You gave one reason why a webserver might have a web browser installed, but can you tell me why a mailserver would need a browser? or why a webserver would require an email account or media player?
It really doesn't matter. You said that no server should ever have a browser. If you make that exclusive of a claim, I only need one reason:)
I have a very hard time taking you seriously. Have you not ever used a web browser located on a web server to for a quick test that the HTTP server was responding? Sure, you wouldn't want your webmaster sitting around surfing for porn on the web server, but it is much more practical to hire people who follow rules than try to take apart an operating system because you hire people who are always trying to do something behind your back. I don't trust anyone on the other side of the firewall, but if you can't trust your webmaster to make smart decisions, you may as well close up shop. They have more than enough tools to ruin you without a web browser on the server.
So... it's roomier... it will last longer... accelerate faster... brake faster... and be MUCH tougher thus negating many of the reasons airbags and seatbelts save lives?
Yeah, we all know they didn't have inertia way back then!! Seatbelts save lives because they keep people from flying out windshields. Airbags save lives because they keep people from hitting their head on the dash or steering wheel. Your logic is atrocious.
Did I miss something? Did he specify it was a gain antenna? 100mW on a vertical up 100 feet would still be a zero-gain antenna. Don't get me wrong--I don't know Part 15 inside and out. It just seemed like you were making the assumption we were talking about a 5 element yagi or something.
You wrote:
If diagrams and spoken explanations are so important to code documentation, then how come we don't have compiliers that can handle diagrams and MP3 clips as part of the source code file?
I observed:
I haven't thought too hard about this issue, but I can't see why you couldn't just embed encoded binary data between/* and */ or similar comment symbols and write a programming editor to display them. Compilers just ignore comments anyway, so I would expect it to handle this data in the same way.
"we all know anyway that 75% of MS patents are pretty easy to invalidate if we put our hearts to it"
Our hearts would be helpful, but money would be even better. Perhaps MS is putting away another $1 Billion to ensure quick victories in ugly court battles. Their company is based on marketing and business rather than software development. It's hard to compete with that kind of money...
As I said before, it really depends how useful the inventor's boss finds their discovery/development/idea. The question isn't how many patents the research universities get, but rather how many they fail to get.
2 reasons: Patents are fairly expensive and no one but nerds would ever realize the value of relational database file systems (e.g. WinFS) without Microsoft's shiny icons and GUI to use it. Many great developments are from academics and researchers who don't go the next step to make their brilliant ideas user-friendly. Their ideas may be great, but they still have to convince their non-nerd bosses to invest in patents for something that to them looks worthless.
OK, let's take radar. You can get the direction of the transmitter. Do that from a few different places, and you can get the location of the transmitter.
Umm, we're talking about an aircraft moving in excess of 500 miles per hour. Unless you had a reliable mechanism to synchronize multiple receiving stations and triangulate at the same instant in time, it would be next to impossible to determine the location of the transmitter on the plane. Furthermore, even if could determine the latitude and longitude of the plane, altitudinal triangulation adds another dimension of complexity. Ground based radar would be far more effective for finding the plane. Admittedly, you would be trading a passive sensor for an active one, which would cause additional issues.
From the energy of the pulse at your end, you can estimate the total power of the transmitter. Compare the pulse arrival times at several places, and you can find out how often the radar makes a sweep. The pulse duration and frequency distribution probably would tell you something about how the transmitter works.
The challenge was to demonstrate how one could find information "leaking" from the plane. That is actually raw, nearly useless data. In addition, you can not reliably deduce transmitter power from signal strength. I am a licensed Extra class Amateur Radio operator. The signal strength between a 5 W transmitter signal and a 1,000 W signal can be indistinguishable given certain atmospheric conditions, antenna and cable gain or loss, etc. Finding out "how the radar transmitter works" is really pretty easy anyway. Consider this link to the Federation of American Scientists, for example: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-tps -75.htm Essentially, all you could effectively find from the plane's radar emissions would be that there was a plane somewhere.
For radar in a plane, you could use the doppler effect to get the speed of the plane.
Or, once again, you could use ground based radar with all the same, or better, results.
It is not clear how or why you deduced that sending out a signal is equivalent to leaking information. Radar is sent out as a pulse of nothing but energy. There's no data or anything of value other than the reflection of the radar signal back to the craft.
What part of the post did you not understand? His computer WOULD NOT BOOT. Kinda prevents using web tickets, huh? He never said he was at the office or even had another computer around...
My guess is that "LiveChat" is actually a robot. I tried to contact eBay's online tech support one time and got the same sort of stupid pre-scripted one-liners. Eventually, I finally asked "are you a robot?" He replied "No". Then I asked "Are you a real person?" and his response was "I am human" or some stupid shit like that. All his responses were very quick and completely without grammatical cues to indicate any emotion. If corporations think their customers should accept shit like that, SCREW 'EM ALL!
However, this is not like password cracking. There is no system on the other end to recognize a username and password and allow access. Once a list of words is selected, each one must be verified by a human to determine if it makes sense. The variable width method gets it down to around 350 words in a very short time. A fixed width method would require each combination to be examined. With somewhere between 750,000 and 1,000,000 words acknowledged in the English language, I would presume a great number (200,000 or more) are about 5-6 letters long. So, the fixed width method could only be successful if utilized with something other than just a dictionary--perhaps a *very good* grammar checker.
You'd better explain this post, because it sure indicates a lack of insight to me. With a fixed width font, all you would know is how many letters were blacked out. With a variable width font, you could instead have clues as to what letters were actually used. It's like those problems from junior high math when you were told you had a certain number of cents in 5 coins and you had to give the possible combinations of coins.
3 Points of Advice for all Slashdotters: 1. Read the damn article Oh, wait, 2 and 3 are no longer required.
"GCC is an inferior compiler for the x86, whether you like it or not"
If you go back and read my post, I never argued that point at all. I just think it is very hard to trust any source that shows complete naievete in regards to the GCC compiler. Great or not, it is quite prevalent in the Unix world. Saying it's a compiler you have never heard of implies lack of experience on the part of the writer.
Furthermore, I believe all of these benchmarks are skewed. If you follow the money trail long enough, you'll always find someone with something to gain. The only suitable benchmark is personal experience. The psychology field would tell you that sometimes an inferior option seems superior to someone just because they want so much for it to be the case. In that case, if the user is satisfied/thrilled, to quote Joey from Friends, which is better is "...a moo point...Like a cow's opinion...It doesn't matter"
From the link you mentioned: "while Apple used a compiler you've never heard of (at least in the x86 world)."
My understanding is that they used GCC.
Further, "Another said that some version of Linux had to be used to compare apples to apples. Well, MacOS X isn't Linux, and the desktop standard for x86 machines is Windows (not that using a properly optimized Linux bothered the Opterons very much). You want to know what machine is fastest, you test in their native environment."
Oh, silly me. Processors are so obviously made to run only one operating system!
Perhaps, but it is my understanding that servers pay a certain amount of tax on their overall sales, regardless of tips. Therefore, if you don't tip, you are collaborating with the IRS in stealing the server's money. Notice I said collaborating--it's probably about a 90%-10% split of responsibility:)
There you go, assuming our goal is world domination. For most of us, I think it's probably about broadening horizons, "getting under the hood", and getting things done without weird blue screens of death. By the way, I have not had a sound card that did not work under Linux since I had a 486-66 running RH5. That is including some very, very cheap clone components. So, I'm wondering exactly what sound cards everyone is freaking out about...
Your depravity is overwhelming. I kept my first reply civil. Then, you decided "bite me" was a logical comment to insert into a political/legal discussion. Way to go!
Now, I'm going to pick apart the most ill-conceived statements in your post.
First, political "scientists" can call the intertwining of levels of government anything they want. It is actually a failure to comply with the principles of federalism in the Constitution.
I do believe states have a legitimate right to collect sales tax, WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. Furthermore, I never argued that the Internet makes collecting sales taxes unconstitutional. The logical inference to be made from my post is that the jurisdiction of sales should be established. For physical sales, I believe the jurisdiction should be where the sale occurs. For Internet sales, I personally believe the sale should fall under the control of the state where the seller is based (national HQ for multinational organizations). So, if you buy something from a Boston-based retailer, you should pay MA taxes. The approach that the Internet is some sort of abstract country/world/universe where the sale is taking place is ridiculous. The Courts or Congress need to make a declaration as to where such transactions take place. In my mind, they could either take place at the physical location of the buyer or seller. If it was determined that you were "virtually" in the state of the seller when you made the purchase, it could set up some interesting precedents for such things as online gambling--going to a web site for a Las Vegas casino would be the same as going to Las Vegas, where gambling was legal.
As a matter of nitpicking, historians today know far more about the Constitution than lawyers. What lawyers really know about the Constitution is how the years of case law have built up to establish certain principles. Taking the time to delve into original intent/meaning (as historians often do) gives a far better grasp of what the Constitution is "about". The lawyers most certainly have a strong understanding of common law in this country, but not necessarily the Constitution. The fact that the lectures you attended were "fascinating" only means the lawyers were charismatic.
IANAL either. However, I have read the Constitution in its entirety and contemplated the meanings within, something I'm convinced many of today's lawyers have not done. I have also studied and researched Constitutional issues for my personal development and university coursework.
I feel that you're overlooking a very big checks and balances system. The members of the federal Congress, though elected from states, are largely outside the sphere of influence of the state governments. I think the 2/3 vote to send an amendment to the states for ratification would likely not occur. Fortunately, there is no method in place for the Supreme Court to mandate an amendment be sent to the states.
Beyond the amendment issue, you are reasoning that because someone can get a better deal in another state on a purchase, the deprived state has a legitimate claim. That is not the case. If a state cannot attract profitable businesses or develop a solid revenue model, they have no business taking the revenue from states that encourage commerce and have taken steps to simplify their own tax systems. The "offended" states should study the open market's behavior and find out what they are doing wrong.
Also, you are assuming that every state that is drawing these sales has no sales tax. What if they merely have less of a sales tax? To paraphrase from the Constitution, "full faith and credit" should be applied to the acts of other states. So, if your citizens have already been taxed on a purchase in another state, they have fulfilled their obligation. If the state in which the purchase was made did not require sales taxes, they have also fulfilled their requirement. Therefore, their home state has no jurisdiction. Residents of states can claim states as their home, but states can not claim residents as their property (slavery by the state?) to control at whim.
References: Article IV, Section 1; Article 1, Section 10; and Article V of the Constitution of the United States
Slashdot Mirror
A single entity like RMS?
It really doesn't matter. You said that no server should ever have a browser. If you make that exclusive of a claim, I only need one reason :)
I have a very hard time taking you seriously. Have you not ever used a web browser located on a web server to for a quick test that the HTTP server was responding? Sure, you wouldn't want your webmaster sitting around surfing for porn on the web server, but it is much more practical to hire people who follow rules than try to take apart an operating system because you hire people who are always trying to do something behind your back. I don't trust anyone on the other side of the firewall, but if you can't trust your webmaster to make smart decisions, you may as well close up shop. They have more than enough tools to ruin you without a web browser on the server.
Yeah, we all know they didn't have inertia way back then!! Seatbelts save lives because they keep people from flying out windshields. Airbags save lives because they keep people from hitting their head on the dash or steering wheel. Your logic is atrocious.
Did I miss something? Did he specify it was a gain antenna? 100mW on a vertical up 100 feet would still be a zero-gain antenna. Don't get me wrong--I don't know Part 15 inside and out. It just seemed like you were making the assumption we were talking about a 5 element yagi or something.
You wrote: If diagrams and spoken explanations are so important to code documentation, then how come we don't have compiliers that can handle diagrams and MP3 clips as part of the source code file? I observed: I haven't thought too hard about this issue, but I can't see why you couldn't just embed encoded binary data between /* and */ or similar comment symbols and write a programming editor to display them. Compilers just ignore comments anyway, so I would expect it to handle this data in the same way.
Our hearts would be helpful, but money would be even better. Perhaps MS is putting away another $1 Billion to ensure quick victories in ugly court battles. Their company is based on marketing and business rather than software development. It's hard to compete with that kind of money...
As I said before, it really depends how useful the inventor's boss finds their discovery/development/idea. The question isn't how many patents the research universities get, but rather how many they fail to get.
2 reasons: Patents are fairly expensive and no one but nerds would ever realize the value of relational database file systems (e.g. WinFS) without Microsoft's shiny icons and GUI to use it. Many great developments are from academics and researchers who don't go the next step to make their brilliant ideas user-friendly. Their ideas may be great, but they still have to convince their non-nerd bosses to invest in patents for something that to them looks worthless.
Umm, we're talking about an aircraft moving in excess of 500 miles per hour. Unless you had a reliable mechanism to synchronize multiple receiving stations and triangulate at the same instant in time, it would be next to impossible to determine the location of the transmitter on the plane. Furthermore, even if could determine the latitude and longitude of the plane, altitudinal triangulation adds another dimension of complexity. Ground based radar would be far more effective for finding the plane. Admittedly, you would be trading a passive sensor for an active one, which would cause additional issues.
From the energy of the pulse at your end, you can estimate the total power of the transmitter. Compare the pulse arrival times at several places, and you can find out how often the radar makes a sweep. The pulse duration and frequency distribution probably would tell you something about how the transmitter works.
The challenge was to demonstrate how one could find information "leaking" from the plane. That is actually raw, nearly useless data. In addition, you can not reliably deduce transmitter power from signal strength. I am a licensed Extra class Amateur Radio operator. The signal strength between a 5 W transmitter signal and a 1,000 W signal can be indistinguishable given certain atmospheric conditions, antenna and cable gain or loss, etc. Finding out "how the radar transmitter works" is really pretty easy anyway. Consider this link to the Federation of American Scientists, for example: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-tps -75.htm Essentially, all you could effectively find from the plane's radar emissions would be that there was a plane somewhere.
For radar in a plane, you could use the doppler effect to get the speed of the plane.
Or, once again, you could use ground based radar with all the same, or better, results.
It is not clear how or why you deduced that sending out a signal is equivalent to leaking information. Radar is sent out as a pulse of nothing but energy. There's no data or anything of value other than the reflection of the radar signal back to the craft.
So, that was like last week?
What part of the post did you not understand? His computer WOULD NOT BOOT. Kinda prevents using web tickets, huh? He never said he was at the office or even had another computer around...
My guess is that "LiveChat" is actually a robot. I tried to contact eBay's online tech support one time and got the same sort of stupid pre-scripted one-liners. Eventually, I finally asked "are you a robot?" He replied "No". Then I asked "Are you a real person?" and his response was "I am human" or some stupid shit like that. All his responses were very quick and completely without grammatical cues to indicate any emotion. If corporations think their customers should accept shit like that, SCREW 'EM ALL!
However, this is not like password cracking. There is no system on the other end to recognize a username and password and allow access. Once a list of words is selected, each one must be verified by a human to determine if it makes sense. The variable width method gets it down to around 350 words in a very short time. A fixed width method would require each combination to be examined. With somewhere between 750,000 and 1,000,000 words acknowledged in the English language, I would presume a great number (200,000 or more) are about 5-6 letters long. So, the fixed width method could only be successful if utilized with something other than just a dictionary--perhaps a *very good* grammar checker.
You'd better explain this post, because it sure indicates a lack of insight to me. With a fixed width font, all you would know is how many letters were blacked out. With a variable width font, you could instead have clues as to what letters were actually used. It's like those problems from junior high math when you were told you had a certain number of cents in 5 coins and you had to give the possible combinations of coins.
3 Points of Advice for all Slashdotters:
1. Read the damn article
Oh, wait, 2 and 3 are no longer required.
>...is not in any human language... So, it's like legal documents and stuff?
"GCC is an inferior compiler for the x86, whether you like it or not"
If you go back and read my post, I never argued that point at all. I just think it is very hard to trust any source that shows complete naievete in regards to the GCC compiler. Great or not, it is quite prevalent in the Unix world. Saying it's a compiler you have never heard of implies lack of experience on the part of the writer.
Furthermore, I believe all of these benchmarks are skewed. If you follow the money trail long enough, you'll always find someone with something to gain. The only suitable benchmark is personal experience. The psychology field would tell you that sometimes an inferior option seems superior to someone just because they want so much for it to be the case. In that case, if the user is satisfied/thrilled, to quote Joey from Friends, which is better is "...a moo point...Like a cow's opinion...It doesn't matter"
From the link you mentioned: "while Apple used a compiler you've never heard of (at least in the x86 world)."
My understanding is that they used GCC.
Further, "Another said that some version of Linux had to be used to compare apples to apples. Well, MacOS X isn't Linux, and the desktop standard for x86 machines is Windows (not that using a properly optimized Linux bothered the Opterons very much). You want to know what machine is fastest, you test in their native environment."
Oh, silly me. Processors are so obviously made to run only one operating system!
I'll take this site's info with a grain of salt.
I'm guessing you mean sawed-off?
Perhaps, but it is my understanding that servers pay a certain amount of tax on their overall sales, regardless of tips. Therefore, if you don't tip, you are collaborating with the IRS in stealing the server's money. Notice I said collaborating--it's probably about a 90%-10% split of responsibility :)
"...thanks to an absurdly broad interpretation of the so-called Interstate Commerce clause..."
Don't forget the elastic AKA "necessary and proper" clause...
There you go, assuming our goal is world domination. For most of us, I think it's probably about broadening horizons, "getting under the hood", and getting things done without weird blue screens of death. By the way, I have not had a sound card that did not work under Linux since I had a 486-66 running RH5. That is including some very, very cheap clone components. So, I'm wondering exactly what sound cards everyone is freaking out about...
Your depravity is overwhelming. I kept my first reply civil. Then, you decided "bite me" was a logical comment to insert into a political/legal discussion. Way to go!
Now, I'm going to pick apart the most ill-conceived statements in your post.
First, political "scientists" can call the intertwining of levels of government anything they want. It is actually a failure to comply with the principles of federalism in the Constitution.
I do believe states have a legitimate right to collect sales tax, WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. Furthermore, I never argued that the Internet makes collecting sales taxes unconstitutional. The logical inference to be made from my post is that the jurisdiction of sales should be established. For physical sales, I believe the jurisdiction should be where the sale occurs. For Internet sales, I personally believe the sale should fall under the control of the state where the seller is based (national HQ for multinational organizations). So, if you buy something from a Boston-based retailer, you should pay MA taxes. The approach that the Internet is some sort of abstract country/world/universe where the sale is taking place is ridiculous. The Courts or Congress need to make a declaration as to where such transactions take place. In my mind, they could either take place at the physical location of the buyer or seller. If it was determined that you were "virtually" in the state of the seller when you made the purchase, it could set up some interesting precedents for such things as online gambling--going to a web site for a Las Vegas casino would be the same as going to Las Vegas, where gambling was legal.
As a matter of nitpicking, historians today know far more about the Constitution than lawyers. What lawyers really know about the Constitution is how the years of case law have built up to establish certain principles. Taking the time to delve into original intent/meaning (as historians often do) gives a far better grasp of what the Constitution is "about". The lawyers most certainly have a strong understanding of common law in this country, but not necessarily the Constitution. The fact that the lectures you attended were "fascinating" only means the lawyers were charismatic.
IANAL either. However, I have read the Constitution in its entirety and contemplated the meanings within, something I'm convinced many of today's lawyers have not done. I have also studied and researched Constitutional issues for my personal development and university coursework.
I feel that you're overlooking a very big checks and balances system. The members of the federal Congress, though elected from states, are largely outside the sphere of influence of the state governments. I think the 2/3 vote to send an amendment to the states for ratification would likely not occur. Fortunately, there is no method in place for the Supreme Court to mandate an amendment be sent to the states.
Beyond the amendment issue, you are reasoning that because someone can get a better deal in another state on a purchase, the deprived state has a legitimate claim. That is not the case. If a state cannot attract profitable businesses or develop a solid revenue model, they have no business taking the revenue from states that encourage commerce and have taken steps to simplify their own tax systems. The "offended" states should study the open market's behavior and find out what they are doing wrong.
Also, you are assuming that every state that is drawing these sales has no sales tax. What if they merely have less of a sales tax? To paraphrase from the Constitution, "full faith and credit" should be applied to the acts of other states. So, if your citizens have already been taxed on a purchase in another state, they have fulfilled their obligation. If the state in which the purchase was made did not require sales taxes, they have also fulfilled their requirement. Therefore, their home state has no jurisdiction. Residents of states can claim states as their home, but states can not claim residents as their property (slavery by the state?) to control at whim.
References: Article IV, Section 1; Article 1, Section 10; and Article V of the Constitution of the United States