The security concerns are not that much different that today's Internet. Instead of knowing someone that knows WiFi cracking, you just need to know someone at an ISP or backbone site.
First, nobody's talking about using TODAY'S WiFi for this. Last I checked, WiFi doesn't have the totally mobile roaming/routing/forwarding capability that you'd need for this to work.
Second, anybody is stupid if they send Credit Card numbers or other sensitive information over an unencrypted link. An SSL link takes care of this concern pretty well.
The poster is talking about a world where there is no need for fiber or big radio transmitters as everybody's devices will all be talking and routing peer-to-peer.
But, you've put your finger on a major problem. We'll still need long haul carriers, sattelite, cables under the ocean, big radio transmitters, etc., for the large distances between population concentrations.
Someone would have to pay these costs. Right now, the line costs are pretty much shared by all to some extent as so much traffic goes over the public networks, but this peer-to-peer system might bring about a scenario where those who access long haul services pay more. There couldn't be automated routing to the big long haul pipes from the peer devices without a good way to charge it back to the user.
Still, I could see where there could be less reliance on long haul lines than there is now. Local peer networks might bring about some economies. Right now, if you connect to a someone in your own town there's a good chance that your packets go through a dozen hops and travel thousands of miles, using lots of fiber. A system that really tried to route locally first might be more efficient and require less long haul infrastructure.
I don't see how it could be practical if everyone didn't kick in some for long haul access, though.
Any codebase, be it a program, a web site, or a router's firewall rules, should be changed IN TEST FIRST! Then you do your best to break it, and only after you and several others have had at it do you move it to production/HEAD/whatever (and hold your breath).
What a great idea! We all know that testing is exhaustive and that issues never occur in Production that are not fully addressed on the Test system.
Maybe Monday is the day a lot of sites move
changes into Production?
Actually, I cited then Associate Professor, now full Professor, David Helfand of Columbia University, quoted in Profscam.
I've taken a number of higher ed courses, and while there are certainly many legitimate criticsms of higher education, the general consensus among higher ed people is that Profscam is a particularly shoddy book that sensationalizes extreme views.
It's not at all surprising that Academics would find Profscam distasteful. Do they just roll their eyes or do they actually have specific criticisms of the book? Or do they just offer up Ananymous Ad Hominems the way you do?
Now, why should I only accept the "even-handed" self-criticism that Academics apply to themselves in The Chronicle of Higher Education?
Now, I will say what I said before, that teaching is rarely rewarded. So if you focus on teaching at the expense of your research, it will hurt you, because you're being evaluated on your research. But teaching isn't counted against you for its own sake.
Did you learn this Argument by Assertion in those Higher Ed courses of yours? Or do you actually have any evidence? I've cited a Professor who explicitly stated that it is counted against you.
Against your Argument by Assertion, I can add my own assertion that I have seen Academia's disdain for teaching. Why do you think that the bulk of ungraduate teaching is done by Graduate Students?
By the way, being a good teacher is never regarded as a stain in higher education. But it often not rewarded, either.
I've seen several situations where outstanding teachers were looked down on by their departments.
Here's a reference to this phenomenon that jibes with what I've observered. In the book Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education, by Charles J. Sykes, p. 58:
The treatment of teachers indicates academia's indifference to teaching, but it only hits at how deeply the contempt for it is ingrained within the academic culture. "It's the kiss of death," Associate Professor David Helfand, winner of one of Columbia University's General Studies Distinguished Teachers Awards, told
Newsweek on Campus, "if you volunteer to teach two classes instead of one before tenure. They will say 'This guy is a teacher.'"(Ref: Barol, Bill, "The Threat to College Teaching," Newsweek on Campus, October 1983.)
I read about a study some time back about how much more productive, in terms of publishing, Professors in Academia are until they get tenure.
I've worked in and around Academic departments and I can tell you that you can sure see it. The Assistant Professors are busting their butts, late nights and weekends on their research and that immediately changes the day they get tenure.
Some tenured Professors work hard on their research, those that really love the field. People who really love their field are what we should be encouraging in Academia, they also make the best teachers, but the current tenure system doesn't really select for this very well.
I'm just ranting. I don't really have any good ideas on what to do about it.
Maybe there should be some way that good pedagogical performance should be factored into whether tenure is granted, but in most higher education settings I've seen, being a good teacher is considered a stain on your Academic Credentials.
Please, somebody explain to me how open source on a closed, specific system helps...
...
Of course, NASA does office stuff, networking, etc... I guess "some projects" would have to be highly specific. But if you are gonna help NASA, who wants to help the secretary?
Ever work in a large software shop? I didn't think so.
Any operation of any size at all generates lots of software tools and libraries that are more or less generic.
In addition, NASA does lots of Scientific Visualization, materials engineering, simulations, data acquisition and other stuff that is not directly related to embedded flight control systems. Lot's of good science that's not just "Office Stuff".
I'm probably missing more than a few, but just these examples are things that could be opened up.
Yes, but the point that's being overlooked here is that copyrights don't have anything to do with "what's yours". Copyrights are a grant of exclusive use, for a limited time, by the Government. It is not really a property right.
One can no more own a work protected by copyright than a rancher who is grazing BLM lands owns the land his livestock are standing on.
I do think these important distinctions are being blurred. A lot of people seem to think they own ideas and others think that private property is a grant by the state. I'm not looking forward to the day when either of these beliefs become true.
I'd heard, sometime back, that McCarthy's committee never sent anyone to prison for being a communist and that's strictly true. These people went to prison for refusing the testify.
What I said was clearly wrong and I guess deserving of it's 'Flamebait' rating.
Look up the history of the McCarthy years in the United States for a start. It's finally getting some real historical analysis, having been brushed under the carpet for a long time.
As others have pointed out, recent historical analysis is proving that McCarthy has been something of a liberal boogy man. Nobody actually went to prison as part of any McCarthy investigation, but there is increasingly strong evidence that there was, in fact, Soviet penetration of US Government agencies at many levels.
Compare this to Stalin's purges going on about the same time where many thousands died and others languished in Gulags for merely associating with someone who was suspected of disloyalty. I'll take McCarthy era blacklisting over the abject terror of the Cold War Soviet Union any time.
The Hoover-era FBI could give the Soviet secret police a few lessons in ethics-free techniques as well.
Oh really? Exactly what Hoover-era FBI technique could compare to what the KGB was doing?
I've never heard of any technique that the FBI ever used that wasn't abused far worse by the KGB.
While the Hoover-era FBI was far from blameless, I find the comparison obscene.
The case of Krawtchouk is instructive. Karwtchouk died in a prison for merely writing a letter to Western colleague. The Western Scientist, as far as we know, was never even investigated and certainly suffered no deprivations.
Claiming that others are seeing things in "black and white" is a convenient dodge against taking a stand against real tyranny. No government in the history of Man has ever been completely clear of all wrongdoing, but some are so dark that it serves us well to highlight the contrast.
I agree with everything you say, but thought it worth pointing out that it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Venus is not just slightly smaller than the Earth. The Earth is around 20% more massive than Venus, being somewhat denser, so notwithstanding the relatively small difference in radius, the surface gravity on Venus is only about.91g. Mars is not nearly as dense as the earth and is quite a bit smaller, which accounts for its.38g surface gravity.
What you say is true, though. Venus holds a very dense atmosphere even with its lower gravity.
Re:Military Industrial Complex
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 1
Mod parent up!
I recall reading something written by Col. David Hackworth where he said that the Army was starved for resources by Eisenhower.
The Eisenhower administration started the "Nuclear Army", where we could save money on mundane things like fuel and ammo and spend more on battlefield nukes. They were convinced at the time that the next war would be nuclear so there was little point in supporting or building up conventional forces.
Security "experts" always remind users never, ever, under any circumstance to write down a password.
But then, these same "experts" recommend policies that passwords have to be changed every N days. It seems that at some places, they think that security goes up as N goes down.
This is crazy! Don't these "experts" recognize that the liklihood of users writing down passwords goes up as N goes down?
Are you saying that Sony sells only one model of MP3/CD player? Not true. Are you saying they don't sell multi-changers that do MP3? Also, not true. It seems you need to do research.
As to the rest of your comments, I think you just don't get what it means to be a monopolist and how that changes the rules of doing business.
Here's a clue. It's legal for me to contract with someone to only carry my brand of anything. It's not legal for a monopolist to do the same, if this keeps others from entering the market.
If you don't like anti-trust laws, well, come out and say it, but that's the way it works today.
If I like Microsoft's products, I'm also free to buy them. If I don't like Microsoft's products, though, I don't necessarily have much choice not to buy them. It's all-but impossible to find a decent PC laptop that comes without Windows, so I may be stuck paying for a Microsoft product whether I want it or not. That's not the way markets are supposed to work, which is why you'll hear people complaining about Microsoft's monopoly.
It's funny, I never mentioned monopoly in my comments. Then this guy comes along saying that the word monopoly always comes out when MS is mentioned.
But, you do make the point here that this guy is missing. Yeah, I like Sony's products. I don't like MS products, but I have to buy them. Why would I buy something that I didn't like unless I had no choice?
Being a monopoly and protecting it with predatory practices is evil. Sony has some practices that you might call predatory, but that's just competition.
However, their MP3 players are evil. Not only do they only take Memory Stick or Minidisc.
Not true, I own a Sony MP3 CD player.
You can turn a blind eye to it if ya like, but sooner or later you're going to buy a Sony product and figure out just how proprietary they are,
I see absolutely nothing proprietary about my Sony MP3 CD player.
especially when they're the only one providing a product like that.
Uh, yeah, if they're the only one providing a product, then it's necessarily proprietary.
Look, all you're demonstrating is that they are out to make money. That's nothing like Microsoft, who are out to make money by making sure that the consumer has no choice in markets they dominate.
Show me a lock-in deal where they've worked with other companies to make sure that only Sony products are sold in combination with their own. Show me examples of where they bought and buried technologies. Show me examples of absurd licensing practices.
I just don't see where you can say Sony is like Microsoft.
Yeah, they don't oppose and even encourage Linux on the PS2. That's important around here.
Also, they sell (sold? haven't seen one recently) CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives, MP3 players, etc. even though they are into producing content in a BIG way.
Their laptops are cool (but pricey) and run Linux pretty well.
They just seem to "get it". They may be bare knuckled when dealing with competitors and collaborators, but they make/sell and support things that people want, without regard to some grand lockin strategy. Unlike certain Massive Software vendors I can think of.
Tartikoff's office contacted Joel, and offered a starring role in a new NBC sitcom. They sent him the script for the pilot, and after reading it, Hodgson turned the part down, telling Tartikoff's people it just wasn't funny. Perhaps predictably, the executives mistook Hodgson's complaints, assuming they were just a bargaining ploy. Their response was to offer the role to Joel again, at triple the amount of money they'd first offered.
That was the proverbial last straw. Hodgson was appalled that the executives could not grasp the notion that he would turn a project down purely on its merit and that no amount of money was going to get him to change that stance. Of course, he refused the offer, and in a few months he was back in Minneapolis, declaring he was quitting comedy.
(Incidentally, the series, called High School USA, which Hodgson astutely pegged as "a Fast Times at Ridgemont High rip-off," was one of Tartikoff's most notable failures. Three episodes aired before it was yanked from NBC's fall schedule.)
You can't have a business model based on supporting old hardware.
Not true. IBM has had this business model for over 30 years. I think their support for legacy systems has been a great thing for IBM, making them the most reliable and robust of all the hardware vendors.
People do have memories, you know. They will recall that they weren't required to upgrade in a few years.
Interestingly, you've picked the most famous climate change skeptic of the lot. Lindzen, is hardly representative of the average climatologist.
I've attended a talk of climate change by F. Sherwood Roland (who is also a author on the report which Lindzen mentions, plus has a nobel prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry), and his description of the field of atmospheric chemistry is pretty similar to the one described by the parent poster.
Huh? Who made any claims about what the "average climatologist" believes? The parent poster claimed:
Scientific evidence is vague at the moment, but
all scientists say that once it is 100% proven it is already too late.
So, the parent poster made a claim about all scientists, and I refuted that claim with a counterexample. That being said, can anyone cite any evidence that even the "average climatologist" believes that it will be too late when it is 100% proven?
BTW, Lindzen is also an author on the report mentioned.
How can you say such a thing. I agree that many environmentalists have too absolute claims about this, but it cannot be ruled out either. Scientific evidence is vague at the moment, but all scientists say that once it is 100% proven it is already too late.
Here's the fact about the Kyoto Treaty that is often overlooked. Kyoto did not cover much of the developing world. China (currently the 2nd largests emitter of Greenhouse gases), India and Brazil are exempted. All of these economies are projected to grow at a rapid rate. Under Kyoto, Greenhouse gas production will grown sharply in the next few decades.
It's pretty clear that Kyoto's only real effect is to boost the economies of certain countries, such as China, at the expense of the US. Since Greenhouse emissions will probably not go down at all under Kyoto, if the assumptions of those who posit Human-activity induced Global Warming are true, things will continue to get worse.
However, if you review the history of what happened with Hitler, it actually supports your points about the necessity to limit Government power.
Hitler used terror and backroom deals to gain power, after losing two elections. After he had the power, he could use the institutions of German Government to take absolute power over every aspect of German life.
So, even if you trust the Government and the elected leaders, remember that these institutions can fall into the hands of evil people, which is why the Governmental powers must be limited.
The American Founders did see the dangers of mobocracy. The Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of the US Government and it is difficult to change. Regional interests are supported through the Senate and the Electoral College is supposed to provide a check against widespread electoral abuse.
Unfortunately, much of what the Government does these days is not covered by Constitutional powers, with 'the people' clamoring for more and more power to be invested in the Government all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
First, nobody's talking about using TODAY'S WiFi for this. Last I checked, WiFi doesn't have the totally mobile roaming/routing/forwarding capability that you'd need for this to work.
Second, anybody is stupid if they send Credit Card numbers or other sensitive information over an unencrypted link. An SSL link takes care of this concern pretty well.
But, you've put your finger on a major problem. We'll still need long haul carriers, sattelite, cables under the ocean, big radio transmitters, etc., for the large distances between population concentrations.
Someone would have to pay these costs. Right now, the line costs are pretty much shared by all to some extent as so much traffic goes over the public networks, but this peer-to-peer system might bring about a scenario where those who access long haul services pay more. There couldn't be automated routing to the big long haul pipes from the peer devices without a good way to charge it back to the user.
Still, I could see where there could be less reliance on long haul lines than there is now. Local peer networks might bring about some economies. Right now, if you connect to a someone in your own town there's a good chance that your packets go through a dozen hops and travel thousands of miles, using lots of fiber. A system that really tried to route locally first might be more efficient and require less long haul infrastructure.
I don't see how it could be practical if everyone didn't kick in some for long haul access, though.
What a great idea! We all know that testing is exhaustive and that issues never occur in Production that are not fully addressed on the Test system.
Maybe Monday is the day a lot of sites move changes into Production?
Actually, I cited then Associate Professor, now full Professor, David Helfand of Columbia University, quoted in Profscam.
It's not at all surprising that Academics would find Profscam distasteful. Do they just roll their eyes or do they actually have specific criticisms of the book? Or do they just offer up Ananymous Ad Hominems the way you do?
Now, why should I only accept the "even-handed" self-criticism that Academics apply to themselves in The Chronicle of Higher Education?
Did you learn this Argument by Assertion in those Higher Ed courses of yours? Or do you actually have any evidence? I've cited a Professor who explicitly stated that it is counted against you.
Against your Argument by Assertion, I can add my own assertion that I have seen Academia's disdain for teaching. Why do you think that the bulk of ungraduate teaching is done by Graduate Students?
I've seen several situations where outstanding teachers were looked down on by their departments.
Here's a reference to this phenomenon that jibes with what I've observered. In the book Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education, by Charles J. Sykes, p. 58:
I've worked in and around Academic departments and I can tell you that you can sure see it. The Assistant Professors are busting their butts, late nights and weekends on their research and that immediately changes the day they get tenure.
Some tenured Professors work hard on their research, those that really love the field. People who really love their field are what we should be encouraging in Academia, they also make the best teachers, but the current tenure system doesn't really select for this very well.
I'm just ranting. I don't really have any good ideas on what to do about it.
Maybe there should be some way that good pedagogical performance should be factored into whether tenure is granted, but in most higher education settings I've seen, being a good teacher is considered a stain on your Academic Credentials.
Of course, NASA does office stuff, networking, etc... I guess "some projects" would have to be highly specific. But if you are gonna help NASA, who wants to help the secretary?
Ever work in a large software shop? I didn't think so.
Any operation of any size at all generates lots of software tools and libraries that are more or less generic.
In addition, NASA does lots of Scientific Visualization, materials engineering, simulations, data acquisition and other stuff that is not directly related to embedded flight control systems. Lot's of good science that's not just "Office Stuff".
I'm probably missing more than a few, but just these examples are things that could be opened up.
Yes, but the point that's being overlooked here is that copyrights don't have anything to do with "what's yours". Copyrights are a grant of exclusive use, for a limited time, by the Government. It is not really a property right.
One can no more own a work protected by copyright than a rancher who is grazing BLM lands owns the land his livestock are standing on.
I do think these important distinctions are being blurred. A lot of people seem to think they own ideas and others think that private property is a grant by the state. I'm not looking forward to the day when either of these beliefs become true.
I'd heard, sometime back, that McCarthy's committee never sent anyone to prison for being a communist and that's strictly true. These people went to prison for refusing the testify.
What I said was clearly wrong and I guess deserving of it's 'Flamebait' rating.
As others have pointed out, recent historical analysis is proving that McCarthy has been something of a liberal boogy man. Nobody actually went to prison as part of any McCarthy investigation, but there is increasingly strong evidence that there was, in fact, Soviet penetration of US Government agencies at many levels.
Compare this to Stalin's purges going on about the same time where many thousands died and others languished in Gulags for merely associating with someone who was suspected of disloyalty. I'll take McCarthy era blacklisting over the abject terror of the Cold War Soviet Union any time.
Oh really? Exactly what Hoover-era FBI technique could compare to what the KGB was doing? I've never heard of any technique that the FBI ever used that wasn't abused far worse by the KGB. While the Hoover-era FBI was far from blameless, I find the comparison obscene.
The case of Krawtchouk is instructive. Karwtchouk died in a prison for merely writing a letter to Western colleague. The Western Scientist, as far as we know, was never even investigated and certainly suffered no deprivations.
Claiming that others are seeing things in "black and white" is a convenient dodge against taking a stand against real tyranny. No government in the history of Man has ever been completely clear of all wrongdoing, but some are so dark that it serves us well to highlight the contrast.
Venus is not just slightly smaller than the Earth. The Earth is around 20% more massive than Venus, being somewhat denser, so notwithstanding the relatively small difference in radius, the surface gravity on Venus is only about .91g. Mars is not nearly as dense as the earth and is quite a bit smaller, which accounts for its .38g surface gravity.
What you say is true, though. Venus holds a very dense atmosphere even with its lower gravity.
I recall reading something written by Col. David Hackworth where he said that the Army was starved for resources by Eisenhower.
The Eisenhower administration started the "Nuclear Army", where we could save money on mundane things like fuel and ammo and spend more on battlefield nukes. They were convinced at the time that the next war would be nuclear so there was little point in supporting or building up conventional forces.
But then, these same "experts" recommend policies that passwords have to be changed every N days. It seems that at some places, they think that security goes up as N goes down.
This is crazy! Don't these "experts" recognize that the liklihood of users writing down passwords goes up as N goes down?
Are you saying that Sony sells only one model of MP3/CD player? Not true. Are you saying they don't sell multi-changers that do MP3? Also, not true. It seems you need to do research.
As to the rest of your comments, I think you just don't get what it means to be a monopolist and how that changes the rules of doing business.
Here's a clue. It's legal for me to contract with someone to only carry my brand of anything. It's not legal for a monopolist to do the same, if this keeps others from entering the market.
If you don't like anti-trust laws, well, come out and say it, but that's the way it works today.
It's funny, I never mentioned monopoly in my comments. Then this guy comes along saying that the word monopoly always comes out when MS is mentioned.
But, you do make the point here that this guy is missing. Yeah, I like Sony's products. I don't like MS products, but I have to buy them. Why would I buy something that I didn't like unless I had no choice?
Being a monopoly and protecting it with predatory practices is evil. Sony has some practices that you might call predatory, but that's just competition.
Not true, I own a Sony MP3 CD player.
I see absolutely nothing proprietary about my Sony MP3 CD player.
Uh, yeah, if they're the only one providing a product, then it's necessarily proprietary.
Look, all you're demonstrating is that they are out to make money. That's nothing like Microsoft, who are out to make money by making sure that the consumer has no choice in markets they dominate.
Show me a lock-in deal where they've worked with other companies to make sure that only Sony products are sold in combination with their own. Show me examples of where they bought and buried technologies. Show me examples of absurd licensing practices.
I just don't see where you can say Sony is like Microsoft.
Yeah, they don't oppose and even encourage Linux on the PS2. That's important around here.
Also, they sell (sold? haven't seen one recently) CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives, MP3 players, etc. even though they are into producing content in a BIG way.
Their laptops are cool (but pricey) and run Linux pretty well.
They just seem to "get it". They may be bare knuckled when dealing with competitors and collaborators, but they make/sell and support things that people want, without regard to some grand lockin strategy. Unlike certain Massive Software vendors I can think of.
Sony also faught MS on the provisions in Windows licenses sold to PC Manufacturers that would limit their ability to sue MS over patent infringement. On the other hand, Sony did make a side deal with MS so that provision of the Windows' licenses didn't apply to them, which could be viewed as a way to attack other PC makers.
Not even this mighty fleet of Star Ships can withstand the brunt of a slashdotting!
You may be right, but I was just quoting the Joel Hodgson page from mst3kinfo.com.
Hollywood types just don't get it.
Not true. IBM has had this business model for over 30 years. I think their support for legacy systems has been a great thing for IBM, making them the most reliable and robust of all the hardware vendors.
People do have memories, you know. They will recall that they weren't required to upgrade in a few years.
I've attended a talk of climate change by F. Sherwood Roland (who is also a author on the report which Lindzen mentions, plus has a nobel prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry), and his description of the field of atmospheric chemistry is pretty similar to the one described by the parent poster.
Huh? Who made any claims about what the "average climatologist" believes? The parent poster claimed:
So, the parent poster made a claim about all scientists, and I refuted that claim with a counterexample. That being said, can anyone cite any evidence that even the "average climatologist" believes that it will be too late when it is 100% proven?
BTW, Lindzen is also an author on the report mentioned.
What is your source for this? Here's my source for a Scientist that doesn't appear to agree with you.
Here's the fact about the Kyoto Treaty that is often overlooked. Kyoto did not cover much of the developing world. China (currently the 2nd largests emitter of Greenhouse gases), India and Brazil are exempted. All of these economies are projected to grow at a rapid rate. Under Kyoto, Greenhouse gas production will grown sharply in the next few decades.
It's pretty clear that Kyoto's only real effect is to boost the economies of certain countries, such as China, at the expense of the US. Since Greenhouse emissions will probably not go down at all under Kyoto, if the assumptions of those who posit Human-activity induced Global Warming are true, things will continue to get worse.
This is simply not true.
However, if you review the history of what happened with Hitler, it actually supports your points about the necessity to limit Government power.
Hitler used terror and backroom deals to gain power, after losing two elections. After he had the power, he could use the institutions of German Government to take absolute power over every aspect of German life.
So, even if you trust the Government and the elected leaders, remember that these institutions can fall into the hands of evil people, which is why the Governmental powers must be limited.
The American Founders did see the dangers of mobocracy. The Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of the US Government and it is difficult to change. Regional interests are supported through the Senate and the Electoral College is supposed to provide a check against widespread electoral abuse.
Unfortunately, much of what the Government does these days is not covered by Constitutional powers, with 'the people' clamoring for more and more power to be invested in the Government all the time.
I shrink, therefore I am.