This system administrator woman is full of honkey crap in so many ways. I urge people to leave their machines on for the following reasons:
Most modern systems are made to "sleep" when you're not using them. If your monitor is set to power off, your hard drive to spin down, you'll be fine. Power consumption at a low, automatically.
Every hard drive that I've seen fail sans one or two have failed when the machine got turned OFF. The next time you turn it on...nothing. Rarely have I seen a harddrive fail while the machine is powered up.
The power surge that flows across the motherboard at powerup, not to say anything about the repeated heat-cool-heat-cool that the chips go through as you power on and off each day cannot be good for them.
Dust does accumulate, but not THAT fast. I just powered down a 279 day uptime server and the dust was there, time for a cleaning, but nothing significant. (2 fans - 1 PSU and 1 CPU)
Security by shutting computers off isn't security, I don't care who you say you are. Educate your users.
People are getting tired of their computers sounding like jet engines.
What is it with people complaining about their computers making noise anyway? I actually like my computers to sound like they're on...the lack of noise makes me nervous (see: Dead Silence, aka Power Outage). I have a computer by my bedside and the noise helps me sleep...in fact, I have a very hard time sleeping without that white noise.
Computers make noise, just like refrigerators make noise, washing machines make noise, and cars make noise. It's not like it's constant beeping, either, folks. Get ovah it.
MICROSOFT PROMISES--and I believe that they're serious--that users will control their own personal information.
Since when? Since when do people trust M$, the company that has time-and-again said that software is secure when it's not, that they provide customer support when they don't, that they're not trying to be a monopoly when they are, that they're not strong-arming 3rd party manufacturers when Craig Barrett is clearly wincing? If the EULA doesn't scare you yet, you aren't paying attention.
But how this plays in the real world, where users often have very little power, remains to be seen.
Ah, maybe in your little world of sheeple, but folks like me give ourselves power through OSes that don't patronize.
Microsoft has one key factor in its favor: the growing realization among its customers that we must do something, and that tomorrow's digital devices--and I'm talking much more than PCs here--need the trustworthiness that Microsoft claims Palladium will offer.
I think he's missing the boat on this one. Users don't give a rats banana about trust, or they wouldn't be using passwords like "mypassword" when checking Hotmail. They simply don't care about that. What they care about is the *big*bad*unknown* screwing up their ability to email, type letters to their friends, and have cybersex on AIM. If their OS provides that, they're fine. Trust is marketing B$ for "we're gonna cuddle you like a foster parent and shield you from the big bad world."
But is the world ready to trust Microsoft on something it has such a hard time explaining? and implementing, and supporting, and documenting, and....
At my workplace, we have one of the workstations with about 2800 MP3s on it. I had the discussion with my boss about our music collection and successfully argued for it for productive reasons. My reasoning was something of the following:
Both myself and my coworkers work better with music.
To get music, we either have to bring in CDs or listen to MP3s.
CDs require changing them in the drive, whereas MP3s are automatic as long as you have a playlist.
Therefore, MP3s are more productive because you don't have to stop to switch the CD in the drive.
She bought it, and so we're allowed to continue. Luckily, myself and my coworker have very similar tastes to music, so it works out nicely.
I, for one, am incredibly worried about this. I often switch ISA NICs on the fly, unplugging them while the machine is hot. Unloading modules is very handy. Or how about those devices I plug in for a bit and then unplug? I like to remove the modules to clean up memory after using them (Zip drives and the like). When my soundcard crashes I have to rmmod and modprobe it back in to clear it out.
Please don't take away my module unloading. Rusty, I don't give a fark how kernel 1337 joo are, to say "memory is cheap" and be a kernel hacker makes you sound like a complete, contradictory moron.
Code Reviews - We love them, we hate them, but they work WONDERS. To have another programmer read over your code and have to try to figure it out is absolutely invaluable. Besides finding really obvious bugs or questionable places, your commentary can be critiqued as well.
For those of you that program by yourself, do the "let-it-ferment" thing. Write some code, then stick it at the bottom of your stack and pull it out in a week. If the comments and code still make easy reading and good sense, keep it. Otherwise, assume if you can't read it in a week, no one else will be able to read it the first time, either.
In an actual programming dept., if you're the manager/boss, make a set time each week to review code by other members and stick to it. Your programmers may complain but they'll complain worse if they have to be there till 2am fixing a really dumb mistake.
PLEASE NOTE: Networking the StarBand service via a router or other hardware device connected directly to the StarBand satellite modem is expressly forbidden. A Windows-based PC running the StarBand software must be the interface with the StarBand satellite modem as it converts Internet requests into a protocol optimized for satellite-based Internet connectivity. Circumventing this optimization software creates excessive and unauthorized traffic on the StarBand network and may result in a measurable decrease in transmission speed or complete service outage.
What? Windows knows how to slow down my Internet connection? Imagine. I take "converts...into a protocol optimized" to mean that the Starband software is sitting there in the background going, "A packet? What's this? He wants a download? HA! I'll just stick this in a buffer for 5 minutes and then send it on. That'll keep his pr0n addiction in check."
I....think I'll stay with modem, thanks. (as painful as it might be, at least I get low-latency, if slow, pr0n.)
The reasons EULAs and such things are done, from what I know (IANAL), is for a reason called "Best Effort".
Best Effort means that if and when your company ever gets hauled into court for some stupid lawsuit, you need to be able to show that you made a "best effort" against whatever event that caused the lawsuit. If you can show that, the liklihood that you won't be held liable is higher.
EXAMPLE: I own a house. I have a sidewalk. During the winter it gets ice on it. I go out twice a day and salt the sidewalk to prevent ice, as well as scoop the ice and snow from it. An old lady comes and slips. She sues me for poor maintenance of the sidewalk. I can present my case as a "best effort" case. I did my best to prevent the sidewalk from being slippery and therefore it is not my fault that she still slipped and fell.
With EULAs, it's a matter of CYA (Cover Your Ass). If you didn't put one and got hauled into court because your software farked up a whole bunch of financial records, for instance, the court would say, "Look, you didn't even try to warn the user that your software might screw up, therefore you're liable." With an EULA you at least have shown that you tried to protect yourself. The EULA itself doesn't necessarily have to be enforceable; the fact that it makes an effort in a 'safe' direction is enough.
My first reaction was to jump in with a vehement, "Can I disagree? Let me count the ways..." but I'll attempt at a logical argument here.
Remember: support contracts are a form of insurance Well, yes and no. Support contracts, if priced right for the size of the business and the product being supported, are more than worth the money spent on them. However, many support contracts are now horribly overpriced, especially for a small company, since the corporate philosophy has become "profit on services, not products". We are forced to buy a $4500 support agreement for our Sybase software each year. We could buy up to $25,000 support contract or higher. In the past two years, I've had to use the contract ONCE. ONCE, so that call is worth $9000, nowhere near the benefit it brought me. How in living hell am I supposed to justify the cost to the management? I can't, except for the fact that we're forced to buy at least the $4500 level, so it's not a real fight. But I'm still asked, "Why are we paying this?" Support has to fit the associated risk and show that it is used or has prevented problems or it will not make sense to management. Period.
...but for a 60-desktop company with 1 IT person? Not a chance. That all depends on resources. A good IT worker can replace a desktop or get it working again in just a few short hours, given the right tools. If you're going to roll-your-own, might I recommend replacement parts and tools? Ghost to reimage the drives, spare hard drives, monitors, keyboards, mice, RAM, motherboards, power supplies, fans, CPUs, etc...stock a closet! If you have these supplies on hand and organized, there's no reason that a desktop going down will put you out of work for a week, let alone a whole day. Our company is well-stocked; call that your insurance if you will. My desktop can be fully replaced in less than an hour if the need arises.
IT folks need to quite thinking like it's an expanded hobby... The only comment I have to this is that IT is one of the few professions where you can get by and produce much from hobby-level materials, information, and resources. The mere fact that IT hasn't become a "professional" (like what? butlers?) industry is for two reasons: 1) People who do IT usually hate that stuffy, corporate crap, and 2) IT people are so efficient and resourceful that we can make so much out of so little, companies like to keep it that way. Simple economics.
It seems to me that many powerful political figures first start out their careers with a genuine interest in the position or idea that they feel strongly about, with the urge to pursue it and convince others.
Along the way, however, if success has come to them in small amounts, the bigger a figure they become and the more influence they have, the actual fight and not the original cause is what spurs them onwards. It's almost as if once they get going, they're afraid to stop lest they lose prestige, power, or the cause they have been fighting for rolls backwards down the slope of success.
I believe that Hilary Rosen has gone beyond the line of "genuine, meaningful cause-fighting" and into this "don't let go or you'll never get back on the horse" syndrome. All of a sudden, the fight has become her personal fight; the rewards and setbacks are her own, reflect directly on her current power and reputation.
The problem for all of us, in this, is that she won't back down. She'll never back down until she retires, has health problems, or just falls over dead.
Case in Point: Bill Gates. Is it just me, or has that man become the most weanie person on the stand? He has gone from large, powerful, can't-touch-me-attitude, pre-litigation CEO to a stuttering, shocked, I-can't-believe-they're-actually-suing-me ex-CEO, to a psuedo-confidant clear-as-spring-water wuss. M$ is clearly (to me at any rate) his personal fight, and he's being whacked and whacked and whacked until he's a climber on a sheer wall that refuses to let go.
This is going to be a tiring fight, folks, if you choose to fight it (and I do). Ever cornered a badger? Ever tried to play catch with a grizzly's cub? If you enjoy being disembowled, I encourage you. Noone ever said the fight was going to be glorious, but in the end, perhaps we'll have won something we truly care about.
From the FAQ on the NASA Site: 8). Does the U.S. Space Shuttle have to dodge orbital debris?
Whenever a Space Shuttle is in orbit, the U.S. Space Command regularly examines the trajectories of orbital debris to identify possible close encounters. If another object is projected to come within a few kilometers of the Space Shuttle, the Space Shuttle will normally maneuver away from the object, even though the chances of a collision are only approximately 1 in 100,000. This occurs infrequently, about once every year or two.
This seems to me to be a pretty small problem in the greater scheme of things, and if the Space Shuttle only has to dodge once or twice a year, we're doing pretty good so far.
Of course, the point raised by NASA is just that we're doing ok provided that we continue to be aware of space junk and create our rockets and spacecraft and satellites in such manners as to reduce and/or prevent space debris. If the office closes, likely they'll keep someone at a radar somewhere to prevent the Shuttle and ISS and such from whacking a random chunk of hardware.
Raise your hand if you also haven't gotten anything useful done today because of this fucking load of shit being posted every-fucking-where on the 'net, including PissDot.
Small company here (~20 ppl), and we keep notes on various projects in a custom application that we wrote with a database backend that allows us to write notes on projects, track time spent on projects, and run reports.
Another major part of our arsenal is a CYA box. (Cover Your Ass) This is a box or other container into which all notes, drawings, printouts, scratchings, post-its, code scraps, etc....EVERYTHING goes. Why?
Two reasons:
It allows us to show a paper trail of our development. If you ever get sued for copyright or patent infringement, you'll be glad you had this. It shows, in order, how the application was developed. Since everything in the box is layered in chronological order, this works well (First item in is oldest, last item in is newest). We seal boxes up when they get full, date them with the start and end date and mark a destroy date on them (7 years hence, usually).
Ever delete something you wished you hadn't? Had a HD crash and wipe out some of a program? Then a CYA box is a handy thing. I haven't had to use it very often, but trust me, restoring programming code from paper is better than nothing. (tape or CD is better, but it's a last-resort backup)
Whatever you do, document EVERYTHING. If you sneeze on a project, document it. Documentation is one of those evils...if you don't do it, you'll be fast but you'll kill yourself later, and if you do it too much you'll slow down product. But it's worth the extra effort.
The real power of the language exists in the hands of the maker. The programmer. I've seen people take languages like BASIC and make a masterpiece out of it, better than a C++ programmer could have done.
Certain functionality is often needed for management reasons. Sure, you could use a language that doesn't support functions (hello, Applesoft BASIC?), but it'd be a pain to maintain. You could use a language that didn't have portability but if you're cross-platform, you're screwed.
However, make sure you have good people on the job. If they don't know the language, they should be able to pick it up quickly and have good technique. I'd give a hundred bucks more for a programmer that knew his shit with a crappy language than someone who was a newbie in the latest buzzword language.
Sadly enough (and I certainly feel for the ISP), new laws concerning these attacks aren't going to help anyone. For laws to be effective, you actually have to catch the person in question, and with DDOS that's darn tough.
I'm not sure what the real answer is, though. I find myself reading these stories and articles and feeling helpless myself, even though I'm not directly involved. But I am a programmer, and we're supposed to have brilliant solutions to these issues....but I can't come up with one. The underlying structure of the 'net itself is to blame for allowing these attacks, and you know to change that will be like getting all cars to convert to bacon fat gas.
How does one instigate a major industry shift in how we do things? Would it even be worth it, or will we just see these random business fold due to stupid fucking kiddies?
From the: Well,-can't-you-handle-chewing-gum-and-dancing? dept.
The idea behind this article is that there are too many spatial configurations in a operating system for a user to be able to cope and concentrate on information flowing from one to the other. The desktop represents one type of spatial configuration (limited movement, space, etc.) while the hard disk icon represents another (limitless space, movement beyond the edges, etc.). The author proposes that it is asking too much of users to be able to make these spatial conversions.
Now, let's think about this. Don't you already do spatial conversions all the time? You think of a house, that's in 3D, usually (in your mind). You go to an architecht, he draws the house in 2D (on paper), maybe with some 3D perspectives, but still in 2D. You take this to a contractor, and they construct the house in 3D! This is spatial conversion, folks. We all learned to do it as children, converting the spaces of normal paper into 3D houses, turkeys, etc....whatever those projects were in 3rd grade.
It still comes down to a learning curve and ability scale. Most everyone will learn a system faster if they don't have to do spatial conversions. Therefore, for the ease of learning, such a "desktop only" system might be pertinent. However, computers are complex things and are expected to encompass a lot of different information in a lot of different configurations. Limiting yourself to one spatial relationship will only limit you in the end as to what you can store, manage, and organize. Having both the desktop and the hard drive paradigms to manage information will result in the ability to store the vast amounts of different information available.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm more than willing to let M$ have the monopoly on producing accessibility software. The *NIX world, Linux especially, has other areas of GUI development and polishing that need attention before accessibility issues. Not having an office suite that is as-good-as-or-better-in-all-aspects as M$ Office yet is a larger deficit to overcome than, say, lacking Speech Recog. or something like that. The major things need to be worked on before the minor ones, folks. And face it: the handicapped are a minority, especially in the IT world. Not that this is a bash on them, don't get me wrong. I'm just looking at practicality issues here.
Cold truth is, it doesn't pay to develop server rooms that are wheelchair accessible (and if they're anything like mine, they have cords and all manners of things that make it hard for walking individuals to navigate!). In a similar manner, it doesn't pay (or benefit, for you free software folk) to develop accessibility software for *nix at this time. At least, not on a large, concentrated scale.
Find your soul. A metaphysical question? Somewhat.
I studied both CS and philosophy in college. I have a BA in CS, and almost a BA in Phil. CS is what I do, but philosophy is what I am. Philosophy is what makes me get up in the morning, drag my ass to work, program mindless code (somedays) and still stay sane and happy. I know I always have that other subject to turn to once CS has done all it can to fulfill me.
Philosophy may not be your answer. It may be music, or art, or sports, or (perhaps) pr0n. Whatever it is, find it, and study it as well. Be as diligent about maintaining your connection with that "other side" of you as you are in striving to become a Code God(TM).
After being in the work force for a year and a half after graduation, I know now that when I go back to do grad school, I'll be doing it in philosophy, not CS. Mind you, it'll most likely be on philosophy of mind and artificial intelligence, but it will be philosophy. Computers are great, and I love them to pieces, but they don't make me want to live. Find your life force and go with it. Happiness and excitement derive from being more than one-dimensional.
Slackware has been a stalwart distro for me ever since I discovered Linux, and continues to be the #1 distro I run on my machines. Now, I have many, many vintage machines, as I'm into collecting and restoring older machines. Slackware works very well for this, as well for various servers that I maintain.
Mind you, the setup and interface has never been stellar, and leaves most normal users coughing in the dust. However, for those who need max flexibility and a thin system (like these 386 machines and such need), this is an excellent one. I personally don't see any huge loss by not having these tools....come to think of it, I've never used them anyway.
On the other hand, if Slack exists because of commercial sales, then the loss of these tools and others will be its demise from lack of revenue.
For all you talker fans out there, Neil Robertson's NUTS code (or derivitives - MoeNUTS, AmNUTS, etc.) has a constant named "DNL" that keeps track of the length of the date in seconds. This is set to 11 and will need to be switched to 12, although my talker ran fine w/o changing it. I'm sure I would have seen something wrong down the road.
Ok, perhaps "boring" was the wrong word...how about...um....unexciting? There are places where Tolkien goes into vast descriptions or histories or such that just aren't "action-packed" excitement. Oh, I enjoy those sections as well, it paints the world better. I guess "boring" was a poor word, but it might be perceived by others as being "boring" if they don't like that kind of detail. That's all!:)
Tolkien is to fantasy what Plato was to philosophy: a pioneer, a definer, a methodologist. Although parts of LOTR are, frankly, boring (although they are few and nicely bounded by excitement), Tolkien has done an amazing job at making a fantasy world.
The word "world" here not only encompasses the environment in which the characters live and interact, but the entirety of the existence of all characters. If any one character may know about a certain place, event, or person, that object is not only mentioned but defined, elaborated, and links seamlessly into the other aspects of the world.
Good fantasy has very few inconsistencies in the history and events of the worlds, as well as personal interactions, race definitions, language definitions and modes, and cultural aspects. Tolkien, being a linguist, was primarily interested in the language aspect of his worlds and so you can find extensive studies and documents of the Elven languages, as well as Dwarven and such. There are quite a few people in the world who speak one of the Elven languages Tolkien created, just because they were done so well!
LOTR is a must-read for any sci-fi/fantasy lover, if nothing else for the simple fact that it is a definitive book in the genre. And if you're fortunate, like myself, it will become one of your favorite novels of all time. I distinctly remember crying at the end of the first read of LOTR, not so much because I was empathizing with the characters, but because I didn't want the story to ever end.
Slashdot Mirror
People are getting tired of their computers sounding like jet engines.
What is it with people complaining about their computers making noise anyway? I actually like my computers to sound like they're on...the lack of noise makes me nervous (see: Dead Silence, aka Power Outage). I have a computer by my bedside and the noise helps me sleep...in fact, I have a very hard time sleeping without that white noise.
Computers make noise, just like refrigerators make noise, washing machines make noise, and cars make noise. It's not like it's constant beeping, either, folks. Get ovah it.
From the: Quotes-to-cringe-by dept.
MICROSOFT PROMISES--and I believe that they're serious--that users will control their own personal information.
Since when? Since when do people trust M$, the company that has time-and-again said that software is secure when it's not, that they provide customer support when they don't, that they're not trying to be a monopoly when they are, that they're not strong-arming 3rd party manufacturers when Craig Barrett is clearly wincing? If the EULA doesn't scare you yet, you aren't paying attention.
But how this plays in the real world, where users often have very little power, remains to be seen.
Ah, maybe in your little world of sheeple, but folks like me give ourselves power through OSes that don't patronize.
Microsoft has one key factor in its favor: the growing realization among its customers that we must do something, and that tomorrow's digital devices--and I'm talking much more than PCs here--need the trustworthiness that Microsoft claims Palladium will offer.
I think he's missing the boat on this one. Users don't give a rats banana about trust, or they wouldn't be using passwords like "mypassword" when checking Hotmail. They simply don't care about that. What they care about is the *big*bad*unknown* screwing up their ability to email, type letters to their friends, and have cybersex on AIM. If their OS provides that, they're fine. Trust is marketing B$ for "we're gonna cuddle you like a foster parent and shield you from the big bad world."
But is the world ready to trust Microsoft on something it has such a hard time explaining? and implementing, and supporting, and documenting, and....
Holy smoke-n-mirrors, Batman.
- Both myself and my coworkers work better with music.
- To get music, we either have to bring in CDs or listen to MP3s.
- CDs require changing them in the drive, whereas MP3s are automatic as long as you have a playlist.
- Therefore, MP3s are more productive because you don't have to stop to switch the CD in the drive.
She bought it, and so we're allowed to continue. Luckily, myself and my coworker have very similar tastes to music, so it works out nicely.I, for one, am incredibly worried about this. I often switch ISA NICs on the fly, unplugging them while the machine is hot. Unloading modules is very handy. Or how about those devices I plug in for a bit and then unplug? I like to remove the modules to clean up memory after using them (Zip drives and the like). When my soundcard crashes I have to rmmod and modprobe it back in to clear it out.
Please don't take away my module unloading. Rusty, I don't give a fark how kernel 1337 joo are, to say "memory is cheap" and be a kernel hacker makes you sound like a complete, contradictory moron.
Code Reviews - We love them, we hate them, but they work WONDERS. To have another programmer read over your code and have to try to figure it out is absolutely invaluable. Besides finding really obvious bugs or questionable places, your commentary can be critiqued as well.
For those of you that program by yourself, do the "let-it-ferment" thing. Write some code, then stick it at the bottom of your stack and pull it out in a week. If the comments and code still make easy reading and good sense, keep it. Otherwise, assume if you can't read it in a week, no one else will be able to read it the first time, either.
In an actual programming dept., if you're the manager/boss, make a set time each week to review code by other members and stick to it. Your programmers may complain but they'll complain worse if they have to be there till 2am fixing a really dumb mistake.
From their FAQ:
PLEASE NOTE: Networking the StarBand service via a router or other hardware device connected directly to the StarBand satellite modem is expressly forbidden. A Windows-based PC running the StarBand software must be the interface with the StarBand satellite modem as it converts Internet requests into a protocol optimized for satellite-based Internet connectivity. Circumventing this optimization software creates excessive and unauthorized traffic on the StarBand network and may result in a measurable decrease in transmission speed or complete service outage.
What? Windows knows how to slow down my Internet connection? Imagine. I take "converts...into a protocol optimized" to mean that the Starband software is sitting there in the background going, "A packet? What's this? He wants a download? HA! I'll just stick this in a buffer for 5 minutes and then send it on. That'll keep his pr0n addiction in check."
I....think I'll stay with modem, thanks. (as painful as it might be, at least I get low-latency, if slow, pr0n.)
The reasons EULAs and such things are done, from what I know (IANAL), is for a reason called "Best Effort".
Best Effort means that if and when your company ever gets hauled into court for some stupid lawsuit, you need to be able to show that you made a "best effort" against whatever event that caused the lawsuit. If you can show that, the liklihood that you won't be held liable is higher.
EXAMPLE: I own a house. I have a sidewalk. During the winter it gets ice on it. I go out twice a day and salt the sidewalk to prevent ice, as well as scoop the ice and snow from it. An old lady comes and slips. She sues me for poor maintenance of the sidewalk. I can present my case as a "best effort" case. I did my best to prevent the sidewalk from being slippery and therefore it is not my fault that she still slipped and fell.
With EULAs, it's a matter of CYA (Cover Your Ass). If you didn't put one and got hauled into court because your software farked up a whole bunch of financial records, for instance, the court would say, "Look, you didn't even try to warn the user that your software might screw up, therefore you're liable." With an EULA you at least have shown that you tried to protect yourself. The EULA itself doesn't necessarily have to be enforceable; the fact that it makes an effort in a 'safe' direction is enough.
It seems to me that many powerful political figures first start out their careers with a genuine interest in the position or idea that they feel strongly about, with the urge to pursue it and convince others.
Along the way, however, if success has come to them in small amounts, the bigger a figure they become and the more influence they have, the actual fight and not the original cause is what spurs them onwards. It's almost as if once they get going, they're afraid to stop lest they lose prestige, power, or the cause they have been fighting for rolls backwards down the slope of success.
I believe that Hilary Rosen has gone beyond the line of "genuine, meaningful cause-fighting" and into this "don't let go or you'll never get back on the horse" syndrome. All of a sudden, the fight has become her personal fight; the rewards and setbacks are her own, reflect directly on her current power and reputation.
The problem for all of us, in this, is that she won't back down. She'll never back down until she retires, has health problems, or just falls over dead.
Case in Point: Bill Gates. Is it just me, or has that man become the most weanie person on the stand? He has gone from large, powerful, can't-touch-me-attitude, pre-litigation CEO to a stuttering, shocked, I-can't-believe-they're-actually-suing-me ex-CEO, to a psuedo-confidant clear-as-spring-water wuss. M$ is clearly (to me at any rate) his personal fight, and he's being whacked and whacked and whacked until he's a climber on a sheer wall that refuses to let go.
This is going to be a tiring fight, folks, if you choose to fight it (and I do). Ever cornered a badger? Ever tried to play catch with a grizzly's cub? If you enjoy being disembowled, I encourage you. Noone ever said the fight was going to be glorious, but in the end, perhaps we'll have won something we truly care about.
From the FAQ on the NASA Site:
8). Does the U.S. Space Shuttle have to dodge orbital debris?
Whenever a Space Shuttle is in orbit, the U.S. Space Command regularly examines the trajectories of orbital debris to identify possible close encounters. If another object is projected to come within a few kilometers of the Space Shuttle, the Space Shuttle will normally maneuver away from the object, even though the chances of a collision are only approximately 1 in 100,000. This occurs infrequently, about once every year or two.
This seems to me to be a pretty small problem in the greater scheme of things, and if the Space Shuttle only has to dodge once or twice a year, we're doing pretty good so far.
Of course, the point raised by NASA is just that we're doing ok provided that we continue to be aware of space junk and create our rockets and spacecraft and satellites in such manners as to reduce and/or prevent space debris. If the office closes, likely they'll keep someone at a radar somewhere to prevent the Shuttle and ISS and such from whacking a random chunk of hardware.
can you blast away at Wolfenstein?
:)
And if you did, would you get arrested or attacked by the passengers for wielding a weapon?
Maybe arming pilots with a plasma rifle would be a good thing. Or maybe they just need Jabber:
SkieHighPil0t: Help! We're being hijacked!
Sl33pyGrndCtrl: Thanks, SkieHighPil0t, but I'm away from my computer right now. Leave a message!
Raise your hand if you also haven't gotten anything useful done today because of this fucking load of shit being posted every-fucking-where on the 'net, including PissDot.
:P~
Offical ban of the holiday, folks? I think.
Small company here (~20 ppl), and we keep notes on various projects in a custom application that we wrote with a database backend that allows us to write notes on projects, track time spent on projects, and run reports.
Another major part of our arsenal is a CYA box. (Cover Your Ass) This is a box or other container into which all notes, drawings, printouts, scratchings, post-its, code scraps, etc....EVERYTHING goes. Why?
Two reasons:
- It allows us to show a paper trail of our development. If you ever get sued for copyright or patent infringement, you'll be glad you had this. It shows, in order, how the application was developed. Since everything in the box is layered in chronological order, this works well (First item in is oldest, last item in is newest). We seal boxes up when they get full, date them with the start and end date and mark a destroy date on them (7 years hence, usually).
- Ever delete something you wished you hadn't? Had a HD crash and wipe out some of a program? Then a CYA box is a handy thing. I haven't had to use it very often, but trust me, restoring programming code from paper is better than nothing. (tape or CD is better, but it's a last-resort backup)
Whatever you do, document EVERYTHING. If you sneeze on a project, document it. Documentation is one of those evils...if you don't do it, you'll be fast but you'll kill yourself later, and if you do it too much you'll slow down product. But it's worth the extra effort.From the: Mind-Behind-The-Project Dept.
The real power of the language exists in the hands of the maker. The programmer. I've seen people take languages like BASIC and make a masterpiece out of it, better than a C++ programmer could have done.
Certain functionality is often needed for management reasons. Sure, you could use a language that doesn't support functions (hello, Applesoft BASIC?), but it'd be a pain to maintain. You could use a language that didn't have portability but if you're cross-platform, you're screwed.
However, make sure you have good people on the job. If they don't know the language, they should be able to pick it up quickly and have good technique. I'd give a hundred bucks more for a programmer that knew his shit with a crappy language than someone who was a newbie in the latest buzzword language.
Seems to me that the general equation is:
Smaller Chip = More Heat = Bigger Fans
So, by that model:
Nanometer Chip = Enough Heat to Barbeque Idado = A 9000 CFM Fan the Size of Utah
And I thought the roar of my PCs was loud now.
Sadly enough (and I certainly feel for the ISP), new laws concerning these attacks aren't going to help anyone. For laws to be effective, you actually have to catch the person in question, and with DDOS that's darn tough.
I'm not sure what the real answer is, though. I find myself reading these stories and articles and feeling helpless myself, even though I'm not directly involved. But I am a programmer, and we're supposed to have brilliant solutions to these issues....but I can't come up with one. The underlying structure of the 'net itself is to blame for allowing these attacks, and you know to change that will be like getting all cars to convert to bacon fat gas.
How does one instigate a major industry shift in how we do things? Would it even be worth it, or will we just see these random business fold due to stupid fucking kiddies?
From the: Well,-can't-you-handle-chewing-gum-and-dancing? dept.
The idea behind this article is that there are too many spatial configurations in a operating system for a user to be able to cope and concentrate on information flowing from one to the other. The desktop represents one type of spatial configuration (limited movement, space, etc.) while the hard disk icon represents another (limitless space, movement beyond the edges, etc.). The author proposes that it is asking too much of users to be able to make these spatial conversions.
Now, let's think about this. Don't you already do spatial conversions all the time? You think of a house, that's in 3D, usually (in your mind). You go to an architecht, he draws the house in 2D (on paper), maybe with some 3D perspectives, but still in 2D. You take this to a contractor, and they construct the house in 3D! This is spatial conversion, folks. We all learned to do it as children, converting the spaces of normal paper into 3D houses, turkeys, etc....whatever those projects were in 3rd grade.
It still comes down to a learning curve and ability scale. Most everyone will learn a system faster if they don't have to do spatial conversions. Therefore, for the ease of learning, such a "desktop only" system might be pertinent. However, computers are complex things and are expected to encompass a lot of different information in a lot of different configurations. Limiting yourself to one spatial relationship will only limit you in the end as to what you can store, manage, and organize. Having both the desktop and the hard drive paradigms to manage information will result in the ability to store the vast amounts of different information available.
From the: You-can't-have-everything-ya-know dept.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm more than willing to let M$ have the monopoly on producing accessibility software. The *NIX world, Linux especially, has other areas of GUI development and polishing that need attention before accessibility issues. Not having an office suite that is as-good-as-or-better-in-all-aspects as M$ Office yet is a larger deficit to overcome than, say, lacking Speech Recog. or something like that. The major things need to be worked on before the minor ones, folks. And face it: the handicapped are a minority, especially in the IT world. Not that this is a bash on them, don't get me wrong. I'm just looking at practicality issues here.
Cold truth is, it doesn't pay to develop server rooms that are wheelchair accessible (and if they're anything like mine, they have cords and all manners of things that make it hard for walking individuals to navigate!). In a similar manner, it doesn't pay (or benefit, for you free software folk) to develop accessibility software for *nix at this time. At least, not on a large, concentrated scale.
From the: It's-in-there-somewhere dept.
Find your soul. A metaphysical question? Somewhat.
I studied both CS and philosophy in college. I have a BA in CS, and almost a BA in Phil. CS is what I do, but philosophy is what I am. Philosophy is what makes me get up in the morning, drag my ass to work, program mindless code (somedays) and still stay sane and happy. I know I always have that other subject to turn to once CS has done all it can to fulfill me.
Philosophy may not be your answer. It may be music, or art, or sports, or (perhaps) pr0n. Whatever it is, find it, and study it as well. Be as diligent about maintaining your connection with that "other side" of you as you are in striving to become a Code God(TM).
After being in the work force for a year and a half after graduation, I know now that when I go back to do grad school, I'll be doing it in philosophy, not CS. Mind you, it'll most likely be on philosophy of mind and artificial intelligence, but it will be philosophy. Computers are great, and I love them to pieces, but they don't make me want to live. Find your life force and go with it. Happiness and excitement derive from being more than one-dimensional.
From the: But-we-need-you-around,honest! dept.
Slackware has been a stalwart distro for me ever since I discovered Linux, and continues to be the #1 distro I run on my machines. Now, I have many, many vintage machines, as I'm into collecting and restoring older machines. Slackware works very well for this, as well for various servers that I maintain.
Mind you, the setup and interface has never been stellar, and leaves most normal users coughing in the dust. However, for those who need max flexibility and a thin system (like these 386 machines and such need), this is an excellent one. I personally don't see any huge loss by not having these tools....come to think of it, I've never used them anyway.
On the other hand, if Slack exists because of commercial sales, then the loss of these tools and others will be its demise from lack of revenue.
For all you talker fans out there, Neil Robertson's NUTS code (or derivitives - MoeNUTS, AmNUTS, etc.) has a constant named "DNL" that keeps track of the length of the date in seconds. This is set to 11 and will need to be switched to 12, although my talker ran fine w/o changing it. I'm sure I would have seen something wrong down the road.
Ok, perhaps "boring" was the wrong word...how about...um....unexciting? There are places where Tolkien goes into vast descriptions or histories or such that just aren't "action-packed" excitement. Oh, I enjoy those sections as well, it paints the world better. I guess "boring" was a poor word, but it might be perceived by others as being "boring" if they don't like that kind of detail. That's all! :)
Tolkien is to fantasy what Plato was to philosophy: a pioneer, a definer, a methodologist. Although parts of LOTR are, frankly, boring (although they are few and nicely bounded by excitement), Tolkien has done an amazing job at making a fantasy world.
The word "world" here not only encompasses the environment in which the characters live and interact, but the entirety of the existence of all characters. If any one character may know about a certain place, event, or person, that object is not only mentioned but defined, elaborated, and links seamlessly into the other aspects of the world.
Good fantasy has very few inconsistencies in the history and events of the worlds, as well as personal interactions, race definitions, language definitions and modes, and cultural aspects. Tolkien, being a linguist, was primarily interested in the language aspect of his worlds and so you can find extensive studies and documents of the Elven languages, as well as Dwarven and such. There are quite a few people in the world who speak one of the Elven languages Tolkien created, just because they were done so well!
LOTR is a must-read for any sci-fi/fantasy lover, if nothing else for the simple fact that it is a definitive book in the genre. And if you're fortunate, like myself, it will become one of your favorite novels of all time. I distinctly remember crying at the end of the first read of LOTR, not so much because I was empathizing with the characters, but because I didn't want the story to ever end.
Did he go out with a bang? A big one?