We all know insiders are your greatest risk. The point is in their irrelevant drivel about digital storage devices. It's just another hysterical "BAN SOMETHING!" article, like parents at a school board meeting when 2 or more kids have something in common (besides equipment for team sports)... skateboards, pagers, rollerblades, cellphones, pdas, "heelies"... In junior high, there were three or four girls who liked flavor straws, so they banned them. It's the mindset that anybody who uses something you don't see a good use for, so all you can think of is bad uses. "They're all doing it! We have to stop them!"
I find it rather comforting to see that everyone immediately thinks of the implications for the space elevator, first thing (including me). I'd guess that direct sunlight across vacuum would be bright enough to do it, too. It'll have to have a really failsafe reflective coating.
I was thinking the same thing (imagine twitching your head around trying to get the cursor in exactly the right place, then think RSI), but it would be a hard one to accomplish, without some sort of head-mounted pickup. The only reasonably simple way i can think of would be a variation of the blinkboard, like they used for Hawking when he first lost communication, where the person talking to him would hold a transparent grid, with letters, numbers, punct. in each grid, and look at him through it. He'd look at the letter he wanted, tracking it as the other person moved the board to get Hawkings pupil pointed at him, and thus was looking through the correct character. When it was right, Hawking would blink (strobe?), and they'd go on to the next. Maybe a transparent plate with a bullseye, hanging on your ear and stabilized with light adhesive on your forehead would give you a stable-enough pointer. Why am I even thinking about this. I think it's a silly idea (except for possibly for the handicapped).
So as long as something worse is happening to you it doesn't matter that other bad things are also happening?
Just because the Titanic is sinking doesn't mean we shouldn't correct these carelessly disarranged desk chairs.
From the article:"contain alarmingly high quantities of acrylamide, a substance believed to cause cancer"...
From another purveyor of nostrums:"
The Japanese believe that because people live in houses,
work in buildings and walk on concrete, their bodies are deprived of the earth's natural magnetic energy. Magnets replace the energy and promote health and well-being."... and from yet another loser: "Immortality Device is believed to allow humans to stay physically young forever."
I'm so sick of being told that I have to take stupid ideas seriously just because somebody believes it. I actually get criticized for my cubicle arrangement, because it's "bad feng shui", and I'm expected to respectfully listen to this hogwash. I acknowledge the placebo effect, but I'm not going to base my interface to reality on fooling myself.
I wondered what it meant when I first saw the post. I quickly took advantage of the handy link provided, which gave a quick executive overview of the actual research, fetchingly filled out with fluff about how the detector is structured. Here's the meat of the article: The ratio of electron neutrinos detected to the total number of neutrinos detected didn't match the sensible models of nuclear reactions in the Sun. There just weren't enough of them. Now, they have found that some of the muon and tao neutrinos they are detecting actually started electron neutrinos, and changed on the way. It remains to be seen, however (if it ever can), whether the conversion rate can explain enough missing electron neutrinos to match the theories.
It can't die. It may not be as well-supported, but there are several other projects working on the "platform" (notably TightVnc. I hope it isn't in some kind of freakish licensing where they go out of business in a fire sale, get bought by NA (remotely possible) or Symantec(pcanywhere) and locked away forever.
I wonder why they didn't time it so that the audit had to happen mid-summer or some other non-peak time instead.
I assume that was sarcasm. You don't sucker-punch somebody when he's standing up, alert, and holding a baseball bat. You wait until he's otherwise occupied, and hit him from behind. (I've never sucker-punched anybody).... that's what this is, too: a sucker-punch. Catch them at a disadvantage and force them into an onerous contract.
A)if you're not set up to use only DYNDNS capable name servers, you should disable the "register this whatever" tab, or however you do it in MacOS. B)Whose bright idea was it to have that a default? I didn't know about the issue myself, because I'm a unix geek, and it never occurred to me that an OS would make such a ridiculous assumption. I found out when corporate IT busted me for upgrading my laptop to Win2K. At first, I thought it was because I was not getting my mandated 11 reboots/day, and snidely said so. The guy was much nicer than me, and just asked me to tell it to stop beating up the DNS server with invalid requests, and don't even think of trying to use it as a bdc (it would take over the domain, apparently... another bit of genius on the part of MS).
get to work at 10am, leave at 4am, and have a 2 hour lunch break
Actually, a 16 hour shift would pretty much require a 2 hour lunch break at a minimum, though I'd rather do an hour lunch and 15 minute walk every two hours than work 8, lunch 2, work 8. Frankly, I'd think they would have been more productive with 4h work, 1h lunch, and 4h work, with onclock breaks as needed to maintain alertness. I don't put in a long sustained effort during work hours. Heck, I spend nearly 20 minutes a day on/., but I don't stop working when I leave the office. I make most of my most elegant breakthroughs in the shower, for instance. If I beat myself to death during office hours, I wouldn't be debugging my code in my head during idle moments - I'd be staying as far from all work-related stuff as I could, and we'd be where we were 9 months ago, instead of way out ahead.
I had always meant to download Solaris8 from Sun I never saw it downloadable, Every time I went to look into it, they were "giving" it away at "media cost". Maybe, if 100% of the cost of a music cd is also media cost. $80US for 5 CDs was just too rich for my blood. Of course, I didn't have access to a cd burner anyway.
Actually, I thought that was a well-reasoned comment, which said a lot more than you appear to have read into it. he said no immediate need, leaving us to conclude, rightly, that if there were a need, that's why the second ammendment is there. Not just our security from each other, but also from tyrants, both foreign and domestic. So far, the rest of the constitution, with its ammendments, has kept us (except from a few deranged lunatics) from having to grab the emergency handle, wisely installed, so long ago. He currently has no reason to possess a firearm strong enough to override his safety concerns. I've never been without firearms, but the only gun assembled in my house is a Daisy 880 (with a full hopper). The model 37 and the old J.C. Higgins 22 are in pieces in unlabeled boxes, distributed around the basement, and the ammunition is on the top shelf of a closet on the second floor. Nonetheless, if you are breaking in, you've got about 30 seconds, 35 if I miss a light switch. By the time my kids get advanced enough to lift the boxes around and get to that shelf, I won't have to worry about it. As much as I'd like to, I don't have a pistol, because I don't think I can adequately ensure that it will both remain inaccessible and yet be brought to battery in a reasonable time.
If you use it to calculate info for your bridge, it must have passed your evaluation, and you should have already bought it. Evaluation software is not a way to let people do quick jobs for free. It's a way for people to see if the software will work. Only an idiot is going to put it into production without a relationship with the supplier.
You're absolutely right. I hadn't thought about that specifically. The Part 15 issues still stand, though. Perhaps they could be overcome by notching out the bands with strong emitters both on receive AND transmit. Of course, as soon as we add such complexity to the system, we're kind of defeating its purpose, I guess.
Did anybody else think this was an illogical spot in the article?
Ironically, the more challenging technical problem appears to be finding ways to stop other emitters from interfering with UWB devices. This area is one in which narrowband systems have a decided advantage--all such systems are fitted with a front-end filter that prevents transmitters operating outside their reception bands from causing trouble. Unfortunately, a UWB receiver needs to have a "wide-open" front-end filter that lets through a broad spectrum of frequencies, including signals from potential interferers. The ability of a UWB receiver to overcome this impediment, sometimes called jamming resistance, is a key attribute of good receiver design. One approach to improving jamming resistance is to install so-called notch filters that attenuate those narrow parts of the spectrum where interference is known to be likely. Another protective measure that has been developed would be to use automatic notch filters that seek out and diminish the signals of particularly strong narrowband interferers.
First: part of the point of a plain UWB system is that you ignore interference by looking for your signal in ALL of the freqencies you use, at the same time. If a pulse shows up across enough of the range, it's probably good, and if it's actually a blast from another UWB source (a light switch, perhaps?), that's what error correction's for.
Second: there's the issue of ignoring interference. I suppose that at these ultra-low ERPs, they could be exempt, but as they're using bandwidth allocated to other services, they've got to meet Part 15, part of which specifies that they must A)not cause interference to licensed services, and B)accept interference from licensed services. Like I said, they meet the first one pretty well, but part of the second one is to force awareness on the user of the Part 15 device that they're conflicting.
Gates didn't say that
And as the article said "just enough to get to the jack on the wall".
I don't think we can accuse the standards body that created 802.11b of thinking that nobody would ever be more than 100 meters from anybody else.
this is ADVERTISED AS THE RIGHT AND HEROIC THING TO DO!
In the movie, as set up, it WAS the right and heroic thing to do. The guilty prey on the innocent, and the innocent, in their efforts to show "compassion" for the guilty, let them keep coming back. I remember a case in Indiana, an old man who had been arrested over a hundred times for drunk driving, most of those (the last 80 or so) for driving without a license, most of them involving personal injury. He couldn't be imprisoned because of some guidelines concerning his age. I personally believe that he should have been shot in the street like a rabid dog the next time he was found behind the wheel. I think the same way about the three strikes laws for violent and property crimes, even shoplifting. Once someone demonstrates that he will not leave people alone, get him off my planet. We waste law enforcement effort stopping people from destroying themselves (let the addicts poison themselves to death if they insist), and there's not enough left for important tasks.
And long before that (since about 1990), there wasLoJack.
Even before that, some of my friends who had nicer hot rods than mine had Line-Locks, for which the control was just under the front of the driver's seat. They would set the lock when they left the car in an untrusted place, and if the car was stolen, the first time he hit the brake, it held the pressure. It was a simple matter to reach down and push the plunger, but if somebody is smart enough to understand that, he'd have a job and buy his own car.
Are you kidding? With the possible exception of Cray and maybe the Hitachi(can't find info on that one... they seem to be out of the supercomputer business), nobody builds single-unit supercomputers any more. The scalability with clustering and shared memory over high speed networking overcomes the contention problems with massively parallel processors, though the Numa-Q may let us put more cpus in a single box. Check out the
AlphaServer SC, the
RS/6000 SP, both supercomputers in the top 10 (with the SP dominating... awesome switch for the shared mem), and the
Beowulf, or (no shared memory here), the
Mosix,
clustering. If I were building a linux supercomputer, I think i'd rather go with a pile of dual-cpu units anyway, cutting down on resource contention.
With distributed processing like these systems, adding another unit adds about another unit worth of processing power, whereas adding cpus to a SMP configuration gives diminishing returns. As long as you build the infrastructure along with the growth (add switch capacity), the sky's the limit.
Our IT department has mandated the use of IE for all web browsing, but at least our antivirus immediately recognizes "code-exploit" when I try to run the proof-of-concept. If I exclude the proof-of-concept file, the exploit works. How long does MS intend to ignore this? Not every antivirus program will catch this, and what about those forced to use IE for unix?
I reckon it's time to go check out F-prot for unix (I've heard they have at least a Linux port).
Big corporations are so pro-Intel, it makes it tough for the AMDs and Transmetas
Not necessarily. All of our new screamers are AMD, and we'll be spending most of the 400k/y we would be spending on Suns and HPs buying ourself roughly 18x the compute power (speed/money(distance/time/money=distance/time/tim e=distance, I guess), absolute speed advantage is about 2:1), and they'll probably all be AMDs (hurry up with the Hammer!).
Slashdot Mirror
What if you can't drive?
WebTV
Your random account generator is a nice idea, and all, but NYT says the account it created was expired.
fly()
If he did, I wouldn't be surprised. Are the primitives already there, or would it have to go into the kernel?
We all know insiders are your greatest risk. The point is in their irrelevant drivel about digital storage devices. It's just another hysterical "BAN SOMETHING!" article, like parents at a school board meeting when 2 or more kids have something in common (besides equipment for team sports)...
skateboards, pagers, rollerblades, cellphones, pdas, "heelies"... In junior high, there were three or four girls who liked flavor straws, so they banned them. It's the mindset that anybody who uses something you don't see a good use for, so all you can think of is bad uses.
"They're all doing it! We have to stop them!"
I find it rather comforting to see that everyone immediately thinks of the implications for the space elevator, first thing (including me).
I'd guess that direct sunlight across vacuum would be bright enough to do it, too. It'll have to have a really failsafe reflective coating.
I was thinking the same thing (imagine twitching your head around trying to get the cursor in exactly the right place, then think RSI), but it would be a hard one to accomplish, without some sort of head-mounted pickup.
The only reasonably simple way i can think of would be a variation of the blinkboard, like they used for Hawking when he first lost communication, where the person talking to him would hold a transparent grid, with letters, numbers, punct. in each grid, and look at him through it. He'd look at the letter he wanted, tracking it as the other person moved the board to get Hawkings pupil pointed at him, and thus was looking through the correct character. When it was right, Hawking would blink (strobe?), and they'd go on to the next.
Maybe a transparent plate with a bullseye, hanging on your ear and stabilized with light adhesive on your forehead would give you a stable-enough pointer.
Why am I even thinking about this. I think it's a silly idea (except for possibly for the handicapped).
So as long as something worse is happening to you it doesn't matter that other bad things are also happening?
Just because the Titanic is sinking doesn't mean we shouldn't correct these carelessly disarranged desk chairs.
From the article:"contain alarmingly high quantities of acrylamide, a substance believed to cause cancer"...
From another purveyor of nostrums:" The Japanese believe that because people live in houses, work in buildings and walk on concrete, their bodies are deprived of the earth's natural magnetic energy. Magnets replace the energy and promote health and well-being."... and from yet another loser: "Immortality Device is believed to allow humans to stay physically young forever."
I'm so sick of being told that I have to take stupid ideas seriously just because somebody believes it. I actually get criticized for my cubicle arrangement, because it's "bad feng shui", and I'm expected to respectfully listen to this hogwash.
I acknowledge the placebo effect, but I'm not going to base my interface to reality on fooling myself.
From your post, I can't be sure, but it appears that you one word is "The Matrix".
I wondered what it meant when I first saw the post. I quickly took advantage of the handy link provided, which gave a quick executive overview of the actual research, fetchingly filled out with fluff about how the detector is structured.
Here's the meat of the article: The ratio of electron neutrinos detected to the total number of neutrinos detected didn't match the sensible models of nuclear reactions in the Sun. There just weren't enough of them. Now, they have found that some of the muon and tao neutrinos they are detecting actually started electron neutrinos, and changed on the way. It remains to be seen, however (if it ever can), whether the conversion rate can explain enough missing electron neutrinos to match the theories.
It can't die. It may not be as well-supported, but there are several other projects working on the "platform" (notably TightVnc. I hope it isn't in some kind of freakish licensing where they go out of business in a fire sale, get bought by NA (remotely possible) or Symantec(pcanywhere) and locked away forever.
I wonder why they didn't time it so that the audit had to happen mid-summer or some other non-peak time instead.
.... that's what this is, too: a sucker-punch. Catch them at a disadvantage and force them into an onerous contract.
I assume that was sarcasm. You don't sucker-punch somebody when he's standing up, alert, and holding a baseball bat. You wait until he's otherwise occupied, and hit him from behind. (I've never sucker-punched anybody)
A)if you're not set up to use only DYNDNS capable name servers, you should disable the "register this whatever" tab, or however you do it in MacOS.
B)Whose bright idea was it to have that a default?
I didn't know about the issue myself, because I'm a unix geek, and it never occurred to me that an OS would make such a ridiculous assumption. I found out when corporate IT busted me for upgrading my laptop to Win2K. At first, I thought it was because I was not getting my mandated 11 reboots/day, and snidely said so. The guy was much nicer than me, and just asked me to tell it to stop beating up the DNS server with invalid requests, and don't even think of trying to use it as a bdc (it would take over the domain, apparently... another bit of genius on the part of MS).
get to work at 10am, leave at 4am, and have a 2 hour lunch break
/., but I don't stop working when I leave the office. I make most of my most elegant breakthroughs in the shower, for instance. If I beat myself to death during office hours, I wouldn't be debugging my code in my head during idle moments - I'd be staying as far from all work-related stuff as I could, and we'd be where we were 9 months ago, instead of way out ahead.
Actually, a 16 hour shift would pretty much require a 2 hour lunch break at a minimum, though I'd rather do an hour lunch and 15 minute walk every two hours than work 8, lunch 2, work 8.
Frankly, I'd think they would have been more productive with 4h work, 1h lunch, and 4h work, with onclock breaks as needed to maintain alertness.
I don't put in a long sustained effort during work hours. Heck, I spend nearly 20 minutes a day on
I had always meant to download Solaris8 from Sun
I never saw it downloadable, Every time I went to look into it, they were "giving" it away at "media cost". Maybe, if 100% of the cost of a music cd is also media cost. $80US for 5 CDs was just too rich for my blood. Of course, I didn't have access to a cd burner anyway.
Actually, I thought that was a well-reasoned comment, which said a lot more than you appear to have read into it.
he said no immediate need, leaving us to conclude, rightly, that if there were a need, that's why the second ammendment is there. Not just our security from each other, but also from tyrants, both foreign and domestic. So far, the rest of the constitution, with its ammendments, has kept us (except from a few deranged lunatics) from having to grab the emergency handle, wisely installed, so long ago.
He currently has no reason to possess a firearm strong enough to override his safety concerns.
I've never been without firearms, but the only gun assembled in my house is a Daisy 880 (with a full hopper). The model 37 and the old J.C. Higgins 22 are in pieces in unlabeled boxes, distributed around the basement, and the ammunition is on the top shelf of a closet on the second floor. Nonetheless, if you are breaking in, you've got about 30 seconds, 35 if I miss a light switch. By the time my kids get advanced enough to lift the boxes around and get to that shelf, I won't have to worry about it. As much as I'd like to, I don't have a pistol, because I don't think I can adequately ensure that it will both remain inaccessible and yet be brought to battery in a reasonable time.
calculations for the bridge that you're building
If you use it to calculate info for your bridge, it must have passed your evaluation, and you should have already bought it.
Evaluation software is not a way to let people do quick jobs for free. It's a way for people to see if the software will work.
Only an idiot is going to put it into production without a relationship with the supplier.
You're absolutely right. I hadn't thought about that specifically. The Part 15 issues still stand, though. Perhaps they could be overcome by notching out the bands with strong emitters both on receive AND transmit. Of course, as soon as we add such complexity to the system, we're kind of defeating its purpose, I guess.
Did anybody else think this was an illogical spot in the article?
Ironically, the more challenging technical problem appears to be finding ways to stop other emitters from interfering with UWB devices. This area is one in which narrowband systems have a decided advantage--all such systems are fitted with a front-end filter that prevents transmitters operating outside their reception bands from causing trouble. Unfortunately, a UWB receiver needs to have a "wide-open" front-end filter that lets through a broad spectrum of frequencies, including signals from potential interferers. The ability of a UWB receiver to overcome this impediment, sometimes called jamming resistance, is a key attribute of good receiver design. One approach to improving jamming resistance is to install so-called notch filters that attenuate those narrow parts of the spectrum where interference is known to be likely. Another protective measure that has been developed would be to use automatic notch filters that seek out and diminish the signals of particularly strong narrowband interferers.
First: part of the point of a plain UWB system is that you ignore interference by looking for your signal in ALL of the freqencies you use, at the same time. If a pulse shows up across enough of the range, it's probably good, and if it's actually a blast from another UWB source (a light switch, perhaps?), that's what error correction's for.
Second: there's the issue of ignoring interference. I suppose that at these ultra-low ERPs, they could be exempt, but as they're using bandwidth allocated to other services, they've got to meet Part 15, part of which specifies that they must A)not cause interference to licensed services, and B)accept interference from licensed services.
Like I said, they meet the first one pretty well, but part of the second one is to force awareness on the user of the Part 15 device that they're conflicting.
Gates didn't say that
And as the article said "just enough to get to the jack on the wall". I don't think we can accuse the standards body that created 802.11b of thinking that nobody would ever be more than 100 meters from anybody else.
this is ADVERTISED AS THE RIGHT AND HEROIC THING TO DO!
In the movie, as set up, it WAS the right and heroic thing to do. The guilty prey on the innocent, and the innocent, in their efforts to show "compassion" for the guilty, let them keep coming back.
I remember a case in Indiana, an old man who had been arrested over a hundred times for drunk driving, most of those (the last 80 or so) for driving without a license, most of them involving personal injury. He couldn't be imprisoned because of some guidelines concerning his age. I personally believe that he should have been shot in the street like a rabid dog the next time he was found behind the wheel.
I think the same way about the three strikes laws for violent and property crimes, even shoplifting. Once someone demonstrates that he will not leave people alone, get him off my planet. We waste law enforcement effort stopping people from destroying themselves (let the addicts poison themselves to death if they insist), and there's not enough left for important tasks.
And long before that (since about 1990), there wasLoJack.
Even before that, some of my friends who had nicer hot rods than mine had Line-Locks, for which the control was just under the front of the driver's seat. They would set the lock when they left the car in an untrusted place, and if the car was stolen, the first time he hit the brake, it held the pressure.
It was a simple matter to reach down and push the plunger, but if somebody is smart enough to understand that, he'd have a job and buy his own car.
1368 wasted CPU's
Are you kidding? With the possible exception of Cray and maybe the Hitachi(can't find info on that one... they seem to be out of the supercomputer business), nobody builds single-unit supercomputers any more. The scalability with clustering and shared memory over high speed networking overcomes the contention problems with massively parallel processors, though the Numa-Q may let us put more cpus in a single box. Check out the AlphaServer SC, the RS/6000 SP, both supercomputers in the top 10 (with the SP dominating... awesome switch for the shared mem), and the Beowulf, or (no shared memory here), the Mosix, clustering. If I were building a linux supercomputer, I think i'd rather go with a pile of dual-cpu units anyway, cutting down on resource contention.
With distributed processing like these systems, adding another unit adds about another unit worth of processing power, whereas adding cpus to a SMP configuration gives diminishing returns. As long as you build the infrastructure along with the growth (add switch capacity), the sky's the limit.
Our IT department has mandated the use of IE for all web browsing, but at least our antivirus immediately recognizes "code-exploit" when I try to run the proof-of-concept. If I exclude the proof-of-concept file, the exploit works.
How long does MS intend to ignore this? Not every antivirus program will catch this, and what about those forced to use IE for unix?
I reckon it's time to go check out F-prot for unix (I've heard they have at least a Linux port).
This reminds me of this Charm-IT wearable, but for my purposes, I like the OQO better (I'm not swimming in spare cash).
Big corporations are so pro-Intel, it makes it tough for the AMDs and Transmetas
m e=distance, I guess), absolute speed advantage is about 2:1), and they'll probably all be AMDs (hurry up with the Hammer!).
Not necessarily. All of our new screamers are AMD, and we'll be spending most of the 400k/y we would be spending on Suns and HPs buying ourself roughly 18x the compute power (speed/money(distance/time/money=distance/time/ti