schools. If you know the system you WILL graduate. As long as you keep on putting money into the system - they will keep you. Sure, you may fail a few classes, but you will graduate eventualy.
I'm sure (hope actually) that there are exceptions to this view. I haven't seen them, but I hope they're there. Still, most of the schools - they're just processing factories where you spent money and get a degree at the end. As long as you can afford it, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
When I read the submission it seems to me that the issue is networking. Students are able to chat amongst themselves and with outside world. Calculators are allowed, it's the network that should be banned.
I always access my pine from one computer. If you can check your email, you can ssh somewhere to run pine. That way I have all my email in one place - that's still under my control.
Is this really what using those wizards has brought us to. What happened to using descriptive names? Button1 is definitely not descriptive (well.. at least I know it's a button).
Why not take a whole bunch of that aerogel, and put it up in space in big shields? Maybe even have smaller robots that use it to actively collect larger pieces? Eventualy most of the small debris will stick to it and we can deal with smaller number of larger objects.
From what I have seen, the Unix/Linux list contains security pertaining to:
FreeBSD
Debian
OS X
Apache
Adobe Acrobat
Freeciv (???????)
Gentoo
Gnome
Emacs
xine
Together with AIX, HP-UX, KDE, Mozilla, and a whole bunch of others.
Tell me, What is the point of this list if it shoves AIX, HP-UX, OS X, Solaris and a number of variants of Linux together? Just this short list constains 4+ operating systems developed by separate companies. Not to mention all the applications as well.
No wonder I don't like calculus. Obviously this makes no sense to me. If you're loosing 100 bucks per unit sold, how can you make that less by selling more? Maybe I'm just confounded...
US notches world's highest incarceration rate
Does the United States lead the world in prison population?
I am amazed that nobody mentioned anything about how long the prints are expected to last. That beautiful photo you're printing as a gift - will is still look the same 5 years from now? 10 years? 20 years?
With x-forwarding you can still use graphical programs without running a local X-server. As long as the libraries are installed. It's simple - connect to one of the computers with ssh, run the program and the window (if any) appears on your local computer. I mean if you're administering any kind of a serious cluster, your interconnect is going to be fast, so that's not a problem.
At most what you're loosing with this system is a few megabytes of hard drive space. It takes no resources unless it is in active use.
The average density of particles in space is way too low to explain this. We're looking at at most a couple hundred particles per cubic centimeter.
I doubt it is going to be THAT sophisticated. People running this way (and shouting are OK), people running the other way (either attacking troops OR your own defecting troops) are to be shot. Easy, eh?
Quite honestly I think that's a nice steaming pile of bull.
George W. Bush does not care about the color of your skin, only the amount in your wallet.
I guess that will also make developers think a bit. The "normal" GPL allows the user to select eg. GPL version 2 *or at his option a later version*. That is really a recipe for disaster. Who's to say that there will never be a version of GPL that assigns all rights to a commercial entity? Or that drops the requirement to share source code?
Did you know that hunter gatherers tribes only needed to work 2-4 hours a day to maintain their lifestyle? I mean after your camp is setup, all you do is set a few traps, feed the animals you do have and cook. They were probably much happier overall as well.
There is a lot that goes into a server that is unheard of in desktop market. Like reliability, redundancy and fault management. Real server will give you an amazing amount of remote administration. Like being able to log in to a computer after a crash (just the management piece, the main one would not come up properly), figure out that the damage is either one of the cpus and/or the related memory bank, disable that piece and bring it back? Later that day we got a replacement and swapped it out *without* turning off the machine. It's slightly better than your average desktop box.
It's not as big of an issue as you think. We have satellites that can stay up in space for years. There are ways to shield electronics from prolonged exposure to space. Chemical engines are also very reliable. All satellites include some amount of fuel to make corrections to their orbits. Again - they can last a number of years. The only issue is space debris. Even then you're not being bombarded by it - if you're hit by a pea travelling at 18,000 mph you'll know. Existing satellites, the space shuttles are running those odds every time they go up there. You'll need some monitoring equipment to check status of pods from earth, but by sending up 3-4 you can pretty much always have enough in case of an emergency.
Here is an idea. Why not have some emergency landing capsules already in the orbit? Nothing fancy, just a capsule with minimal electronics that can land in the ocean. Proven technology from many years ago. Leave enough fuel so the capsules can stay for a decade in desired orbit. Heck, make them reusable - refit and shoot them up again.
If a similar damage happens to a shuttle - transfer people to the capsule and bring them bacak safely to earth. Decide whether to leave the shuttle in orbit for possible repairs or to bring it down as well (remotely?, crash it in an ocean?).
The really sad part is.. That would probably work better than most other "solutions".
The world is far too preoccupied with the "image" of things, not the substance.
All of the torrent sites have and do have legitimate (legal) content as well. Linux CDS, demos, etc.
Thus you can truthfully say that the site is simply indexing all torrent files. Just like google is indexing html pages (and files and whatever).
As long as you have legit content - you can't say that it is ONLY used for copyright violations.
Hate to break this to you - but if only one human survives - the civilization still dies.
Even two people, Adam and Eve if you will, does not provide sufficient genetic diversity to last for many generations.
Actually there are charges for crossing different network boundaries. Believe it or not, all of the world's internet is not provided for free.
All the major providers measure bandwidth in and out of their networks, the differences are settled something like once a month.
There is nothing in closed source methodology that prohibits peer review. What is the value of some guy off the street reviewing code that kind of code? Very little. What is the benefit of having an open source code in this case? Are you going to allow patches to be submitted? If so, who's going to check them? Are there going to be sufficient tests run for that kind of applications? If you don't allow code submissions... What will happen when someone forks that software. Should the company still be responsible for the modifications? I really don't want to approach this from the point of view of accountability (although it is important), but from the point of view of experience and expertise. In this kind of model, the company would retain the required expertise to maintain the software. At that level you basically have support agreements. If one of your customers needs a modification or addition - the company is responsible for implementing it. Noone sane would accept accept a hacked up version of the code from the web. Not for this kind of appliation - with a very good reason. Open source model would give nothing to this kind of project except confusion.
I'm probably going to be flamed for taking opposite view, but I have to give this a try.
Than again, I'm probably gonig to be flamed by saing "I'm probably going to be flamed for saying this.."..
There are specific classes of software where the users should not really have access to the code. It generally involves highly specialized things. For example the code that runs the radiation machine for cancer treatment. Ideally, that code would need to be extremely well tested and researched. I know there are examples of companies that cut corners. Having some sort of review system would be beneficial, but there should be no way for customers/operators to be able to modify the code. Even by accident (or malicious hacker, whatever).
The systems I'm talking about are generally standalone for that very reason. Nobody can use them unless they need to do that specific task... Maybe that is security enough in itself. Is there ever enough security when lives are at stake though?
Failing classes should make students think a little harder about cutting class. Let's face it. Universities have turned into trade schools. If you know the system you WILL graduate. As long as you keep on putting money into the system - they will keep you. Sure, you may fail a few classes, but you will graduate eventualy. I'm sure (hope actually) that there are exceptions to this view. I haven't seen them, but I hope they're there. Still, most of the schools - they're just processing factories where you spent money and get a degree at the end. As long as you can afford it, of course.
You don't want to do that.
Powerbooks vent some of the heat throug the keyboard. If the laptop is running with the screen closed - it will overheat.