Suspension for being late for class is a fiscal issue. Schools get funded based on the kids being there, and children showing up late too often means the school loses part of their funding for that kid. So, yes, the kid can reasonably suspend a kid for being late because if they're not going to get paid, or be able to keep that kid in class, then they shouldn't be pretending that he or she is actually there. It's a tool to get the parents and the kid to make sure the kid gets there on time.
They 'call a conference', like retarded children are called 'special'. The word has come to mean exactly what it was used to replace, in this case actually a 'stern talking to'.
There's a little problem in an ICU: sometimes your hands are covered with things you really don't want to leave smeared on a checklist. This is where a nurse or doctor trading off on such tasks as needed can be a godsend. It's the perfect task for the new nurse on staff, who's learning the ropes.
The question I answered was what you use _when_ C is too slow. The next significant software improvement available is machine code. And goodness knows, I've had to use machine code myself when dealing with some interesting low power, custom-built device work, where speed and battery life are deeply related and your resources are extremely limited.
Usually, we don't need that much speed, or we simply throw more CPU power at the problem and avoid the programmer cost of diving down to the machine code level.
Having a lot of testers doesn't seem to actually affect the quality of many of the smaller modules. Many of them have absolutely insane dependency chains, requiring both untested, unreliable modules, often from the same author, and completely deprecated modules for the same component, with massive duplication of modules to do the same small task in slightly different ways.
For the core modules, and those exciting modules likely to be included in the next release, I can see the results of testing work. But many of the smaller ones are one-off debris by sloppy programmers that unfortunately show up in the CPAN search engines. No one seems to test them, and they're apparently not tested again after their original publicaton for compatibility with new perl releases.
Machine code. Knowledge of the internals of the hardware can allow you to tune operations even better than a general compiler, such as gcc, can.
But if you have to go to that level, it's often a good idea to modify your compiler to support such optimizations. This is common with gcc for specific new hardware, such as portable devices, firewalls, and routers.
This is an old problem with hardware and software. They're not looking at it as 'what is the single right price'. They're looking at it as 'People will pay the full price for these features: will they pay less for software without some of these features, and still get us a sale that makes some money or protects our market from competition there? Then sell it without those features for that lower price, and lock it that way so we don't lose sales to our cheaper version.'
This is old, standard behavior for hardware designers as well, as CPU overclockers will confirm for you over at www.tomshardware.com. It's intrinsic to this whole 'region' encoding nonsense with video DVD's as well: they're segmenting the market into those who can afford and will pay more, namely the English speaking world, and the other markets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement? IPsec is _not_ built into IPv6. Support for certain aspects of IPsec is built into IPv6, certainly. But they're rather different tools.
You're also fortunate in having a small company without a lot of already existing infrastructure. You merely had to turn IPv6 on for your router. But in a larger company, your DHCP services, DNS, firewalls, access control for network services, printers, and internal switches will all need work. The reluctance to touch it and simply use a NAT protected internal network is compelling, and it scales well.
Sure they do: you just need to use an alternative port. It's not ideal, but it works well with a redirect in front of it on the virtual host's HTTP web page.
You don't manage network connectivity across VPN's and multiple sites. I do. Changing the firewalls and VPN's and switches to support IPv6 is pretty expensive for a mid-sized business, and there's usually no cost justification for doing so until the old stuff is being replaced anyway.
Which most corporate network admins absolutely do not want running. A bunch of people inside a company grabbing and sharing the latest 'Twilight' badly recorded knockoff DVD can grind a company's external bandwidth to a grinding halt, interfering with legitimate traffic. Even legitimate torrents such as the new Fedora 10 DVD can be a problem if too many people are torrenting it at once. And far, far too much of the traffic on Bittorrent is illegitimate: if I catch you running it on my network space, without permission, the first warning is polite, the second is disciplinary action. Such bandwidth is surprisingly expensive, and people bringing in their external USB drives to download music and videos will go home with the lawyers and security reviewing the contents of their USB media.
A company that has a legitimate need for bittorrent can, and should, designate an external server for precisely this purpose. That's one IP address, maybe 10 if scattered around the world. Compared to the number of companies that have/24 address spaces and only really use 5 of them, this isn't a big IP address load.
That's odd, because it's paying me a pretty good salary. The business model doesn't necessarily scale well for a lot of reasons, some of which you've mentioned. But others include the very slow development and release times of large companies that cannot keep their developers away from middle managers with 5 year plans, Gant charts, productivity evaluations, centralized purchasing systems, mandated sensitivity courses, and other activities that are not in fact part of the development process.
It's classic 'Cathedral vs. the Bazaar' conflicts. It is possible to run a stall at the bazaar, but it takes a very different set of approaches than running a cathedral: speed and flexibility is critical.
A modern Linux kernel and OS try to use all your RAM to keep information paged in and available, rather than merely stored on disk. This is good from a performance view, as long as you consider RAM basically free to use (which it mostly is). This is sometimes a problem when you really _do_ have something trying to overwhelm your actual RAM, and makes the old tool of simply typing 'free' to report on programs with memory leaks rather useless until the program grows out of the bounds of physical RAM, at which point it's often too late to clean up the mess.
I think you've got it backwards. People can, and will, pay for new features, and for making software talk together in previously untried ways. That's a good part of my paycheck. The FOSS business model doesn't support large software companies, but it's very flexible for getting new features to market faster.
What makes you think he wants to release this software to the public?
Many students and grad students have great ideas for cool software that they think will make them lots of money someday. A few are even right: putting it out there open source can destroy the plans for proprietary and protected income that this student could expect for his work, if he can retain control over it in spite of the university's IP policies.
There are plenty of cases where publication under the GPL, for example, would protect it. A BSD license would not: enhancements written for the university would remain private, even if the university turned around and sold it as a product. Some companies are based on this model, such as MySQL.
Try the door handles to the men's room: those get a lot of traffic, and it only takes a little bit of nitrate to generate false positives. Making the security theater look like incompetent boobs could in fact be a very useful technique for people to interfere with security overall, and get them away from using effective techniques.
COMMON SENSE COST CUTTING TIPS: don't fire the pensioned dinosaurs who can't do anything but burn money the way they did before.
Here, I fixed that for you. Seriously, IT is not a stable field. Demands, and capabilities, change very quickly. Training staff, and circulating them among new, sharp people who have new skillsets, is an ongoing IT expense. The skills that worked well for expensive SAN arrays have just been effectively discarded as 1 Terabyte SATA drives become commonplace, and the token ring networking skills of a dozen years ago are pointless in a world where each manager wants their laptop on the wireless network safely.
MS Office is a poor choice for open source migration, because of the powerful and still effective Microsoft monopolies in certain fields. But Exchange as the mail server is usually a very, very bad choice in terms of reliability, scalability, and affordability.
I take it you don't like Amaya? For freeware web design, it avoids the dancing bears common to Dreamweaver design, and produces light, stable, usable HTML. It could use some integration to support HTTPS/WebDAV access for editing a site, but overall I've found it to be great for cleaning up MS produced web garbage.
gcc as your compiler. The visual GUI's for various Microsoft compilers are pretty, but tend to produce crap code.
GNU-make for building software. Again, the GUI's for software builders are pretty, but tend to reproduce problems solved in GNU make 10 years ago.
CygWin for Windows SSH and X software. It costs some support, but is much lighterweight, more powerful, and more flexible than the commercial X servers.
Bugzilla for ticketing. The idea in commercial systems of 'internal notes' that the bug submitter cannot see is anathema to good support, and the focus on pretty charts of garbage like Siebel is a waste of everyone's time. And the amazingly stupid proprietary clients for many commercial ticket systems, coupled with the Oracle databases, are huge moneysinks and support time abusers.
Amanda for backup. There are plenty of expensive backup systems with lots of features, but most of them are unnecessary in the real world. Zmanda now provides commercial support.
Xen for virtualization. The situations that Xen cannot handle instead of VMware are very few, and usually the result of someone doing something very foolish, and Xensource for commercial support is quite affordable.
CFengine for network wide management. The tiime spent learning it is time spent otherwise adapting commercial tools to accomplish the same site specific sites.
Apache for web servers. It's very powerful, very flexible, and actually follows the specifications as compared to IIS and many commercial web servers.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 1
But Google's policies on censorship are unfortunately unclear. They're operating, not within US, Chinese, or international law, but within whatever law they negotiate with whomever they happen to speak with. And it's not that Google holds sway over governments: they hold sway over their own company to choose to do business there or not, and to follow such policies or not. If we're going to trust Google as a source of the world's Internet knowledge, we need to hold them to a very high standard of non-censorship, or that information will become even more filtered and corrupted than it already is.
Controlling the populace's access to the documents is one important factor. So is maintaining a consistent doctrine, so that priests in Rome and priests in the Holy Land and priests in Germany all worship the same god in the same way. That's basic organizational doctrine. And the idea that a different groups' belief is heresy and to be expunged is critical to this control, even if your own group is in fact heretical against the original prophet or scriptures.
When I think of what Jesus would have had to say about the Crusades, and about invading people to bring them Christianity, I shudder in sympathy with the poor crucified bastard. (In the literal sense: his mother wasn't married to his father.)
By 'most of those', I assume you mean www.wikileaks.org? For Scientology material, they've tried claiming anything they can manage to get a judge to not throw out, but copyright has been one of their strongest tools. It's fascinating material: start from www.xenu.net or www.factnet.org to get a sense of that goes on with it.
The www.wikileaks.org material is equall fascinating. Trade secret, national security, active gag orders on court officers, NDA, and anything people can think of to keep those documents secret has also been tried. It's also fascinating stuff!
Keeping it out of print may also be the desire of the creator or of their estate. Look into the on-line publications of the secret Scientology writings of L. Ron Hubbard, or look at the fascinating material over at www.wikileaks.org. Much of that is material the original authors or current owners absolutely do not want available for general information, much less duplication. And this policy goes right back to the beginnings of copyright law and the Catholic unhappiness with Bibles being printed in English.
It is fascinating history, and reveals the roots of copyright in the _prevention_ of publication to keep material secret, not in the assistance to public education and welfare offered as a reason for copyright and patent laws.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So, in fact, China censors 'illegal material' which is a violation of UN treaties to censor in international communications. The idea of 'do no harm' is not good enough for such a large and powerful company: the idea of 'do no harm in China' by not bothering their government is in direct contrast to 'do no harm in China' by restricting the speech of those who disagree with the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Suspension for being late for class is a fiscal issue. Schools get funded based on the kids being there, and children showing up late too often means the school loses part of their funding for that kid. So, yes, the kid can reasonably suspend a kid for being late because if they're not going to get paid, or be able to keep that kid in class, then they shouldn't be pretending that he or she is actually there. It's a tool to get the parents and the kid to make sure the kid gets there on time.
They 'call a conference', like retarded children are called 'special'. The word has come to mean exactly what it was used to replace, in this case actually a 'stern talking to'.
There's a little problem in an ICU: sometimes your hands are covered with things you really don't want to leave smeared on a checklist. This is where a nurse or doctor trading off on such tasks as needed can be a godsend. It's the perfect task for the new nurse on staff, who's learning the ropes.
The question I answered was what you use _when_ C is too slow. The next significant software improvement available is machine code. And goodness knows, I've had to use machine code myself when dealing with some interesting low power, custom-built device work, where speed and battery life are deeply related and your resources are extremely limited.
Usually, we don't need that much speed, or we simply throw more CPU power at the problem and avoid the programmer cost of diving down to the machine code level.
Having a lot of testers doesn't seem to actually affect the quality of many of the smaller modules. Many of them have absolutely insane dependency chains, requiring both untested, unreliable modules, often from the same author, and completely deprecated modules for the same component, with massive duplication of modules to do the same small task in slightly different ways.
For the core modules, and those exciting modules likely to be included in the next release, I can see the results of testing work. But many of the smaller ones are one-off debris by sloppy programmers that unfortunately show up in the CPAN search engines. No one seems to test them, and they're apparently not tested again after their original publicaton for compatibility with new perl releases.
Machine code. Knowledge of the internals of the hardware can allow you to tune operations even better than a general compiler, such as gcc, can.
But if you have to go to that level, it's often a good idea to modify your compiler to support such optimizations. This is common with gcc for specific new hardware, such as portable devices, firewalls, and routers.
This is an old problem with hardware and software. They're not looking at it as 'what is the single right price'. They're looking at it as 'People will pay the full price for these features: will they pay less for software without some of these features, and still get us a sale that makes some money or protects our market from competition there? Then sell it without those features for that lower price, and lock it that way so we don't lose sales to our cheaper version.'
This is old, standard behavior for hardware designers as well, as CPU overclockers will confirm for you over at www.tomshardware.com. It's intrinsic to this whole 'region' encoding nonsense with video DVD's as well: they're segmenting the market into those who can afford and will pay more, namely the English speaking world, and the other markets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement? IPsec is _not_ built into IPv6. Support for certain aspects of IPsec is built into IPv6, certainly. But they're rather different tools.
You're also fortunate in having a small company without a lot of already existing infrastructure. You merely had to turn IPv6 on for your router. But in a larger company, your DHCP services, DNS, firewalls, access control for network services, printers, and internal switches will all need work. The reluctance to touch it and simply use a NAT protected internal network is compelling, and it scales well.
Sure they do: you just need to use an alternative port. It's not ideal, but it works well with a redirect in front of it on the virtual host's HTTP web page.
You don't manage network connectivity across VPN's and multiple sites. I do. Changing the firewalls and VPN's and switches to support IPv6 is pretty expensive for a mid-sized business, and there's usually no cost justification for doing so until the old stuff is being replaced anyway.
Which most corporate network admins absolutely do not want running. A bunch of people inside a company grabbing and sharing the latest 'Twilight' badly recorded knockoff DVD can grind a company's external bandwidth to a grinding halt, interfering with legitimate traffic. Even legitimate torrents such as the new Fedora 10 DVD can be a problem if too many people are torrenting it at once. And far, far too much of the traffic on Bittorrent is illegitimate: if I catch you running it on my network space, without permission, the first warning is polite, the second is disciplinary action. Such bandwidth is surprisingly expensive, and people bringing in their external USB drives to download music and videos will go home with the lawyers and security reviewing the contents of their USB media.
A company that has a legitimate need for bittorrent can, and should, designate an external server for precisely this purpose. That's one IP address, maybe 10 if scattered around the world. Compared to the number of companies that have /24 address spaces and only really use 5 of them, this isn't a big IP address load.
That's odd, because it's paying me a pretty good salary. The business model doesn't necessarily scale well for a lot of reasons, some of which you've mentioned. But others include the very slow development and release times of large companies that cannot keep their developers away from middle managers with 5 year plans, Gant charts, productivity evaluations, centralized purchasing systems, mandated sensitivity courses, and other activities that are not in fact part of the development process.
It's classic 'Cathedral vs. the Bazaar' conflicts. It is possible to run a stall at the bazaar, but it takes a very different set of approaches than running a cathedral: speed and flexibility is critical.
A modern Linux kernel and OS try to use all your RAM to keep information paged in and available, rather than merely stored on disk. This is good from a performance view, as long as you consider RAM basically free to use (which it mostly is). This is sometimes a problem when you really _do_ have something trying to overwhelm your actual RAM, and makes the old tool of simply typing 'free' to report on programs with memory leaks rather useless until the program grows out of the bounds of physical RAM, at which point it's often too late to clean up the mess.
I think you've got it backwards. People can, and will, pay for new features, and for making software talk together in previously untried ways. That's a good part of my paycheck. The FOSS business model doesn't support large software companies, but it's very flexible for getting new features to market faster.
What makes you think he wants to release this software to the public?
Many students and grad students have great ideas for cool software that they think will make them lots of money someday. A few are even right: putting it out there open source can destroy the plans for proprietary and protected income that this student could expect for his work, if he can retain control over it in spite of the university's IP policies.
There are plenty of cases where publication under the GPL, for example, would protect it. A BSD license would not: enhancements written for the university would remain private, even if the university turned around and sold it as a product. Some companies are based on this model, such as MySQL.
Try the door handles to the men's room: those get a lot of traffic, and it only takes a little bit of nitrate to generate false positives. Making the security theater look like incompetent boobs could in fact be a very useful technique for people to interfere with security overall, and get them away from using effective techniques.
You mean we shouldn't use the RFID beermug, discussed here?
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.10.2165
COMMON SENSE COST CUTTING TIPS: don't fire the pensioned dinosaurs who can't do anything but burn money the way they did before. Here, I fixed that for you. Seriously, IT is not a stable field. Demands, and capabilities, change very quickly. Training staff, and circulating them among new, sharp people who have new skillsets, is an ongoing IT expense. The skills that worked well for expensive SAN arrays have just been effectively discarded as 1 Terabyte SATA drives become commonplace, and the token ring networking skills of a dozen years ago are pointless in a world where each manager wants their laptop on the wireless network safely. MS Office is a poor choice for open source migration, because of the powerful and still effective Microsoft monopolies in certain fields. But Exchange as the mail server is usually a very, very bad choice in terms of reliability, scalability, and affordability.
I take it you don't like Amaya? For freeware web design, it avoids the dancing bears common to Dreamweaver design, and produces light, stable, usable HTML. It could use some integration to support HTTPS/WebDAV access for editing a site, but overall I've found it to be great for cleaning up MS produced web garbage.
gcc as your compiler. The visual GUI's for various Microsoft compilers are pretty, but tend to produce crap code.
GNU-make for building software. Again, the GUI's for software builders are pretty, but tend to reproduce problems solved in GNU make 10 years ago.
CygWin for Windows SSH and X software. It costs some support, but is much lighterweight, more powerful, and more flexible than the commercial X servers.
Bugzilla for ticketing. The idea in commercial systems of 'internal notes' that the bug submitter cannot see is anathema to good support, and the focus on pretty charts of garbage like Siebel is a waste of everyone's time. And the amazingly stupid proprietary clients for many commercial ticket systems, coupled with the Oracle databases, are huge moneysinks and support time abusers.
Amanda for backup. There are plenty of expensive backup systems with lots of features, but most of them are unnecessary in the real world. Zmanda now provides commercial support.
Xen for virtualization. The situations that Xen cannot handle instead of VMware are very few, and usually the result of someone doing something very foolish, and Xensource for commercial support is quite affordable.
CFengine for network wide management. The tiime spent learning it is time spent otherwise adapting commercial tools to accomplish the same site specific sites.
Apache for web servers. It's very powerful, very flexible, and actually follows the specifications as compared to IIS and many commercial web servers.
But Google's policies on censorship are unfortunately unclear. They're operating, not within US, Chinese, or international law, but within whatever law they negotiate with whomever they happen to speak with. And it's not that Google holds sway over governments: they hold sway over their own company to choose to do business there or not, and to follow such policies or not. If we're going to trust Google as a source of the world's Internet knowledge, we need to hold them to a very high standard of non-censorship, or that information will become even more filtered and corrupted than it already is.
Controlling the populace's access to the documents is one important factor. So is maintaining a consistent doctrine, so that priests in Rome and priests in the Holy Land and priests in Germany all worship the same god in the same way. That's basic organizational doctrine. And the idea that a different groups' belief is heresy and to be expunged is critical to this control, even if your own group is in fact heretical against the original prophet or scriptures.
When I think of what Jesus would have had to say about the Crusades, and about invading people to bring them Christianity, I shudder in sympathy with the poor crucified bastard. (In the literal sense: his mother wasn't married to his father.)
By 'most of those', I assume you mean www.wikileaks.org? For Scientology material, they've tried claiming anything they can manage to get a judge to not throw out, but copyright has been one of their strongest tools. It's fascinating material: start from www.xenu.net or www.factnet.org to get a sense of that goes on with it.
The www.wikileaks.org material is equall fascinating. Trade secret, national security, active gag orders on court officers, NDA, and anything people can think of to keep those documents secret has also been tried. It's also fascinating stuff!
Keeping it out of print may also be the desire of the creator or of their estate. Look into the on-line publications of the secret Scientology writings of L. Ron Hubbard, or look at the fascinating material over at www.wikileaks.org. Much of that is material the original authors or current owners absolutely do not want available for general information, much less duplication. And this policy goes right back to the beginnings of copyright law and the Catholic unhappiness with Bibles being printed in English.
It is fascinating history, and reveals the roots of copyright in the _prevention_ of publication to keep material secret, not in the assistance to public education and welfare offered as a reason for copyright and patent laws.
Try reading the newspapers, or even searching Google for 'google censorship in China'. The top of the search shows the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm.
So, in fact, China censors 'illegal material' which is a violation of UN treaties to censor in international communications. The idea of 'do no harm' is not good enough for such a large and powerful company: the idea of 'do no harm in China' by not bothering their government is in direct contrast to 'do no harm in China' by restricting the speech of those who disagree with the government.