Basically, a buffer overrun in a non-MS program took down the beta system. It's hardly unusual for a beta test to have a couple issues, and it's apparently not even Microsoft's fault in this case.
As for the eventual outcome of the USS Yorktown... "Smart Ship" initiatives successful. Apparently, the Navy disagrees with your assessment of it being a "major problem".
"They rushed this stuff on the ship, there was no real prototype, and then they tried to make things work as they went along."
So, they didn't test the system before running it on their production system.
"The source of the problem on the Yorktown was that bad data was fed into an application running on one of the 16 computers on the LAN."
A badly written (apparently non-Microsoft) application caused a buffer overrun.
The incident of the Yorktown going down is quoted quite often, but it really doesn't say anything about MS. It was a test run - I've fudged things up plenty of times, be it on a Linux box or a Windows box - and the reason it broke wasn't even related to Microsoft!
IIRC Microsoft's revenues are usually between $5 and $10 billion per quarter. That'd make this contract somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of their revenues. That's pretty substantial.
Maybe it means that the military does, in fact, probably know what they're doing - despite what Slashdot readers say ('cause they obviously know better!).
Any data that requires a security clearance is going to be accessed and stored on a computer that doesn't have access to the public Internet.
As for the "bad guys" using it to their advantage, well, the military's been running Microsoft for years. No major problems yet - a few public webservers hacked, but that's about it (that we know about, at least).
You and I might not have the leverage, but the US military backed by a half-billion dollar contract sure will.
For a $471 million contract, Microsoft would easily be convinced to put special terms into the contract. No one does a contract of that size without some guarantee that things will be taken care of if there's a problem.
A lack of competition is ALWAYS bad for the consumer.
Not true. Look at drug companies - development of a new drug costs billions, and without patents anyone could make a generic and undercut their price. End result? No new cancer/AIDS/everything fighting drugs, which is bad for the consumer.
Ah, but see, HAL-9000 didn't make a mistake or distort information. HAL did exactly what he was supposed to do - give the mission the greatest possible chance of succeeding, which he attempted to do by knocking off the error and emotion prone human crew.
There's also the possiblity of using a film camera.
There is? At 24 pics per roll, that's gonna be over 400 rolls of film. That's gonna cost a whole bunch - and developing's gonna run somewhere around $4 per roll... that's another $1600 there.
Re:Solution to the NYT registration thing...
on
The Bug by Ellen Ullman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They're not "broken links", you're just too lazy to give the NYT some fake info one time - that, or you prefer to whine about it each time a NYT link comes up here.
If Slashdot starts using the Google partner tag, then NYT and Google will evntually shut it off - checking referers, etc.
Basically, one person has $10 and the other has $0. The person with $10 has to offer money to the other person.
Now, if the person with $10 offers $1 to the other, both people "win" - person A is up $9, person B is up $1. So, it would be logical for person B to accept the offer.
In most cases, though, person B will reject the offer - as it seems unfair for him to be only getting a small amount. S/He rejects the offer, even though it means BOTH people get nothing.
So, it's a nice illustration of rational vs. irrational thought.
You need to get an ammendment passed that does away with that right
Not if the amendment as it is already written no longer applies to the current situation. Like it or not, there's no need for a "well organized militia" anymore.
that knows such an ammendment would never pass
Of course I know that. I'd have to be an idiot to think that an amendment banning all guns would pass in today's political climate.
That said, I do strongly support limited gun ownership. I believe there should be a background check prior to purchases, mandatory gun safety classes, and rules banning certain weapons. While cliche to say so, I really don't want my neighbor to have nuclear weapons because he thinks he has the "right to bear arms". Owning a hunting rifle is fine by me.
Americans have no reason to fear their government?
You do realize this is the TIA article, right? The very point of the parent article is that we have a good reason to be worried about our government!
If the counterexamples are poor, then your original example - Germany under Hitler - was poor as well. It was just as ready to be controlled by fear as Iraq and Afghanistan were. (btw, Iraq was a very prosperous and stable country before Hussein - so they actually weren't ready to be controlled by fear) Your point remains weak.
As for the ad hominem attack, I'll just ignore it. After all, resorting to logical fallacies is a good sign one's losing an argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Please see this.
Basically, a buffer overrun in a non-MS program took down the beta system. It's hardly unusual for a beta test to have a couple issues, and it's apparently not even Microsoft's fault in this case.
As for the eventual outcome of the USS Yorktown... "Smart Ship" initiatives successful . Apparently, the Navy disagrees with your assessment of it being a "major problem".
"They rushed this stuff on the ship, there was no real prototype, and then they tried to make things work as they went along."
So, they didn't test the system before running it on their production system.
"The source of the problem on the Yorktown was that bad data was fed into an application running on one of the 16 computers on the LAN."
A badly written (apparently non-Microsoft) application caused a buffer overrun.
The incident of the Yorktown going down is quoted quite often, but it really doesn't say anything about MS. It was a test run - I've fudged things up plenty of times, be it on a Linux box or a Windows box - and the reason it broke wasn't even related to Microsoft!
IIRC Microsoft's revenues are usually between $5 and $10 billion per quarter. That'd make this contract somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of their revenues. That's pretty substantial.
That being the Navy / Marine Corps Intranet project, I assume?
I can't find anything on major problems due to Microsoft Windows malfunctioning - care to enlighten?
Well, that'd be because the other G7 countries expect us to do the fighting for them.
Bosnia, anyone? Kosovo?
Hell, the US even has to help Europe move their military around. The US has 500 cargo (C-130 etc) aircraft for moving troops. Europe has 4.
As for foreign aid donations, you probably didn't notice that the US is the largest donor on the list in 2002, with 12 billion dollars of aid.
And I'll bet that list doesn't even take into account all the foreign debt the US doesn't collect on. (Hey, Europe - pay us back for WWII!)
Can you come up with a reasonable collection of Microsoft software that costs $950 per machine (on average)? I can't.
Unlimited upgrades for the term of the deal? Support contracts? Microsoft SQL Server (a cool $5000-$15000 or so)?
Maybe it means that the military does, in fact, probably know what they're doing - despite what Slashdot readers say ('cause they obviously know better!).
Any data that requires a security clearance is going to be accessed and stored on a computer that doesn't have access to the public Internet.
As for the "bad guys" using it to their advantage, well, the military's been running Microsoft for years. No major problems yet - a few public webservers hacked, but that's about it (that we know about, at least).
Have you read his post?
You and I might not have the leverage, but the US military backed by a half-billion dollar contract sure will.
For a $471 million contract, Microsoft would easily be convinced to put special terms into the contract. No one does a contract of that size without some guarantee that things will be taken care of if there's a problem.
And it's a pretty safe guess that all these folks are getting is Office, which could be replaced with OO.org.
You're funny! Let's replace all Apache servers with IIS, too.
Oh, wait. You were being serious...
in semi-related news, I just spotted this photo of the "face" on Mars on MSNBC.com - pretty nifty!
A lack of competition is ALWAYS bad for the consumer.
Not true. Look at drug companies - development of a new drug costs billions, and without patents anyone could make a generic and undercut their price. End result? No new cancer/AIDS/everything fighting drugs, which is bad for the consumer.
Ah, but see, HAL-9000 didn't make a mistake or distort information. HAL did exactly what he was supposed to do - give the mission the greatest possible chance of succeeding, which he attempted to do by knocking off the error and emotion prone human crew.
In the US, "nimrod" is roughly equivalent to "imbecile", "idiot", or "dunce".
There's also the possiblity of using a film camera.
There is? At 24 pics per roll, that's gonna be over 400 rolls of film. That's gonna cost a whole bunch - and developing's gonna run somewhere around $4 per roll... that's another $1600 there.
They're not "broken links", you're just too lazy to give the NYT some fake info one time - that, or you prefer to whine about it each time a NYT link comes up here.
If Slashdot starts using the Google partner tag, then NYT and Google will evntually shut it off - checking referers, etc.
Launch the parts into orbit, assemble it there, use a conventional drive to get it out of Earth orbit, then start up the drive from there.
Safe and easy.
Basically, one person has $10 and the other has $0. The person with $10 has to offer money to the other person.
Now, if the person with $10 offers $1 to the other, both people "win" - person A is up $9, person B is up $1. So, it would be logical for person B to accept the offer.
In most cases, though, person B will reject the offer - as it seems unfair for him to be only getting a small amount. S/He rejects the offer, even though it means BOTH people get nothing.
So, it's a nice illustration of rational vs. irrational thought.
Mozilla, IE, and Safari all interpret the link correctly - as a relative link.
<a href="java.net"> is a relative link
<a href="http://java.net"> is an absolute link
He told me that PJ (he said all TRUE fans call him that) doesn't do it like that.
You'd think a true "PJ" fan would know that FotR came out in two separate releases.
Good God... a Geocities link, on the Slashdot front page?
Hell, it was probably Slashdotted by the editor looking at it to approve the submission!
You can speed up the simulation to get to the action.
First thought was "Why so many photos of real cars driving around?"
:-O
Oh. Wait. That's in game???
You need to get an ammendment passed that does away with that right
Not if the amendment as it is already written no longer applies to the current situation. Like it or not, there's no need for a "well organized militia" anymore.
that knows such an ammendment would never pass
Of course I know that. I'd have to be an idiot to think that an amendment banning all guns would pass in today's political climate.
That said, I do strongly support limited gun ownership. I believe there should be a background check prior to purchases, mandatory gun safety classes, and rules banning certain weapons. While cliche to say so, I really don't want my neighbor to have nuclear weapons because he thinks he has the "right to bear arms". Owning a hunting rifle is fine by me.
Americans have no reason to fear their government?
You do realize this is the TIA article, right? The very point of the parent article is that we have a good reason to be worried about our government!
If the counterexamples are poor, then your original example - Germany under Hitler - was poor as well. It was just as ready to be controlled by fear as Iraq and Afghanistan were. (btw, Iraq was a very prosperous and stable country before Hussein - so they actually weren't ready to be controlled by fear) Your point remains weak.
As for the ad hominem attack, I'll just ignore it. After all, resorting to logical fallacies is a good sign one's losing an argument.