I don't think the name of the school really matters. What does make a difference is the kind of education you get. Is it tech school oriented, where the entire point is to get a stack of certifications? Or is it theory-oriented, where the thought process is more important than the technology?
I went to the University of Utah and majored in CS. It was extremely competitive to get into the program, and there were a lot of weed-out classes. But by the time I was done, I had written an OS, built a compiler, and designed and built a CPU on FPGA chips from the gate level. Some classes were taught using Scheme, some used C++, and others used Java. Most of the time we weren't even using up-to-date technology, but it didn't matter. The emphasis of every class was learning the theory and concepts.
My brother-in-law is going to Utah Valley State College, and he's getting somewhat of a mixed bag. Several of his courses have been glorified (and expensive) study guides for Microsoft and Novell certifications. In my opinion this is a waste of time and money for a CS degree.
The value of a formal CS degree is in learning how to think about technology. Most people can learn how to operate technology, but this kind of training often does not transfer on to the next generation. It's relatively easy to train people to push buttons and make them look smart. And it is this "surface-training" mentality that has lead to the dilution of certifications. It didn't take long for employers to find out that an MSCE doesn't mean much.
Don't sell yourself short. If you don't feel your current school is giving you the fundamentals, move on. Memorization and monkey-training are a waste of time, you'll be doing plenty of that during your career. You should be learning theory and exploring hows and whys, not learning which sequence of dialog boxes gets you to the IP configuration screen.
Good parenting means plenty of significant interaction with your child. Significant to who? Significant to the child. Too many parents make the mistake of spending time doing what they want with their child, instead of what their child wants. Don't take your kid fishing and expect to score points if your kid hates fishing.
And actually there have been studies done that reveal some good parenting can make a huge difference compared to no good parenting. You can make a lot of mistakes, but if you have tried to build up your childs emotional bank account (see paragraph 1) your child will generally forgive you for the rest.
He may have some good points, but the "OSS is more secure" argument has been around for a long time; back then, Win95 and NT 4.0 were gaping holes. Microsoft has clearly made efforts in host security since then.
Say you get a bunch of material up there with this blimp or a space elevator. Is it stand-alone? More likely, it has to rendevous with something else already up there.
Now, how does that happen? Whatever is already up there must be in an actual orbit in order to maintain altitude, as you point out correctly. Altitude is only 1/3 the battle. Speed is another 1/3. And rendevous is the final 1/3. Getting up there doesn't do a whole lot of good unless you can get next to what's interesting. Rockets solve all these problems at the same time (mostly): push up _and_ over, and all at the correct time.
I seriously doubt whatever you are rendevouzing with is going to come along and "catch" the blimp payload. I imagine that kind of collision would be spectacular...
So we are talking about hoisting something that can propel itself through space. Isn't that a bit more massive than a bunch of ping-pong balls?
Sure, but the/etc/shadow file is their key to getting the cleartext of your password for use on other machines. At this point, it may be easier to brute force/etc/shadow than it is to set up backdoors, trojans, network sniffing, etc.
It can be much harder to determine that someone has hijacked your account than it is to note that a root kit has been installed
The ability to generate lots of crypt strings only helps you if you have the original crypt string to compare against. Most modern UNIX systems store crypt strings in/etc/shadow which is only readable by root. The crypt string is never passed across the net during most auth sequences. (Certain types of LDAP auth being the exception here.)
The problem occurs if someone manages to break into a machine, achieve root, and pick up the/etc/shadow file. They can now brute-force all the passwords given enough time, and it appears that the amount of time needed is shrinking.
This is a good argument for using different passwords on untrusted boxese and changing your password often.
There are drop-in replacements for crypt such as MD5. How are these any less easy to use than crypt? Sure, MD5 strings are a little longer, but still (I'm pretty sure) less than 80 characters.
They don't run on ocean currents. By changing their bouyancy, they provide a downward or upward force, which is translated to a forward force via the wings.
If those five or so attributes are the only thing that is shared, how is this useful for the customer? I still have to fill out my credit card, address, and other info at each site, right?
Assuming I understand this correctly, it could be dangerous. What if the request that got hi-jacked was me transferring money between two accounts?
Sure, they are probably safe because they only hijack HTTP (port 80) and not HTTPS (port 143). Hopefully anything important I'm doing is on port 143.
I will not buy Belkin anymore. This type of behaviour in a product is unacceptable. Advertising is one thing. Hijacking my requests is much more serious.
What new reality are you referring to? One of the greatest strengths of UNIX is the ability to remotely manage a system. Sometimes this means launching an X GUI. Why would you want to remove that functionality?
Have you seen the Windows Remote Desktop stuff Microsoft has been doing? Somebody had better let Microsoft know that they are not "with" the new reality...
The cost of the five-year project is about $38 million...
This is rather vague. $38M probably includes a lot more than the cost of the machines. I think before we go off comparing Apples and oranges, we'd better calibrate the scales first.
You have got to be kidding. Telemarketers are being charged for getting a copy of the DNC list? I thought this was all coming out of tax dollars. If we are charging telemarketers for obtaining the list, what would be so different about charging people to put their names on the list?
The speed of development would be increased if Valve were taking patches from the community. I'm sure if I were to submit a patch, they would be sending a "welcoming commitee" for me.
No, what installs automatically is the anti-copy driver. What they would like you to install (which requires the EULA) is the DRM software which allows you access to the WMA data sessions.
From the article: "It remains active until the computer is rebooted..."
Interesting that they didn't install and stick it in the startup folder or something. Probably too great a liability in case the driver messed up a system.
Aside from the obvious moral issues of piracy, which I won't belabor here...
The pirated copy of Matrix2 that I saw was on DVD. It was watchable, but obviously over-compressed. Action scenes especially suffered. Then there was some problem with the aspect ratio, if I remember right. And the sound was pretty bad; near the end it completely cut out.
I didn't make a copy for myself. Since it was not yet released on DVD, and I had already been to the theater twice, I didn't feel too bad about watching it. But I was not about to settle for that poor quality when I could buy the DVD version within several months.
Slashdot Mirror
Labels are better. I can apply several labels to a message, but I can only put a message in a single folder (without having multiple copies...)
I don't think the name of the school really matters. What does make a difference is the kind of education you get. Is it tech school oriented, where the entire point is to get a stack of certifications? Or is it theory-oriented, where the thought process is more important than the technology?
I went to the University of Utah and majored in CS. It was extremely competitive to get into the program, and there were a lot of weed-out classes. But by the time I was done, I had written an OS, built a compiler, and designed and built a CPU on FPGA chips from the gate level. Some classes were taught using Scheme, some used C++, and others used Java. Most of the time we weren't even using up-to-date technology, but it didn't matter. The emphasis of every class was learning the theory and concepts.
My brother-in-law is going to Utah Valley State College, and he's getting somewhat of a mixed bag. Several of his courses have been glorified (and expensive) study guides for Microsoft and Novell certifications. In my opinion this is a waste of time and money for a CS degree.
The value of a formal CS degree is in learning how to think about technology. Most people can learn how to operate technology, but this kind of training often does not transfer on to the next generation. It's relatively easy to train people to push buttons and make them look smart. And it is this "surface-training" mentality that has lead to the dilution of certifications. It didn't take long for employers to find out that an MSCE doesn't mean much.
Don't sell yourself short. If you don't feel your current school is giving you the fundamentals, move on. Memorization and monkey-training are a waste of time, you'll be doing plenty of that during your career. You should be learning theory and exploring hows and whys, not learning which sequence of dialog boxes gets you to the IP configuration screen.
I pulled this from one of the first google links I found.
"...customary practice is for the entire cabinet to resign at the end of the term and the POTUS then reappoints those who he wants to stay on."
Good parenting means plenty of significant interaction with your child. Significant to who? Significant to the child. Too many parents make the mistake of spending time doing what they want with their child, instead of what their child wants. Don't take your kid fishing and expect to score points if your kid hates fishing.
And actually there have been studies done that reveal some good parenting can make a huge difference compared to no good parenting. You can make a lot of mistakes, but if you have tried to build up your childs emotional bank account (see paragraph 1) your child will generally forgive you for the rest.
The helicopter has several chances to snag a slowly falling object. The sports car only has one.
He may have some good points, but the "OSS is more secure" argument has been around for a long time; back then, Win95 and NT 4.0 were gaping holes. Microsoft has clearly made efforts in host security since then.
Say you get a bunch of material up there with this blimp or a space elevator. Is it stand-alone? More likely, it has to rendevous with something else already up there.
Now, how does that happen? Whatever is already up there must be in an actual orbit in order to maintain altitude, as you point out correctly. Altitude is only 1/3 the battle. Speed is another 1/3. And rendevous is the final 1/3. Getting up there doesn't do a whole lot of good unless you can get next to what's interesting. Rockets solve all these problems at the same time (mostly): push up _and_ over, and all at the correct time.
I seriously doubt whatever you are rendevouzing with is going to come along and "catch" the blimp payload. I imagine that kind of collision would be spectacular...
So we are talking about hoisting something that can propel itself through space. Isn't that a bit more massive than a bunch of ping-pong balls?
Sure, but the /etc/shadow file is their key to getting the cleartext of your password for use on other machines. At this point, it may be easier to brute force /etc/shadow than it is to set up backdoors, trojans, network sniffing, etc.
It can be much harder to determine that someone has hijacked your account than it is to note that a root kit has been installed
The ability to generate lots of crypt strings only helps you if you have the original crypt string to compare against. Most modern UNIX systems store crypt strings in /etc/shadow which is only readable by root. The crypt string is never passed across the net during most auth sequences. (Certain types of LDAP auth being the exception here.)
The problem occurs if someone manages to break into a machine, achieve root, and pick up the /etc/shadow file. They can now brute-force all the passwords given enough time, and it appears that the amount of time needed is shrinking.
This is a good argument for using different passwords on untrusted boxese and changing your password often.
There are drop-in replacements for crypt such as MD5. How are these any less easy to use than crypt? Sure, MD5 strings are a little longer, but still (I'm pretty sure) less than 80 characters.
They don't run on ocean currents. By changing their bouyancy, they provide a downward or upward force, which is translated to a forward force via the wings.
If those five or so attributes are the only thing that is shared, how is this useful for the customer? I still have to fill out my credit card, address, and other info at each site, right?
Oops, you are right. 443 is HTTPS.
Assuming I understand this correctly, it could be dangerous. What if the request that got hi-jacked was me transferring money between two accounts?
Sure, they are probably safe because they only hijack HTTP (port 80) and not HTTPS (port 143). Hopefully anything important I'm doing is on port 143.
I will not buy Belkin anymore. This type of behaviour in a product is unacceptable. Advertising is one thing. Hijacking my requests is much more serious.
Yes, protect your personal privacy by posting your arguably private information on a list! ;)
The nose gun mixes the outside air with filtered air 7 times. If the smell is still detectable, it is too strong.
What new reality are you referring to? One of the greatest strengths of UNIX is the ability to remotely manage a system. Sometimes this means launching an X GUI. Why would you want to remove that functionality?
Have you seen the Windows Remote Desktop stuff Microsoft has been doing? Somebody had better let Microsoft know that they are not "with" the new reality...
This is rather vague. $38M probably includes a lot more than the cost of the machines. I think before we go off comparing Apples and oranges, we'd better calibrate the scales first.
You have got to be kidding. Telemarketers are being charged for getting a copy of the DNC list? I thought this was all coming out of tax dollars. If we are charging telemarketers for obtaining the list, what would be so different about charging people to put their names on the list?
Didn't look like an anti-government rant to me. I thought it was more like fortune-telling.
I agree, don't expect it to work. Best case, some telemarketers will decide not to call people on the DNC list. This law is difficult to enforce.
The speed of development would be increased if Valve were taking patches from the community. I'm sure if I were to submit a patch, they would be sending a "welcoming commitee" for me.
No, what installs automatically is the anti-copy driver. What they would like you to install (which requires the EULA) is the DRM software which allows you access to the WMA data sessions.
From the article: "Computers running Linux or Mac OS 9 can't run the MediaMax software at all, so they can always copy the recording."
The EULA is for the DRM software to access the WMA data sessions, not the copy protection driver.
The WMA data sessions are only used by the DRM software. Nothing (at least if you pressed shift) keeps you from ripping the PCM audio.
More reading...less posting...
From the article: "It remains active until the computer is rebooted..."
Interesting that they didn't install and stick it in the startup folder or something. Probably too great a liability in case the driver messed up a system.
Aside from the obvious moral issues of piracy, which I won't belabor here...
The pirated copy of Matrix2 that I saw was on DVD. It was watchable, but obviously over-compressed. Action scenes especially suffered. Then there was some problem with the aspect ratio, if I remember right. And the sound was pretty bad; near the end it completely cut out.
I didn't make a copy for myself. Since it was not yet released on DVD, and I had already been to the theater twice, I didn't feel too bad about watching it. But I was not about to settle for that poor quality when I could buy the DVD version within several months.