SPF only authenticates mail as being approved mail from a domain. In itself, this only prevents joe jobbing and phishing, but domains can still send spam.
As SPF adoption grows, there will be two types of email: authenticated and unauthenticated. Authenticated mail will consist of both spam and legitimate mail. Unauthenticated mail will be just like the mail we are sending around today.
What does authenticated mail get us? As we can track mail down to the owners, we will begin to set up a trust system. DNS block lists will become viable. The owners of domain names can protect or abuse their domain names as they see fit.
Eventually, there will be a system where domain names will have value again. If I don't abuse my home domain, and only use it for legitimate purposes, people will not add my name to black lists. If my domain has sent a large number of emails with a very low score of spam, it will be more legitimate than one who has sent only a few emails or has sent mostly spam.
SPF is only the first step in stopping unsolicited email. Once it is in place, the next step -- accountability -- is easy to implement.
The beauty of SPF is that it doesn't invalidate email as it is now. Participation is optional. Those who are early adopters get an early boost, so the incentive is there to adopt it early on. But email as it is now will not be stopped.
Get your job description signed by your boss and verified by the upper-ups. You are responsible for:
(1) Insuring that your network is as resistant to attacks of any sort as possible.
(2) Identifying any attacks and investigating the cause thereof.
(3) Mitigating the effects of attacks while they are being done.
With this setup, you should have one more clause: That security specialists should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to fulfill the above three items, even using unconventional methods, provided that:
(1) They receive (written) permission from the person in charge of all security before implementing a new method.
(2) Their methods do not interefere with normal business unless required by (3) above (eg, shutting down mail access in the case of a mail storm.)
With those goals outlined, the security team should be able to use pretty much whatever methods they chose to do their job.
The only way to effectively protect a free society is to arm the citizens.
We can't identify the bad guys before they commit a crime.
Instead, let's allow the one thing that determines a criminal -- their actions, not their thoughts, and not their motives or country of origin -- determine how we treat them in a free society.
If someone walks into a bank and demands money at the threat of force, the armed citizenry can convince him otherwise.
If someone tries to hijack a plane, the armed citizenry can hijack it back. At the very least, they can take the plane down with them.
If someone tries to penetrate the borders with force (not unheard of on the US - Mexico borders), the armed citizenry can push them back out.
Wherever someone tries to commit a crime, there will be someone watching, someone who may be the victim, or someone who may be a passerby. We already know that the majority of citizens in a free society are logical, just, and fair. We already give them the power to put people to death by trial by jury. We allow them to vote a president who declares war on another country. Why not allow them to police themselves and their neighborhoods and places of business as well?
Only fascist societies need an identity system. Only authoritarian regimes where a state police is needed to check the power of the people require that everyone be assigned a number and a name and that they present said documentation appropriately. A free society governs itself. They don't need government to tell them that Jim who lives down the street is really the same Jim who lived down the street his whole life. They don't need police to tell them when it is okay to shoot a rapist, or to tackle a purse snatcher.
Just because you have the space doesn't mean it is organized. The filesystems are a way of organizing and managing the data into the neat file and directory paradigm you are used to.
As far as RAM disk versus SHM, there are occasions where you would like to copy files and store shared files in RAM, especially on systems with plenty of it to spare and busy hard drives.
I've changed my view on global warming. I used to think the whole earth couldn't warm or cool, but it would stay the same over time. Now I believe that the earth does warm and cool over significant variations. So we are in a global warming phase, if the toposphere is absolute proof (which we can't be sure about.)
The question is: What can we do about it? The answer is: Unfortunately, not much. If we cut all the world's emissions of greenhouse gasses drastically in half, that wouldn't account for the other variations responsible for global warming like a more active sun or just the phase of the weather patterns on earth or the temperature of the sea. I have to think about it this way: If humanity did all it could to cool or warm the earth, what would we accomplish? The answer is that the earth is so huge and so complicated that we can't predict whether our actions would cause havoc or remedy. I mean, we could spend trillions of dollars on a system to cool the troposphere only to find out that by doing so we are causing more hurricanes and such.
The earth is a chaotic system, and chaotic systems for the most part are unpredictable. A variation of a few hundredths of a degree in one place in the world can be responsible for a hurricane in another.
Perl gives you the freedom of writing crap; it also gives you the freedom of writing clear, concise code that almost looks like Python. I'll let you guess which style I use and enforce on large, multi-developer projects.
One of the golden rules that Python is founded on is optimizing the algorithm, and let the compilers / interpreters do all the rest. Python, like perl and most other high-level languages, allow you to tweak the code and try out many different algorithms, without worrying about pointers and useless trivia like how much memory is available to your process.
If you master the algorithm, and you still want more speed, you can go ahead and usually cut run times by half or more by implementing it in C. But it takes a lot of work to get it right in C, and once in C, it isn't very friendly to tweaking.
About the compiler / interpreter doing the real optimizations - psyco is freely available and regularly gets close to C speeds for python. The new parrot compiler, when it comes out, will redefine the speed barriers for all high level languages ported to it.
I work at a company where we have half C-developers and half perl-developers. The perl developers code circles around the C developers, getting projects done within constraints on time and with fewer bugs. The perl programs are easier to maintain and modify. However, everyone always wants to push code into C. It's amazing when I sit down and plan out projects, and show them, "If we implemented it in Perl, we would be done in 1/4 the time with 1/4 the number of bugs, and 100% of the features." But the retort, "But C will be 3 times faster!" And I respond, "Buy 3 times as many machines to run the perl code on for all I care. It'll still be cheaper to do it in perl becuase hardware costs far less than the developer's, tester's, and manager's time!" Hey, as long as they sign my paycheck, I'll do what they ask. But if they still want to live in the 80's, that's their problem.
IF that were true, then were matter "clumped" together in this universe would be where matter clumped together in other universes. In fact, the universes would have to collapse into a single, common distribution in general.
Sure, we use series to describe for loops. We have "classes" or mathematical entities like tensors, operators, and vectors. Databases are based on relational algebra, which is 100% math, and we use relational algebra quite heavily in advanced physics courses. Dynamic libraries are a fraud - if they were written right the first time, they wouldn't be dynamic. But in Physics, we have discoveries and such that render entire branches of the science irrelevant or in need of an overhaul.
The foundation of math and programming is trying to express human thought with formal language. At least the mathematicians have embraced the fact that it can't be done, that there are an infinite number of orthogonal theories out there, and that man could spend an infinite time deriving them and still find no "one theory to bind them all". Many programmers forget that basic fact of formal languages.
Math and programming are both about managing infinitely complex structures and logic trees, and abstracting what can be abstracted, and rendering irrelevant what can't.
If you drop the coding part of CS and focus exclusively on the theory, then fill in the rest with math and physics, I daresay that the result will be far better coding skills than if you focus on coding and throw in math and physics and theory as an afterthought.
The reason is because math is a formal language, just like any programming language. Except math is far more expressive and complicated than any programming language. We handle the complexity by writing functions and abstractions to simplify it. However, in order to abstract, we have to dot all of our i's and cross all of our t's and lay out the law on when the abstraction will or will not work. Sounds familiar?
The beautiful part is that there is no compiler and no test suite you can run against your "programs". You have to do it all in your head. If programmers were able to better predict the behavior of their programs, or if they were to write their programs in such a way that it could be done, then we would have far fewer bugs, or at least debugging would be easier to do.
So, if you are a pro at math and physics, then programming languages is a toy to you.
Why physics, and not just math? Math is programming for programming's sake. Physics is programming tied to reality in some way. Or in other words, you are practically applying the discoveries mathematicians make, and fudging stuff they haven't discovered yet, all in the interest of getting an answer that agrees with the way stuff really is. Physics adds that dimension of "reality" that is inescapable, just like real programming has the shadow of the "user" or "API" or such that is inescapable and must match what people want to see.
There is one area that math and physics won't teach you, but it is easy enough to pick up as it is a rather simple system compared to, say, Thermodynamics or Quantum Mechanics. That is the way computers really work and the limitations thereof. This is the field of data modelling, data theory, B-Trees, and hashes and stuff, or the details about the various hacks people have come up with to stick mathematics into this system.
Even if you have a compromised immune system, these bacteria come from the same family as the dangerous ones. It doesn't mean that these ones are the dangerous ones.
I am surprised that scientific discovery of useless factoids like this one should alter anyone's perspective of life. Ground-shatteringly important discoveries like the introduction of cow pox to prevent small pox are important. But discovering that bacteria grows on stuff is common knowledge and irrelevant. They've known this since they've known how to make a microscope! Heck, rain is packed with bacteria and all kinds of vicious microscopic material.
No it won't! This thread can't possibly continue forever. Certainly not because of some academic who thinks he knows more than everyone else because he's spent more time reading useless posts to newsgroups.
So the Supreme Court said that the first amendment guarantees the right of association in political parties. I don't see why Democrats or independents should have a right to vote for my Republican nominee. I am sure you would hate to see non-Democrats choose the Democrat nominee.
For example, I would've chosen Zell Miller as the Democrat presidential nominee. That would've left a competition between Zell Miller and President Bush. What choice would people have then?
The open primary system was flawed from the beginning because of this. The parties would actually direct their members to cross the party line and vote for a weaker candidate for the opposing party. (This is how the Socialist party hijacked the Democrat party, in fact.) This is not representative government, and it is not fair to have to put (R) next to a person nominated by Democrats.
From what I've heard, the Secretary of State certified the election for George W. Bush. There is a paper trail on everything her office has done and it is completely verifiable.
To answer your question, he is no more a hero than a poor Iraqi who decided to help the Americans and got killed for it.
What is impressive is that the sacrifice that so many make daily is so obvious in his case. He turned down several million dollars to get himself killed in a desert. He left his newlywed wife.
He didn't want to be made a spectacle of. He avoided the media, went in quietly. If you didn't know who he was, you wouldn't be able to tell him from the other recruits. He wasn't setting an example, he was following the example of so many others.
It is easier to make him a "poster child" because he sacrificed so much so that I can sit here and type away my comments. He left his newly married wife. That's a huge sacrifice. I think even God says that newlyweds don't have to fight in times of war in the bible. He left a successful and promising career. He left his homeland to fight in some hell-hole. He died for his comrades. He died for his country. He died for me, like the hundreds of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, like the thousands in Vietnam, and the untold numbers in other wars before.
He is a hero like my uncle was a hero in Vietnam. Only my uncle doesn't have national name recognition and only chose between college and the Marines.
We have yet to start pumping any oil from Iraq. If the military had its mind on getting oil from Iraq, we would've been pumping from day one of the invasion. We could set up guards and patrol with infrared AWACS the entire pipeline. We could displace every single native Iraqi within a hundred miles of the pipelines, ensuring no one but America's finest could even see it. We could bring in people to man the stations, turn the knobs, steer the ships.
But we didn't. And we won't. We're not in Iraq for the oil, you see. It may be a priority, but it isn't our top one.
Our object in Iraq is exactly what President Bush said it was: To bring democracy to the Middle East, thus destroying terrorism at its source. If a successful democracy blooms in Iraq, then toppling Iran and Syria will be no problem. We could even set up a Kurdistan under a democracy and I believe the Turks would go for that when they see how domesticated and profitable Iraq has become. Then we move from there to the next neighbors. Pretty soon, people in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be demanding the right to vote like their rich cousins in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. When psychopaths like Saddam or Osama try to rally up another dictatorship or theocracy, or try to convince people that the only way to heaven is by strapping bombs to their chests and running to an Israeli restaurant filled with teenagers, the people will turn them out on their ear, throw them in prison, or execute them themselves, whithout American intervention.
I can't believe after four years of President Bush in action, with President Bush following up almost every promise he has made with exact execution, that people still don't take President Bush at face value. He doesn't use double-talk, he just says things straight out and answers questions with "yes" and "no".
I laugh when people call President Bush dimwitted, only to see them fall into his trap every time he springs one. I'll help you identify the next one. They all look the same. President Bush says A, but all his opponents interpret it to mean B. After all, what politician would say what he meant? It's kind of like a general announcing to his enemies what his next move will be. The last thing the enemy expects is for the general to follow through. So they set a trap for Bush at B. When Bush shows up at A, they are surprised and flabbergasted, knocked off balance, and the joke's on them.
It's really not much more complicated like that. If you can get everyone to choose good passwords, change them frequently, and not share them with each other, then you are good to go.
You can hire network administrators to tell you which protocols are safe and which are not, and where you should use them and how. You can hire system administrators to watch your main systems and harden them as well. You can even get some internal tech support people to help out the users and make sure all the machines are up and secure.
But it always comes down to the individual users: Get a good password, change it frequently, and never share it with anyone, period.
10 years from now, the last thing you want to do is realize you majored in a subject you don't like and you followed a career path that doesn't suit you. Don't major based on the pay scale of job opportunities -- major based solely on what you want to be doing in 10 years. Choose a major and a career path that will make you happy, and you will rise above the pack.
If all you are interested in is money (which some people find an enjoyable pursuit), then you are in the wrong field. Get a law degree, accounting degree, or a business degree. Those tend to work with a lot of money, and they never have a short supply of it. No matter where our world goes, we'll always need lawyers, accountants, and businesspeople.
And maybe my my door is a jar. You've been duped. Admit it, and vote against Bush this fall (assuming they don't cancel the election and declare martial law as Rush Limbaugh proposed).
I haven't been duped. I've read both sides of the story, and frankly, the Bush Administration is a lot more consistent with reports from my soldier friend in Fallujah and what I'm seeing
I must've missed that one from Rush Limbaugh. See, I read his website. I'll call "liar" until you prove it. Are you sure you aren't being duped? Check your sources and their sources.
With SELinux, it can be setup so that even root can't do anything it wants. Instead, there will be multiple administration accounts, each with particular permissions. The level of granularity is up to the users (or the distros), and with some experience, you'll see some pretty user-friendly installations with SELinux running (FC2 is coming up)
We'll soon be able to run apache securely, even with a gaping security holes that allow browsers to execute arbitrary code. We'll be able to download code and run it in harmless environments where privilege escalation is impossible and the bounds for operation are clearly set. And this will be the default setup for every linux user.
By forcing the Middle East to sell oil cheaply at the barrel of a gun, the US prevents other energy production methods from taking off as they are too costly.
Interesting, because after we invaded Iraq, oil prices went up. Either we really stink at this "oil or you life" thing, or it is just plain balderdash.
Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps we really did go into Iraq to stabilize the Middle East and secure the free world from terrorism and WMDs? Maybe Bush didn't lie after all, but he was telling the bald-faced truth the whole time?
Was the attack really sneak, and intended to be so?
No, the Americans announced the attack with fliers several days before the attack. They pleaded with everyone to leave the city to avoid the terrible destruction that was awaiting them.
The Japanese military confiscated all the flyers and ordered no one to read them. Unfourtunately, most did not get the message.
Did the US also draw Japan into war using pressure around oil and rubber resources, as well as deception?
The Japanese had begun an intense military campaign against its neighbors, including 2 of our allies: China and Korea. America responded by cutting off its supplies peacefully, and thus shutting down the war machine. Japan was in an oil-poor region, and rubber was all but impossible to get. They knew that we would have to be beaten before they could continue advancing their war machine.
The Japanese engaged in so-called peace talks up to the day of Pearl Harbor. They gave no signal that they had any other intention than to resolve the peace talks with an agreement. Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack.
Did attacking a military base require revenge in the form of destroying cities?
Who puts a military base in a city? Yes, attacking the HQ does justify attacking a city. The same goes for attacking factories and ammo depots in cities. You'll notice that the US has no military installation near a city. When it does, the city is usually filled with military personnel and their support and family. Notice that our nukes have always been put in out-of-the-way places, to avoid this kind of thing.
This is like Saddam putting huts around comm towers. When we go and blow up the comm towers, somehow we get blamed for killing the poor villages who were ordered to live right beside it. Luckily, in this last exercise, the collateral damage was few and far between.
Given that Hirohito was actually offered a realistic opportunity to surrender, would it have been possible for him given internal politics?
No, it wasn't possible for him to surrender. He didn't have control.
If not, did the US military know that?
Yes, they may have. But it didn't change the fact that in order to defeat the Japanese military, you had to kill the Japanese soldiers, destroy their bases, and shame their leaders to admit defeat.
Was it necessary to detonate over a city? Why not out past Tokyo harbour, in full view? Consider it a warning shot, factor in cultural elements.
If we gave a warning shot, they would know what to expect when we struck, thus lessening the blow if we had to strike. When we struck first, they had no idea the extent of our arsenal, their organization was thrown into chaos, and their will to fight melted. Wars are fought on emotion, not on intellect. The intellectual thing is not to fight at all, right?
Go read Sun Tzu's books on war again. The point is to break the enemies will and get him to go home and leave you alone. We had to break their will, not show them the odds of surviving and attack.
Given that one is convinced that nuking a city was necessary, was it necessary to nuke a second city?
"Well, garsh, we shot one soldier, why do they keep coming?" Yes, it was absolutely necessary. When they didn't immediately surrender, we had to convince them with some more. Nagasaki was another military installation. Taking out Hiroshima and Nagasaki effectively disabled their navy. Even if they still had the will, they had lost the ability to fight at sea.
Was there intent and significant motivation to conduct these detonations as experiments?
Among scientists, probably. Scientists run in all flavors, and you'd be surprised how many have lost their moral bearings.
Among the military, no. Understand what the Americans were facing. My grandfather watched his entire unit get mowed down as they fought for Guadal Canal. He was a marine. All his war friends are dead. Don
I can just see Stalin saying, "If only America had adopted Communism, I wouldn't have had to murder so many millions of my people!"
But I agree. All these problems would just go away if we dropped this whole nationalist-capitalist thing and adopted God and Jesus as our one true master. If we all submitted ourselves to His will, then we wouldn't be fighting each other, we wouldn't be worrying about whose doing what, we would only be worried about our own salvation and living our lives in a way pleasing to God. We would all be living every moment, wondering how we can become more like Jesus.
Funny you mentioned Pakistan. Remember that doctor they "caught" the helped Pakistan develop nukes? It turns out that he was either working for the CIA, or the CIA was using him without his knowledge. Thanks to him, we have uncovered the entire network of nuclear dealings. It all points to one country: North Korea. And yes, the nations in the Middle East were the buyers, and yes, Al Quaeda has been trying for some time to get a hold of something they can transport to the US. (Luckily, North Korea has been smart enough NOT to sell to them -- yet.)
I can't quote sources because there are no sources to quote yet.
Slashdot Mirror
SPF only authenticates mail as being approved mail from a domain. In itself, this only prevents joe jobbing and phishing, but domains can still send spam.
As SPF adoption grows, there will be two types of email: authenticated and unauthenticated. Authenticated mail will consist of both spam and legitimate mail. Unauthenticated mail will be just like the mail we are sending around today.
What does authenticated mail get us? As we can track mail down to the owners, we will begin to set up a trust system. DNS block lists will become viable. The owners of domain names can protect or abuse their domain names as they see fit.
Eventually, there will be a system where domain names will have value again. If I don't abuse my home domain, and only use it for legitimate purposes, people will not add my name to black lists. If my domain has sent a large number of emails with a very low score of spam, it will be more legitimate than one who has sent only a few emails or has sent mostly spam.
SPF is only the first step in stopping unsolicited email. Once it is in place, the next step -- accountability -- is easy to implement.
The beauty of SPF is that it doesn't invalidate email as it is now. Participation is optional. Those who are early adopters get an early boost, so the incentive is there to adopt it early on. But email as it is now will not be stopped.
Get your job description signed by your boss and verified by the upper-ups. You are responsible for:
(1) Insuring that your network is as resistant to attacks of any sort as possible.
(2) Identifying any attacks and investigating the cause thereof.
(3) Mitigating the effects of attacks while they are being done.
With this setup, you should have one more clause: That security specialists should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to fulfill the above three items, even using unconventional methods, provided that:
(1) They receive (written) permission from the person in charge of all security before implementing a new method.
(2) Their methods do not interefere with normal business unless required by (3) above (eg, shutting down mail access in the case of a mail storm.)
With those goals outlined, the security team should be able to use pretty much whatever methods they chose to do their job.
The only way to effectively protect a free society is to arm the citizens.
We can't identify the bad guys before they commit a crime.
Instead, let's allow the one thing that determines a criminal -- their actions, not their thoughts, and not their motives or country of origin -- determine how we treat them in a free society.
If someone walks into a bank and demands money at the threat of force, the armed citizenry can convince him otherwise.
If someone tries to hijack a plane, the armed citizenry can hijack it back. At the very least, they can take the plane down with them.
If someone tries to penetrate the borders with force (not unheard of on the US - Mexico borders), the armed citizenry can push them back out.
Wherever someone tries to commit a crime, there will be someone watching, someone who may be the victim, or someone who may be a passerby. We already know that the majority of citizens in a free society are logical, just, and fair. We already give them the power to put people to death by trial by jury. We allow them to vote a president who declares war on another country. Why not allow them to police themselves and their neighborhoods and places of business as well?
Only fascist societies need an identity system. Only authoritarian regimes where a state police is needed to check the power of the people require that everyone be assigned a number and a name and that they present said documentation appropriately. A free society governs itself. They don't need government to tell them that Jim who lives down the street is really the same Jim who lived down the street his whole life. They don't need police to tell them when it is okay to shoot a rapist, or to tackle a purse snatcher.
Just because you have the space doesn't mean it is organized. The filesystems are a way of organizing and managing the data into the neat file and directory paradigm you are used to.
As far as RAM disk versus SHM, there are occasions where you would like to copy files and store shared files in RAM, especially on systems with plenty of it to spare and busy hard drives.
I've changed my view on global warming. I used to think the whole earth couldn't warm or cool, but it would stay the same over time. Now I believe that the earth does warm and cool over significant variations. So we are in a global warming phase, if the toposphere is absolute proof (which we can't be sure about.)
The question is: What can we do about it?
The answer is: Unfortunately, not much. If we cut all the world's emissions of greenhouse gasses drastically in half, that wouldn't account for the other variations responsible for global warming like a more active sun or just the phase of the weather patterns on earth or the temperature of the sea. I have to think about it this way: If humanity did all it could to cool or warm the earth, what would we accomplish? The answer is that the earth is so huge and so complicated that we can't predict whether our actions would cause havoc or remedy. I mean, we could spend trillions of dollars on a system to cool the troposphere only to find out that by doing so we are causing more hurricanes and such.
The earth is a chaotic system, and chaotic systems for the most part are unpredictable. A variation of a few hundredths of a degree in one place in the world can be responsible for a hurricane in another.
Perl gives you the freedom of writing crap; it also gives you the freedom of writing clear, concise code that almost looks like Python. I'll let you guess which style I use and enforce on large, multi-developer projects.
C allows no such opportunity.
One of the golden rules that Python is founded on is optimizing the algorithm, and let the compilers / interpreters do all the rest. Python, like perl and most other high-level languages, allow you to tweak the code and try out many different algorithms, without worrying about pointers and useless trivia like how much memory is available to your process.
If you master the algorithm, and you still want more speed, you can go ahead and usually cut run times by half or more by implementing it in C. But it takes a lot of work to get it right in C, and once in C, it isn't very friendly to tweaking.
About the compiler / interpreter doing the real optimizations - psyco is freely available and regularly gets close to C speeds for python. The new parrot compiler, when it comes out, will redefine the speed barriers for all high level languages ported to it.
I work at a company where we have half C-developers and half perl-developers. The perl developers code circles around the C developers, getting projects done within constraints on time and with fewer bugs. The perl programs are easier to maintain and modify. However, everyone always wants to push code into C. It's amazing when I sit down and plan out projects, and show them, "If we implemented it in Perl, we would be done in 1/4 the time with 1/4 the number of bugs, and 100% of the features." But the retort, "But C will be 3 times faster!" And I respond, "Buy 3 times as many machines to run the perl code on for all I care. It'll still be cheaper to do it in perl becuase hardware costs far less than the developer's, tester's, and manager's time!" Hey, as long as they sign my paycheck, I'll do what they ask. But if they still want to live in the 80's, that's their problem.
IF that were true, then were matter "clumped" together in this universe would be where matter clumped together in other universes. In fact, the universes would have to collapse into a single, common distribution in general.
Sure, we use series to describe for loops. We have "classes" or mathematical entities like tensors, operators, and vectors. Databases are based on relational algebra, which is 100% math, and we use relational algebra quite heavily in advanced physics courses. Dynamic libraries are a fraud - if they were written right the first time, they wouldn't be dynamic. But in Physics, we have discoveries and such that render entire branches of the science irrelevant or in need of an overhaul.
The foundation of math and programming is trying to express human thought with formal language. At least the mathematicians have embraced the fact that it can't be done, that there are an infinite number of orthogonal theories out there, and that man could spend an infinite time deriving them and still find no "one theory to bind them all". Many programmers forget that basic fact of formal languages.
Math and programming are both about managing infinitely complex structures and logic trees, and abstracting what can be abstracted, and rendering irrelevant what can't.
If you drop the coding part of CS and focus exclusively on the theory, then fill in the rest with math and physics, I daresay that the result will be far better coding skills than if you focus on coding and throw in math and physics and theory as an afterthought.
The reason is because math is a formal language, just like any programming language. Except math is far more expressive and complicated than any programming language. We handle the complexity by writing functions and abstractions to simplify it. However, in order to abstract, we have to dot all of our i's and cross all of our t's and lay out the law on when the abstraction will or will not work. Sounds familiar?
The beautiful part is that there is no compiler and no test suite you can run against your "programs". You have to do it all in your head. If programmers were able to better predict the behavior of their programs, or if they were to write their programs in such a way that it could be done, then we would have far fewer bugs, or at least debugging would be easier to do.
So, if you are a pro at math and physics, then programming languages is a toy to you.
Why physics, and not just math? Math is programming for programming's sake. Physics is programming tied to reality in some way. Or in other words, you are practically applying the discoveries mathematicians make, and fudging stuff they haven't discovered yet, all in the interest of getting an answer that agrees with the way stuff really is. Physics adds that dimension of "reality" that is inescapable, just like real programming has the shadow of the "user" or "API" or such that is inescapable and must match what people want to see.
There is one area that math and physics won't teach you, but it is easy enough to pick up as it is a rather simple system compared to, say, Thermodynamics or Quantum Mechanics. That is the way computers really work and the limitations thereof. This is the field of data modelling, data theory, B-Trees, and hashes and stuff, or the details about the various hacks people have come up with to stick mathematics into this system.
Even if you have a compromised immune system, these bacteria come from the same family as the dangerous ones. It doesn't mean that these ones are the dangerous ones.
I am surprised that scientific discovery of useless factoids like this one should alter anyone's perspective of life. Ground-shatteringly important discoveries like the introduction of cow pox to prevent small pox are important. But discovering that bacteria grows on stuff is common knowledge and irrelevant. They've known this since they've known how to make a microscope! Heck, rain is packed with bacteria and all kinds of vicious microscopic material.
No it won't! This thread can't possibly continue forever. Certainly not because of some academic who thinks he knows more than everyone else because he's spent more time reading useless posts to newsgroups.
So the Supreme Court said that the first amendment guarantees the right of association in political parties. I don't see why Democrats or independents should have a right to vote for my Republican nominee. I am sure you would hate to see non-Democrats choose the Democrat nominee.
For example, I would've chosen Zell Miller as the Democrat presidential nominee. That would've left a competition between Zell Miller and President Bush. What choice would people have then?
The open primary system was flawed from the beginning because of this. The parties would actually direct their members to cross the party line and vote for a weaker candidate for the opposing party. (This is how the Socialist party hijacked the Democrat party, in fact.) This is not representative government, and it is not fair to have to put (R) next to a person nominated by Democrats.
Please, share your sources.
From what I've heard, the Secretary of State certified the election for George W. Bush. There is a paper trail on everything her office has done and it is completely verifiable.
What is your evidence?
To answer your question, he is no more a hero than a poor Iraqi who decided to help the Americans and got killed for it.
What is impressive is that the sacrifice that so many make daily is so obvious in his case. He turned down several million dollars to get himself killed in a desert. He left his newlywed wife.
He didn't want to be made a spectacle of. He avoided the media, went in quietly. If you didn't know who he was, you wouldn't be able to tell him from the other recruits. He wasn't setting an example, he was following the example of so many others.
It is easier to make him a "poster child" because he sacrificed so much so that I can sit here and type away my comments. He left his newly married wife. That's a huge sacrifice. I think even God says that newlyweds don't have to fight in times of war in the bible. He left a successful and promising career. He left his homeland to fight in some hell-hole. He died for his comrades. He died for his country. He died for me, like the hundreds of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, like the thousands in Vietnam, and the untold numbers in other wars before.
He is a hero like my uncle was a hero in Vietnam. Only my uncle doesn't have national name recognition and only chose between college and the Marines.
We have yet to start pumping any oil from Iraq. If the military had its mind on getting oil from Iraq, we would've been pumping from day one of the invasion. We could set up guards and patrol with infrared AWACS the entire pipeline. We could displace every single native Iraqi within a hundred miles of the pipelines, ensuring no one but America's finest could even see it. We could bring in people to man the stations, turn the knobs, steer the ships.
But we didn't. And we won't. We're not in Iraq for the oil, you see. It may be a priority, but it isn't our top one.
Our object in Iraq is exactly what President Bush said it was: To bring democracy to the Middle East, thus destroying terrorism at its source. If a successful democracy blooms in Iraq, then toppling Iran and Syria will be no problem. We could even set up a Kurdistan under a democracy and I believe the Turks would go for that when they see how domesticated and profitable Iraq has become. Then we move from there to the next neighbors. Pretty soon, people in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be demanding the right to vote like their rich cousins in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. When psychopaths like Saddam or Osama try to rally up another dictatorship or theocracy, or try to convince people that the only way to heaven is by strapping bombs to their chests and running to an Israeli restaurant filled with teenagers, the people will turn them out on their ear, throw them in prison, or execute them themselves, whithout American intervention.
I can't believe after four years of President Bush in action, with President Bush following up almost every promise he has made with exact execution, that people still don't take President Bush at face value. He doesn't use double-talk, he just says things straight out and answers questions with "yes" and "no".
I laugh when people call President Bush dimwitted, only to see them fall into his trap every time he springs one. I'll help you identify the next one. They all look the same. President Bush says A, but all his opponents interpret it to mean B. After all, what politician would say what he meant? It's kind of like a general announcing to his enemies what his next move will be. The last thing the enemy expects is for the general to follow through. So they set a trap for Bush at B. When Bush shows up at A, they are surprised and flabbergasted, knocked off balance, and the joke's on them.
It's really not much more complicated like that. If you can get everyone to choose good passwords, change them frequently, and not share them with each other, then you are good to go.
You can hire network administrators to tell you which protocols are safe and which are not, and where you should use them and how. You can hire system administrators to watch your main systems and harden them as well. You can even get some internal tech support people to help out the users and make sure all the machines are up and secure.
But it always comes down to the individual users: Get a good password, change it frequently, and never share it with anyone, period.
10 years from now, the last thing you want to do is realize you majored in a subject you don't like and you followed a career path that doesn't suit you. Don't major based on the pay scale of job opportunities -- major based solely on what you want to be doing in 10 years. Choose a major and a career path that will make you happy, and you will rise above the pack.
If all you are interested in is money (which some people find an enjoyable pursuit), then you are in the wrong field. Get a law degree, accounting degree, or a business degree. Those tend to work with a lot of money, and they never have a short supply of it. No matter where our world goes, we'll always need lawyers, accountants, and businesspeople.
... taking open source software, gift wrapping it, and selling it to the masses.
Hence, companies like Red Hat are able to turn big bucks in profits.
While the inner hacker circle may have the above mentioned faults, the "gift wrapping" people are able to make enough cash to compensate for that.
And maybe my my door is a jar. You've been duped. Admit it, and vote against Bush this fall (assuming they don't cancel the election and declare martial law as Rush Limbaugh proposed).
I haven't been duped. I've read both sides of the story, and frankly, the Bush Administration is a lot more consistent with reports from my soldier friend in Fallujah and what I'm seeing
I must've missed that one from Rush Limbaugh. See, I read his website. I'll call "liar" until you prove it. Are you sure you aren't being duped? Check your sources and their sources.
With SELinux, it can be setup so that even root can't do anything it wants. Instead, there will be multiple administration accounts, each with particular permissions. The level of granularity is up to the users (or the distros), and with some experience, you'll see some pretty user-friendly installations with SELinux running (FC2 is coming up)
We'll soon be able to run apache securely, even with a gaping security holes that allow browsers to execute arbitrary code. We'll be able to download code and run it in harmless environments where privilege escalation is impossible and the bounds for operation are clearly set. And this will be the default setup for every linux user.
By forcing the Middle East to sell oil cheaply at the barrel of a gun, the US prevents other energy production methods from taking off as they are too costly.
Interesting, because after we invaded Iraq, oil prices went up. Either we really stink at this "oil or you life" thing, or it is just plain balderdash.
Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps we really did go into Iraq to stabilize the Middle East and secure the free world from terrorism and WMDs? Maybe Bush didn't lie after all, but he was telling the bald-faced truth the whole time?
Was the attack really sneak, and intended to be so?
No, the Americans announced the attack with fliers several days before the attack. They pleaded with everyone to leave the city to avoid the terrible destruction that was awaiting them.
The Japanese military confiscated all the flyers and ordered no one to read them. Unfourtunately, most did not get the message.
Did the US also draw Japan into war using pressure around oil and rubber resources, as well as deception?
The Japanese had begun an intense military campaign against its neighbors, including 2 of our allies: China and Korea. America responded by cutting off its supplies peacefully, and thus shutting down the war machine. Japan was in an oil-poor region, and rubber was all but impossible to get. They knew that we would have to be beaten before they could continue advancing their war machine.
The Japanese engaged in so-called peace talks up to the day of Pearl Harbor. They gave no signal that they had any other intention than to resolve the peace talks with an agreement. Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack.
Did attacking a military base require revenge in the form of destroying cities?
Who puts a military base in a city? Yes, attacking the HQ does justify attacking a city. The same goes for attacking factories and ammo depots in cities. You'll notice that the US has no military installation near a city. When it does, the city is usually filled with military personnel and their support and family. Notice that our nukes have always been put in out-of-the-way places, to avoid this kind of thing.
This is like Saddam putting huts around comm towers. When we go and blow up the comm towers, somehow we get blamed for killing the poor villages who were ordered to live right beside it. Luckily, in this last exercise, the collateral damage was few and far between.
Given that Hirohito was actually offered a realistic opportunity to surrender, would it have been possible for him given internal politics?
No, it wasn't possible for him to surrender. He didn't have control.
If not, did the US military know that?
Yes, they may have. But it didn't change the fact that in order to defeat the Japanese military, you had to kill the Japanese soldiers, destroy their bases, and shame their leaders to admit defeat.
Was it necessary to detonate over a city? Why not out past Tokyo harbour, in full view? Consider it a warning shot, factor in cultural elements.
If we gave a warning shot, they would know what to expect when we struck, thus lessening the blow if we had to strike. When we struck first, they had no idea the extent of our arsenal, their organization was thrown into chaos, and their will to fight melted. Wars are fought on emotion, not on intellect. The intellectual thing is not to fight at all, right?
Go read Sun Tzu's books on war again. The point is to break the enemies will and get him to go home and leave you alone. We had to break their will, not show them the odds of surviving and attack.
Given that one is convinced that nuking a city was necessary, was it necessary to nuke a second city?
"Well, garsh, we shot one soldier, why do they keep coming?" Yes, it was absolutely necessary. When they didn't immediately surrender, we had to convince them with some more. Nagasaki was another military installation. Taking out Hiroshima and Nagasaki effectively disabled their navy. Even if they still had the will, they had lost the ability to fight at sea.
Was there intent and significant motivation to conduct these detonations as experiments?
Among scientists, probably. Scientists run in all flavors, and you'd be surprised how many have lost their moral bearings.
Among the military, no. Understand what the Americans were facing. My grandfather watched his entire unit get mowed down as they fought for Guadal Canal. He was a marine. All his war friends are dead. Don
This is good comedy. Mark the parent +1 Funny.
I can just see Stalin saying, "If only America had adopted Communism, I wouldn't have had to murder so many millions of my people!"
But I agree. All these problems would just go away if we dropped this whole nationalist-capitalist thing and adopted God and Jesus as our one true master. If we all submitted ourselves to His will, then we wouldn't be fighting each other, we wouldn't be worrying about whose doing what, we would only be worried about our own salvation and living our lives in a way pleasing to God. We would all be living every moment, wondering how we can become more like Jesus.
Funny you mentioned Pakistan. Remember that doctor they "caught" the helped Pakistan develop nukes? It turns out that he was either working for the CIA, or the CIA was using him without his knowledge. Thanks to him, we have uncovered the entire network of nuclear dealings. It all points to one country: North Korea. And yes, the nations in the Middle East were the buyers, and yes, Al Quaeda has been trying for some time to get a hold of something they can transport to the US. (Luckily, North Korea has been smart enough NOT to sell to them -- yet.)
I can't quote sources because there are no sources to quote yet.