Isn't though. Hell of an astroturf campaign to sign up for slashdot that many years ago, using my real name, just to pimp a book now.
Sorry bud. I actually like it. A lot. On my desk right now.
Completely agree
on
Managing Humans
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's easy as a technical employee -- developer, architect, administrator -- to know your job much better than your boss. Once you've reached that point, it's equally tempting to believe you know *more* than your boss, and to question why they insist on continuing to waste your time.
This book is an excellent first step in explaining what it is managers are supposed to be doing, and what it is that management is supposed to accomplish with the standard management tricks -- meetings, one-on-ones, reviews -- that can seem like such a waste of time when all you want to do is write good code. Even if you never want to go into management yourself, but especially if you do, it's worth reading.
Plus, the book is an easy, engaging read that makes a lot of sense even the first time through.
people watch and store videos and music on their computer -- sometimes simultaneously. (MIDIs don't count. )
they use websites that have active content beyond animated "under construction" gifs (flash isn't just for pretty intros anymore -- it's critical to real interfaces and applications);
they store and expect to quickly search through significantly more data (years and years of email, with attachments);
the security environment has become much more complex (and that's not all Microsoft's fault);
people use encryption (SSL and DRM, for example), without even noticing it;
people run many more applications side-by-side... even if it's just two IM clients and a browser with a stack of open tabs;
And that's just the mythical "average user". Operating systems have to support more than the average user -- they have to support the guy writing apps for the average user (development and debugging have gotten significantly easier); the office of the average user (managing a large userbase); the folks writing content for the average user (both professionals and YouTube).
Many of these things are transparent. And, yeah, I could go back to using pine, bash, rxvt, and WindowMaker (although that's only 10 years ago, not 15), grep through my emails when I needed to find something and use IRC to talk to my friends.
Short comment -- the rule for defamation of public figures is not "that her intent was malicious", it's that it was delivered with "Actual malice". This doesn't seem like a distinction to most laymen, but it turns out it is: "Actual malice" has a very specific legal definition in the U.S., and it doesn't require "malice".
In this case "actual malice" means "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published with "reckless disregard of the truth". This standard comes up quite a bit in when, for example, a celebrity sues a newspaper for publishing something false and damaging. The celebrity need not prove it was published with intent to harm, only that the newspaper didn't care whether it was true or not. In this case, the appeals court ruled that the doctor was a public figure, and so this standard applies. (For a non-public figure, like a neighbor or classmate who has done nothing to seek the spotlight, the court will accept a defamation claim even without proof of actual malice.)
As with many things, the wikipedia article on actual malice is helpful in explaining this distinction, but only a real lawyer -- and IANAL -- is qualified to interpret it for you.
I can look at a file under Linux and instantly tell (possibly with a quick check of the members of a single group) who has what access to it.
This is not entirely true: A file chmod'd 777 appears to be readable and writeable by everyone, but if it's contained within a directory chmod'd 700, then it is accessible to only the owner (unless a user has an open handle to that directory already, but let's not split hairs). Ditto if the parent directory is 777, but *that* directory's parent is 700.
The same is going on with Windows permissions, albeit in a more complicated fashion: the permissions set on parent directories are (or, more accurately, can be) inherited by the children. Admittedly, in Windows, since there are more permissions to inherit, things are somewhat more complicated.
Thanks; eventually did -- maybe that's why the spam only lasted 3 days and not longer.
For the lurkers -- the SPF wizard they have at openspf.org (recommended by parent) is a fantastic tool; very easy to use if you don't have time to read the specs.
It gets worse. Recently a spammer used my domain as their From address, with a randomly generated username part.
For the three days the spam went on, I was getting upwards of 100 emails an hour, mostly bounces and out-of-office messages. Very hard to separate out the real messages.
Be careful with the catchall, and make sure you've got a separate mailbox for important stuff.
While the article points out the benefits of using these new '32-bit numbers', it does ignore the obvious drawbacks -- namely, they will be twice as fast to clog up the tubes that make the Internet work.
Like DeepFreeze (mentioned earlier in thread) it blocks any changes made to your systems from committing to disk (they get rolled back at logout or the next reboot) unless the administrator specifically allows them. Also: Free. And designed for libraries and schools specifically.
Why? The same reason why, after a long day's work, I go to the pub and drink $2 pints there, rather than drink the beer I have at home for less. What's the replay value of beer anyway?
You seem awfully quick to dismiss the social aspect.
Favorite things spotted at skycraft
on
Great Surplus Stores?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From memory, when I was 16... close to 10 years ago:
- capacitors the size of pint glasses - a wall of "building block" chips, like you'd play with in 1000-level electronics classes.. at really cheap rates - mini-switches by the handful - random keypads, with or without protruding cable - a wall of magnets, ranging from magnetized-paperclip strength to "do not operate near pacemakers" - Oscilloscopes clearly designed for use by squid or other multi-tentacled beasts and racks and racks of things which, to this day, I don't think I could identify. My brother and I spent hours there dreaming up the things we wanted to build. Which, I suppose, is the sign of a good geek.
The rules (look at part II.A.2) were changed within days after being issued -- flights in the traffic pattern are exempt from being in communication with ATC. Really, my non-aviation friends were shocked to learn that GA pilots don't have to be in contact with air traffic control at all times, anyway. (Response: "How do you avoid hitting other cars when you're driving?")
I agree that the 15-mile TFR -- excuse me, "special flight rules area" -- I mean, "flight restricted zone" -- around Washington DC is annoying. The ADIZ, for the time being, isn't that big an inconvenience. Takes another 10 minutes to get off the ground and maybe another 5 circling in the air until ATC lets you in. You don't even actually have to file to your destination -- the only thing flight services care about is to file you from your starting point outside of DC. In some ways, it's nice -- controllers who would ignore you before now have to tell you about other traffic to avoid, and it's sometimes easier to fly through the airspace around big airports you'd otherwise need to avoid.
I'm sure these delays will get worse come spring, and meanwhile the gov't needs to have more people watching the radar... but for now, it's hardly an "ass-fucking".
18 USC 641 disagrees with you. That's what you'll be charged with if you keep Shuttle pieces, as The Smoking Gun has cheerfully shown us in the cases of Merrie Hipp and Bradley Gaudet.
You'll note there's no exception in there for "salvaging" it from your front yard. If it says "U.S. Government Property" on it, I suggest you return it -- but IANAL, so you're free to disregard my advice.
Well, not directly, but a case could be made... if you (like the folks on the project) can see this as a world-changing event.
In the Great Tragedy that is the tech industry, 20 years ago, IBM's hubris kept the PC a completely closed environment. When Compaq released their first completely cloned system without any help from IBM, it broke a stranglehold on the market and caused IBM no end of grief.
Twenty years later; BIOS manufacturers have consolidated. In their hubris, they're taking advantage of their oligarchy to implement more barriers to entry (Palladium? I could come up with others) and make the PC a closed platform once again. And, once again, despite their best intentions, their efforts are doomed to failure -- as long as open-source projects like OpenBIOS exist.
So, you see, there is irony in the story, in the sense of (Webster) "incongruity between the result of a sequence of events and the expected result" (on the part of the PC manufacturers). You just have to look for it... and not be so quick to judge.
That is because you crazy! It has no feelings. And the new one is much better.
Re:I think it's amazing the US govt isn't interest
on
The Satellite Subversives
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It's never as easy as that. Here's three potential problems, and there are more:
(1) We already have a broadcast means to present American opinions and points of view -- it's called the Voice of America, it's got editorial independence, and it's been broadcast in Farsi for several years.
(2) While I don't know the editorial leanings of this station in particular, whoever chose to support it (state department?) would have a tough time maintaining their support once some politician started complaining that their views didn't exactly match American foreign policy -- and I bet they say some things about Israel that would sure piss off a Congressman. Before you cry "censorship", remember that the U.S. doesn't have to support unpopular views, it just can't forbid them.
(3) The U.S. has enough problems with "Street Cred" as it is. Iran has already banned the station, but they'll lose more viewers, I think, if it turns out that this is just bought and paid for by the U.S.
Of course, if the new "Office of Strategic Influence" decided to underhandedly throw a little money their way, especially if they didn't try to assert editorial control, I'd certainly support it.
But don't automatically assume they don't 'cause we'd rather blow shit up.
Georgia Tech's CS3210 class (OS Design, the first in the Systems specialization) is taught exclusively by tinkering with the Linux kernel. We use a Compaq test platform that runs on the ARM processor. Students were organized into teams of three; each team was issued a board to run all their test kernels on. It's still a very new course, so nothing is etched in stone -- they're adding more material each semester -- but this semester we had projects wherein we tinkered with the scheduler & played with devices. It was still pretty much an overview, but I think with more preparation and time it should turn into a great course. I took it this semester -- turned in the final exam on Tuesday -- and really enjoyed it.
There are already plenty of laws that will cause you to be prosecuted if you leak classified data.
IANAL, but...
True and not true -- there are three, and they deal with different kinds of classified data.
18 USC 793 -- disclosure of National Defense Information; namely, anything classified under DoD rules. In order to violate this section, you don't have to have lawful access to classified info; you only have to disclose "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" to those "not entitled to receive it". Punishment: 10 years, $250,000.
18 USC 798 -- Codes, ciphers, and communications intelligence. The difference in this one, as I've heard it explained, is that 793 requires you to know that it's classified and that you're willfully violating the law. Under this law, it's enough that you disclose the information at all. Punishment, 10 years, $250,000.
18 USC 794 -- The big one: the espionage statute. To be in violation of this law, you have to willfully deliver "information relating to the national defense" to a foreign government or agent of a foreign power, "with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States." The bar to be in violation of this law is very high -- while disclosure of any kind of information could result in prosecution under this statute, prosecution must prove you knew the U.S. would be harmed. That's not the case in the previous two sections. Punishment: Death, or life imprisonment.
This latest act would effectively lower the bar for prosecution under the first two sections: Even if the material isn't directly defense-related, and even if you don't have a clearance to hold it yourself, and regardless of intent, you could still be prosecuted for releasing any information the gov't considers classified, and be subject to the same penalties.
Thus, whistleblowers disclosing non-defense, non-crypto classified information, who would have a much harder time being prosecuted under 793 and 798, have a lot more to fear from this act. Espionage disclosures still are and have always been illegal under 794, and you could always make a case for reckless endagerment or other laws if someone gets killed because of your actions.
I commend President Clinton for opposing it -- I was surprised to see that he did.
I don't expect the candidates to explain the intricacies of key escrow to the general public in stump speeches or debates. However, when writing for a technical audience, if a candidate shows that he/she gives a deeper level of thought to the issues than what is commonly presented in stump speeches, then I'm for it. I don't expect a candidate to change their mind for this forum, but if they adopt an unpopular view, they damn well better explain in more detail why they still believe it.
Like any responsible elector, I make my decisions based on a balance between the issues most likely to effect me and the issues effecting the country as a whole. I'm not trying to pick a winner, I'm picking the person who I believe will best represent my interests.
Do hackers walk out of Hacker Command deep in the recesses of [redacted] wearing a T-shirt that says "I took out the Serbian Power Grid today!"? No. Nor would you expect them to log into foreign systems with their real name and social security number. If the Enemy is already in your hometown and shooting people, then it seems to me that on a military base, surrounded by marines with really nifty weapons, is a pretty good place to be; you've got worse problems to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep going
Isn't though. Hell of an astroturf campaign to sign up for slashdot that many years ago, using my real name, just to pimp a book now.
Sorry bud. I actually like it. A lot. On my desk right now.
It's easy as a technical employee -- developer, architect, administrator -- to know your job much better than your boss. Once you've reached that point, it's equally tempting to believe you know *more* than your boss, and to question why they insist on continuing to waste your time.
This book is an excellent first step in explaining what it is managers are supposed to be doing, and what it is that management is supposed to accomplish with the standard management tricks -- meetings, one-on-ones, reviews -- that can seem like such a waste of time when all you want to do is write good code. Even if you never want to go into management yourself, but especially if you do, it's worth reading.
Plus, the book is an easy, engaging read that makes a lot of sense even the first time through.
Highly recommended.
And that's just the mythical "average user". Operating systems have to support more than the average user -- they have to support the guy writing apps for the average user (development and debugging have gotten significantly easier); the office of the average user (managing a large userbase); the folks writing content for the average user (both professionals and YouTube).
Many of these things are transparent. And, yeah, I could go back to using pine, bash, rxvt, and WindowMaker (although that's only 10 years ago, not 15), grep through my emails when I needed to find something and use IRC to talk to my friends.
But you know what? This is better. A lot better.
Short comment -- the rule for defamation of public figures is not "that her intent was malicious", it's that it was delivered with "Actual malice". This doesn't seem like a distinction to most laymen, but it turns out it is: "Actual malice" has a very specific legal definition in the U.S., and it doesn't require "malice".
In this case "actual malice" means "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published with "reckless disregard of the truth". This standard comes up quite a bit in when, for example, a celebrity sues a newspaper for publishing something false and damaging. The celebrity need not prove it was published with intent to harm, only that the newspaper didn't care whether it was true or not. In this case, the appeals court ruled that the doctor was a public figure, and so this standard applies. (For a non-public figure, like a neighbor or classmate who has done nothing to seek the spotlight, the court will accept a defamation claim even without proof of actual malice.)
As with many things, the wikipedia article on actual malice is helpful in explaining this distinction, but only a real lawyer -- and IANAL -- is qualified to interpret it for you.
I can look at a file under Linux and instantly tell (possibly with a quick check of the members of a single group) who has what access to it.
This is not entirely true: A file chmod'd 777 appears to be readable and writeable by everyone, but if it's contained within a directory chmod'd 700, then it is accessible to only the owner (unless a user has an open handle to that directory already, but let's not split hairs). Ditto if the parent directory is 777, but *that* directory's parent is 700.
The same is going on with Windows permissions, albeit in a more complicated fashion: the permissions set on parent directories are (or, more accurately, can be) inherited by the children. Admittedly, in Windows, since there are more permissions to inherit, things are somewhat more complicated.
Thanks; eventually did -- maybe that's why the spam only lasted 3 days and not longer.
For the lurkers -- the SPF wizard they have at openspf.org (recommended by parent) is a fantastic tool; very easy to use if you don't have time to read the specs.
It gets worse. Recently a spammer used my domain as their From address, with a randomly generated username part.
For the three days the spam went on, I was getting upwards of 100 emails an hour, mostly bounces and out-of-office messages. Very hard to separate out the real messages.
Be careful with the catchall, and make sure you've got a separate mailbox for important stuff.
While the article points out the benefits of using these new '32-bit numbers', it does ignore the obvious drawbacks -- namely, they will be twice as fast to clog up the tubes that make the Internet work.
It won't help you with your updates problem, but to cut down on the number of reinstalls, take a look at the Microsoft Shared Computer Toolkit:
e fault.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sharedaccess/d
Like DeepFreeze (mentioned earlier in thread) it blocks any changes made to your systems from committing to disk (they get rolled back at logout or the next reboot) unless the administrator specifically allows them. Also: Free. And designed for libraries and schools specifically.
Why? The same reason why, after a long day's work, I go to the pub and drink $2 pints there, rather than drink the beer I have at home for less. What's the replay value of beer anyway?
You seem awfully quick to dismiss the social aspect.
From memory, when I was 16... close to 10 years ago:
- capacitors the size of pint glasses
- a wall of "building block" chips, like you'd play with in 1000-level electronics classes.. at really cheap rates
- mini-switches by the handful
- random keypads, with or without protruding cable
- a wall of magnets, ranging from magnetized-paperclip strength to "do not operate near pacemakers"
- Oscilloscopes clearly designed for use by squid or other multi-tentacled beasts
and racks and racks of things which, to this day, I don't think I could identify. My brother and I spent hours there dreaming up the things we wanted to build. Which, I suppose, is the sign of a good geek.
Anyone know of a place like this in the DC area?
The rules (look at part II.A.2) were changed within days after being issued -- flights in the traffic pattern are exempt from being in communication with ATC. Really, my non-aviation friends were shocked to learn that GA pilots don't have to be in contact with air traffic control at all times, anyway. (Response: "How do you avoid hitting other cars when you're driving?")
I agree that the 15-mile TFR -- excuse me, "special flight rules area" -- I mean, "flight restricted zone" -- around Washington DC is annoying. The ADIZ, for the time being, isn't that big an inconvenience. Takes another 10 minutes to get off the ground and maybe another 5 circling in the air until ATC lets you in. You don't even actually have to file to your destination -- the only thing flight services care about is to file you from your starting point outside of DC. In some ways, it's nice -- controllers who would ignore you before now have to tell you about other traffic to avoid, and it's sometimes easier to fly through the airspace around big airports you'd otherwise need to avoid.
I'm sure these delays will get worse come spring, and meanwhile the gov't needs to have more people watching the radar... but for now, it's hardly an "ass-fucking".
18 USC 641 disagrees with you. That's what you'll be charged with if you keep Shuttle pieces, as The Smoking Gun has cheerfully shown us in the cases of Merrie Hipp and Bradley Gaudet.
You'll note there's no exception in there for "salvaging" it from your front yard. If it says "U.S. Government Property" on it, I suggest you return it -- but IANAL, so you're free to disregard my advice.
Well, not directly, but a case could be made... if you (like the folks on the project) can see this as a world-changing event.
In the Great Tragedy that is the tech industry, 20 years ago, IBM's hubris kept the PC a completely closed environment. When Compaq released their first completely cloned system without any help from IBM, it broke a stranglehold on the market and caused IBM no end of grief.
Twenty years later; BIOS manufacturers have consolidated. In their hubris, they're taking advantage of their oligarchy to implement more barriers to entry (Palladium? I could come up with others) and make the PC a closed platform once again. And, once again, despite their best intentions, their efforts are doomed to failure -- as long as open-source projects like OpenBIOS exist.
So, you see, there is irony in the story, in the sense of (Webster) "incongruity between the result of a sequence of events and the expected result" (on the part of the PC manufacturers). You just have to look for it... and not be so quick to judge.
That is because you crazy! It has no feelings. And the new one is much better.
It's never as easy as that. Here's three potential problems, and there are more:
(1) We already have a broadcast means to present American opinions and points of view -- it's called the Voice of America, it's got editorial independence, and it's been broadcast in Farsi for several years.
(2) While I don't know the editorial leanings of this station in particular, whoever chose to support it (state department?) would have a tough time maintaining their support once some politician started complaining that their views didn't exactly match American foreign policy -- and I bet they say some things about Israel that would sure piss off a Congressman. Before you cry "censorship", remember that the U.S. doesn't have to support unpopular views, it just can't forbid them.
(3) The U.S. has enough problems with "Street Cred" as it is. Iran has already banned the station, but they'll lose more viewers, I think, if it turns out that this is just bought and paid for by the U.S.
Of course, if the new "Office of Strategic Influence" decided to underhandedly throw a little money their way, especially if they didn't try to assert editorial control, I'd certainly support it.
But don't automatically assume they don't 'cause we'd rather blow shit up.
Georgia Tech's CS3210 class (OS Design, the first in the Systems specialization) is taught exclusively by tinkering with the Linux kernel. We use a Compaq test platform that runs on the ARM processor. Students were organized into teams of three; each team was issued a board to run all their test kernels on. It's still a very new course, so nothing is etched in stone -- they're adding more material each semester -- but this semester we had projects wherein we tinkered with the scheduler & played with devices. It was still pretty much an overview, but I think with more preparation and time it should turn into a great course. I took it this semester -- turned in the final exam on Tuesday -- and really enjoyed it.
True and not true -- there are three, and they deal with different kinds of classified data.
18 USC 793 -- disclosure of National Defense Information; namely, anything classified under DoD rules. In order to violate this section, you don't have to have lawful access to classified info; you only have to disclose "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" to those "not entitled to receive it". Punishment: 10 years, $250,000.
18 USC 798 -- Codes, ciphers, and communications intelligence. The difference in this one, as I've heard it explained, is that 793 requires you to know that it's classified and that you're willfully violating the law. Under this law, it's enough that you disclose the information at all. Punishment, 10 years, $250,000.
18 USC 794 -- The big one: the espionage statute. To be in violation of this law, you have to willfully deliver "information relating to the national defense" to a foreign government or agent of a foreign power, "with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States." The bar to be in violation of this law is very high -- while disclosure of any kind of information could result in prosecution under this statute, prosecution must prove you knew the U.S. would be harmed. That's not the case in the previous two sections. Punishment: Death, or life imprisonment.
This latest act would effectively lower the bar for prosecution under the first two sections: Even if the material isn't directly defense-related, and even if you don't have a clearance to hold it yourself, and regardless of intent, you could still be prosecuted for releasing any information the gov't considers classified, and be subject to the same penalties.
Thus, whistleblowers disclosing non-defense, non-crypto classified information, who would have a much harder time being prosecuted under 793 and 798, have a lot more to fear from this act. Espionage disclosures still are and have always been illegal under 794, and you could always make a case for reckless endagerment or other laws if someone gets killed because of your actions.
I commend President Clinton for opposing it -- I was surprised to see that he did.
Well, yes.
I don't expect the candidates to explain the intricacies of key escrow to the general public in stump speeches or debates. However, when writing for a technical audience, if a candidate shows that he/she gives a deeper level of thought to the issues than what is commonly presented in stump speeches, then I'm for it. I don't expect a candidate to change their mind for this forum, but if they adopt an unpopular view, they damn well better explain in more detail why they still believe it.
Like any responsible elector, I make my decisions based on a balance between the issues most likely to effect me and the issues effecting the country as a whole. I'm not trying to pick a winner, I'm picking the person who I believe will best represent my interests.
Pander away.
Do hackers walk out of Hacker Command deep in
the recesses of [redacted] wearing a T-shirt that
says "I took out the Serbian Power Grid today!"?
No. Nor would you expect them to log into foreign
systems with their real name and social security
number. If the Enemy is already in your hometown
and shooting people, then it seems to me that
on a military base, surrounded by marines with
really nifty weapons, is a pretty good place
to be; you've got worse problems to worry about.