This is exactly how I lose every argument with my wife...
"Now you're criticizing me for how I criticize? Honey, I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore."
But she certainly does!
While the market share explanation is definitely true, it is not the WHOLE truth... Not even the most important. Because of the inherently monolithic nature of Windows (single vendor, closed source, current version), the Windows operating system is much more vulnerable than any open source operating system will ever be. Every user of Windows XP SP3 is running the exact same, binary (bit-for-bit) copy of notepad.exe. This means if you find ONE exploit in the notepad.exe program, you can exploit EVERY Windows user, immediately, just by replacing a specific address in the executable. On the GNU/Linux platform, everything is more modular. While the "current version" of Linux is 2.6.28.7, there are probably no more than a few hundred users running a 2.6.28.7-vanilla kernel, and even so, almost none of those will exhibit binary equivalence because of different modules, drivers and compiler options, as well as different compilers doing the compilation on different hardware. And that's just the kernel! Now consider the fact that there is virtually an infinite number of combinations of operating system tools, daemons and utilities, and versions, even on one specific distribution. If you find a way to exploit one specific ELF, there is no guarantee that exact exploit is even possible on just one more system than tested.
In no way am I saying Open Source is inherently more secure. I am just saying that it makes it a heck of a lot less likely to encounter two binary equivalent systems in the wild.
I couldn't agree more! This article is EXTREMELY flawed in logic and cogency.
ALL of the reported figures in section one pointed to the fact that these emigrants were returning home for personal and family reasons. Their own respondent data says that visas were NOT the problem. Yet somehow the authors have made the leap to:
"In summary, if the U.S. Government and the
business community could find better ways to offer
good jobs in tandem with less restrictiveness in visa policies for talented immigrants, the U.S. might be able to recapture many of these immigrants and their potential to serve as a much needed growth engine for the U.S. economy."
The authors used an admittedly unsupported premise as the foundation of their conclusion, "Although visa problems did not surface as the primary factor in losing these talented immigrants, a significant minority of respondents did indicate visa and residency permit issues as having played a role in their decision to return to their home country."
This is the most poorly structured argument they could have possibly put together. This is purely political diatribe masquerading as a research paper from prominent institutions. Gosh I miss responsible journalism...
I definitely see where you're coming from, and you SHOULD be right. However, this goes to the heart of the article: most companies are OVER-retaining their data. Backing up things that shouldn't be backed up, and retaining things beyond legal requirements or indefinitely.
Additionally, even though we may not agree on the figures, we definitely agree that storage costs have exponentially decreased. This has led to the trend to just keep adding storage, as opposed to actually going through what is being stored and for how long.
Like I stated in another post, this problem needs to be attacked from a business policy angle, not merely from a technological capacity (pun fully intended).
We are not talking about consumer hard drives here, we're talking about enterprise storage solutions. You can't just throw 100 terabyte consumer SATA disks in a closet and expect to have a "storage solution".
An enterprise solution comprises the MUCH pricier SAS and FC disks inside of a SAN. Just at this first level, you've already spent more than your $1/GB.
Then, throw in the associated SAS and SATA disks for backup, as well as tape for archiving, and all of the infrastructure to support it and labor required to make it work.
There is nothing fishy about it. Enterprise storage solutions are PRICEY beasts...
"...most organizations hang on to more data than they need, for much longer than they should."
As an infrastructure consultant, I see this EVERYWHERE. At the average client, I find the same INSTALL MEDIA (O/S ISOs) in three or more locations, all of which are being backed up. WHY??? You already have a TRUE backup, it's called the CD the software came on, or the electronic source you downloaded it from. Just gigs upon gigs of wasted space.
And don't even get me started on email limits and policies. I can't think of a single company that actually enforces the mail limits. And even those that do, will "extend" or except nearly anyone who requests it.
We in the IT field need to create better policies and actually follow through on them...
Technically, commas are legitimate URI characters: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
But I agree with you 100%. A simple FIFO check could be used to verify they occur after a first or third slash, and not within the domain name itself: (http://www.example.com/0,03882,page.html OR www.example.com/0,03882,page.html)
This simple find and replace should recognize an out of place URI reserved character, and attempt to replace it with a dot, before sending it to search.
Furthermore, your browser should keep a small database of acceptable TLDs to "spell-check" frequent.cpm and.xom fat-fingerings.
But alas, these "everyday" features are lost on the Killer Enterprise App culture of the current Browser Wars.
Anyone else experiencing record packet loss and routing issues? On an AT&T MPLS here, and can't get anywhere. Getting rerouted all over the US... Can this be attributed to Firefox day?
That beats the hell out of the $100/month I pay now! Yeah it's slower, but its still fast enough to visit these/.'ed websites. I will definitely get this if someone can tell me if I can transfer my high.iq domain to their IP range...;-)
CD speeds are multiples of only 150 KB/s. Therefore, a top-o-the-line 50x CD-RW can only read/write at 7500 KB/s. So this being the first generation of this technology, that seems pretty damn good to me.
Windows is a product of Microsoft. IE is a product of Microsoft. Media Player is a product of Microsoft. Microsoft sells Windows. Consumers buy Windows. Microsoft can do whatever they want to Windows as long as the customer buys it. Nobody is screaming ANTITRUST to McDonalds for 'incorporating' McDonalds fries into their McValue Meals. If Microsoft can learn to cook a cheeseburger, they can incorporate a Microsoft cheeseburger into Windows if they wish, IT'S THEIR PRODUCT! And if that cheesburger becomes the most popular cheeseburger on the market, THEY DONT HAVE TO SELL THE RECIPE TO MCDONALDS! Nobody is making McDonalds release information on their proprietary fries so Burger King can use them in their value meal. BK makes their own fries. You don't have to goto McDonalds to get a value meal, but you can't goto Burger King to get McDonalds fries. You don't have to use Windows as an operating system, but you can't run Media Player without it. Open your eyes and use an open *nix system with open media formats.
How come these hybrid/electric cars are always almost identical in appearance (the sloping/tapering rear end, and covered rear wheel)? They would probably be easier to market if they looked like normal cars. Is this design to maximize the efficiency by minimizing the air resistance? This makes sense, but I mean how much resistance can this really eliminate? And if it IS a significant difference, then why do they only do it to the hybrid/electric cars? Wouldn't they want to do this on ALL cars, even those powered by gasoline/diesel? Thereby making ALL cars more efficient...
Is it just me, or has an article like this one been posted nearly every week for months now... WiFi blah blah blah, Speakeasy blah blah blah, Neighbors sharing internet blah blah blah! We know already.
I love ATM fees. I can use a 'FREE' ATM and still am charged a fee from my own bank! With all this dough they are raking in, they should be COMPLETELY secure!!!
Slashdot Mirror
True, but you can add a decent editor: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Evil
Hasn't al Qaida been doing this for months? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/qaeda-yeah-the-printer-bomb-plot-was-us/
This is exactly how I lose every argument with my wife... "Now you're criticizing me for how I criticize? Honey, I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore." But she certainly does!
Like "World of World of Warcraft"! http://www.theonion.com/content/video/warcraft_sequel_lets_gamers_play
While the market share explanation is definitely true, it is not the WHOLE truth... Not even the most important. Because of the inherently monolithic nature of Windows (single vendor, closed source, current version), the Windows operating system is much more vulnerable than any open source operating system will ever be. Every user of Windows XP SP3 is running the exact same, binary (bit-for-bit) copy of notepad.exe. This means if you find ONE exploit in the notepad.exe program, you can exploit EVERY Windows user, immediately, just by replacing a specific address in the executable. On the GNU/Linux platform, everything is more modular. While the "current version" of Linux is 2.6.28.7, there are probably no more than a few hundred users running a 2.6.28.7-vanilla kernel, and even so, almost none of those will exhibit binary equivalence because of different modules, drivers and compiler options, as well as different compilers doing the compilation on different hardware. And that's just the kernel! Now consider the fact that there is virtually an infinite number of combinations of operating system tools, daemons and utilities, and versions, even on one specific distribution. If you find a way to exploit one specific ELF, there is no guarantee that exact exploit is even possible on just one more system than tested. In no way am I saying Open Source is inherently more secure. I am just saying that it makes it a heck of a lot less likely to encounter two binary equivalent systems in the wild.
I couldn't agree more! This article is EXTREMELY flawed in logic and cogency. ALL of the reported figures in section one pointed to the fact that these emigrants were returning home for personal and family reasons. Their own respondent data says that visas were NOT the problem. Yet somehow the authors have made the leap to: "In summary, if the U.S. Government and the business community could find better ways to offer good jobs in tandem with less restrictiveness in visa policies for talented immigrants, the U.S. might be able to recapture many of these immigrants and their potential to serve as a much needed growth engine for the U.S. economy." The authors used an admittedly unsupported premise as the foundation of their conclusion, "Although visa problems did not surface as the primary factor in losing these talented immigrants, a significant minority of respondents did indicate visa and residency permit issues as having played a role in their decision to return to their home country." This is the most poorly structured argument they could have possibly put together. This is purely political diatribe masquerading as a research paper from prominent institutions. Gosh I miss responsible journalism...
I definitely see where you're coming from, and you SHOULD be right. However, this goes to the heart of the article: most companies are OVER-retaining their data. Backing up things that shouldn't be backed up, and retaining things beyond legal requirements or indefinitely.
Additionally, even though we may not agree on the figures, we definitely agree that storage costs have exponentially decreased. This has led to the trend to just keep adding storage, as opposed to actually going through what is being stored and for how long.
Like I stated in another post, this problem needs to be attacked from a business policy angle, not merely from a technological capacity (pun fully intended).
We are not talking about consumer hard drives here, we're talking about enterprise storage solutions. You can't just throw 100 terabyte consumer SATA disks in a closet and expect to have a "storage solution".
An enterprise solution comprises the MUCH pricier SAS and FC disks inside of a SAN. Just at this first level, you've already spent more than your $1/GB.
Then, throw in the associated SAS and SATA disks for backup, as well as tape for archiving, and all of the infrastructure to support it and labor required to make it work.
There is nothing fishy about it. Enterprise storage solutions are PRICEY beasts...
"...most organizations hang on to more data than they need, for much longer than they should."
As an infrastructure consultant, I see this EVERYWHERE. At the average client, I find the same INSTALL MEDIA (O/S ISOs) in three or more locations, all of which are being backed up. WHY??? You already have a TRUE backup, it's called the CD the software came on, or the electronic source you downloaded it from. Just gigs upon gigs of wasted space.
And don't even get me started on email limits and policies. I can't think of a single company that actually enforces the mail limits. And even those that do, will "extend" or except nearly anyone who requests it.
We in the IT field need to create better policies and actually follow through on them...
But Palin is a hot Creationist. It's like an equation. After hot, you can drop everything else.
Agreed. I think McCain's pick of Palin was irresponsible as it will definitely contribute to global warming, at least in my neck of the crotch...
Technically, commas are legitimate URI characters: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt But I agree with you 100%. A simple FIFO check could be used to verify they occur after a first or third slash, and not within the domain name itself: (http://www.example.com/0,03882,page.html OR www.example.com/0,03882,page.html) This simple find and replace should recognize an out of place URI reserved character, and attempt to replace it with a dot, before sending it to search. Furthermore, your browser should keep a small database of acceptable TLDs to "spell-check" frequent .cpm and .xom fat-fingerings.
But alas, these "everyday" features are lost on the Killer Enterprise App culture of the current Browser Wars.
...the Firefox 3 Release?
...most FAILED download ATTEMPTS. SIGH /.'ed indeed.
I love Wine!
Anyone else experiencing record packet loss and routing issues? On an AT&T MPLS here, and can't get anywhere. Getting rerouted all over the US... Can this be attributed to Firefox day?
That beats the hell out of the $100/month I pay now! Yeah it's slower, but its still fast enough to visit these /.'ed websites. I will definitely get this if someone can tell me if I can transfer my high.iq domain to their IP range... ;-)
Great! Another Internet spread virus! Is it possible for my computer to become infected with this SARS virus? ;-)
CD speeds are multiples of only 150 KB/s. Therefore, a top-o-the-line 50x CD-RW can only read/write at 7500 KB/s. So this being the first generation of this technology, that seems pretty damn good to me.
Windows is a product of Microsoft. IE is a product of Microsoft. Media Player is a product of Microsoft. Microsoft sells Windows. Consumers buy Windows. Microsoft can do whatever they want to Windows as long as the customer buys it. Nobody is screaming ANTITRUST to McDonalds for 'incorporating' McDonalds fries into their McValue Meals. If Microsoft can learn to cook a cheeseburger, they can incorporate a Microsoft cheeseburger into Windows if they wish, IT'S THEIR PRODUCT! And if that cheesburger becomes the most popular cheeseburger on the market, THEY DONT HAVE TO SELL THE RECIPE TO MCDONALDS! Nobody is making McDonalds release information on their proprietary fries so Burger King can use them in their value meal. BK makes their own fries. You don't have to goto McDonalds to get a value meal, but you can't goto Burger King to get McDonalds fries. You don't have to use Windows as an operating system, but you can't run Media Player without it. Open your eyes and use an open *nix system with open media formats.
How come these hybrid/electric cars are always almost identical in appearance (the sloping/tapering rear end, and covered rear wheel)? They would probably be easier to market if they looked like normal cars. Is this design to maximize the efficiency by minimizing the air resistance? This makes sense, but I mean how much resistance can this really eliminate? And if it IS a significant difference, then why do they only do it to the hybrid/electric cars? Wouldn't they want to do this on ALL cars, even those powered by gasoline/diesel? Thereby making ALL cars more efficient...
Karma Karma Karma Karma Karmachameleon...
What is SPAM? Click here now to claim your free mouse pad!
Is it just me, or has an article like this one been posted nearly every week for months now... WiFi blah blah blah, Speakeasy blah blah blah, Neighbors sharing internet blah blah blah! We know already.
I love ATM fees. I can use a 'FREE' ATM and still am charged a fee from my own bank! With all this dough they are raking in, they should be COMPLETELY secure!!!
Touche! LOL
Did I get the first post on /. ?
If not, I would tell my 12 y/o self to get the first post.