No, that phrase totally means exactly what he things it means, if he's using it in a sales pitch. Anything to support inflating sales and support hours.
Remember, if you're a support contractor or consultant, anything you say means "pay me more."
Correction: it's not currently a blood test, it's:
...matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry imaging. The technique detects the types of proteins and lipids at each point in a tissue slice, allowing the scientists to produce a chemical map of the animals' brains.
So currently, you have to cut out the brain and slice it up to scan it. As it stands, not very helpful as a diagnostic.
I hope they can do some kind of minimally-invasive test with this. It might be possible:
Because the team observed the lipid increase in areas connected to the brain's circulatory system, Agar wonders if they could detect the lipid in spinal fluid or even blood. If so, the ganglioside could serve a biomarker for traumatic brain injury.
Maybe as a routine locker room procedure for impact and contact sports like football (either kind). It would beat the current "3rd concussion, you're in the injured reserve" regime, especially if it picks up sub-symptomatic TBI.
I'm sure that Aaron, and many other people, believe that arbitrary commercial limitations to access to academic material is the real wrong. "Information wants to be free" has been the punchline of snide geek jokes for so long that people forget it was once, and still is for some, a legitimate manifesto.
Aaron took evasive, "sneaky" action because he knew what he was doing violated JSTOR's and MIT's rules. He did the action at all because he believed that he was still basically ethically right. He wasn't looking for martyrdom. I would speculate that even at the end, he wasn't. It's just the disproportionate and heavy-handed cost of violating the legal equivalent of a EULA must have overwhelmed him and left him feeling alone and helpless.
And if you miss your connection, but your luggage doesn't? Are you saying someone will actually rummage through the hold and remove luggage for people who don't make gate check? I mean, you could check into the flight at the terminal but sit around the concourse to avoid boarding. I'm pretty sure your luggage would continue on its merry way. Otherwise, those folks flailing down the jetway just before the cabin door closes will have already had their luggage disembarked because they waited 5 minutes too long, and I really doubt that's what's happening.
And that's a great plan, but in truth, the hardware refresh is the major point. The old server is an ancient 32-bit beige box that's probably tottering on its last legs, and power-hungry to boot. As an example of how ancient, your VM idea wouldn't work too well, since the CPU doesn't have any virtualization hardware features. With this creaking hardware, the native OS runs slowly enough as it is. A VM would be correspondingly sluggish.
So, yeah, I'm doing a HW refresh, and the OS refresh is just a convenience afforded by that.
That's what I like about analogies. You can structure them however you damn well please, and the weak-minded in your audience will think you've proven something.
I can play that game, too. And, in closer adherence to the letter and the spirit of Slashdot law, it'll be a pizza (restaurant) analogy.
Your local pizzeria has decided to go upscale and requires coat and tie for their male clientele. You like the pizza, so you decide "coat and tie" is worth it. You get all monkeyed up and pay the establishment a visit. You are seated by the server (who has obviously given you a good shufti to make sure you're appropriately attired). You order, and your wonderful pizza arrives. You begin eating, but don't want your "good clothes" ruined with pizza sauce, so you remove the jacket and tie.
The owners of the restaurant call the police and have you arrested on the spot. The prosecutors threaten you with the maximum sentence under the Restaurant Fraud and Abuse Act (RFAA), 35 years, unless you'll plead guilty, in which they'll graciously try to get the recommended sentence reduced to just a single-digit number of years of federal incarceration.
Ridiculous? This precisely mirrors the events at MIT that day. Aaron had authorized access (allowed into restaurant) but exceeded the "intended limits of access" (took off his tie). Rather than terminating his access (asking him to leave the restaurant), MIT had Aaron arrested and pressed charges.
If you want to get increasingly literal-minded with the analogy, instead of "suit and tie", we'll say "one trip to the salad bar". That's very close to the nature of the limitation that Aaron violated. In the pizzeria analogy, the salad bar is limited to one trip per patron. You go back because the plate they give you is ludicrously small, and you don't like mixing dressed green salad with fruit salad anyway. They have you arrested as you return to the table.
Aaron was authorized to download a limited number of documents. He overrode the limit and downloaded more (second trip to the salad bar). Total lack of hilarty ensued.
The sending address? The spoofed sending address which is either (A) one of the other spam victims, or (B) a joe-job designed to slander and inconvenience someone the spammer has conceived a grudge against?
I guess hilarity will ensue when you receive a spam you sent yourself, according to the sending address you naively trust.
And more to the specific technical point, there's no easy, supported migration path from 5.x to 6.x.. The Centos Wiki howto page states with discouraging repetetiveness "A fresh install is generally strongly preferred over an upgrade. "
This, plus a host of not-very-specific "gotcha" warnings, and the entire guide ending with "Good luck", pretty much guarantees only the masochistic or the suicidally brave will undertake an upgrade-in-place to 6.x, rather than just staying with 5.x and picking up the point updates for security and reliability updates.
For myself, I'm running 5.x on my household server, and I'll be yum-updating to pick up 5.9. I'll migrate to 6.x when I do a full server hardware refresh, in which case it'll be a turnkey replacement with the possibility of limited parallel ops and fallback if it all goes sideways.
It's so weird. This betrayal at acquisition seems to play out over and over. A great team is disbanded by the heavy-handed and mouth-breathing attitude of the new boss.
I'm reminded of the Easter egg in Amiga OS 1.2, which was a secret message accessible by an obscure sequence of keystrokes, UI mouse clicks, and floppy disk ejection/insertion.
Now press both Alts, both shifts, press F1 and eject DF0: all at once and you'll see:
The Amiga, Born a Champion
Whilst holding this click the left mouse button on the "screen to back" gadget and re-insert the disk. You'll see:
Canada continues to appear in the United States' Trade Representative "Special 301" report as a "Priority Watch Foreign Nation", under active suspicion of not supporting US intellectual property regimes, having inadequate intellectual property laws, and also not being "a team player".
NAT has implications for the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.
For a lot of organizations, that's a bonus. If you don't trust the outside network, you certainly don't want to peer arbitrarily with them, and certainly not at any outside machine's initiative. With NAT, an outside system can't initiate connectivity with any machine inside the NAT boundary without some kind of prior arrangement, so no open-ended network scanning.
If you treat the Internet as a big happy cloud of egalitarian peers collaborating at will, NAT sucks. If you treat the Internet as a bad neighborhood, which you have no way of avoiding between your house and the mall, NAT is the gated neighborhood you live in to keep the unsavory inhabitants of that bad neighborhood away from your pristine lawn and Lexus in the driveway. And people choose gated neighborhoods, and NAT, for that precise reason: separation and protection from the riff-raff, the panhandlers, the burglars and the car thieves, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Mostly the JWs, I think.
It's one thing to pay for extras that improve reliability and stability and quite another to pay to make it pretty.
Which is why no one every buys Apple.
Consumer mindset is universal. The thought processes involved in large corporate acquisitions are vulnerable to the same appeal to aesthetics, if the decision rests with (or is highly influenced by) one or two "prime mover" individuals.
You're talking like an engineer. Engineers don't make decisions on this scale. Vice Presidents and other pointy-haired types do. Even when engineers do extensive (practical) trade studies and analyses, their inputs are potentially subject to being completely ignored in favor of either "Oooh shiny" or "too expensive", depending on the mindset of the actual decider.
Maybe you're saying members of the Managment-Drone caste don't deserve their jobs? Hmm. Can't really argue with that.
Interesting, especially since they have emails and memos from Goldman Sachs personnel where they clearly talk about how they're perpetrating fraud.
Interesting. But I don't think awareness that they're breaking the law would really be enough. The element not visible in retrospect is that they expected to get away with it. No one turns in a successful (i.e., money-making) fraud, not if they're defrauding a tenuous and ill-defined mass of humanity (e.g., mortgageholders). If you're making money, you're presumed to be OK. You're only dragged before the dock if the whole fraud collapses and someone notices.
What major Ponzi/pyramid ever got turned in while it was still successfully paying out?
And that's why the "stupidity" defense can work. If you're making money, you're presumed to be legally OK. It's only wrong if you get caught, and getting caught is defined primarily by losing money.
Good point. Unless these innovative network-enabled light fixtures have SOME embedded security, "DDOS" will come to mean "Distributed Denial of Sleep".
They're scions of freedom in the only ways that matter: free to quietly support our policies and actions in the Gulf region, and free to sell us all the oil we can buy.
I hope this isn't some kind of shock for you. Our foreign policy is pretty consistently utilitarian. The moral considerations are, at best, icing.
If you're gonna argue about the idiocy of other peoples' arguments, you might choose a stronger analogy, or condition it properly. As stated, your analogy doesn't support your argument. "Kitchen knives" is entirely situational, and this argument is actually all about the situation, not about the tools.
It would be perfectly reasonable to ban kitchen knives from work, if "work" isn't a kitchen. They are, indeed, potentially dangerous, and outside of the context of cooking, a completely unnecessary danger.
And if "work" is in a kitchen, you might ban personal knives, if the kitchen provides all the kitchen tools and cutlery and management expects those to be used.
And yes, I know that in most high-end professional cooking situations (above the fast food level), chefs are expected to provide their own cutlery. And you may see some technology settings which operate in the "bring your own mobile device" mindset. But obviously, we're not talking about that, since it's beyond stupid to simultaneously ban and require personal mobile devices.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that phrase totally means exactly what he things it means, if he's using it in a sales pitch. Anything to support inflating sales and support hours.
Remember, if you're a support contractor or consultant, anything you say means "pay me more."
Correction: it's not currently a blood test, it's:
So currently, you have to cut out the brain and slice it up to scan it. As it stands, not very helpful as a diagnostic.
I hope they can do some kind of minimally-invasive test with this. It might be possible:
Maybe as a routine locker room procedure for impact and contact sports like football (either kind). It would beat the current "3rd concussion, you're in the injured reserve" regime, especially if it picks up sub-symptomatic TBI.
"Wrong" and "against the rules" are not the same.
I'm sure that Aaron, and many other people, believe that arbitrary commercial limitations to access to academic material is the real wrong. "Information wants to be free" has been the punchline of snide geek jokes for so long that people forget it was once, and still is for some, a legitimate manifesto.
Aaron took evasive, "sneaky" action because he knew what he was doing violated JSTOR's and MIT's rules. He did the action at all because he believed that he was still basically ethically right. He wasn't looking for martyrdom. I would speculate that even at the end, he wasn't. It's just the disproportionate and heavy-handed cost of violating the legal equivalent of a EULA must have overwhelmed him and left him feeling alone and helpless.
And if you miss your connection, but your luggage doesn't? Are you saying someone will actually rummage through the hold and remove luggage for people who don't make gate check? I mean, you could check into the flight at the terminal but sit around the concourse to avoid boarding. I'm pretty sure your luggage would continue on its merry way. Otherwise, those folks flailing down the jetway just before the cabin door closes will have already had their luggage disembarked because they waited 5 minutes too long, and I really doubt that's what's happening.
And that's a great plan, but in truth, the hardware refresh is the major point. The old server is an ancient 32-bit beige box that's probably tottering on its last legs, and power-hungry to boot. As an example of how ancient, your VM idea wouldn't work too well, since the CPU doesn't have any virtualization hardware features. With this creaking hardware, the native OS runs slowly enough as it is. A VM would be correspondingly sluggish.
So, yeah, I'm doing a HW refresh, and the OS refresh is just a convenience afforded by that.
Hence the spate of arrests of XBox Live players.
Oh, never mind. Silly me. In-game chat is pretty much the last place you'd hear discussion of tactics, target selection, or objectives. Carry on.
Have they looked in the triangle?
That's what I like about analogies. You can structure them however you damn well please, and the weak-minded in your audience will think you've proven something.
I can play that game, too. And, in closer adherence to the letter and the spirit of Slashdot law, it'll be a pizza (restaurant) analogy.
Your local pizzeria has decided to go upscale and requires coat and tie for their male clientele. You like the pizza, so you decide "coat and tie" is worth it. You get all monkeyed up and pay the establishment a visit. You are seated by the server (who has obviously given you a good shufti to make sure you're appropriately attired). You order, and your wonderful pizza arrives. You begin eating, but don't want your "good clothes" ruined with pizza sauce, so you remove the jacket and tie.
The owners of the restaurant call the police and have you arrested on the spot. The prosecutors threaten you with the maximum sentence under the Restaurant Fraud and Abuse Act (RFAA), 35 years, unless you'll plead guilty, in which they'll graciously try to get the recommended sentence reduced to just a single-digit number of years of federal incarceration.
Ridiculous? This precisely mirrors the events at MIT that day. Aaron had authorized access (allowed into restaurant) but exceeded the "intended limits of access" (took off his tie). Rather than terminating his access (asking him to leave the restaurant), MIT had Aaron arrested and pressed charges.
If you want to get increasingly literal-minded with the analogy, instead of "suit and tie", we'll say "one trip to the salad bar". That's very close to the nature of the limitation that Aaron violated. In the pizzeria analogy, the salad bar is limited to one trip per patron. You go back because the plate they give you is ludicrously small, and you don't like mixing dressed green salad with fruit salad anyway. They have you arrested as you return to the table.
Aaron was authorized to download a limited number of documents. He overrode the limit and downloaded more (second trip to the salad bar). Total lack of hilarty ensued.
The sending address? The spoofed sending address which is either (A) one of the other spam victims, or (B) a joe-job designed to slander and inconvenience someone the spammer has conceived a grudge against?
I guess hilarity will ensue when you receive a spam you sent yourself, according to the sending address you naively trust.
And more to the specific technical point, there's no easy, supported migration path from 5.x to 6.x.. The Centos Wiki howto page states with discouraging repetetiveness "A fresh install is generally strongly preferred over an upgrade. "
This, plus a host of not-very-specific "gotcha" warnings, and the entire guide ending with "Good luck", pretty much guarantees only the masochistic or the suicidally brave will undertake an upgrade-in-place to 6.x, rather than just staying with 5.x and picking up the point updates for security and reliability updates.
For myself, I'm running 5.x on my household server, and I'll be yum-updating to pick up 5.9. I'll migrate to 6.x when I do a full server hardware refresh, in which case it'll be a turnkey replacement with the possibility of limited parallel ops and fallback if it all goes sideways.
It's so weird. This betrayal at acquisition seems to play out over and over. A great team is disbanded by the heavy-handed and mouth-breathing attitude of the new boss.
I'm reminded of the Easter egg in Amiga OS 1.2, which was a secret message accessible by an obscure sequence of keystrokes, UI mouse clicks, and floppy disk ejection/insertion.
True dat. The fact that the security bounty remains unclaimed simply means that approximately no one uses it, so it's worthless as an attack space.
Hell, by that metric, Amiga OS has been the shining paragon of network and OS security.
Sounds like they've reinvented the S-100 bus. Or maybe the VME bus.
Canada continues to appear in the United States' Trade Representative "Special 301" report as a "Priority Watch Foreign Nation", under active suspicion of not supporting US intellectual property regimes, having inadequate intellectual property laws, and also not being "a team player".
NAT has implications for the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.
For a lot of organizations, that's a bonus. If you don't trust the outside network, you certainly don't want to peer arbitrarily with them, and certainly not at any outside machine's initiative. With NAT, an outside system can't initiate connectivity with any machine inside the NAT boundary without some kind of prior arrangement, so no open-ended network scanning.
If you treat the Internet as a big happy cloud of egalitarian peers collaborating at will, NAT sucks. If you treat the Internet as a bad neighborhood, which you have no way of avoiding between your house and the mall, NAT is the gated neighborhood you live in to keep the unsavory inhabitants of that bad neighborhood away from your pristine lawn and Lexus in the driveway. And people choose gated neighborhoods, and NAT, for that precise reason: separation and protection from the riff-raff, the panhandlers, the burglars and the car thieves, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Mostly the JWs, I think.
It's one thing to pay for extras that improve reliability and stability and quite another to pay to make it pretty.
Which is why no one every buys Apple.
Consumer mindset is universal. The thought processes involved in large corporate acquisitions are vulnerable to the same appeal to aesthetics, if the decision rests with (or is highly influenced by) one or two "prime mover" individuals.
You're talking like an engineer. Engineers don't make decisions on this scale. Vice Presidents and other pointy-haired types do. Even when engineers do extensive (practical) trade studies and analyses, their inputs are potentially subject to being completely ignored in favor of either "Oooh shiny" or "too expensive", depending on the mindset of the actual decider.
Maybe you're saying members of the Managment-Drone caste don't deserve their jobs? Hmm. Can't really argue with that.
Interesting, especially since they have emails and memos from Goldman Sachs personnel where they clearly talk about how they're perpetrating fraud.
Interesting. But I don't think awareness that they're breaking the law would really be enough. The element not visible in retrospect is that they expected to get away with it. No one turns in a successful (i.e., money-making) fraud, not if they're defrauding a tenuous and ill-defined mass of humanity (e.g., mortgageholders). If you're making money, you're presumed to be OK. You're only dragged before the dock if the whole fraud collapses and someone notices.
What major Ponzi/pyramid ever got turned in while it was still successfully paying out?
And that's why the "stupidity" defense can work. If you're making money, you're presumed to be legally OK. It's only wrong if you get caught, and getting caught is defined primarily by losing money.
That's be juuuuust great. Watson taunting us from Moonbase 1 as he bombards major cities with hella big rocks: "Do a barrel roll, Earth!"
EMACS already has meta-x psychoanalyze-watson
Good point. Unless these innovative network-enabled light fixtures have SOME embedded security, "DDOS" will come to mean "Distributed Denial of Sleep".
And you think accusations of aim-botting are rampant now? Just wait...
Just to be clear, let me confirm. Your operating assumption that every "relationship" is doomed?
They're scions of freedom in the only ways that matter: free to quietly support our policies and actions in the Gulf region, and free to sell us all the oil we can buy.
I hope this isn't some kind of shock for you. Our foreign policy is pretty consistently utilitarian. The moral considerations are, at best, icing.
If you're gonna argue about the idiocy of other peoples' arguments, you might choose a stronger analogy, or condition it properly. As stated, your analogy doesn't support your argument. "Kitchen knives" is entirely situational, and this argument is actually all about the situation, not about the tools.
It would be perfectly reasonable to ban kitchen knives from work, if "work" isn't a kitchen. They are, indeed, potentially dangerous, and outside of the context of cooking, a completely unnecessary danger.
And if "work" is in a kitchen, you might ban personal knives, if the kitchen provides all the kitchen tools and cutlery and management expects those to be used.
And yes, I know that in most high-end professional cooking situations (above the fast food level), chefs are expected to provide their own cutlery. And you may see some technology settings which operate in the "bring your own mobile device" mindset. But obviously, we're not talking about that, since it's beyond stupid to simultaneously ban and require personal mobile devices.