Re:H-1B is the answer to "herding cats"
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
Technically true but the reality is much different. You try finding an employer to take on the costs of an H1B visa transfer. I've done it twice and only got the second one because I guaranteed them my green card by the time my visa expired. The first happened about year before the dot-com implosion.
H1B is essentially indentured servitude. I can vouch for the wage differences for H1B personally because I've lived it. You have virtually no mobility as an H1B holder and the employer holds all the cards. The costs for an H1 transfer run between $1200 and $2000 and the employer promises the INS/USCIS that if they terminate you and you cannot find a new position within 10 days, they pay for your "return to home country" costs. Essentially, they post a bond for your return. And employers who bring you in as an H1B will often hold the costs of moving and filing costs against your starting salary. I was 15-20K below market when I came in under my H1B.
So, yes, an H1B will put up with crappy job conditions because they typically have no choice. Companies are required to prove they looked for an American to fill the position (an H1 requirement) but the salary range and experience requirements they list are often so out of whack that no qualified person would apply due to the far-below-market wage requirement. So meeting the dosmetic requirement is a farce because the employer really wants the cheap H1B.
Don't raise the H1B visa limit. It really is a means of getting cheap labor.
As when Man messes with Nature, unforeseen or expected consequence are often the result. Keeping Nature at bay is not the same as bringing it under our direct and managable control.
As to controlling hurricanes with regards to chaotic system, the fundamental problem is one of initial conditions. As it is well-known, small differences produce large effects. Lorenz proved this in his attempts to predict weather in the 60's. The same problem still remains. And the inputs you talk about controlling are vast.
And we need to understand the process by which a tropical wave makes the transition to tropical depression and evolve into a full-blown hurricane. We currently do not understand how this happens. And even when we do learn and are able to predict with a decent amount of accuracy which storms will become hurricanes and better able to predict their tracks, what then? The expenditure of tens of billions of dollars to prevent one possible landfall of a major hurricane just to save some man-altered coastline?
I don't see it as a possibility that we can stop a hurricane. You could drop every nuclear weapon on earth into it and it would just keep on coming. Nature can churn up a million cubic feet of atmosphere and sustain the forces involved for two weeks at a time (the life of an average hurricane). There isn't enough energy on the planet for us to harness that can match that.
If we are able to precisely measure the initial conditions that lead to hurricane genesis, small changes might yield useful effects. But then we would need to predict the effects of those changes with like accuracy. People in the future would be none-too-pleased to have a prediction go wrong and a hurricane that was supposed to stay out to sea turn in and hit their homes intead. As Katrina is showing, politicians are real quick to point fingers. However, the precision required for this would probably require sensors operating at cubic inch resolution and that is simply not doable (and it is probably a conservative estimate). Not to mention the mere presence of sufficient numbers of sensors could alter the initial conditions themselves and thus invoke Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Isn't chaos grand?
The poster with the NOAA information covered why trying to stop hurricanes is pointless. It's been tried.
As to the relationship between global warming and hurricanes, there is none. Hurricane frequency occurs on a natural cycle of warmer SSTs (sea surface temperatures) in the Atlantic. This is a real phenomena that is not understood but does occur. When SSTs rise by 1 degree C on average in the above the equator in the eastern Atlantic, you get more hurricanes. Plain and simple. This rise in temperate occurs on roughly 20-30 year cycles. This is nothing new. The problem is, coastal building in the US occured during a natural "low" in hurricane activity. The intensity picked up in the 1990s and we're right in the middle of that "high" intensity phase now. When SSTs in the Atlantic cool (sometime in the next decade and head south of the equator), hurricane frequency will fall. We are talking thousands of square miles of ocean here that feed these storms. You think an iceberg and a couple of subs trolling the waters is going to affect that?
Articles like this are so comedic. Despite being a race that has created nuclear weapons, we have nothing on Nature when it comes to brute energy expenditure. "Stupidity" does not even begin to describe the simplistic and child-like thinking that produced this article. Only human arrogance in thinking that we can solve or alter anything to suit our desires can produce tripe such as this article.
Money and time is best spent on prediction, warning, disaster planning and recovery and further research into hurricane genesis so we can better understand how these storms come to be and how we can live with them better. And even then, it is an inexact science. People are better served by showing some awe and humility towards nature as history has shown, whenever Man tries to mess with Nature, Nature wins.
It seems to me that people are complaining because creationism / intelligent design can not be proven. It is a theory, sure it is based on faith to some extent but it is still a theory. As is Evolution. Evolution is a theory about how the universe came in to existance. It is no more provable than creationism / intelligent design. Sure there is a fossil record but still that record is being interpreted from a certain perspective and there are some unexplained gaps.
You are confusing many scientific disciplines here. Evolution is NOT a theory about the origins of the Universe. It is a theory on the change and development of species over time. It is mute on the origins of life (and, by extension, the origin of the Universe).
Microbiology deals with origin of life issues.
Unfortunately, all we can do is interpret the evidence that we have available to us. We are not able to know what has happened to our planet or our universe hundreds of thousands or billions of years ago. All we have is the evidence, and it can be viewed many different ways.
Wrong. Scientific theories represent the gathering of facts and observations to create a provable, testable, falsifiable model of how some process in Nature works. What you are describing are hypothesis, which there can be many of. The hypothesis that best fits the data is what becomes a theory. And theories can be modified or invalidated as new data becomes available. Theories are not "equal time" things. The process to allow a hypothesis to become a theory is very rigorous. Scientific facts are very rare as they are theories that are proven beyond all doubt and have no other explanation. Not even Einstein's Theory of Relavity (which has made predictions and had them proven time and time again) or the Big Bang are considered scientific facts despite overwhelming evidence that they are correct.
Cosmology deals with the origins of the Universe. And on that subject there is verifiable, undeniable evidence of the Big Bang. And that evidence was predicted long before it was found. That is one the fundamental tenets of scientific theories. The competing theory of Steady State was discarded as soon as this evidence was discovered as it could not accomodate it.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and never can be because it cannot be falsified. It also makes a priori assumptions which proper scientific theories do not. As stated by others, theories reach conclusions after gathering and analyzing the evidence. And the conclusion may not fit your expectations but that is a human weakness, not that of the theory. As long as the data matches the theory's predictions for it, it is valid. ID does none of this. ID is little more than "God created Everything" with scientific words thrown in to make it sound legitimate. It is not.
In fact, evolution is not incompatible with ID. ID, in fact, demands it. But ID lies in the realm of religion and philiosphy, not science. And ID has no science to support it within the mainstream and has failed to garner such support for well over a decade.
Clarification before someone points it out: there are actually 8 APUs/SPEs on a Cell but one is apparently reserved in the PS/3 Cell for system use so that leaves 7 remaining for general purpose use. Because of the 1 PU + 7 APUs is why I list 8 'cores'. Cell is really 1 PU + 8 APU/SPEs.
What isn't being explained to the uninitated is that line for the Cell on '7 x SPE @ 3.2Ghz'.
The Cell isn't a single core: it's 8! The CPU (or PU as it is called) is a POWER5 core. It is connected to 7 APUs/SPEs (Attached Processor Units/Single Processing Elements (whatever you want to call them)). Each SPE is a limited CPU in its own right with its own local caches and memory. The PU acts as a controller, dispatching work to the APUs.
Each APU is essentially a very fast CPU optimized for moving data streams and calculations. Cell was designed to chew on large amounts of similar data very, very fast. It isn't a general purpose core like the POWER or Intel cores found in Xbox 360 or the original Xbox (or your PC for that matter).
Caches aren't everything. PCs and XBox depend on caches to maintain performance levels as in a mixed instruction stream it is tough to know what's going on. A cache miss in a general purpose core can (and is) expensive in terms of cycles. Cell (and the original PS/2) get around caching issues by simply not having them (or just enough to feed the processor) and rely heavily on moving data across a very wide and fast memory bus on demand, as needed and repeated as necessary. Dramatically simplifies the architecture and permits much more focused optimization of code. Programmers for PS/2 had to learn to live without caches and learn a new way of development since PC experience doesn't translate over into the PS/2 world and clearly not into the PS/3 world.
A big part of this contest between XBox 360 and PS/3 is seeing how programmers managed to take advantage of that parallel power. Multiple cores in XBox will be useless if they can't be taken advantage of. Same goes for Cell.
I think PS/3 has the advantage and will eventually win. I'm surprised at the specs as original discussions on the machine had indicated it would be fitted with FOUR Cell processors, not one. Perhaps the initial round of prototypes are single Celled (forgive the pun) to permit development and gaining familiarity with the hardware. Perhaps inside are empty slots for more chips.
Don't confuse PS/3 with a PC because it's not. It is designed to be a very fast SIMD media machine focusing on graphics, video and audio. It may suck as a general purpose server and perhaps a PC can hammer it on some benchmarks but if Cell performs half as good as the information on it speculates in the media realm, there isn't a PC (or Xbox) out there that can hope to keep up with it.
The GPL doesn't work that way. By his description, his modifications used the original GPL work as a base. Plus, any modifications to GPL code MUST fall under the GPL. The GPL does not permit conditions to be added. If they distribute the code, they must distribute it all under the GPL. You are not permitted to cherry-pick which modifications fall under the GPL.
Especially in this case as the modifications represent a derivative work rather than mere aggregation. If the two programs are separate, then it might be possible to distribute the proprietary portion and GPL pieces separately. However, my interpretation of the GPL, any program which uses pieces of another GPL'd programs' source code within its own is considered derivative and thus bound by the terms of the GPL. This is what has been done.
Because online business then have to deal with tax collection for the states. Do note that mail order businesses do not have to collect sales tax for out-of-state orders. Same applies to the Internet and many online businesses in your state will apply sales tax for state residents on orders they place.
The issues with Internet tax is the cost of collection versus the revenue generated. If it costs nearly as much to administer for a given amount of taxes and it costs businesses money to implement (and either force them to raise prices to compensate or have them go out of business as a result of higher costs), it isn't worth it.
Sure, the states can use the money but the states forget that taxes aren't a free source of money. Just because they want more money shouldn't give them the right to just create a tax and take it. You want to add a tax, in my view, you better be able to justify it. A money grab is not a justification.
The bulk of the funding is needed to provide DSN coverage to the Voyage Interstellar Mission. The rest is for support costs. Each Voyager spacecraft requires 50-70 hours of DSN coverage per cycle (based on the reading of the mission status reports on the VIM mission website).
If they terminate funding and someone doesn't find a way to sneak commands to the spacecraft on the sly, contact will be lost, the Voyagers will go into their command reset "safe modes" and we may never regain contact with them.
This is shameful. They don't cost much to run but they give us valuable data on the Sun's influence and how it influences the interstellar medium. The data helps refine models on solar wind dynamics, wind influence and strength over distance, particle interactions with the interstellar medium and ultimate tell us where our neighborhood ends and interstellar space begins.
To the layman, yes, go for it. But these spacecraft are the only two vehicles this far out. It would take a decade or more to get a new spacecraft out there and if they cut funding to these, what makes you think they'll spend the billions of dollars and time needed to design a new spacecraft to explore the same region. Probably not in my lifetime.
I'm a big fan of the VIM. I stand in awe of the foresight and talent of the engineers who built the spacecraft and the fact they remain operational after decades in space. The communications needs aren't that much and it is incredible that these faint whispers can be heard from so far away.
Someone can't just pick up this mission from NASA. They would need a network similar to the DSN to communicate with the spacecraft and the technology is so old that it is improbable that someone else could learn how to communicate and interact with the spacecraft in time. Likely the only hardware and software on earth that can understand the Voyagers exists at NASA and if shutdown or disposed of, this knowledge would be lost forever.
If someone were to pay my living expenses, I would happily work to help keep the VIM running. There is grandeur in hearing the whispers of ourselves from so far away and we should listen until they can't talk to us anymore.
Cut some other program to help fund it. I can think of several.
The bulk of the funding is needed to provide DSN coverage to the Voyage Interstellar Mission. The rest is for support costs. Each Voyager spacecraft requires 50-70 hours of DSN coverage per cycle (based on the reading of the mission status reports on the VIM mission website).
If they terminate funding and someone doesn't find a way to sneak commands to the spacecraft on the sly, contact will be lost, the Voyagers will go into their command reset "safe modes" and we may never regain contact with them.
This is shameful. They don't cost much to run but they give us valuable data on the Sun's influence and how it influences the interstellar medium. The data helps refine models on solar wind dynamics, wind influence and strength over distance, particle interactions with the interstellar medium and ultimate tell us where our neighborhood ends and interstellar space begins.
To the layman, yes, go for it. But these spacecraft are the only two vehicles this far out. It would take a decade or more to get a new spacecraft out there and if they cut funding to these, what makes you think they'll spend the billions of dollars and time needed to design a new spacecraft to explore the same region. Probably not in my lifetime.
I'm a big fan of the VIM. I stand in awe of the foresight and talent of the engineers who built the spacecraft and the fact they remain operational after decades in space. The communications needs aren't that much and it is incredible that these faint whispers can be heard from so far away.
Someone can't just pick up this mission from NASA. They would need a network similar to the DSN to communicate with the spacecraft and the technology is so old that it is improbable that someone else could learn how to communicate and interact with the spacecraft in time. Likely the only hardware and software on earth that can understand the Voyagers exists at NASA and if shutdown or disposed of, this knowledge would be lost forever.
If someone were to pay my living expenses, I would happily work to help keep the VIM running. There is grandeur in hearing the whispers of ourselves from so far away and we should listen until they can't talk to us anymore.
Cut some other program to help fund it. I can think of several.
Because mathematics are universal and invariant no matter who "discovers" a particular mathematical concept. Since math serves as the foundation to much of civilization, it is considered public knowledge that no one can own.
Wrong on the boxes. In the escape battle between the Millenium Falcon and the TIE fighters, you can see brown and green boxes on the Widescreen DVD edition as plain as day. I have the VHS Widescreen and Original editions and I can barely make out the boxes or even see them at all.
Cassini passed through the gap between the F and G rings. So it did, technically, pass through the rings. Just through an empty space between them but still part of the ring system. And as the engine burn slowed Cassini down, it swung down and passed through the rings on the other side of the planet.
Most folks can't find their hometowns on a map. Hand someone a astronomical chart and tell them to find Saturn in the sky and they'll look at you blankly. Same goes for Jupiter, Mars and Venus (three easy planets to spot). Mercury is tough.
Because of the idea that math and physics build problem solving and analytical ability. By their nature, solving a math/physics problem also requires logic to progress step-by-step through a problem.
It also partially true. It helps you to understand computers, develops an attention to detail (a critical skill in software development) and a certain amount of debugging skill to help you backtrack and find errors in a flawed solution.
It is also a creative process. I see software development as about 40% artistic, 60% logical. You need a certain amount of ability to think in the abstract and creative tasks tend to promote that.
If you don't understand algebra, a little logical reasoning and have the ability to look at a big problem and break it down into a series of steps to attack to reach a solution, you wil never do well as a computer science person or as a software engineer.
It's also a tough job. Middle grade on the pay scale but extremely taxing mentally, requires constant skill management to keep up-to-date on the latest technology and a never ending battle of skills upgrading. Once you look at what it takes to survive long-term in IT as a software person, most people can't hack it. Only the truly passionate continue in it because they love that type of thing and don't look at it as a cash cow to be milked. And those are the type of people I hire.:)
If you just need a three or four PCs for simulating production environments, why not look at getting a bunch of Mini-PCs like the Shuttle XPC line. These boxes are the size of a toaster and sit comfortable on a good size desk. You could easily fit four of these little boxes on a desk along with a monitor, mouse and keyboard, a 4 port KVM and a small hub. Doesn't weigh a ton and it is a lot cheaper than a rack setup. Very compact too.
I have a Shuttle XPC for gaming purposes fitted with an Athlon XP 2800+, 512MB RAM, a DVD-ROM and an 80GB hard disk. For full featured computing needs in a small package, you can't beat it.
Re:Working with AMD/Intel on NX ?
on
Gates on Winsecurity
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not a misconception. The difference is in the fact that Linux usage encourages users to use a regular account that limits the destructive potential to their own data and locally installed programs, nothing more. Linux explicitly requires users to enter the system with administrator rights in order to modify the system behavior or configuration. Windows systems gives these powers to normal users by default in the name of "convenience".
Second, there is a lot of variety in Linux installations even though they are all compatible in broad terms. Differences in what languages are available, permissions on what the user can run, where files are located, etc. And since the average Linux user isn't being spoonfed Microsoft "innovation", the average Linux user knows better than to open an unknown mail attachment and every Linux mail client will not do this by default.
Linux distros don't run unneeded services out of the box by default (been that way for years). Most exploits in Linux take advantage of minor vulnerabilities (such as the Ramen worm which used a hole in the lpd print daemon to deface insecure Apache installations). Even then, without administrator (root) power, the damage these worms/viruses can cause is very limited.
It isn't impossible to write a worm to affect Linux. Just difficult. And even when done, the vulnerability that made it possible is often patched within hours. Viruses are for all intents and purposes impossible to write for Linux without a root exploit available.
The inherent design differences of Linux vs. Windows even with Linux installations becoming more prevalent and thus more inviting to attack will still keep Linux, *BSD and Mac OS X relatively safe from large scale, billion dollar attacks that run rampant on MS based systems. And if there is an attack, the Linux community will fix it and help educate rather than beg the government to create standards and blame the whole thing on customers rather than admit to plain crappy software engineering.
By default, the NTFS permissions are disabled for purposes of backward compatibility and the first user out of the gate on an XP system is given administrator privileges.
Thus, without taking active measures, the default configuration of modern Windows system out of the box is in its insecure, full power mode.
Unix/Linux systems go to great pains to ensure that root is a special case and strongly encouraged not to use it except in circumstances involving system configuration.
I'm not talking about corporate environments with varying security policies. I'm talking about home users who don't have an understanding of network security issues and frankly, they don't give a crap. They want to plug it in and make it work. Rightly or wrongly, this is their expectation.
This is all-too familiar problem. I've actually got a really good excuse: I don't use Windows. Except for work (where I have support people I can call but never need to), I use Linux at home. My wife runs XP and I can't help her with problems because I don't know or care how XP does stuff.
I've also been the victim of the "you know computers, can you help me" club. I now limit that interaction to close friends and some family (who fortunately are all at least 500 miles away). For everyone else, my answer is this: My time is valuable. If you want me to fix your computer, I charge $70/hr, minimum of 30 minutes. I reached the point where I was getting tired of being taken advantage of.
That being said, I see two larger issues in all this techno illiterate world. The first is obvious to anyone who knows about Windows vs. Linux. Simply put, you can't secure a system that is inherently insecure. Windows users run as "root". Period. Apps that run on it have free reign. App design deficiencies are a real close second though. MyDoom doesn't affect systems that don't use Outlook. Lotus Notes and Eudora spring to mind. My wife was unaffected my MyDoom. Monoculture is not good, kids.
I can't really blame the users fully. They don't know any better and I think it is arrogant of the technoelite (of which I consider myself a member) to expect the rest of the world to bow down to our ideals and expectations of what someone has to know to use a computer.
Which brings me to my second point. The problem isn't the users, it's the computers themselves. Specifically, their interfaces. We've had GUI interfaces for almost 20 years now and frankly, we are still no further ahead in usability. GUI's were supposed to make things easier. All they've done is increase confusion and create new and wonderful ways to breed complexity.
You'd figure after 20 years that we would be coming up with ways of making computers know a little more about how to get things done. I'm not talking Utopian dreams of voice or 3D interfaces, but the building of knowledge into the system. I'm sorry, kids, listening to a CD, ripping some music, sending e-mail or watching a video clip on a computer should not be a chore! People do not care whether a document is.doc, pdf,.txt or.sxw, a video clip is an MPG, RM or an AVI. They get angry when it doesn't work when they just want it to. If the plug-in or player isn't present, give the computer the knowledge to know where to go get it, download it , guide the user through installation and then do the original task. Some programs do better than other at this but it is still often obtuse and fraugth with peril.
We should be listening to these users. Ask them: "How do you think this task should be done?". Have them explain it in terms they know. Get from them the picture in their head of how they think it should be done. It is the hardest thing to do in the world because what they think they want vs. want they really want are often two very different things.
As a result, the following maxim can apply:
The complexity of an application or task is inversely proportional to how simple the user thinks it is. - Matt Pickering
Translated: The easier someone thinks it is to do on a computer, the harder it will be for the developer to write. Conversely, the harder or complicated the user thinks the task is, the easier it usually is to write. I have observed this phenomena over the years and the maxim holds true. The more complicated someone thinks something is to do often I find to be straightforward. Then they come up with things that seem simple to them and they turn out to be devilishly difficult to produce (if not impossible).
Instead of us continuing to create more complex, feature-rich and elaborate applications and environments, we should be embracing these users (people like my parents who are computer clueless) and ask them how we should be
Considering that SCO has not filed a single copyright infringement suit against IBM or Red Hat (IBM has filed a copyright infringement countersuit against SC0), this is a contractual dispute.
SCO has sued Novell over who owns the copyrights to the UNIX source code. Reading of the contracts points towards Novell, but it is ultimately up to a court to decide (IANAL).
SCO has far from won. If anything, it looks like SCO is going to have to brush up on the Chewbacca defense prior to Feb. 6.
Do take note of the fact that even if Linux is violation of SCO's copyrights (highly unlikely), SCO has a responsibility to mitigate damages. Despite repeated, ongoing requests from the Linux community to work with them to identify any questionable code, SCO has failed to do so on the arguments that it would dilute the value of their product. Even if they win (even more unlikely), they will not be able to claim damages going forward from the point they identified the problem since they did not act in good faith to minimize the harm from that infringement.
Lastly, despite SCO's posturing, end users cannot be held liable for violations of others! Period. The best they can do is get damages from the developer who copied code from SysV into Linux. SCO has never claimed that IBM copied code verbatim into Linux (hence, no copyright infringement suit). Since they have not done that, the best they can do is pick on a developer (who rightly will deserve the flogging).
SCO is trying to get users to pay for a license that basically says SCO promises not to sue them. Heck, I could sell you a perpetual license that permitted you unlimited access to water and air for as long as you remained on the surface of the planet in exchange for my promise that I would try to breathe the same air as you in the same space. You'd be an idiot if you choose to purchase such a license from me, but you are within your right to do so (licenses are NOT contacts). SCO's "Linux Property License" is about as ridiculous.
Don't forget about Cassini which will reach Saturn this year and drop a probe into Titan's atmosphere and land on the surface. It's taken 7 years for it to get there.
It's about as interesting as the moon, just twice the diameter and with a little bit of atmosphere as a result. Even if we do find bacteria or the remains thereof, so what?
Anyone that isn't a religious nut can come to the conclusion pretty easily that life in some form is out there in all probability.
Probability less than 1.00 is not proof. If proof was found that life exists or had existed on Mars in the past, then it changes the way we look at the Universe. If life could develop on two planets in the same solar system, what does that say for the possibility and commonality of life elsewhere?
Perhaps Mars is boring. It's the same argument people said about the lunar missions a generation ago. It only became boring because we let it.
Take a step back and stand in awe of the fact that we have the ability to even do what we are doing. It isn't boring. It wasn't in 1969 and it isn't now. It should be considered anything but boring. Maybe if we hadn't gotten "bored" in 1972, it wouldn't be a robot up there analyzing samples up there and sending back imagery used preprogrammed commands on a 20 minute delay. It would be a man or woman instead, with us hearing their voice, the excitement and thrill at walking on another world and making that thrill of discovery, curiousity and exploration infectious to entire planet and to another generation. But we didn't. We should have.
Have a sense of romance and excitement. I wish I could send commands to the rover along the lines of "Look that way! What's over there?!?" or "Drive over there and look behind that rock.".
There are some things that should transcend day-to-day living and the focus on our daily lives and exist simply for the sake of doing it, cost and politics aside. Space exploration should be one of those things.
True, but the other issue with the BSD case was the inclusion of BSD code within SysV as well as unattributed Unix code within BSD. To this day, it is possible there is BSD code within SysV that migrated from earlier editions that was supposed to have received proper copyright notices but didn't.
The BSDI case was a voluntary settlement on the part of both parties. It was in AT&T's best interest to settle given the fact it was likely that not only would AT&T lose the case but also lose ALL rights to Unix due to lack of copyright information. That would have effectively put Unix into the public domain and destroyed AT&T's UNIX business. Not only that, AT&T had taken BSD code and placed it into UNIX improperly. They were allowed to keep that code as long as they identified it and promised to NEVER sue anyone who used the indepedently developed BSD code in the future. These aspects of the case are known, the rest of the settlement details are not.
Anyone using Unencumbered BSD4.4 code is in the clear. The Encumbered code still contains AT&T code and cannot be used without a UNIX license. I believe that codebase is largely dead today. The problem is, SCO has this idea they can reopen the BSDI case and change the terms of the settlement. They can try to retry it with the Board of Regents but they would face the same issues that AT&T faced then and then a few more. That settlement cannot be taken back just because they don't like it. As successors-in-interest, they are still bound by its terms. It isn't a court ruling that can be appealed. The previous owner agreed to the terms and SCO is still bound by them.
Re:Encryption ain't it all tapped out to be...
on
Feds Want to Tap VoIP
·
· Score: 1
Not if machine speeds reach the point where you can do RSA 2048 and 4096 bit encryption in real time. Do that and the NSA, FBI or anyone else won't listening to your conversations for a very, very, very long time.
Remember, the NSA is not chartered for domestic surveillance. That is technically a crime. Domestic surveillance is the domain of the FBI (although they could ask the NSA for decryption help).
Using public key cryptography with 2048 bits renders your conversations effectively private. The FBI would have to seize both machines at the end of such a VoIP conversation and get the private keys to decrypt the traffic in a timeframe under 100,000 years.:) Quantum computers don't exist yet (which could crack RSA in the blink of an eye), so things are pretty safe.
I haven't gotten letters but I am doing one of the tasks you mention: downloading ISOs. Mainly Linux distros and some have 6-7 ISOs. That's 3+ GB and I'll do that in a night. Never had a letter or a note from my ISP.
Mind you, that is all downstream. I'm not offering data outbound. My ISP (Cox Communications) has a very liberal policy regarding bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
H1B is essentially indentured servitude. I can vouch for the wage differences for H1B personally because I've lived it. You have virtually no mobility as an H1B holder and the employer holds all the cards. The costs for an H1 transfer run between $1200 and $2000 and the employer promises the INS/USCIS that if they terminate you and you cannot find a new position within 10 days, they pay for your "return to home country" costs. Essentially, they post a bond for your return. And employers who bring you in as an H1B will often hold the costs of moving and filing costs against your starting salary. I was 15-20K below market when I came in under my H1B.
So, yes, an H1B will put up with crappy job conditions because they typically have no choice. Companies are required to prove they looked for an American to fill the position (an H1 requirement) but the salary range and experience requirements they list are often so out of whack that no qualified person would apply due to the far-below-market wage requirement. So meeting the dosmetic requirement is a farce because the employer really wants the cheap H1B.
Don't raise the H1B visa limit. It really is a means of getting cheap labor.
As when Man messes with Nature, unforeseen or expected consequence are often the result. Keeping Nature at bay is not the same as bringing it under our direct and managable control.
As to controlling hurricanes with regards to chaotic system, the fundamental problem is one of initial conditions. As it is well-known, small differences produce large effects. Lorenz proved this in his attempts to predict weather in the 60's. The same problem still remains. And the inputs you talk about controlling are vast.
And we need to understand the process by which a tropical wave makes the transition to tropical depression and evolve into a full-blown hurricane. We currently do not understand how this happens. And even when we do learn and are able to predict with a decent amount of accuracy which storms will become hurricanes and better able to predict their tracks, what then? The expenditure of tens of billions of dollars to prevent one possible landfall of a major hurricane just to save some man-altered coastline?
I don't see it as a possibility that we can stop a hurricane. You could drop every nuclear weapon on earth into it and it would just keep on coming. Nature can churn up a million cubic feet of atmosphere and sustain the forces involved for two weeks at a time (the life of an average hurricane). There isn't enough energy on the planet for us to harness that can match that.
If we are able to precisely measure the initial conditions that lead to hurricane genesis, small changes might yield useful effects. But then we would need to predict the effects of those changes with like accuracy. People in the future would be none-too-pleased to have a prediction go wrong and a hurricane that was supposed to stay out to sea turn in and hit their homes intead. As Katrina is showing, politicians are real quick to point fingers. However, the precision required for this would probably require sensors operating at cubic inch resolution and that is simply not doable (and it is probably a conservative estimate). Not to mention the mere presence of sufficient numbers of sensors could alter the initial conditions themselves and thus invoke Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Isn't chaos grand?
As to the relationship between global warming and hurricanes, there is none. Hurricane frequency occurs on a natural cycle of warmer SSTs (sea surface temperatures) in the Atlantic. This is a real phenomena that is not understood but does occur. When SSTs rise by 1 degree C on average in the above the equator in the eastern Atlantic, you get more hurricanes. Plain and simple. This rise in temperate occurs on roughly 20-30 year cycles. This is nothing new. The problem is, coastal building in the US occured during a natural "low" in hurricane activity. The intensity picked up in the 1990s and we're right in the middle of that "high" intensity phase now. When SSTs in the Atlantic cool (sometime in the next decade and head south of the equator), hurricane frequency will fall. We are talking thousands of square miles of ocean here that feed these storms. You think an iceberg and a couple of subs trolling the waters is going to affect that?
Articles like this are so comedic. Despite being a race that has created nuclear weapons, we have nothing on Nature when it comes to brute energy expenditure. "Stupidity" does not even begin to describe the simplistic and child-like thinking that produced this article. Only human arrogance in thinking that we can solve or alter anything to suit our desires can produce tripe such as this article.
Money and time is best spent on prediction, warning, disaster planning and recovery and further research into hurricane genesis so we can better understand how these storms come to be and how we can live with them better. And even then, it is an inexact science. People are better served by showing some awe and humility towards nature as history has shown, whenever Man tries to mess with Nature, Nature wins.
It seems to me that people are complaining because creationism / intelligent design can not be proven. It is a theory, sure it is based on faith to some extent but it is still a theory. As is Evolution. Evolution is a theory about how the universe came in to existance. It is no more provable than creationism / intelligent design. Sure there is a fossil record but still that record is being interpreted from a certain perspective and there are some unexplained gaps. You are confusing many scientific disciplines here. Evolution is NOT a theory about the origins of the Universe. It is a theory on the change and development of species over time. It is mute on the origins of life (and, by extension, the origin of the Universe). Microbiology deals with origin of life issues. Unfortunately, all we can do is interpret the evidence that we have available to us. We are not able to know what has happened to our planet or our universe hundreds of thousands or billions of years ago. All we have is the evidence, and it can be viewed many different ways. Wrong. Scientific theories represent the gathering of facts and observations to create a provable, testable, falsifiable model of how some process in Nature works. What you are describing are hypothesis, which there can be many of. The hypothesis that best fits the data is what becomes a theory. And theories can be modified or invalidated as new data becomes available. Theories are not "equal time" things. The process to allow a hypothesis to become a theory is very rigorous. Scientific facts are very rare as they are theories that are proven beyond all doubt and have no other explanation. Not even Einstein's Theory of Relavity (which has made predictions and had them proven time and time again) or the Big Bang are considered scientific facts despite overwhelming evidence that they are correct. Cosmology deals with the origins of the Universe. And on that subject there is verifiable, undeniable evidence of the Big Bang. And that evidence was predicted long before it was found. That is one the fundamental tenets of scientific theories. The competing theory of Steady State was discarded as soon as this evidence was discovered as it could not accomodate it. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and never can be because it cannot be falsified. It also makes a priori assumptions which proper scientific theories do not. As stated by others, theories reach conclusions after gathering and analyzing the evidence. And the conclusion may not fit your expectations but that is a human weakness, not that of the theory. As long as the data matches the theory's predictions for it, it is valid. ID does none of this. ID is little more than "God created Everything" with scientific words thrown in to make it sound legitimate. It is not. In fact, evolution is not incompatible with ID. ID, in fact, demands it. But ID lies in the realm of religion and philiosphy, not science. And ID has no science to support it within the mainstream and has failed to garner such support for well over a decade.
Clarification before someone points it out: there are actually 8 APUs/SPEs on a Cell but one is apparently reserved in the PS/3 Cell for system use so that leaves 7 remaining for general purpose use. Because of the 1 PU + 7 APUs is why I list 8 'cores'. Cell is really 1 PU + 8 APU/SPEs.
What isn't being explained to the uninitated is that line for the Cell on '7 x SPE @ 3.2Ghz'.
The Cell isn't a single core: it's 8! The CPU (or PU as it is called) is a POWER5 core. It is connected to 7 APUs/SPEs (Attached Processor Units/Single Processing Elements (whatever you want to call them)). Each SPE is a limited CPU in its own right with its own local caches and memory. The PU acts as a controller, dispatching work to the APUs.
Each APU is essentially a very fast CPU optimized for moving data streams and calculations. Cell was designed to chew on large amounts of similar data very, very fast. It isn't a general purpose core like the POWER or Intel cores found in Xbox 360 or the original Xbox (or your PC for that matter).
Caches aren't everything. PCs and XBox depend on caches to maintain performance levels as in a mixed instruction stream it is tough to know what's going on. A cache miss in a general purpose core can (and is) expensive in terms of cycles. Cell (and the original PS/2) get around caching issues by simply not having them (or just enough to feed the processor) and rely heavily on moving data across a very wide and fast memory bus on demand, as needed and repeated as necessary. Dramatically simplifies the architecture and permits much more focused optimization of code. Programmers for PS/2 had to learn to live without caches and learn a new way of development since PC experience doesn't translate over into the PS/2 world and clearly not into the PS/3 world.
A big part of this contest between XBox 360 and PS/3 is seeing how programmers managed to take advantage of that parallel power. Multiple cores in XBox will be useless if they can't be taken advantage of. Same goes for Cell.
I think PS/3 has the advantage and will eventually win. I'm surprised at the specs as original discussions on the machine had indicated it would be fitted with FOUR Cell processors, not one. Perhaps the initial round of prototypes are single Celled (forgive the pun) to permit development and gaining familiarity with the hardware. Perhaps inside are empty slots for more chips.
Don't confuse PS/3 with a PC because it's not. It is designed to be a very fast SIMD media machine focusing on graphics, video and audio. It may suck as a general purpose server and perhaps a PC can hammer it on some benchmarks but if Cell performs half as good as the information on it speculates in the media realm, there isn't a PC (or Xbox) out there that can hope to keep up with it.
Especially in this case as the modifications represent a derivative work rather than mere aggregation. If the two programs are separate, then it might be possible to distribute the proprietary portion and GPL pieces separately. However, my interpretation of the GPL, any program which uses pieces of another GPL'd programs' source code within its own is considered derivative and thus bound by the terms of the GPL. This is what has been done.
The issues with Internet tax is the cost of collection versus the revenue generated. If it costs nearly as much to administer for a given amount of taxes and it costs businesses money to implement (and either force them to raise prices to compensate or have them go out of business as a result of higher costs), it isn't worth it.
Sure, the states can use the money but the states forget that taxes aren't a free source of money. Just because they want more money shouldn't give them the right to just create a tax and take it. You want to add a tax, in my view, you better be able to justify it. A money grab is not a justification.
If they terminate funding and someone doesn't find a way to sneak commands to the spacecraft on the sly, contact will be lost, the Voyagers will go into their command reset "safe modes" and we may never regain contact with them.
This is shameful. They don't cost much to run but they give us valuable data on the Sun's influence and how it influences the interstellar medium. The data helps refine models on solar wind dynamics, wind influence and strength over distance, particle interactions with the interstellar medium and ultimate tell us where our neighborhood ends and interstellar space begins.
To the layman, yes, go for it. But these spacecraft are the only two vehicles this far out. It would take a decade or more to get a new spacecraft out there and if they cut funding to these, what makes you think they'll spend the billions of dollars and time needed to design a new spacecraft to explore the same region. Probably not in my lifetime.
I'm a big fan of the VIM. I stand in awe of the foresight and talent of the engineers who built the spacecraft and the fact they remain operational after decades in space. The communications needs aren't that much and it is incredible that these faint whispers can be heard from so far away.
Someone can't just pick up this mission from NASA. They would need a network similar to the DSN to communicate with the spacecraft and the technology is so old that it is improbable that someone else could learn how to communicate and interact with the spacecraft in time. Likely the only hardware and software on earth that can understand the Voyagers exists at NASA and if shutdown or disposed of, this knowledge would be lost forever.
If someone were to pay my living expenses, I would happily work to help keep the VIM running. There is grandeur in hearing the whispers of ourselves from so far away and we should listen until they can't talk to us anymore.
Cut some other program to help fund it. I can think of several.
The bulk of the funding is needed to provide DSN coverage to the Voyage Interstellar Mission. The rest is for support costs. Each Voyager spacecraft requires 50-70 hours of DSN coverage per cycle (based on the reading of the mission status reports on the VIM mission website). If they terminate funding and someone doesn't find a way to sneak commands to the spacecraft on the sly, contact will be lost, the Voyagers will go into their command reset "safe modes" and we may never regain contact with them. This is shameful. They don't cost much to run but they give us valuable data on the Sun's influence and how it influences the interstellar medium. The data helps refine models on solar wind dynamics, wind influence and strength over distance, particle interactions with the interstellar medium and ultimate tell us where our neighborhood ends and interstellar space begins. To the layman, yes, go for it. But these spacecraft are the only two vehicles this far out. It would take a decade or more to get a new spacecraft out there and if they cut funding to these, what makes you think they'll spend the billions of dollars and time needed to design a new spacecraft to explore the same region. Probably not in my lifetime. I'm a big fan of the VIM. I stand in awe of the foresight and talent of the engineers who built the spacecraft and the fact they remain operational after decades in space. The communications needs aren't that much and it is incredible that these faint whispers can be heard from so far away. Someone can't just pick up this mission from NASA. They would need a network similar to the DSN to communicate with the spacecraft and the technology is so old that it is improbable that someone else could learn how to communicate and interact with the spacecraft in time. Likely the only hardware and software on earth that can understand the Voyagers exists at NASA and if shutdown or disposed of, this knowledge would be lost forever. If someone were to pay my living expenses, I would happily work to help keep the VIM running. There is grandeur in hearing the whispers of ourselves from so far away and we should listen until they can't talk to us anymore. Cut some other program to help fund it. I can think of several.
Because mathematics are universal and invariant no matter who "discovers" a particular mathematical concept. Since math serves as the foundation to much of civilization, it is considered public knowledge that no one can own.
Wrong on the boxes. In the escape battle between the Millenium Falcon and the TIE fighters, you can see brown and green boxes on the Widescreen DVD edition as plain as day. I have the VHS Widescreen and Original editions and I can barely make out the boxes or even see them at all.
I was stunned. I expected the DVD to be cleaner.
Cassini passed through the gap between the F and G rings. So it did, technically, pass through the rings. Just through an empty space between them but still part of the ring system. And as the engine burn slowed Cassini down, it swung down and passed through the rings on the other side of the planet.
Most folks can't find their hometowns on a map. Hand someone a astronomical chart and tell them to find Saturn in the sky and they'll look at you blankly. Same goes for Jupiter, Mars and Venus (three easy planets to spot). Mercury is tough.
It also partially true. It helps you to understand computers, develops an attention to detail (a critical skill in software development) and a certain amount of debugging skill to help you backtrack and find errors in a flawed solution.
It is also a creative process. I see software development as about 40% artistic, 60% logical. You need a certain amount of ability to think in the abstract and creative tasks tend to promote that.
If you don't understand algebra, a little logical reasoning and have the ability to look at a big problem and break it down into a series of steps to attack to reach a solution, you wil never do well as a computer science person or as a software engineer.
It's also a tough job. Middle grade on the pay scale but extremely taxing mentally, requires constant skill management to keep up-to-date on the latest technology and a never ending battle of skills upgrading. Once you look at what it takes to survive long-term in IT as a software person, most people can't hack it. Only the truly passionate continue in it because they love that type of thing and don't look at it as a cash cow to be milked. And those are the type of people I hire. :)
I have a Shuttle XPC for gaming purposes fitted with an Athlon XP 2800+, 512MB RAM, a DVD-ROM and an 80GB hard disk. For full featured computing needs in a small package, you can't beat it.
Second, there is a lot of variety in Linux installations even though they are all compatible in broad terms. Differences in what languages are available, permissions on what the user can run, where files are located, etc. And since the average Linux user isn't being spoonfed Microsoft "innovation", the average Linux user knows better than to open an unknown mail attachment and every Linux mail client will not do this by default.
Linux distros don't run unneeded services out of the box by default (been that way for years). Most exploits in Linux take advantage of minor vulnerabilities (such as the Ramen worm which used a hole in the lpd print daemon to deface insecure Apache installations). Even then, without administrator (root) power, the damage these worms/viruses can cause is very limited.
It isn't impossible to write a worm to affect Linux. Just difficult. And even when done, the vulnerability that made it possible is often patched within hours. Viruses are for all intents and purposes impossible to write for Linux without a root exploit available.
The inherent design differences of Linux vs. Windows even with Linux installations becoming more prevalent and thus more inviting to attack will still keep Linux, *BSD and Mac OS X relatively safe from large scale, billion dollar attacks that run rampant on MS based systems. And if there is an attack, the Linux community will fix it and help educate rather than beg the government to create standards and blame the whole thing on customers rather than admit to plain crappy software engineering.
Thus, without taking active measures, the default configuration of modern Windows system out of the box is in its insecure, full power mode.
Unix/Linux systems go to great pains to ensure that root is a special case and strongly encouraged not to use it except in circumstances involving system configuration.
I'm not talking about corporate environments with varying security policies. I'm talking about home users who don't have an understanding of network security issues and frankly, they don't give a crap. They want to plug it in and make it work. Rightly or wrongly, this is their expectation.
I've also been the victim of the "you know computers, can you help me" club. I now limit that interaction to close friends and some family (who fortunately are all at least 500 miles away). For everyone else, my answer is this: My time is valuable. If you want me to fix your computer, I charge $70/hr, minimum of 30 minutes. I reached the point where I was getting tired of being taken advantage of.
That being said, I see two larger issues in all this techno illiterate world. The first is obvious to anyone who knows about Windows vs. Linux. Simply put, you can't secure a system that is inherently insecure. Windows users run as "root". Period. Apps that run on it have free reign. App design deficiencies are a real close second though. MyDoom doesn't affect systems that don't use Outlook. Lotus Notes and Eudora spring to mind. My wife was unaffected my MyDoom. Monoculture is not good, kids.
I can't really blame the users fully. They don't know any better and I think it is arrogant of the technoelite (of which I consider myself a member) to expect the rest of the world to bow down to our ideals and expectations of what someone has to know to use a computer.
Which brings me to my second point. The problem isn't the users, it's the computers themselves. Specifically, their interfaces. We've had GUI interfaces for almost 20 years now and frankly, we are still no further ahead in usability. GUI's were supposed to make things easier. All they've done is increase confusion and create new and wonderful ways to breed complexity.
You'd figure after 20 years that we would be coming up with ways of making computers know a little more about how to get things done. I'm not talking Utopian dreams of voice or 3D interfaces, but the building of knowledge into the system. I'm sorry, kids, listening to a CD, ripping some music, sending e-mail or watching a video clip on a computer should not be a chore! People do not care whether a document is .doc, pdf, .txt or .sxw, a video clip is an MPG, RM or an AVI. They get angry when it doesn't work when they just want it to. If the plug-in or player isn't present, give the computer the knowledge to know where to go get it, download it , guide the user through installation and then do the original task. Some programs do better than other at this but it is still often obtuse and fraugth with peril.
We should be listening to these users. Ask them: "How do you think this task should be done?". Have them explain it in terms they know. Get from them the picture in their head of how they think it should be done. It is the hardest thing to do in the world because what they think they want vs. want they really want are often two very different things.
As a result, the following maxim can apply:
The complexity of an application or task is inversely proportional to how simple the user thinks it is. - Matt Pickering
Translated: The easier someone thinks it is to do on a computer, the harder it will be for the developer to write. Conversely, the harder or complicated the user thinks the task is, the easier it usually is to write. I have observed this phenomena over the years and the maxim holds true. The more complicated someone thinks something is to do often I find to be straightforward. Then they come up with things that seem simple to them and they turn out to be devilishly difficult to produce (if not impossible).
Instead of us continuing to create more complex, feature-rich and elaborate applications and environments, we should be embracing these users (people like my parents who are computer clueless) and ask them how we should be
SCO has sued Novell over who owns the copyrights to the UNIX source code. Reading of the contracts points towards Novell, but it is ultimately up to a court to decide (IANAL).
SCO has far from won. If anything, it looks like SCO is going to have to brush up on the Chewbacca defense prior to Feb. 6.
Do take note of the fact that even if Linux is violation of SCO's copyrights (highly unlikely), SCO has a responsibility to mitigate damages. Despite repeated, ongoing requests from the Linux community to work with them to identify any questionable code, SCO has failed to do so on the arguments that it would dilute the value of their product. Even if they win (even more unlikely), they will not be able to claim damages going forward from the point they identified the problem since they did not act in good faith to minimize the harm from that infringement.
Lastly, despite SCO's posturing, end users cannot be held liable for violations of others! Period. The best they can do is get damages from the developer who copied code from SysV into Linux. SCO has never claimed that IBM copied code verbatim into Linux (hence, no copyright infringement suit). Since they have not done that, the best they can do is pick on a developer (who rightly will deserve the flogging).
SCO is trying to get users to pay for a license that basically says SCO promises not to sue them. Heck, I could sell you a perpetual license that permitted you unlimited access to water and air for as long as you remained on the surface of the planet in exchange for my promise that I would try to breathe the same air as you in the same space. You'd be an idiot if you choose to purchase such a license from me, but you are within your right to do so (licenses are NOT contacts). SCO's "Linux Property License" is about as ridiculous.
Don't forget about Cassini which will reach Saturn this year and drop a probe into Titan's atmosphere and land on the surface. It's taken 7 years for it to get there.
Anyone that isn't a religious nut can come to the conclusion pretty easily that life in some form is out there in all probability.
Probability less than 1.00 is not proof. If proof was found that life exists or had existed on Mars in the past, then it changes the way we look at the Universe. If life could develop on two planets in the same solar system, what does that say for the possibility and commonality of life elsewhere?
Perhaps Mars is boring. It's the same argument people said about the lunar missions a generation ago. It only became boring because we let it.
Take a step back and stand in awe of the fact that we have the ability to even do what we are doing. It isn't boring. It wasn't in 1969 and it isn't now. It should be considered anything but boring. Maybe if we hadn't gotten "bored" in 1972, it wouldn't be a robot up there analyzing samples up there and sending back imagery used preprogrammed commands on a 20 minute delay. It would be a man or woman instead, with us hearing their voice, the excitement and thrill at walking on another world and making that thrill of discovery, curiousity and exploration infectious to entire planet and to another generation. But we didn't. We should have.
Have a sense of romance and excitement. I wish I could send commands to the rover along the lines of "Look that way! What's over there?!?" or "Drive over there and look behind that rock.".
There are some things that should transcend day-to-day living and the focus on our daily lives and exist simply for the sake of doing it, cost and politics aside. Space exploration should be one of those things.
The BSDI case was a voluntary settlement on the part of both parties. It was in AT&T's best interest to settle given the fact it was likely that not only would AT&T lose the case but also lose ALL rights to Unix due to lack of copyright information. That would have effectively put Unix into the public domain and destroyed AT&T's UNIX business. Not only that, AT&T had taken BSD code and placed it into UNIX improperly. They were allowed to keep that code as long as they identified it and promised to NEVER sue anyone who used the indepedently developed BSD code in the future. These aspects of the case are known, the rest of the settlement details are not.
Anyone using Unencumbered BSD4.4 code is in the clear. The Encumbered code still contains AT&T code and cannot be used without a UNIX license. I believe that codebase is largely dead today. The problem is, SCO has this idea they can reopen the BSDI case and change the terms of the settlement. They can try to retry it with the Board of Regents but they would face the same issues that AT&T faced then and then a few more. That settlement cannot be taken back just because they don't like it. As successors-in-interest, they are still bound by its terms. It isn't a court ruling that can be appealed. The previous owner agreed to the terms and SCO is still bound by them.
Remember, the NSA is not chartered for domestic surveillance. That is technically a crime. Domestic surveillance is the domain of the FBI (although they could ask the NSA for decryption help).
Using public key cryptography with 2048 bits renders your conversations effectively private. The FBI would have to seize both machines at the end of such a VoIP conversation and get the private keys to decrypt the traffic in a timeframe under 100,000 years. :) Quantum computers don't exist yet (which could crack RSA in the blink of an eye), so things are pretty safe.
Mind you, that is all downstream. I'm not offering data outbound. My ISP (Cox Communications) has a very liberal policy regarding bandwidth.