Mod this up. It is amazing to me that.Net is viewed as an 'enterprise' technology for this very reason. You either end up with tons of server-side components or you end up fighting the MS name mangling of every component of the web page so you can 'hack' your own javascript responses. It will be a wecomed relief if MS would stop the name mangling nonsense and make it easy to use javascript.
Since the javascript is a pain, we end up (overusing) server components. This means that we need multiple web servers to support a company of a few thousand employees because.Net's server components just don't scale the way I expect web applications to scale. AJAX might do processing in the relatively inefficient Javascript, but at least AJAX doesn't hammer the web servers each time a user interacts with the GUI. So, in this regard, it may have a larger 'prefactor', but the scaling exponent is smaller. For the 'enterprise' trading a lower scaling factor for a larger prefactor is almost always a big win. Especially if you use XSLT intelligently, you will be able to cache all sorts of XML documents using something like Squid between the web servers and the browser, which will vastly improve the efficiency of dynamic web sites. Some of the performance improvements reported with Zope/Squid are simply amaizing.
Why not make a thin sail and try to evaporate Al at the same rate that it is being eroded. Even better, add some device to measure the thickness of the film and evaporate Al only where it is evaporating. This should allow you to keep a thin sail to catch the photons.
Reductio ad absurdum is indeed quite powerful, but it is easy to misuse. I think it is pretty easy to consider porn seperately from political speach, engineering and jingoism. First of all, I don't know anyone that has been fired for political speach, at least as long as they didn't engage in using company resources to distribute the content.
Sexual misconduct is an active concern of employers, and they have a legitimate interest in making sure that the work place doesn't contain pornography; it is a waste of their tools, it sets them up for lawsuits, and it make for an a poor workplace. These are legitimate concerns of an employer.
This doesn't mean that I think an employer has any business determining if an employee is am active swinger, gay, lesbian, Communist, Fascist, Fundimentalist Christian, Atheist, Devil Worshiper or a Fundimentalist Muslim. (Except for the rare jobs that depend on these roles, such as Minister or lead singer of the Village People.)
Most of us should be working during working hours, and the number of people that view porn for a living is quite small. For the rest of us, porn shouldn't be part of the work place. This is not because I am a prude, but because employers deserver to have you working when they are paying you to work.
I'm willing to draw lines of 'reasonable behavior' and count on reasonable people to know the difference between a snowball and an impending avalanche. I am quite aware of the dangers of this, reasonable people were present, and silent, in Nazi Germany. Still, the alternative is absurd.
Maybe. But that scares the heck out of me. I know of high level managers and engineers that were fired for this sort of stuff. It would have been better for all if effective filtering existed. This is a stupid a reading a porn magazine during a department meeting. But I guess you are right that the porn site really doesn't care. Still, who looks are porn while on an employer's LAN, that is career suicide.
That does sound just like a stepper, doesn't it? I used stepper motors in a vacuum system that we had to 'bake out' to remove most of the water that was adsorped (does anyone know if this is really a verb?) on the walls. I don't recall any issues with the motors getting hot other than they outgas like mad. It was pretty easy to get the motors pretty hot, since its hard to cool them in a vacuum when they are mounted on stainless steel (a really lousy thermal conductor.) It loss of torque/power an issue that is intrisic to stepper motors, or is it an issue with some particular designs?
Finally, a previous poster talked about needing torque at 'zero' rpm , rather than at 1 RPM. I can assure him from experience that steppers have plenty of torque to start heavy items at rest. Spectrometers never move fast and they often are a rest and we had no special problems getting the motors to start. We only had problems keeping them cool if they ran for extended times. For a car moving through air, cooling should not be an show stopper.
If you are running a porn site, wouldn't you want to keep kids out? I would think that kids would be nothing but trouble. Few of them will become subscribers, so they aren't going to bring in much money. Presumably, the sites want money more than eyeballs. Loney 35 year olds are a lot more valuable than horny If you do offer porn to kids, you (rightly) set yourself up for any district attourney or politician to go after you.
Besides, I'm guessing most of us figured out what was on 'xxx' before we read the article. At least in the US, this is a rather intuitive high level domain. If you see show.me.xxx, you will have a pretty easy time guessing what you are about to see and remembering the URL as well.
I'm guessing that this could end up with lots of 'teaser sites' with a.com address that will direct users to the.xxx. site. This way, the porm sites can suck you in with all of their current tricks and then offer the goods from the xxx sites. This would give them much greater legal protection and it would still allow them to use their bag of tricks to draw in new subscribers.
1) Look at the security report from the OpenBSD folks at http://openbsd.org/errata31.html#sshd, the OpenBSD hole was indeed in OpenSSH.
2) Look a the openssh.org homepage. Notice the quote 'OpenSSH is primarily developed by the OpenBSD Project, and its first inclusion into an operating system was in OpenBSD 2.6. '
I'm siding with bluGill on this point, the AC is the dumbass on this trhread.
Be very careful about these sorts of claims by 'security experts'. I'm guessing that someone noted that
1) Programmers introduce errors at predicable rates.
2) Programming errors can lead to exploitable faults.
3) Therefore, the 'vulnerability' of an OS os proportional to the size of its codebase.
There are good reasons to doubt this logic. Managed code reduces the risk of buffer attacks. Tools like ProPolice make many classes of coding error unattackable. So, the MS codebase in Longhorn will be MUCH larger than previous versions of Windows, but it will also be subject to tighter (largely automated) code checks. This will result in much cleaner code for MS. This sort of systematic attack of software defects has worked wonders for OpenBSD. Of course, I will still perfer an *nix system for security because the core code base has been stabilizing for decades and many brilliant minds have been looking for design and implmentation flaws. But it would be silly to think that MS isn't doing the same sorts of improvements internally. Longhorn will almost certainly be more stable and more secure than XP. MS is improving, but I don't know if they can mature fast enough to go toe to toe with *nix in terms of security.
3) Purchase Building Firewalls with OpenBSD and PF, 2nd ed by Jacek Artymiak (ISBN: 83-916651-1-9)
4) Use bandwidth shaping as described in chapter 10.
5)Enjoy your new router.
This should give you high priority bandwith for the VoIP. It cannot control how your ISP allocates bandwith (of course), but I think that this would help the average user happier with both voice and data share the same bandwith.
Perhaps the metal in question is mercury:-) If you are running at liquid sodium temperatures, I'm guessing that your Pentium isn't going to last long (melting point of sodium is 371.1 K, or about the boiling point of wate, this is a tad hot for a CPU. Besides, if mercury was good enough for the Mad Hatter, it should be good enough for us Slashdotters!
On the question of timing, one other issue should be noted: the Symmantic report is for bugs in the second half of 2004. Version 1.0 of Mozilla was released on 1 Nov 2004, as reported on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox Surely the Firefox developers can be excused for having flaws in beta software. Finding bugs in beta testing means that the software devlopment process is working. Symmantic is just reporting numbers, so I don't see that they are trying to mislead. But it seems to me that any one taking these numbers as evidence the Firefox is buggier than IE is rather cynical or blined by partisanship.
Oh the Irony. The Just-in-time, lean manufacturing were not 'invented' by the Japanese. Ed Deming was a central pioneer for these techniques. The Japanese turned to Demming to help them rebuild their industrial base after WWII. Deming, raised a midwest farm boy and trained as a physicist, was largely ignored in the US while he was revered in Japan. The US perception of Deming changed in the 80's when US industry realized that the Japanese were turning out higher quality goods that the US.
The US has a curious love of 'captains of industry' that understand finance and marketing but lack an understanding of the industrial processes and products that drive inovation. I suppose that is because it's easier for a millionaire's son to become a 'leader' than to become an 'expert'.
It that Bondage/Sado-masochism/Disipline? As long as its between concending adults, I don't see whats wrong with BSD, so I don't see why the Mounties would have a need to port the software. Suddenly Free and Open make sense, but Net seems rather kinky...
Please look at SchoolTool. The Shuttleworth foundation has been funding the development of software for school administration. It has been desgined to be used globally. Every school needs administrators to schedule classes and oversee daily operations. If this tool can make schools less expensive AND give them access to tools that encourage best practices, I say more power to them. This is a signficant project that addresses a rather different educational need than the one you are describing. You may well be describing a valid need, but I a bit irritated at the suggestion that someone addressing something other than your pet project means that he is less than serious in 'bringing open source to education.'
Besides, I have found that sophistication is a first cousin to sophistry. If the software my kids are using at school counts as sophisticated, I would prefer to have them use things with less Flash(TM) and more substance. Give me a classroom with OpenOffice and Python over Macromedia & Microsoft Office any day.
This is silly. Try and get a data center running with $300 PCs running XP. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm thinking Brazil's governments are going to need some databases. Ask MS to run SQL Server on that $300 PC and see what happens to the costs. Now replace that cheapo desktop with a server that can acutally handle a large database and install Windows 2003 (the SERVER edition) and see what happens to the cost. Now repeat that exercise with PostgreSQL, any Linux/BSD distro that you choose and some of the servers advertised in any Linux journal. If you can't cut the cost by 40%, you aren't trying hard enough.
Microsoft has established an effective monopoly. The ONLY point of establishing a monopoly is to allow the monopolist to make more money. Microsoft isn't 'evil' any more than a dog is 'evil' for killing rabbits. Its just what they do. Rabbits run from dogs and customers try to avoid the 'monopoly tax'. I think it is the responsabilty of the Brazilian government to lower computing costs AND to foster technologies that allow the Brazilians that are so inclined to understand the software they are using. FOSS makes perfect sense under those conditions.
I was just listening to NPR. It seems that some US black ops teams are suspected of a kidnapping of a terrorist supsect in Italy. The Italian investigators are presenting search warrants to NATO bases. They were surprised how sloppy these 'elite' units were (calling wives/girlfriends on cell phones, etc.) and that is appears that they we acting with complete impunity. If these trained elites can screw up, think about your typical thug. So, there are lots of ways that someone can be stupid. I tend to agree with you that there are safer ways to do this, but I just wanted to point out that discounting 'stupid' behaviour is a bad idea.
That isn't how most brute force attacks work. Pretend that I am the attacker. If I can my hands on the hash of your password, and I happen to know that this is an MD5 hash, then I can do the brute force attack on my computer/account. This is why passwords are no longer in/etc/passwd, there are all sorts of scripts that read this file (for figuring out who is in what group and so forth) but the passwords are shadowed in seperate files that users cannot (easily) read.
You don't do a real-world brute force attack by logging on to a remote computer several billion times until you guess right. Instead, I search billions of string on my computer until I find one that has the same hash as your password. Then I can log on to your accout with a probablity of close to one, unless you have changed your password. Of course, if I see that your last password was 'FrodoBaggins45', I can guess 'FrodoBaggins46' as the next password. So, your practice of choosing less that obvious next passwords is much better than the 'increment by one' sort of password.
This is not propoganda. Most of us don't 'give a damn about what 95% of others do for a living'. The fact that 'I don't give a damn about how lawyers use tort law' doesn't mean that this would be a legitimate thing to keep a secret. If one of my children becomes an laywer, or if I get sued, I will suddenly 'give a damn' about free access to that information. Simply knowing that some kinds of information is open is empowering, even if I don't 'give a damn' about the field.
As a citizen, you had better care ...
on
Datamining the NSA
·
· Score: 1
Did anyone else hear Elvis Costello's voice in their head singing
Just like watching the detectives.
Don't get cute!
It's just like watching the detectives.
Frankly, I want to have someone watching the detectives. One of the roles of nonconformists and artists it to push us and remind us question authority. If you don't, you end up in 1984 or Animal Farm.
The first half of this deserves to be modded up. We have a system that requires sepeate ballots for every locality, since we expect to have only a single ballot and we have local elections on the ballot. We also have the technical decisions for voting on the county level, so the ability of a state or Federal agency to impose uniformity is limited.
I take exception to the second paragraph. We might well argue that someone that screws up a butterfly ballot is 'too stupid to vote'. One of the great 'aha' moments of my life was when I was in a crowd behind two women that were disarmingly attractive, college educated and clearly wealthy. However, I overheard their conversation discussing the politics, and they clearly would have been unable to find the nations they were discussing on a map. It simply isn't fair if we allow these rich imbiciles to have easy to use voting machines in the 'country-club' precincts, but we expect poor imbiciles to deal with (relatively) misleading ballots on erratic equiptment. When you find signicant differences in the fraction of cast votes that are actually counted, and when you find that this correlates rather strongly with the technology used, it is unfair to place primary blame on the users.
If we want to require a fair intelligence test, which is much easier in the abstract than it is in practice, we should then apply that test uniformly to all voters. There are many examples of reasonable ideas (voting should be intelligently) being twisted so that the implmentation of the idea is inherently unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Ajax to scour pots, not cut pot.
Since the javascript is a pain, we end up (overusing) server components. This means that we need multiple web servers to support a company of a few thousand employees because .Net's server components just don't scale the way I expect web applications to scale. AJAX might do processing in the relatively inefficient Javascript, but at least AJAX doesn't hammer the web servers each time a user interacts with the GUI. So, in this regard, it may have a larger 'prefactor', but the scaling exponent is smaller. For the 'enterprise' trading a lower scaling factor for a larger prefactor is almost always a big win. Especially if you use XSLT intelligently, you will be able to cache all sorts of XML documents using something like Squid between the web servers and the browser, which will vastly improve the efficiency of dynamic web sites. Some of the performance improvements reported with Zope/Squid are simply amaizing.
I thought that was Blue Crystals of Meth, no never mind, that would be the same thing.
Why not make a thin sail and try to evaporate Al at the same rate that it is being eroded. Even better, add some device to measure the thickness of the film and evaporate Al only where it is evaporating. This should allow you to keep a thin sail to catch the photons.
Sexual misconduct is an active concern of employers, and they have a legitimate interest in making sure that the work place doesn't contain pornography; it is a waste of their tools, it sets them up for lawsuits, and it make for an a poor workplace. These are legitimate concerns of an employer.
This doesn't mean that I think an employer has any business determining if an employee is am active swinger, gay, lesbian, Communist, Fascist, Fundimentalist Christian, Atheist, Devil Worshiper or a Fundimentalist Muslim. (Except for the rare jobs that depend on these roles, such as Minister or lead singer of the Village People.)
Most of us should be working during working hours, and the number of people that view porn for a living is quite small. For the rest of us, porn shouldn't be part of the work place. This is not because I am a prude, but because employers deserver to have you working when they are paying you to work.
I'm willing to draw lines of 'reasonable behavior' and count on reasonable people to know the difference between a snowball and an impending avalanche. I am quite aware of the dangers of this, reasonable people were present, and silent, in Nazi Germany. Still, the alternative is absurd.
Maybe. But that scares the heck out of me. I know of high level managers and engineers that were fired for this sort of stuff. It would have been better for all if effective filtering existed. This is a stupid a reading a porn magazine during a department meeting. But I guess you are right that the porn site really doesn't care. Still, who looks are porn while on an employer's LAN, that is career suicide.
You should go back to school as a teacher, there is no shortage of 'crap mastery'; it seems to be pretty common to become a 'master of crap'.
Finally, a previous poster talked about needing torque at 'zero' rpm , rather than at 1 RPM. I can assure him from experience that steppers have plenty of torque to start heavy items at rest. Spectrometers never move fast and they often are a rest and we had no special problems getting the motors to start. We only had problems keeping them cool if they ran for extended times. For a car moving through air, cooling should not be an show stopper.
Besides, I'm guessing most of us figured out what was on 'xxx' before we read the article. At least in the US, this is a rather intuitive high level domain. If you see show.me.xxx, you will have a pretty easy time guessing what you are about to see and remembering the URL as well.
I'm guessing that this could end up with lots of 'teaser sites' with a .com address that will direct users to the .xxx. site. This way, the porm sites can suck you in with all of their current tricks and then offer the goods from the xxx sites. This would give them much greater legal protection and it would still allow them to use their bag of tricks to draw in new subscribers.
This is a meeting of BSD Gurus in Calgary. You get voted off the mountaintop.
2) Look a the openssh.org homepage. Notice the quote 'OpenSSH is primarily developed by the OpenBSD Project, and its first inclusion into an operating system was in OpenBSD 2.6. '
I'm siding with bluGill on this point, the AC is the dumbass on this trhread.
1) Programmers introduce errors at predicable rates.
2) Programming errors can lead to exploitable faults.
3) Therefore, the 'vulnerability' of an OS os proportional to the size of its codebase.
There are good reasons to doubt this logic. Managed code reduces the risk of buffer attacks. Tools like ProPolice make many classes of coding error unattackable. So, the MS codebase in Longhorn will be MUCH larger than previous versions of Windows, but it will also be subject to tighter (largely automated) code checks. This will result in much cleaner code for MS. This sort of systematic attack of software defects has worked wonders for OpenBSD. Of course, I will still perfer an *nix system for security because the core code base has been stabilizing for decades and many brilliant minds have been looking for design and implmentation flaws. But it would be silly to think that MS isn't doing the same sorts of improvements internally. Longhorn will almost certainly be more stable and more secure than XP. MS is improving, but I don't know if they can mature fast enough to go toe to toe with *nix in terms of security.
2) Purchase and Install OpenBSD
3) Purchase Building Firewalls with OpenBSD and PF, 2nd ed by Jacek Artymiak (ISBN: 83-916651-1-9)
4) Use bandwidth shaping as described in chapter 10.
5)Enjoy your new router.
This should give you high priority bandwith for the VoIP. It cannot control how your ISP allocates bandwith (of course), but I think that this would help the average user happier with both voice and data share the same bandwith.
I thought that Moderators are what Slashdot needs to keep CommanderTaco from posting advertisments with no meat.
Perhaps the metal in question is mercury :-) If you are running at liquid sodium temperatures, I'm guessing that your Pentium isn't going to last long (melting point of sodium is 371.1 K, or about the boiling point of wate, this is a tad hot for a CPU. Besides, if mercury was good enough for the Mad Hatter, it should be good enough for us Slashdotters!
On the question of timing, one other issue should be noted: the Symmantic report is for bugs in the second half of 2004. Version 1.0 of Mozilla was released on 1 Nov 2004, as reported on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox Surely the Firefox developers can be excused for having flaws in beta software. Finding bugs in beta testing means that the software devlopment process is working. Symmantic is just reporting numbers, so I don't see that they are trying to mislead. But it seems to me that any one taking these numbers as evidence the Firefox is buggier than IE is rather cynical or blined by partisanship.
The US has a curious love of 'captains of industry' that understand finance and marketing but lack an understanding of the industrial processes and products that drive inovation. I suppose that is because it's easier for a millionaire's son to become a 'leader' than to become an 'expert'.
It that Bondage/Sado-masochism/Disipline? As long as its between concending adults, I don't see whats wrong with BSD, so I don't see why the Mounties would have a need to port the software. Suddenly Free and Open make sense, but Net seems rather kinky...
Besides, I have found that sophistication is a first cousin to sophistry. If the software my kids are using at school counts as sophisticated, I would prefer to have them use things with less Flash(TM) and more substance. Give me a classroom with OpenOffice and Python over Macromedia & Microsoft Office any day.
Microsoft has established an effective monopoly. The ONLY point of establishing a monopoly is to allow the monopolist to make more money. Microsoft isn't 'evil' any more than a dog is 'evil' for killing rabbits. Its just what they do. Rabbits run from dogs and customers try to avoid the 'monopoly tax'. I think it is the responsabilty of the Brazilian government to lower computing costs AND to foster technologies that allow the Brazilians that are so inclined to understand the software they are using. FOSS makes perfect sense under those conditions.
I was just listening to NPR. It seems that some US black ops teams are suspected of a kidnapping of a terrorist supsect in Italy. The Italian investigators are presenting search warrants to NATO bases. They were surprised how sloppy these 'elite' units were (calling wives/girlfriends on cell phones, etc.) and that is appears that they we acting with complete impunity. If these trained elites can screw up, think about your typical thug. So, there are lots of ways that someone can be stupid. I tend to agree with you that there are safer ways to do this, but I just wanted to point out that discounting 'stupid' behaviour is a bad idea.
You don't do a real-world brute force attack by logging on to a remote computer several billion times until you guess right. Instead, I search billions of string on my computer until I find one that has the same hash as your password. Then I can log on to your accout with a probablity of close to one, unless you have changed your password. Of course, if I see that your last password was 'FrodoBaggins45', I can guess 'FrodoBaggins46' as the next password. So, your practice of choosing less that obvious next passwords is much better than the 'increment by one' sort of password.
This is not propoganda. Most of us don't 'give a damn about what 95% of others do for a living'. The fact that 'I don't give a damn about how lawyers use tort law' doesn't mean that this would be a legitimate thing to keep a secret. If one of my children becomes an laywer, or if I get sued, I will suddenly 'give a damn' about free access to that information. Simply knowing that some kinds of information is open is empowering, even if I don't 'give a damn' about the field.
I take exception to the second paragraph. We might well argue that someone that screws up a butterfly ballot is 'too stupid to vote'. One of the great 'aha' moments of my life was when I was in a crowd behind two women that were disarmingly attractive, college educated and clearly wealthy. However, I overheard their conversation discussing the politics, and they clearly would have been unable to find the nations they were discussing on a map. It simply isn't fair if we allow these rich imbiciles to have easy to use voting machines in the 'country-club' precincts, but we expect poor imbiciles to deal with (relatively) misleading ballots on erratic equiptment. When you find signicant differences in the fraction of cast votes that are actually counted, and when you find that this correlates rather strongly with the technology used, it is unfair to place primary blame on the users.
If we want to require a fair intelligence test, which is much easier in the abstract than it is in practice, we should then apply that test uniformly to all voters. There are many examples of reasonable ideas (voting should be intelligently) being twisted so that the implmentation of the idea is inherently unfair.