What is the purpose of this? Do they really expect people who do not use IIS to use Passport? To what purpose? Think!
The fact that you have this thought is why you will never be a competition for Microsoft (that and I'm guessing a 100 billion dollar income difference) but seriously. Wether you use IIS or Apache is irrelevant to passport users. They don't CARE. If they signed up for passport they think that you OWE them passport support. You can say "screw those end (L)users if you want, but they are a revenue stream and that is not considered "Best practices"
Microsoft knows that by giving Linux/Unix users passport (which is probably shunned by everyone with a 'nix desktop they are catering to WINDOWS desktop users. Think about it, they are using Linux admins to cater to their clientele in the name of being 'open source' friendly.
Is it just me or is the idea of centralising security bad?
I think you got your word order slightly askew. We are talking about Microsoft so 'is it me or is the idea of centralizing BAD security bad?' I think that is what you meant;-)
Interesting that someone who slams a whole OS is considered '2 insightful' While someone who points out that the 'better alternatives' are not affordable by the masses is flamebait. Have we now gone from not reading the articles to not reading the posts as well prior to moderation? Was it maybe the sarcasm as I am sure there was none in the post I was responding to.
Not to nitpick or anything, but didn't Linus take some time out of his original schedule to develop a product for which a better, though commercial, on existed? I'm talking about linux here.
Not to nitpick back, but please do a better job seperating what you say from what you quote. There are handy little tags to do breaks or you
can select plain old text from the drop down. That said, on to your comment.
Yes, there are some commercial products which may still be a little better than linux. However, big 'nixes don't run on x86 hardware and they are too expensive (except solaris). Besides which, Linus did not take time off his important project to do Linux, Linux is his important project.
ideology takes a back seat to getting the job done
One liners are really annoying. That is why instead of just quoting you on that sentence I typed this one. The above quote is on the money (oops money is a commercial product)
There are plenty of open source systems for version control and configuration management. Furthermore, they way open source works, if you need an unusual tool for your project, you create it yourself and share it.
The way open source works is if you need an unisual tool for your project and there is not one available you do the above. When you state something like the above you do one of two things:
A) you trivialize the process of (just create the feature yourself) which gives me the impression that either you are not a developer or you are just too darn gifted
B) You assume that people like Linus should take time off from their important projects to fix a nag in a product for which a better one (though commercial) already exists.
Larry takes plenty of input and actually implements the missing features that Linus and company ask for, though, which is much better than any oss project.)
Excellent post. Look at what that comment tells you: Larry McVoy is on the kernel list. The features he spends his time on are the ones that the kernel developers ask for. Why is there still CVS in kernel dev is a better question. BitKeeper is a kernel dev tool.
I'm a sheep? LMAO My first Troll. I am truely honored.
No, I am not a troll. I was encouraging you to state your viewpoint as valid because it is your view. Which you have now explained that you were doing, it is just that the way you wrote your post the reference to Sagan seemed to be where you were putting all the credit. It is okay many statisticians have trouble writing and miss 'the detail' in their own words (but most writers can't do statistics).
Aliens that can contact us MUST be peaceful. It would be disruptive but not violent. These aliens would likely have practice making contact. Read some Carl Sagan books and turn off the 50s B movies please!
While, yes, that does make sense. To assume that alien life must be peaceful because Carl Sagan wrote it in a book is folly. It shows you to be a sheep waiting for the sheperd. Put stock in what you believe because you believe it, not because someone else wrote it. Sagan was brilliant yes, but YOU have as much understanding and experience with aliens as he did.
The articles main point, which is not well made, is actually about a technique of observation not about the planet itself. Rather, it is about how they found it.
Let me get this straight -- now that we've found conclusive (?) evidence of another planet that most likely wouldn't support life, this increases the chance of finding intelligent life in outer space. Makes sense.
Come on, its not that hard. Prior to yesterday if you found a planet there was a one in a trillion chance that it would have intelligent life on it. If however, you find one now, there is a one in a (trillion minus one) chance. Odds like that we're bound to find one.
they're talking about a camera that can see this dust because it's really cold, and that can see this light that they can't even see from telescopes in space.
i thought that space was absolute zero for temperature, or at least something remarkably close. how in the world are they able to get something colder on earth than they can in space?
Space is absolute zero. Dust is stuff, stuff is not space. Stuff is usually warmer than space but not as warm as stars. The fact that this stuff is less warm than planets and less warm than stars means it shows up on its own. There are many temperature diffs out there. The moon is incredibly hot in the suns light and cold in the dark and the change is near instant (due to no atmosphere) So the "wake" they describe sounds more like a shadow.
This may be a stupid question, but how can they say there's a likely chance, when they haven't actually proved there's any life anywhere off-earth yet?
They can say that it is more likely because it changes the way statistics are calculated (the conditions we can detect are greater).
Is this more astronomers trying to fund their projects again by mentioning the L-word?
Yes, but is trying to get more money to do your job a bad thing?
Well, duh. The only bearing this has on life is as more confirmation that there are indeed extrasolar planets. Which I think we already knew. So, yes, it's an interesting detection technique, but life? Intelligence? Including these references is sensationalistic and dumb.
Actually, it is an important point. Solar systems are constantly bombarded by large objects from space. The gas giants are thought to pull these objects in and destroy them. This is what allows our puny earth to spawn life.
The images showed "resonances" as they called it. Or points where the gas giants gravity could indeed catch them and even showed bright spots which indicated it was happening. In other words, the theory that the gas giants are catchers mitts was shown and we have a way to see if it is happening extra-solar. This advances SETI a long way.
What are the compelling reasons to use Fortran in 2002?
As a BASIC programmer for a large distributor I will venture an educated guess at that. In the 70s and 80s there were not large financial, warehouse or other packages out in large quantities. Those that were out were very limited. Many companies (mine included) bought a package from a consultant and hired him on to modify it. Months became years and eventually the system fit them like a glove due to mods. Now, using our system for example, we evaluated many current systems and found that was close. To get the mods we felt gave us all our critical functionality would cost us 600,000 dollars. Not worth it. Basic and Fortran and Cobol all have vendors making system tools which link to their environment. For example, I can fax and e mail etc...basically I can do anything a modern app could do, just that we have to code it.
Do they differ much from the use of Fortran in the past?
Guessing, no. Still using it for business and science.
Is it the same language as the Fortran of prior decades?
Don't know.
Can someone summarize without the tech-eze the future of Fortran - especially in light of the aforementioned Fortran 2000 Committee Draft?
As long as people will pay for it, it will continue.
The only allowable actions on undelete folder items are to move them back out of the undelete folder or to perform the final true delete on them.
The point I was making is that usually those are set by the programmer of the undelete function. They are programming for a crowd of people who don't know if they want to delete something, not a crowd that would likely administer securities.
Re:So everyone is perfect?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And how long before virus writers realize this and start explicitly infecting the/tmp folder?
Most undelete folders with cots products have their own default settings which are very weak that is why they are targeted. If they can target/tmp that is the admins fault, executable code does not belong in/tmp at least not with the intention of it being run.
Sure, some people use it as temporary folder, but so what?
So what about when someone gets a virus which infects the undelete folder. That is a common target because of all the important / retarded suits who use it as/tmp. If you need tmp storage use/tmp. Users use things wrong because devlopers waste time solving non problems with solutions that cause real problems.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the purpose of this? Do they really expect people who do not use IIS to use Passport? To what purpose? Think!
The fact that you have this thought is why you will never be a competition for Microsoft (that and I'm guessing a 100 billion dollar income difference) but seriously. Wether you use IIS or Apache is irrelevant to passport users. They don't CARE. If they signed up for passport they think that you OWE them passport support. You can say "screw those end (L)users if you want, but they are a revenue stream and that is not considered "Best practices"
Microsoft knows that by giving Linux/Unix users passport (which is probably shunned by everyone with a 'nix desktop they are catering to WINDOWS desktop users. Think about it, they are using Linux admins to cater to their clientele in the name of being 'open source' friendly.
Is it just me or is the idea of centralising security bad?
;-)
I think you got your word order slightly askew. We are talking about Microsoft so 'is it me or is the idea of centralizing BAD security bad?' I think that is what you meant
Interesting that someone who slams a whole OS is considered '2 insightful' While someone who points out that the 'better alternatives' are not affordable by the masses is flamebait. Have we now gone from not reading the articles to not reading the posts as well prior to moderation? Was it maybe the sarcasm as I am sure there was none in the post I was responding to.
Not to nitpick or anything, but didn't Linus take some time out of his original schedule to develop a product for which a better, though commercial, on existed? I'm talking about linux here.
Not to nitpick back, but please do a better job seperating what you say from what you quote. There are handy little tags to do breaks or you can select plain old text from the drop down. That said, on to your comment.
Yes, there are some commercial products which may still be a little better than linux. However, big 'nixes don't run on x86 hardware and they are too expensive (except solaris). Besides which, Linus did not take time off his important project to do Linux, Linux is his important project.
Hope you find your pants.
ideology takes a back seat to getting the job done
One liners are really annoying. That is why instead of just quoting you on that sentence I typed this one. The above quote is on the money (oops money is a commercial product)
There are plenty of open source systems for version control and configuration management. Furthermore, they way open source works, if you need an unusual tool for your project, you create it yourself and share it.
The way open source works is if you need an unisual tool for your project and there is not one available you do the above. When you state something like the above you do one of two things:
A) you trivialize the process of (just create the feature yourself) which gives me the impression that either you are not a developer or you are just too darn gifted
B) You assume that people like Linus should take time off from their important projects to fix a nag in a product for which a better one (though commercial) already exists.
Neither of those things makes sense IMO
Larry takes plenty of input and actually implements the missing features that Linus and company ask for, though, which is much better than any oss project.)
Excellent post. Look at what that comment tells you: Larry McVoy is on the kernel list. The features he spends his time on are the ones that the kernel developers ask for. Why is there still CVS in kernel dev is a better question. BitKeeper is a kernel dev tool.
How informative. Thank you.
The shadow comment was that I was paralelling the concept to a shadow, I still find myself viewing it that way.
I'm a sheep? LMAO My first Troll. I am truely honored.
No, I am not a troll. I was encouraging you to state your viewpoint as valid because it is your view. Which you have now explained that you were doing, it is just that the way you wrote your post the reference to Sagan seemed to be where you were putting all the credit. It is okay many statisticians have trouble writing and miss 'the detail' in their own words (but most writers can't do statistics).
Aliens that can contact us MUST be peaceful. It would be disruptive but not violent. These aliens would likely have practice making contact. Read some Carl Sagan books and turn off the 50s B movies please!
While, yes, that does make sense. To assume that alien life must be peaceful because Carl Sagan wrote it in a book is folly. It shows you to be a sheep waiting for the sheperd. Put stock in what you believe because you believe it, not because someone else wrote it. Sagan was brilliant yes, but YOU have as much understanding and experience with aliens as he did.
The articles main point, which is not well made, is actually about a technique of observation not about the planet itself. Rather, it is about how they found it.
Let me get this straight -- now that we've found conclusive (?) evidence of another planet that most likely wouldn't support life, this increases the chance of finding intelligent life in outer space. Makes sense.
Come on, its not that hard. Prior to yesterday if you found a planet there was a one in a trillion chance that it would have intelligent life on it. If however, you find one now, there is a one in a (trillion minus one) chance. Odds like that we're bound to find one.
they're talking about a camera that can see this dust because it's really cold, and that can see this light that they can't even see from telescopes in space.
i thought that space was absolute zero for temperature, or at least something remarkably close. how in the world are they able to get something colder on earth than they can in space?
Space is absolute zero. Dust is stuff, stuff is not space. Stuff is usually warmer than space but not as warm as stars. The fact that this stuff is less warm than planets and less warm than stars means it shows up on its own. There are many temperature diffs out there. The moon is incredibly hot in the suns light and cold in the dark and the change is near instant (due to no atmosphere) So the "wake" they describe sounds more like a shadow.
This may be a stupid question, but how can they say there's a likely chance, when they haven't actually proved there's any life anywhere off-earth yet?
They can say that it is more likely because it changes the way statistics are calculated (the conditions we can detect are greater).
Is this more astronomers trying to fund their projects again by mentioning the L-word?
Yes, but is trying to get more money to do your job a bad thing?
Well, duh. The only bearing this has on life is as more confirmation that there are indeed extrasolar planets. Which I think we already knew. So, yes, it's an interesting detection technique, but life? Intelligence? Including these references is sensationalistic and dumb.
Actually, it is an important point. Solar systems are constantly bombarded by large objects from space. The gas giants are thought to pull these objects in and destroy them. This is what allows our puny earth to spawn life.
The images showed "resonances" as they called it. Or points where the gas giants gravity could indeed catch them and even showed bright spots which indicated it was happening. In other words, the theory that the gas giants are catchers mitts was shown and we have a way to see if it is happening extra-solar. This advances SETI a long way.
If they had put up an image as opposed to an artists sketch.
This post's claim is the usual nonsense. So patent it if you wish - release it if you wish - I doubt anyone will find it usable.
Not Nice!
Many people will find that very usable / which is different than useFUL
So....ASA 400 means "As small as" 400 photons per silver molecule? Try taking high school photography, or read an article prior to posting.
Very pertinent fact that is(honestly).
Clarity is actually not the only quality that artists (I am not one) search for in their film.
Of course not being an artist, I think digital kicks A$$.
... I have 2 questions?
What are the compelling reasons to use Fortran in 2002?
As a BASIC programmer for a large distributor I will venture an educated guess at that. In the 70s and 80s there were not large financial, warehouse or other packages out in large quantities. Those that were out were very limited. Many companies (mine included) bought a package from a consultant and hired him on to modify it. Months became years and eventually the system fit them like a glove due to mods. Now, using our system for example, we evaluated many current systems and found that was close. To get the mods we felt gave us all our critical functionality would cost us 600,000 dollars. Not worth it. Basic and Fortran and Cobol all have vendors making system tools which link to their environment. For example, I can fax and e mail etc...basically I can do anything a modern app could do, just that we have to code it.
Do they differ much from the use of Fortran in the past?
Guessing, no. Still using it for business and science.
Is it the same language as the Fortran of prior decades?
Don't know.
Can someone summarize without the tech-eze the future of Fortran - especially in light of the aforementioned Fortran 2000 Committee Draft?
As long as people will pay for it, it will continue.
The only allowable actions on undelete folder items are to move them back out of the undelete folder or to perform the final true delete on them.
The point I was making is that usually those are set by the programmer of the undelete function. They are programming for a crowd of people who don't know if they want to delete something, not a crowd that would likely administer securities.
And how long before virus writers realize this and start explicitly infecting the /tmp folder?
/tmp that is the admins fault, executable code does not belong in /tmp at least not with the intention of it being run.
Most undelete folders with cots products have their own default settings which are very weak that is why they are targeted. If they can target
Sure, some people use it as temporary folder, but so what?
/tmp. If you need tmp storage use /tmp. Users use things wrong because devlopers waste time solving non problems with solutions that cause real problems.
So what about when someone gets a virus which infects the undelete folder. That is a common target because of all the important / retarded suits who use it as
They must be using the green version of the Laser they used in Real Genius
Nope. They are using the Laser from the Death star from ROTJ.
That's no moon....
Jello-go