Its funny how everyone (well, at least 3 people!) has focused on the same files. I mean, there must be thousands of files, but a good few people have pulled out "words of wisdom from dennis.eml" as examples of (1).The files definately being legit source files, or (2).Definately not being windows source files.
Not calling you a liar or anything! Its just "funny", thats all.
Kind of on the same note, it did occur to me that MS must be considering *how* they secure their system now? If anything gets past their firewalls, then they are a tad vulnerable!
err yes thats why yahoo use it for their accounting system. there are other big ones i can't think of off the top of my head.
LOL! Yeah, I know that people use it and I didn't intend to imply that it wasn't useful. The thing about MySQL is that it gives up a lot of useful database features in the name of speed. Thats fine, but it makes it a niche product -- in the sense that it is specialised. So its good for areas where reads vastly out number writes.
My point (and I think I worded it badly) was meant to be that its suprising and unfortunate that MySQL is as popular as it is. Why? Because as I say, MySQL is specialised for speed. Whilst I accept PostGre, etc are slower, how much does that affect 99.9% of MySQL users? Many of these people would've otherwise used Access -- and that ain't fast! But Access is fine for many peoples use (e.g. a cheap database usable by a few concurrent users with reasonable data storage).
And going back to the "missing features", I know you can add a bunch of stuff to MySQL to make it more like other DB's, but it would be better if these features existed by default and you had the option to "optomise" for speed by disbling them [IMHO anyway!].
Same here. I think MySQL is easier to install on Windows, and I think thats it! But at this point, MySQL has so much momentum, its difficult to see anything else getting a look in.
Its a shame though -- not knocking MySQL, but isn't a replacement for anything even vaguely serious (e.g. MS SQL Server), but unfortunatly there are a lot of users who make noise about how great it is... which makes them look kind of like they don't know what they're talking about. Sigh!
Also why they are so scary of rebooting it - at least this situation should of been designed into the rover and thought of many times before.
I'd guess its simply because this was an unexpected event, and they want to figure out what caused it. Not least because if there are any design problems with Spirit, then they'll want to make sure they can be avoided with Opportunity.
Can anybody explain how reboot works remotely on rover? It is not one processor, isn't it?!
Don't know! But given that they got a reply signal to something they sent, the communications system is working. It would *seem* unlikely they'd run the comms on the same processor.... but I don't know for fact!
Re the value of life, I understand what you're saying, but this table...
Sacrifice your life saving your family = acceptable
Sacrifice your life in defense of your country = acceptable
Sacrifice your life in hopes of new discoveries = no
...rather views the world through rose-tinted glasses IMO. People *never* went out on voyages to discover "the new world" just because they could or for the common good. They did it for money. There was financial gain in exploring, discovering commodities to trade. People with money paid for the boats for other people to sail to discover places for economic benefit. Thats it.
So when we look to the Moon or Mars, whos going to fund it? Where's the economic benefit. If you have money, investing in Mars isn't a good plan, as any returns ain't going to be recovered in your life time! There *might* be other benefits, i.e. indirect financial benefits as a result of spin off technologies but the costs vs. returns are very very unlikely to benefit any single organisation (e.g. company) hence space exploration is financed using public rather than private money.
The subject you raise is interesting though; I've found it slightly strange the press coverage of either of the shuttle disasters given that anyone going into space must know that the risks are very high (don't know the figures at all, but your chances of dieing in any given launch, I'd guess are far worse than 1 in 1000. Do you do any lottery/raffle? Have you ever won. You see my point!).
Looking at it another way (this might not be valid, but its food for thought), if we take the way private enterprise pays for things, typically the level of investment is less important than the certainty of return. So if we take Hollywood films, they cost millions which we accept and become oblivious too. But how the f**k does it cost that much to hire a few actors, pay a script writter, film crew etc that much money. Really, its a lot of money for what you actually get. I think the answer here is simply that if you tried to do a $200m film for say $50m, it will have slightly less polish, less advertising, etc, etc and therefore increased risk of failure.
If you're investing in Holywood, you just care about return, so the sensible thing to do is play everything really safe (easy plot, 2 big stars, happy ending) and invest enough that it can't fail. The only remaining problem is that if you over invest and there is an alternative product, your customers might not buy. So you merely ensure there is no competition, typically buy buying all the competition.
So going back to Shuttle disasters, I know the big noise about them is the people who died and the saftey that must be put in place.... but I think really, its just about ensuring there is no failure. I don't really believe it is about the people who died, but more about loss of national pride, loss of face, loss of funding (remember being publicly funded means the *only* tangible return is public confidence... and this equals votes... and that equals power... which equals money).
I think you're right in a sense about lowering safety standard.... in that spending (lets say) $100m or whatever on improving the Shuttle fleet to improve safety is dumb when you look at investment vs. return, so spend $100m on Shuttles, save an average 1 astronaut a year. Erm, surely better spending that money on health care and save hundreds ir thousands of people.
But society doesn't accept this risk for a reason. If you're a scientist/pilot with the opportunity to go on a space mission, you don't want to die. No one wants to die! If there's a direct payoff, e.g. go to war to protect your country/loved ones, then you do it... but its not like you really want to.
Your assertion was that people don't want to "Sacrifice your life in hopes of new discoveries" and went on to explain about people having taken risks in centuries gone by, sailing off for some reason.
1. Firebird crashes about twice a week, and I have to kill the process before I can relaunch.
I think this depends on the sites you're visiting. I use Firebird 0.7 exclusively (on Win2K) and very rarely does it hang. If happens, I do have to kill the process though, taking out all the browser windows.
2. Sometimes my Bookmarks Toolbar icons mysteriously disappear, only to be regenerated when I revisit the sites.
If the browser crashes, it will clear the cache the next time your start it -- icons are held in cache, so you loose them! Depending on your cahce, settings, I guess you might loose them from time to time anyway... but I've not noticed this myself.
5. There is no obvious indicator of Javascript errors on sites; I have to open the JS console when I suspect an error.
I think thats fair really -- Firebird is targetting regular, non-techie users. I don't think it helps showing a dialog (a-la IE) saying "An error has occured on this page. Would you like to debug? Yes | No".
If you're debugging a page, its not difficult to open the JS console, and if you're a techie, you know where it is!
7. It's still the best browser I've ever used, and I would tear out my hair if I had to live without it.
Yeah!
but wouldn't it be great to use some kind of superliquids or supersolids in car engines and other mechanical devices?
Okay, Professor Z. Urgulbunger tries to keep it simple:
You know in Terminator II where Arnie says words to the effect of "it cannot form complex machines or explosives; only simple things like stabing weapons" well, thats why.
Any other physics problems you need solving, I'll be in the louge -- just ask!;)
Z.
Re:Viruses, Worms, and Exploits Are... Where?
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 1
Good call -- thanks!
Re:I manage IIS remotely and have all virtual doma
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 1
Whilst not disagreeing with you, doesn't Server 2003 (IIS 6?) now allow configuration by text file?
I think a big difference with the Unix vs. MS way of doing things is that Unix typically re-uses existing tools, i.e. text files, text editors, whereas MS tend to re-invent the wheel each time with a bunch of overly complex interfaces.
I don't doubt that IIS can be opperated well, but the skills to do so are actually quite hard to come by which kind of kills any TCO arguements! On the other hand, MS do provide simple point and click interfaces that make the initial learning curve easy.... its just unfortunate that the majority of MS "admins" don't make it beyond this initial curve.
As I say, I'm not disagreeing though -- fair play if you can run IIS well as there is money there, but it always make sense to keep an eye on where the market is going.
Best regards,
Z.
Re:Viruses, Worms, and Exploits Are... Where?
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 1
Totally agree.
As someone who has to code ASP web sites however, I wanted to run an ASP web server at home for my own personal apps... so I'm going to run IIS right? Well, from a conveience point of view I'd like to -- its not on a public network so security issues are less important, but the thing that pisses me off is that:
I can't run it on XP Home... okay, its a bit naff anyway, but its what came with the machine so I'd like to run a small web server for personal use... no real traffic, but no. I can't. I have to upgrade.
On Win2K Pro / XP Pro, I *can* run IIS but I can only run one web site! Grrrrr!! I'm a f*cking web dev, so I need a web server to develop on, but I also want to run my own apps on a web server.
So as a result, I'm now running Apache and currently using Sun/Chili ASP whilst I port to something else (no, I haven't started yet... I will... I will!!!).
You'd think that MS might have realised that the people they really don't want to piss off are their developers, but oh no, developers are another $ales opportunity.
Then again, they do seem to be trying to foster some kind of 1337 community with "Matrix" their freebie front-page! Too little too late however...
Duh! Because Volkswagens are the SI unit of choice.... except when you're doing interplanetary navigation, 'cos then you end up crashing into... Mars... and you see, the circle is complete!
Oh yeah! But if Europe has to count Russian failures then surely we can count there success, so lets see, first man made satalite, first man in space...;)
And of course, the Vikings also landed on Mars... which was all rather suprising really given that they'd not really been doing that much travelling for a good few fundred years. But facts is facts!
Slashdot Mirror
Its funny how everyone (well, at least 3 people!) has focused on the same files. I mean, there must be thousands of files, but a good few people have pulled out "words of wisdom from dennis.eml" as examples of (1).The files definately being legit source files, or (2).Definately not being windows source files.
Not calling you a liar or anything! Its just "funny", thats all.
On a related note, if C. Taco were requested to assist with [*ahem*] enquiries, would he do so?
Kind of on the same note, it did occur to me that MS must be considering *how* they secure their system now? If anything gets past their firewalls, then they are a tad vulnerable!
And by extension, anyone could prevent something being copied simply by broadcasting the designs!
All potential MS employees are sent away to have their memories erased.
err yes thats why yahoo use it for their accounting system. there are other big ones i can't think of off the top of my head.
LOL! Yeah, I know that people use it and I didn't intend to imply that it wasn't useful. The thing about MySQL is that it gives up a lot of useful database features in the name of speed. Thats fine, but it makes it a niche product -- in the sense that it is specialised. So its good for areas where reads vastly out number writes.
My point (and I think I worded it badly) was meant to be that its suprising and unfortunate that MySQL is as popular as it is. Why? Because as I say, MySQL is specialised for speed. Whilst I accept PostGre, etc are slower, how much does that affect 99.9% of MySQL users? Many of these people would've otherwise used Access -- and that ain't fast! But Access is fine for many peoples use (e.g. a cheap database usable by a few concurrent users with reasonable data storage).
And going back to the "missing features", I know you can add a bunch of stuff to MySQL to make it more like other DB's, but it would be better if these features existed by default and you had the option to "optomise" for speed by disbling them [IMHO anyway!].
Good point. All new users must be encouraged to test all their code before they deploy it!
Same here. I think MySQL is easier to install on Windows, and I think thats it! But at this point, MySQL has so much momentum, its difficult to see anything else getting a look in.
Its a shame though -- not knocking MySQL, but isn't a replacement for anything even vaguely serious (e.g. MS SQL Server), but unfortunatly there are a lot of users who make noise about how great it is... which makes them look kind of like they don't know what they're talking about. Sigh!
Am I right in thinking there's a Gecko ActiveX component? It would seem a more sensible thing to use!
For anyone too lazy to read, here's how it begins:
"Congratulations on choosing Astrolabe(TM), the most advanced device of its kind in the worlde..... blah blah blah.
Astrolabe Inc. 1391"
It does nag though doesn't it! You'd when you're in day 1254545 of your 30 day evaluation it might give up, but oh no, it just nags you some more!!
Also why they are so scary of rebooting it - at least this situation should of been designed into the rover and thought of many times before.
I'd guess its simply because this was an unexpected event, and they want to figure out what caused it. Not least because if there are any design problems with Spirit, then they'll want to make sure they can be avoided with Opportunity.
Can anybody explain how reboot works remotely on rover? It is not one processor, isn't it?!
Don't know! But given that they got a reply signal to something they sent, the communications system is working. It would *seem* unlikely they'd run the comms on the same processor.... but I don't know for fact!
Forehead.
Tattoo.
And when Digicam's have this technology embedded, no one will be able to photograph you! CCTV camera will simply show a shadow where you were.
The downside is that if they upgrade the software you've gotta get your tattoo laser-removed and re done.
Oh, and plus you look really stupid with five circles on your head!
Re the value of life, I understand what you're saying, but this table...
...rather views the world through rose-tinted glasses IMO. People *never* went out on voyages to discover "the new world" just because they could or for the common good. They did it for money. There was financial gain in exploring, discovering commodities to trade. People with money paid for the boats for other people to sail to discover places for economic benefit. Thats it.
Sacrifice your life saving your family = acceptable
Sacrifice your life in defense of your country = acceptable
Sacrifice your life in hopes of new discoveries = no
So when we look to the Moon or Mars, whos going to fund it? Where's the economic benefit. If you have money, investing in Mars isn't a good plan, as any returns ain't going to be recovered in your life time! There *might* be other benefits, i.e. indirect financial benefits as a result of spin off technologies but the costs vs. returns are very very unlikely to benefit any single organisation (e.g. company) hence space exploration is financed using public rather than private money.
The subject you raise is interesting though; I've found it slightly strange the press coverage of either of the shuttle disasters given that anyone going into space must know that the risks are very high (don't know the figures at all, but your chances of dieing in any given launch, I'd guess are far worse than 1 in 1000. Do you do any lottery/raffle? Have you ever won. You see my point!).
Looking at it another way (this might not be valid, but its food for thought), if we take the way private enterprise pays for things, typically the level of investment is less important than the certainty of return. So if we take Hollywood films, they cost millions which we accept and become oblivious too. But how the f**k does it cost that much to hire a few actors, pay a script writter, film crew etc that much money. Really, its a lot of money for what you actually get. I think the answer here is simply that if you tried to do a $200m film for say $50m, it will have slightly less polish, less advertising, etc, etc and therefore increased risk of failure.
If you're investing in Holywood, you just care about return, so the sensible thing to do is play everything really safe (easy plot, 2 big stars, happy ending) and invest enough that it can't fail. The only remaining problem is that if you over invest and there is an alternative product, your customers might not buy. So you merely ensure there is no competition, typically buy buying all the competition.
So going back to Shuttle disasters, I know the big noise about them is the people who died and the saftey that must be put in place.... but I think really, its just about ensuring there is no failure. I don't really believe it is about the people who died, but more about loss of national pride, loss of face, loss of funding (remember being publicly funded means the *only* tangible return is public confidence... and this equals votes... and that equals power... which equals money).
I think you're right in a sense about lowering safety standard.... in that spending (lets say) $100m or whatever on improving the Shuttle fleet to improve safety is dumb when you look at investment vs. return, so spend $100m on Shuttles, save an average 1 astronaut a year. Erm, surely better spending that money on health care and save hundreds ir thousands of people.
But society doesn't accept this risk for a reason. If you're a scientist/pilot with the opportunity to go on a space mission, you don't want to die. No one wants to die! If there's a direct payoff, e.g. go to war to protect your country/loved ones, then you do it... but its not like you really want to.
Your assertion was that people don't want to "Sacrifice your life in hopes of new discoveries" and went on to explain about people having taken risks in centuries gone by, sailing off for some reason.
But I say, naaa that's crap! They took
Earth to gsherman, Earth to gsherman!!!
You really need to get out, talk to people and understand society and human beings a little!
With Mozilla, you can disable the referer string!
Just picking up on a few points:
1. Firebird crashes about twice a week, and I have to kill the process before I can relaunch.
I think this depends on the sites you're visiting. I use Firebird 0.7 exclusively (on Win2K) and very rarely does it hang. If happens, I do have to kill the process though, taking out all the browser windows.
2. Sometimes my Bookmarks Toolbar icons mysteriously disappear, only to be regenerated when I revisit the sites.
If the browser crashes, it will clear the cache the next time your start it -- icons are held in cache, so you loose them! Depending on your cahce, settings, I guess you might loose them from time to time anyway... but I've not noticed this myself.
5. There is no obvious indicator of Javascript errors on sites; I have to open the JS console when I suspect an error.
I think thats fair really -- Firebird is targetting regular, non-techie users. I don't think it helps showing a dialog (a-la IE) saying "An error has occured on this page. Would you like to debug? Yes | No".
If you're debugging a page, its not difficult to open the JS console, and if you're a techie, you know where it is!
7. It's still the best browser I've ever used, and I would tear out my hair if I had to live without it.
Yeah!
but wouldn't it be great to use some kind of superliquids or supersolids in car engines and other mechanical devices?
;)
Okay, Professor Z. Urgulbunger tries to keep it simple:
You know in Terminator II where Arnie says words to the effect of "it cannot form complex machines or explosives; only simple things like stabing weapons" well, thats why.
Any other physics problems you need solving, I'll be in the louge -- just ask!
Z.
Good call -- thanks!
Whilst not disagreeing with you, doesn't Server 2003 (IIS 6?) now allow configuration by text file?
I think a big difference with the Unix vs. MS way of doing things is that Unix typically re-uses existing tools, i.e. text files, text editors, whereas MS tend to re-invent the wheel each time with a bunch of overly complex interfaces.
I don't doubt that IIS can be opperated well, but the skills to do so are actually quite hard to come by which kind of kills any TCO arguements! On the other hand, MS do provide simple point and click interfaces that make the initial learning curve easy.... its just unfortunate that the majority of MS "admins" don't make it beyond this initial curve.
As I say, I'm not disagreeing though -- fair play if you can run IIS well as there is money there, but it always make sense to keep an eye on where the market is going.
Best regards,
Z.
As someone who has to code ASP web sites however, I wanted to run an ASP web server at home for my own personal apps... so I'm going to run IIS right? Well, from a conveience point of view I'd like to -- its not on a public network so security issues are less important, but the thing that pisses me off is that:
- I can't run it on XP Home... okay, its a bit naff anyway, but its what came with the machine so I'd like to run a small web server for personal use... no real traffic, but no. I can't. I have to upgrade.
- On Win2K Pro / XP Pro, I *can* run IIS but I can only run one web site! Grrrrr!! I'm a f*cking web dev, so I need a web server to develop on, but I also want to run my own apps on a web server.
So as a result, I'm now running Apache and currently using Sun/Chili ASP whilst I port to something else (no, I haven't started yet... I will... I will!!!).You'd think that MS might have realised that the people they really don't want to piss off are their developers, but oh no, developers are another $ales opportunity.
Then again, they do seem to be trying to foster some kind of 1337 community with "Matrix" their freebie front-page! Too little too late however...
did you know that Cherynobl continued to operate even after the disaster?
;)
And that, in some way, is meant to make us feel better??!
Duh! Because Volkswagens are the SI unit of choice.... except when you're doing interplanetary navigation, 'cos then you end up crashing into... Mars... and you see, the circle is complete!
Oh yeah! But if Europe has to count Russian failures then surely we can count there success, so lets see, first man made satalite, first man in space... ;)
And of course, the Vikings also landed on Mars... which was all rather suprising really given that they'd not really been doing that much travelling for a good few fundred years. But facts is facts!