Guns provide nothing but a false sense of security.
Yesterday a nutjob in Denver, Colorado took a handgun into a supermarket distribution center. He started some fires, shot five people, killing one. The police went in, shot and killed the nutjob.
Do you think if any of the employees had a gun they might have had some real security?
Do you think the police brought their guns in because that made them feel more secure?
Dang, I'm glad we didn't believe the scientists in the 1970's who said the Earth was cooling off. We'd have thrown another log on the fire to warm things up, and, next thing you know, 90% of Slashdotters would be wearing shorts to work!
Just don't turn this into a way to increase the funding/staffing of the patent office. They should raise their standards and say "no" much more quickly. If you can't clearly say why your invention is an invention, it isn't.
If you take a fantastic classic movie and pepper it with fart jokes, you've still only made a movie with fart jokes.
The same goes for Disney movies. If you want my money for your movie, the trailer's main plot points can't be two animals wetting themselves and another animal getting racked on a bar.
I didn't know anyone else did it this way. In the Field Artillery this is "artillery expression". When you're computing Fire Direction data (i.e. the math to tell the guns where to shoot) you artillery express to the nearest even number. This can be a decimal, depending on the precision you need. Oh, and Artillerymen are still taught how to use sliderules. They work when its to cold out for the computers to turn on.
In gunnery class if you say you've rounded something the instructor will invariably say something like "Wooo! Round up, cowboy! In the Artillery you express the number."
I've worked for a couple of startup software companies. Speed is a feature, just like writing in the OOo format is a feature. Companies (or open source software projects) that stay in business provide the features that their users want. Right now I'd say that MS Office users have wanted the speed feature more than the OOo format feature. OOo users are still getting some basic MS Office features, and that has trumped the speed feature, at least for now.
Three years ago a bug was logged that you can't format docs to the US Army standard. Bug 6464 If openoffice can't format numbered paragraphs so the second line of the paragraph is left-justified, how flexible is the markup?
How many other mandatory formatting bugs exist and are unfixed, or unreported? Yes, I know that openoffice is free. But if you don't fix bugs that users tell you about, don't ever complain that they aren't using the software.
The Army slide rules are closest to the Navy wood ones you have pictured. The FA has quite a few, depending on what type and charge of propellent used, high versus low angle, type of shell (High explosive or illumination, etc), and so on.
The only regular slide rule piece they have is a C and a D scale, and that is only on one of the rules, the GST (Graphical Site Table). The rest are all special purpose rules called GFT (graphical firing tables) that represent the TFT (tabular firing table) book.
The little computer you're talking about is probably a BUCS, which is an HP calculator, basically. It's used by the light (towed artillery) folks, too. It uses the tables and solves the equations algebraicaly, and are effectively the same as the slide rules. The PC based computers solve the equations with calculus.
Once you have corrected for wind, humidity, rotation of the earth, and some other factors, a manual (charts and slide rules) Fire Direction Center (FDC) is frequently faster than an automated one.
This is not true for the M109A6 (Paladin) 155mm howitzers, which have computers on the gun itself, and the computations happen there. This is more of an effect because of the built-in GPS on the howitzer, though, than the computer. Alas, the Paladin units don't even bring their slide rules into the field anymore, and use a second computer as a backup instead of the slide rules.
Linus was a fire direction officer in his military stint. In the US Field Artillery, they still teach slide rules and tables to the Lieutenants and Soldiers in their training. (Well, the cannon guys.) So, did Linus learn it, too? My bet is yes.
Ten years ago or so I read you could separate judges (maybe it was politicians) based on where they grew up. I'll bet the majority was from the Northeast, maybe west coast.
Boy, I can't think of a trailer in the last 10 years that hasn't just been a one minute version of the movie. And not nearly as well done as the Simpson's five minute Hamlet, at that. ('No one can out crazy Ophelia! Hey, nonny, nonny and a ha cha cha.' *splash*)
Unfortunately, some of the big-name open source projects, like openoffice, don't meet the needs of the government spec. And I'm not talking about powerpoint, either. Openoffice can't format a US Army memorandum correctly: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6 464
If the software doesn't meet the spec, it can't be used. And this isn't even a hard one...
Well, the author linked in his article to some research gathered by ESR that said 95% of the usage was open source, rather than free software. If true, then we are essentially using one term.
Austrian economists wouldn't dream of trying. You're thinking about Keynesians, which is what every policy coming out of the Federal government relies on.
And economists talk about "goods", not "love." Maybe that's why it's the dismal science . . .
Any problem a government tries to fix gets looked at, discussed, and if anything starts to get done, the orignal problem has usually gone away. Governments are SLOW, and they aren't nearly as smart as you are.
So let's look at what may happen if governments don't step in. If CNN's website causes a company's network to get a nasty virus, the IT department will shut off access to CNN. If it's bad enough (or CNN infects a big enough company) they may get sued. Either way, CNN is going to lose some cash because this can happen to every company with an Internet connection.
But if governments do get involved EVENTUALLY some standards will be mandated that you don't fully agree with. And there will have to be a certification process. And the whole process will be corrupted because it was run by (Bush|Kerry) and you wanted (Kerry|Bush) instead.
Like everything else, it will be dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. Just let the private sector take care of it.
A lot of effort goes into finding vulnerabilities in software, but there's no real evidence that it actually improves security . . .
It doesn't look like we're making much of a dent in the overall number of vulnerabilities in the software we use.
The poster is saying that because we are not lowering the absolute number of vulnerabilites, therefore we have no evidence removing / finding vulnerabilites improves security. The answer doesn't follow the premise.
Take a sinking boat. If you are bailing water out, and the boat isn't sinking any more, it does not follow that bailing water isn't a good idea. If you stop bailing water, you're sunk. If good guys stop finding and fixing vulnerabilities, you're sunk, too.
The free market does not equal letting the corporations decide. It's more like letting the consumers decide, since they are the folks who pay for things. If a company doesn't do something well, then no one will pay for it. (In general, if a government organization doesn't do something well, they ask for more money.)
One assumption you're making is that the government is smarter than we are about the spectrum, and anything else they wind up running. This, quite obviously, is not true. If you'd like to see a quick proof of this, post something about the US Patent Office and what a good job they do.
It also looks like you're assuming that the legislature, courts, and President has enough technical knowledge so set good policy on the use and direction of spectrum use. Probably a bad assumption. After all, we didn't really want cell phones, did we?
The philosopher-kings you want running things are motivated by their own cash registers at least as much as the free market. They listen to the special interest groups that pay them (campaign contributions). And, if their philosophy changes, there is not a dang thing you can do about it.
For example, let's say the military needs a whole lot more spectrum to fight GWOT (Global War On Terror). Philisophically, this can make sense. After all, they're looking out for YOUR best interests. It's just that they need that 802.11 spectrum to monitor your neighbors better, or the wireless bridge / microwave range to setup their own communications.
If a corporation took away something you've paid for, you could sue. This is not something you're likely to see work against the FCC.
Actually, this sort of training aid is specifically designed to sharpen fighting skills. Read _On Killing_ by LTC David Grossman. It's an excellent book on "killology" (his term), and explains how difficult it is to kill, and how the US Army has changed its training techniques to better emotionally train Soldiers to kill.
After WWII the Army switched its small arms qual (SAQ) from bulls-eye targets to pop-up man-shaped targets. This way the Soldier is better trained to kill the enemy. Lying down, or in a foxhole, the Soldier sees enemy popping up, and it looks and feels very similar to training.
It's hard to kill another person. It gets harder the closer (physically or emotionally) you are to the target. Historically one of the biggest factors on whether or not a Soldier would kill someone else is that someone else (in authority) told him to. That is very hard in a MOUT environment. The individual Soldier is on his own, or with a buddy, away from his sergeants or Lieutenant.
This is a glorified shoot-house (police use these). It's a combination of "shoot, don't shoot", plus gives the commander C2 (command and control) practice over the MOUT battlefield. He gets to feel how long clearing an environment like this really takes, and how to better stay in contact with the dispersed elements.
You are right about the nervousness of Soldiers, and the less likelyhood of undeserved massacres. What should happen, though, is the number of enemy casualties will go up even more. We're trained to kill them, but they are still stuck in a "posture" mode.
Yesterday the big excitement was about "Cities Building Own Fiber Networks." Many of the comments there were favorable -- this was a good monopoly, showed the problems of the "last mile," etc.
You don't have to go back very far in slashdot to find articles about DSL, or wireless, either. What this tells me is that there is no need to use government monoploy power over any high-speed Internet ventures. Power companies are offering high-speed Internet access because they believe they can make a profit at it. Other companies (cable, DSL, satellite) think they have the best way.
The good news for us: We get to sit back and enjoy high-speed Internet at better availability and prices, and with no government interference. All thanks to the folks that brought you the free market!
Re:Another Postfix book is coming soon
on
Postfix
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
(Replying to my own message. Ugh.) Ralf's postfix page is here.
Re:Another Postfix book is coming soon
on
Postfix
·
· Score: 1
Ralf Hildebrandt knows his stuff. He's been active on the postfix mail list for years.
On the evil of colons in book titles
on
Postfix
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The Chronicle has an article by Jennifer Jacobson on the possible evil of colons in book titles. It seems that it's hard to impossible to print a book these days without one. The article contains a small joke about colonoscopies."
Slashdot Mirror
Nice. I've never been labeled a Troll before for quoting scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Or maybe it was for ribbing people who read Slashdot?
Dang, I'm glad we didn't believe the scientists in the 1970's who said the Earth was cooling off. We'd have thrown another log on the fire to warm things up, and, next thing you know, 90% of Slashdotters would be wearing shorts to work!
Just don't turn this into a way to increase the funding/staffing of the patent office. They should raise their standards and say "no" much more quickly. If you can't clearly say why your invention is an invention, it isn't.
The same goes for Disney movies. If you want my money for your movie, the trailer's main plot points can't be two animals wetting themselves and another animal getting racked on a bar.
In gunnery class if you say you've rounded something the instructor will invariably say something like "Wooo! Round up, cowboy! In the Artillery you express the number."
I've worked for a couple of startup software companies. Speed is a feature, just like writing in the OOo format is a feature. Companies (or open source software projects) that stay in business provide the features that their users want. Right now I'd say that MS Office users have wanted the speed feature more than the OOo format feature. OOo users are still getting some basic MS Office features, and that has trumped the speed feature, at least for now.
How many other mandatory formatting bugs exist and are unfixed, or unreported? Yes, I know that openoffice is free. But if you don't fix bugs that users tell you about, don't ever complain that they aren't using the software.
The only regular slide rule piece they have is a C and a D scale, and that is only on one of the rules, the GST (Graphical Site Table). The rest are all special purpose rules called GFT (graphical firing tables) that represent the TFT (tabular firing table) book.
The little computer you're talking about is probably a BUCS, which is an HP calculator, basically. It's used by the light (towed artillery) folks, too. It uses the tables and solves the equations algebraicaly, and are effectively the same as the slide rules. The PC based computers solve the equations with calculus.
Once you have corrected for wind, humidity, rotation of the earth, and some other factors, a manual (charts and slide rules) Fire Direction Center (FDC) is frequently faster than an automated one.
This is not true for the M109A6 (Paladin) 155mm howitzers, which have computers on the gun itself, and the computations happen there. This is more of an effect because of the built-in GPS on the howitzer, though, than the computer. Alas, the Paladin units don't even bring their slide rules into the field anymore, and use a second computer as a backup instead of the slide rules.
Linus was a fire direction officer in his military stint. In the US Field Artillery, they still teach slide rules and tables to the Lieutenants and Soldiers in their training. (Well, the cannon guys.) So, did Linus learn it, too? My bet is yes.
Ten years ago or so I read you could separate judges (maybe it was politicians) based on where they grew up. I'll bet the majority was from the Northeast, maybe west coast.
Boy, I can't think of a trailer in the last 10 years that hasn't just been a one minute version of the movie. And not nearly as well done as the Simpson's five minute Hamlet, at that. ('No one can out crazy Ophelia! Hey, nonny, nonny and a ha cha cha.' *splash*)
If the software doesn't meet the spec, it can't be used. And this isn't even a hard one...
Well, the author linked in his article to some research gathered by ESR that said 95% of the usage was open source, rather than free software. If true, then we are essentially using one term.
Austrian economists wouldn't dream of trying. You're thinking about Keynesians, which is what every policy coming out of the Federal government relies on.
And economists talk about "goods", not "love." Maybe that's why it's the dismal science . . .
So let's look at what may happen if governments don't step in. If CNN's website causes a company's network to get a nasty virus, the IT department will shut off access to CNN. If it's bad enough (or CNN infects a big enough company) they may get sued. Either way, CNN is going to lose some cash because this can happen to every company with an Internet connection.
But if governments do get involved EVENTUALLY some standards will be mandated that you don't fully agree with. And there will have to be a certification process. And the whole process will be corrupted because it was run by (Bush|Kerry) and you wanted (Kerry|Bush) instead.
Like everything else, it will be dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. Just let the private sector take care of it.
Take a sinking boat. If you are bailing water out, and the boat isn't sinking any more, it does not follow that bailing water isn't a good idea. If you stop bailing water, you're sunk. If good guys stop finding and fixing vulnerabilities, you're sunk, too.
One assumption you're making is that the government is smarter than we are about the spectrum, and anything else they wind up running. This, quite obviously, is not true. If you'd like to see a quick proof of this, post something about the US Patent Office and what a good job they do.
It also looks like you're assuming that the legislature, courts, and President has enough technical knowledge so set good policy on the use and direction of spectrum use. Probably a bad assumption. After all, we didn't really want cell phones, did we?
The philosopher-kings you want running things are motivated by their own cash registers at least as much as the free market. They listen to the special interest groups that pay them (campaign contributions). And, if their philosophy changes, there is not a dang thing you can do about it.
For example, let's say the military needs a whole lot more spectrum to fight GWOT (Global War On Terror). Philisophically, this can make sense. After all, they're looking out for YOUR best interests. It's just that they need that 802.11 spectrum to monitor your neighbors better, or the wireless bridge / microwave range to setup their own communications.
If a corporation took away something you've paid for, you could sue. This is not something you're likely to see work against the FCC.
Homesteading is very important here. Since hams already have used particular bands, those would become theirs. It's all talked about in the article.
After WWII the Army switched its small arms qual (SAQ) from bulls-eye targets to pop-up man-shaped targets. This way the Soldier is better trained to kill the enemy. Lying down, or in a foxhole, the Soldier sees enemy popping up, and it looks and feels very similar to training.
It's hard to kill another person. It gets harder the closer (physically or emotionally) you are to the target. Historically one of the biggest factors on whether or not a Soldier would kill someone else is that someone else (in authority) told him to. That is very hard in a MOUT environment. The individual Soldier is on his own, or with a buddy, away from his sergeants or Lieutenant.
This is a glorified shoot-house (police use these). It's a combination of "shoot, don't shoot", plus gives the commander C2 (command and control) practice over the MOUT battlefield. He gets to feel how long clearing an environment like this really takes, and how to better stay in contact with the dispersed elements.
You are right about the nervousness of Soldiers, and the less likelyhood of undeserved massacres. What should happen, though, is the number of enemy casualties will go up even more. We're trained to kill them, but they are still stuck in a "posture" mode.
Ah, Chico. How we miss you!
You don't have to go back very far in slashdot to find articles about DSL, or wireless, either. What this tells me is that there is no need to use government monoploy power over any high-speed Internet ventures. Power companies are offering high-speed Internet access because they believe they can make a profit at it. Other companies (cable, DSL, satellite) think they have the best way.
The good news for us: We get to sit back and enjoy high-speed Internet at better availability and prices, and with no government interference. All thanks to the folks that brought you the free market!
(Replying to my own message. Ugh.) Ralf's postfix page is here.
Ralf Hildebrandt knows his stuff. He's been active on the postfix mail list for years.
I found the article referenced by Arts & Letters Daily.