By the time you get your CAT 6 cable pulled, it will be obsolete and you'll need CAT 7. Or 8. Who knows?
Put in wall boxes, pull boxes and some 3/4" conduit runs to a central panel/server location. Then, whatever happens, you can yank the old stuff out and put new stuff in.
For the kitchen, put in a couple of extra 20 Amp circuits (two general purpose circuits are required by code).
For the rest of the house, separate the lighting and outlets on separate circuits. Code (and cheap electricians) allow these to be fed off the same branch circuit. Bu there's nothing more annoying than plugging in something and having the lights go out as well.
Extra lighting in the master bedroom if you like to share videos with other couples. Some of this amateur stuff is pretty poorly lit.
If "all" developers on Linux wrote apps that required elevated privileges, Linux would have had serious problems too.
Perhaps its a Windows shortcoming that so may apps need privilege escalation. On Unixes, its rare. And when it needs to be done, its done by small, single purpose utilities (services) that don't include a backdoor for an unprivileged user to run miscellaneous scripts, send e-mail from within the app, etc.
The Unix user/group model allows the partitioning of restricted objects into logical silos. Privilege escalation within one app. means nothing to the next app. over. Its just another user with no business mucking around outside its sandbox. In fact, its an error to call it privilege escalation.
Oh, so wrong, so wrong. Clueless drivel in fact. Windows NT had far more security features than most desktop Unices at the time, and Windows still has a much more sophisticated security model than, for example Linux. Even the basic file system security of Windows is heads and shoulders above most Linux file systems.
Number of security features does not result in more security. The Unix/Linux security model is simple. But that simplicity gives the administrator or user the ability to get a few settings correct and secure system resources or user data. The more additional 'features' you add, the more likely the average user* will screw them up and open a hole.
Unix was designed with a simple 'everything is a file' model. Anything details you want on top of that are the responsibility of the application developer. For example: The permission model implemented by the Apache web server is more complex and has more settings than offered by the underlying Unix OS. Fine. If you need that level of control, you build it into the application.
Even VAX/VMS had a more complex security and file model. This made life easier for some developers. There were different file types one could use for different applications without having to worry about things like records and versions. But if the OS model didn't fit, you'd end up with a non-optimal solution. Or you'd have to roll your own anyway.
*Even on a Linux system, the user/group model can confuse a beginner. How many people have set up a user/group system on their laptop that keeps their e-mail, web browser sessions (one for porn, one for banking) and other apps separated from each other?
I'm replying to the "game wants the entire desktop so it takes it" comment. If I want to expand an app to the full screen, fine. That's my choice. But if I don't want to, then the developers should damned well figure out how to write 'well behaved' apps.
This probably has more to do with signed crypto modules than some secret method of encryption. The Chinese probably want to build and sign their own rather than 'trust' something compiled in the EU/USA. Big deal. We'd do the same.
Its a federal offense to give incorrect information to a federal official. Or to any entity that has a statutory duty to make reports to the federal government.
Some businesses have tried to leverage this second point to make the claim that they might have to turn data over to the gov't. So what you have on file with them must be correct. But I don't think courts have backed them up on this one. Yet.
Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.'
Uh, dude. That's what patents are for. They grant the holder exclusive rights to the invention. I don't see any exceptions for monopolization, anti trust or whatever in the relevant Constitutional clause or subsequent enacting legislation.
From the photo in TFA, all I see is old school tower type PCs. In other words, no laptops with batteries. So yeah, if you turn off the power you "knock out" the PCs.
Reminds me of the humorous IT support call, the punch line of which is, "Do you still have the box that the PC came in?"
So you are trading an admin that knows coding/scripting for a developer with 'infrastructure experience'. That's fine if its all under the same roof. But what happens when upper management moves your developers/coders to India? Or you never did have developers on staff (installing/maintaining an OTS product, for example). In the first case, you have to formalize the requirements definition for the admin scripting, send it off to the (remote) code group and endure the contract issues with deliverables passing between two businesses. In the second, you'll have to build a software development team to handle the scripting task. And that will be visible to the management that promised an OTS, "no home-brewed apps" environment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for establishing and following processes. But with a well disciplined group, that can be achieved with admins that can put on developer, tester, configuration control hats as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
why you need to specifically have a swiss account and not say a more close to home one ?
The pictures on their checks are prettier.
By the time you get your CAT 6 cable pulled, it will be obsolete and you'll need CAT 7. Or 8. Who knows?
Put in wall boxes, pull boxes and some 3/4" conduit runs to a central panel/server location. Then, whatever happens, you can yank the old stuff out and put new stuff in.
For the kitchen, put in a couple of extra 20 Amp circuits (two general purpose circuits are required by code).
For the rest of the house, separate the lighting and outlets on separate circuits. Code (and cheap electricians) allow these to be fed off the same branch circuit. Bu there's nothing more annoying than plugging in something and having the lights go out as well.
Extra lighting in the master bedroom if you like to share videos with other couples. Some of this amateur stuff is pretty poorly lit.
If "all" developers on Linux wrote apps that required elevated privileges, Linux would have had serious problems too.
Perhaps its a Windows shortcoming that so may apps need privilege escalation. On Unixes, its rare. And when it needs to be done, its done by small, single purpose utilities (services) that don't include a backdoor for an unprivileged user to run miscellaneous scripts, send e-mail from within the app, etc.
The Unix user/group model allows the partitioning of restricted objects into logical silos. Privilege escalation within one app. means nothing to the next app. over. Its just another user with no business mucking around outside its sandbox. In fact, its an error to call it privilege escalation.
I don't know about that. A new UI on top of Windows 7 seems to have fooled them.
Oh, so wrong, so wrong. Clueless drivel in fact. Windows NT had far more security features than most desktop Unices at the time, and Windows still has a much more sophisticated security model than, for example Linux. Even the basic file system security of Windows is heads and shoulders above most Linux file systems.
Number of security features does not result in more security. The Unix/Linux security model is simple. But that simplicity gives the administrator or user the ability to get a few settings correct and secure system resources or user data. The more additional 'features' you add, the more likely the average user* will screw them up and open a hole.
Unix was designed with a simple 'everything is a file' model. Anything details you want on top of that are the responsibility of the application developer. For example: The permission model implemented by the Apache web server is more complex and has more settings than offered by the underlying Unix OS. Fine. If you need that level of control, you build it into the application.
Even VAX/VMS had a more complex security and file model. This made life easier for some developers. There were different file types one could use for different applications without having to worry about things like records and versions. But if the OS model didn't fit, you'd end up with a non-optimal solution. Or you'd have to roll your own anyway.
*Even on a Linux system, the user/group model can confuse a beginner. How many people have set up a user/group system on their laptop that keeps their e-mail, web browser sessions (one for porn, one for banking) and other apps separated from each other?
Victimhood.
More green in their pockets.
However, engineers are confident of correcting the fault in time for the fourth test flight
but then
Until the exact cause of the fault is determined it won't be possible to correct it with certainty,
Makes you wonder which statement was intended to keep funding alive and which one was aimed at securing more engineering time in the schedule.
I think you are wandering a bit off topic (OT) with this one.
Developers! Developers! Developers!
Developers?
[sound of crickets]
I'm replying to the "game wants the entire desktop so it takes it" comment. If I want to expand an app to the full screen, fine. That's my choice. But if I don't want to, then the developers should damned well figure out how to write 'well behaved' apps.
What else are you doing on your computer while you play that game?
Working, posting snarky comments on Slashdot, etc.
When a game starts, it wants the entire desktop,
I don't want it to have the entire desktop. I'm using it for other stuff as well. If you need the entire desktop, get a PS3.
The keys are secret, the algorithm isn't.
This probably has more to do with signed crypto modules than some secret method of encryption. The Chinese probably want to build and sign their own rather than 'trust' something compiled in the EU/USA. Big deal. We'd do the same.
I grab the triceatops by the hind legs, flip it on its back and rub its belly. This puts it in a trance and then its helpless
Bon Apetite.
Its a federal offense to give incorrect information to a federal official. Or to any entity that has a statutory duty to make reports to the federal government.
Some businesses have tried to leverage this second point to make the claim that they might have to turn data over to the gov't. So what you have on file with them must be correct. But I don't think courts have backed them up on this one. Yet.
Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.'
Uh, dude. That's what patents are for. They grant the holder exclusive rights to the invention. I don't see any exceptions for monopolization, anti trust or whatever in the relevant Constitutional clause or subsequent enacting legislation.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Is their h/w and s/w being audited for back doors and spyware?
No need to audit US sourced equipment. Thanks to CALEA we are 100% certain its been bugged.
Boss: I see the spreadsheet. But why is your PC making porn noises?
You: Oh crap! Its resume time again.
When I was an engineer with the local power company, we had a lineman working for us that could take out power for the entire county.
Delivery time was somewhat problematic, as he'd always stop for coffee on his way to a job.
From the photo in TFA, all I see is old school tower type PCs. In other words, no laptops with batteries. So yeah, if you turn off the power you "knock out" the PCs.
Reminds me of the humorous IT support call, the punch line of which is, "Do you still have the box that the PC came in?"
My grandpa likes the Windows 8 UI as well. I can only hope that Windows 9 will keep up with his increasing dementia.
So you are trading an admin that knows coding/scripting for a developer with 'infrastructure experience'. That's fine if its all under the same roof. But what happens when upper management moves your developers/coders to India? Or you never did have developers on staff (installing/maintaining an OTS product, for example). In the first case, you have to formalize the requirements definition for the admin scripting, send it off to the (remote) code group and endure the contract issues with deliverables passing between two businesses. In the second, you'll have to build a software development team to handle the scripting task. And that will be visible to the management that promised an OTS, "no home-brewed apps" environment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for establishing and following processes. But with a well disciplined group, that can be achieved with admins that can put on developer, tester, configuration control hats as needed.