You've missed the obvious - IT staff change things, of course that does things to stability.
That is the problem. The damage of this "change" is easily a safety and environmental disaster. A license engineer takes an oath to protect the general public in their safety, not the IT system. It is simply paramount to test out the patches on a stand-by test environment before implementing to a live system. A lot of system provider does that now, testing the newly released patches, and then release them to their customers to be implemented after their testing. A blind patch and "fix the problem as they arise" attitude in a critical system is exactly the attitude that cause news worthy events over the Internet and cost you a job for your life time in this field. This is why we are wary of IT staff in general because most of them have no appreciation of the bigger picture besides the little piece of pie they are working on.
So let's not say "IT messes up our systems" any more than we say "vaccines cause autism", shall we?
Let's use this as an example. What you are saying is a true statement in its merit. However, for a high-risk group, i.e. pregnent women, would it not a standard practice for physicians to be extra careful to prescribe any medication to them? Or in fact, ask them to withheld taking any medication unless it is absolutely necessary.
In the same way, security is very important. None of us want to see this kind of security breach happen. Yet our mission would be utter disaster if the system is killed by blindly patching a system without proper testing the patch itself beforehand. Even if the cause of the crash was because some part of the system's program was written incorrectly, it is already running. So then it would be wrong by anybody (IT, engineering, or management) to come in and say "I don't care if you have a bad code, we NEED to patch, and then fix the code afterward). In the end, both the control system and the security measures are means to an end to run a facility safely and efficiently. You don't want to see your name plaster all over the web because the patch you have insisted on patching was untested and cause the next Texas City Explosion, or another Deep Horizon leak in the Gulf, do you?
By the way some of us are reasonably competent (we won't call ourself experts since ultimately someone knows more than we do) in network security and IT background in general. So at least we are capable of making a judgement call when we know a potential risk of brining a system down. Before you ask the question of why running a buggy system you have to understand sometimes it is what we have to run with, and it does take physical man power to re-wire everything or physically verify EVERY wiring connection, and that easily costs in the unit of tens or hundres of thousands, if not millions of dollars. Yes we are talking a lot bigger scale than typical IT operation where $100 saving is a big deal.
Our past experience indicate the IT staff does more damage to the stability of the system than anything else could. Most IT and network personnel has zero understanding of reliability of a system. The architecture they design are simply too complex and not robust enough. So before anybody can hack in, the system itself becomes unstable, crashed, and end up causing dangerous situation.
One of the most common mistake observed is a super complicated VLAN scheme that link multiple network together under the name of "ease of management" or "security", while in fact the first thing they need to do is to completely seperate the control network with corporate network, and then flatten the control network with air-gap from the corporate network. Also make sure you have zero wireless network access to the control network would be a wise choice not only in security but also improves each component's availability in general.
This is why you are not running a major corporation or a major business unit. It does matter in a competitive business world. They are called to maximize profit, not just making a few dollars and cents.
In a discrete, one-time logic, yes, you are correct. You would be $20 ahead of where you were by taking the money than having the "give me more than you" approach.
However, Business is a continuous, statistically driven environment. That means for an organization to move forward the majority of the decision would be logically based, but at some point of time, a business have to take chances. In this example, if you were able to successfully bid out to receive at least $60 (not necessarily getting the $80 the other person would have received), you just even out the three $20 offers you refuse. That is quite an incentive to take a chance on something.
Of course, gamblers usually don't last too long. But for some major decision with potentially high payout, sometime a risk is worth taken. You would have to mitigate the risk and the liability of the "wrong" decision, or be able to swallow the loss as a result of that (e.g. people still getting paid, company not losing a big chunck of operating cash reserve, etc.).
Based on the reference given above. The idea is to use the possible error rate of a particular assembly of gates to generate a result tha represents a probability. So say, if by lowering the voltage level intentionally and run a particular logic through, the probability of the result is wrong (because of the physical limitations of the device), that would become the desired output, rather than having to raise the voltage to insure the logic is right all the time.
The whole idea is to use less gates and less energy to come up with the same statistical result in a silicon. Organize the gates in different structures will have different probabilities of producing errors. So in theory with enough emperical data we can safely predict the porbabilities of an error coming from a certain arrangements. That is the beauty of the statistics, after all, and it does not have to be dead accurate as long as we are in the margin of errors. The results wills still have the base signals of 0 and 1, except they now represent a certain probabilities, instead of a hard 0 or 1 bit.
Yes the theory is new so it would be hard to validate, but certainly it would be interesting to see how it works out in real-life application.
But I don't think going interactive using technology will work well in front of 100 or so people
That's the point. The key is not so much tech or not. It is the class size and other factors that is the main obstacles of preventing interactions between the teachers and the students. A class of 100 simply doesn't help student to learn math and science properly in my opinion.
Literacy is not 100% in that area in the world, and I doubt many people driving vehicles are tested and licensed before being allowed access to a vehicle.
Most people in the world outside of United States understand to STOP when a group of soilders with guns standing by the side of the road. Especially when barricades are involved. They can at least read the body language.
I truely wonder if this spec is more or less designed for high security requirements from government and some corporations than for general consumers. Except Moto decide to just build into the phone itself and not arm it unless it is a government order?
You do understand that Mythbusters has a substantially higher budget than the DPRK, don't you?
Humm. No. North Korea definitely has bigger guns and bigger budget than Mythbusters. Last I heard missles and "classified weapons" command pretty good pennies in the black market.
USB and bluetooth serial ports are available for freaks like you who need to do anachronistic "work."
We get paid A LOT MORE than you do to take care of the "anachronistic work". The things we interface with typically are much harder to replace than you ever experienced.
I have always been able to get PCI and even ISA modules as I need. If you are primarily looking for serial or IO modules look for SeaLevel. They are a bit expensive but they got quality stuff. I have one computer went through lightening strike on the field devices and the trescient blow the packaging on the IC of that port, while the rest of the computer still manage to stay in service until we get there and replace the whole system.
Employer with a descent size typically has an IT and telecomm device usage policy. It is very typical that they spell out the exact details on what the employer's rights are and what is employee's responsiblity. It will also spells out in great details on what you can and cannot do with the devices under the specified circumstances. It may souund like a lot but in reality it is just mostly common sense. The most important thing is that they want to make sure everyone understands that the devices belongs to the company, and you have no personal rights when it comes to between you and the company over the usage of the device, and that the intend purposes of the devices is for business purposes, even if the personal activities are allowed under the specified circumstances. Pretty straight forward in my mind.
I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services.
And why should they? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still. Free online multiplayer. Taking that away, could seriously cut down their userbase.
The market changes as time goes on, so does the company's direction to either maintain market share or to get more money. I doubt Sony will care about maintaining user base if they dominates at 90% of the market share and they can get a a sizable revenue from tens of millions of users. XBox Live was up front about the fee since the beginning. A sticker shock for sure but they are not deceptive of their intentions. They have maintained their position since day one, and somehow there are people willing to pay for the service.
I have to say for a lot of things Microsoft managed to messed up lately they did all right with the Xobx Live service.
Read the Original article. The speaker clearly indicates that is the procedure (turn it off, take out the battery, seal it in a sheilded bag, then sent it to a sielded lab). It is just that not everyone is aware of the capacity of the technologies and he's trying to make everyone aware of it.
The significance of a standing army of a peaceful nation is the act of deterrance, so that people do not attempt to try to start the process of killing each other. Why do you think there were no major world wars between the nations since the coneptions and proliferations of nuclear stockpiles and the cold war started.
Let's see, running is perfectly secure system vs. running a mission-critial system that has real-world pernonnel, equipment, and environmental damage should it fail? If those two are mutually exclusive then I choose the later, segregate and isolate the network and running locally with no outside connections.
We don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately there are legacy softwares that the accompanying control hardware is difficult to be upgraded espeically if it is running at all times and it takes signifiant coordination to even do a service turn-around. The last attempt I made it takes significant coordination and countless hours of communications to personnells low and high (all the way up to the top management) to gain approval and support. It is the equivalent of pulling teeth in this environment. It is not easy to be idealistic about it as your situation when human life is at steak. Human life to me IS more important than desktop security if you ask me.
Ther velocity of the objects raveling in orbits are so high that one little piece of objects colliding to anyting would be disasterous. Cosnidering an unmanned shuttle "releasing" a small, but reasonable size object (like a solid metal ball?) and let it "float" to the desire target. The taret (rogue satellie, for example) will most likely be destroyed upon contact, or as you point out, self-destruct with proximity sensors.
Slashdot Mirror
You've missed the obvious - IT staff change things, of course that does things to stability.
That is the problem. The damage of this "change" is easily a safety and environmental disaster. A license engineer takes an oath to protect the general public in their safety, not the IT system. It is simply paramount to test out the patches on a stand-by test environment before implementing to a live system. A lot of system provider does that now, testing the newly released patches, and then release them to their customers to be implemented after their testing. A blind patch and "fix the problem as they arise" attitude in a critical system is exactly the attitude that cause news worthy events over the Internet and cost you a job for your life time in this field. This is why we are wary of IT staff in general because most of them have no appreciation of the bigger picture besides the little piece of pie they are working on.
So let's not say "IT messes up our systems" any more than we say "vaccines cause autism", shall we?
Let's use this as an example. What you are saying is a true statement in its merit. However, for a high-risk group, i.e. pregnent women, would it not a standard practice for physicians to be extra careful to prescribe any medication to them? Or in fact, ask them to withheld taking any medication unless it is absolutely necessary.
In the same way, security is very important. None of us want to see this kind of security breach happen. Yet our mission would be utter disaster if the system is killed by blindly patching a system without proper testing the patch itself beforehand. Even if the cause of the crash was because some part of the system's program was written incorrectly, it is already running. So then it would be wrong by anybody (IT, engineering, or management) to come in and say "I don't care if you have a bad code, we NEED to patch, and then fix the code afterward). In the end, both the control system and the security measures are means to an end to run a facility safely and efficiently. You don't want to see your name plaster all over the web because the patch you have insisted on patching was untested and cause the next Texas City Explosion, or another Deep Horizon leak in the Gulf, do you?
By the way some of us are reasonably competent (we won't call ourself experts since ultimately someone knows more than we do) in network security and IT background in general. So at least we are capable of making a judgement call when we know a potential risk of brining a system down. Before you ask the question of why running a buggy system you have to understand sometimes it is what we have to run with, and it does take physical man power to re-wire everything or physically verify EVERY wiring connection, and that easily costs in the unit of tens or hundres of thousands, if not millions of dollars. Yes we are talking a lot bigger scale than typical IT operation where $100 saving is a big deal.
Our past experience indicate the IT staff does more damage to the stability of the system than anything else could. Most IT and network personnel has zero understanding of reliability of a system. The architecture they design are simply too complex and not robust enough. So before anybody can hack in, the system itself becomes unstable, crashed, and end up causing dangerous situation.
One of the most common mistake observed is a super complicated VLAN scheme that link multiple network together under the name of "ease of management" or "security", while in fact the first thing they need to do is to completely seperate the control network with corporate network, and then flatten the control network with air-gap from the corporate network. Also make sure you have zero wireless network access to the control network would be a wise choice not only in security but also improves each component's availability in general.
Again, common sense goes a very long way.
I wish I have mod points to reward your creativity. You start to sound like a true marketing major.
The old saying "It is better to be lucky than good" is more true in business world today than ever...
This is why you are not running a major corporation or a major business unit. It does matter in a competitive business world. They are called to maximize profit, not just making a few dollars and cents.
In a discrete, one-time logic, yes, you are correct. You would be $20 ahead of where you were by taking the money than having the "give me more than you" approach.
However, Business is a continuous, statistically driven environment. That means for an organization to move forward the majority of the decision would be logically based, but at some point of time, a business have to take chances. In this example, if you were able to successfully bid out to receive at least $60 (not necessarily getting the $80 the other person would have received), you just even out the three $20 offers you refuse. That is quite an incentive to take a chance on something.
Of course, gamblers usually don't last too long. But for some major decision with potentially high payout, sometime a risk is worth taken. You would have to mitigate the risk and the liability of the "wrong" decision, or be able to swallow the loss as a result of that (e.g. people still getting paid, company not losing a big chunck of operating cash reserve, etc.).
Yeah but you make less money doing that...
By the article, the D-Pad can be changed from the disc to a plus. Not the other way around (from a plus to disc in the abstract).
Based on the reference given above. The idea is to use the possible error rate of a particular assembly of gates to generate a result tha represents a probability. So say, if by lowering the voltage level intentionally and run a particular logic through, the probability of the result is wrong (because of the physical limitations of the device), that would become the desired output, rather than having to raise the voltage to insure the logic is right all the time.
The whole idea is to use less gates and less energy to come up with the same statistical result in a silicon. Organize the gates in different structures will have different probabilities of producing errors. So in theory with enough emperical data we can safely predict the porbabilities of an error coming from a certain arrangements. That is the beauty of the statistics, after all, and it does not have to be dead accurate as long as we are in the margin of errors. The results wills still have the base signals of 0 and 1, except they now represent a certain probabilities, instead of a hard 0 or 1 bit.
Yes the theory is new so it would be hard to validate, but certainly it would be interesting to see how it works out in real-life application.
Why the hell would anyone pay $500 for a netbook when they can get a way more powerful note book for $400?
In the mobile computing world, size matters.
But I don't think going interactive using technology will work well in front of 100 or so people
That's the point. The key is not so much tech or not. It is the class size and other factors that is the main obstacles of preventing interactions between the teachers and the students. A class of 100 simply doesn't help student to learn math and science properly in my opinion.
Literacy is not 100% in that area in the world, and I doubt many people driving vehicles are tested and licensed before being allowed access to a vehicle.
Most people in the world outside of United States understand to STOP when a group of soilders with guns standing by the side of the road. Especially when barricades are involved. They can at least read the body language.
I truely wonder if this spec is more or less designed for high security requirements from government and some corporations than for general consumers. Except Moto decide to just build into the phone itself and not arm it unless it is a government order?
You do understand that Mythbusters has a substantially higher budget than the DPRK, don't you?
Humm. No. North Korea definitely has bigger guns and bigger budget than Mythbusters. Last I heard missles and "classified weapons" command pretty good pennies in the black market.
USB and bluetooth serial ports are available for freaks like you who need to do anachronistic "work."
We get paid A LOT MORE than you do to take care of the "anachronistic work". The things we interface with typically are much harder to replace than you ever experienced.
I have always been able to get PCI and even ISA modules as I need. If you are primarily looking for serial or IO modules look for SeaLevel. They are a bit expensive but they got quality stuff. I have one computer went through lightening strike on the field devices and the trescient blow the packaging on the IC of that port, while the rest of the computer still manage to stay in service until we get there and replace the whole system.
Employer with a descent size typically has an IT and telecomm device usage policy. It is very typical that they spell out the exact details on what the employer's rights are and what is employee's responsiblity. It will also spells out in great details on what you can and cannot do with the devices under the specified circumstances. It may souund like a lot but in reality it is just mostly common sense. The most important thing is that they want to make sure everyone understands that the devices belongs to the company, and you have no personal rights when it comes to between you and the company over the usage of the device, and that the intend purposes of the devices is for business purposes, even if the personal activities are allowed under the specified circumstances. Pretty straight forward in my mind.
I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services. And why should they? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still. Free online multiplayer. Taking that away, could seriously cut down their userbase.
The market changes as time goes on, so does the company's direction to either maintain market share or to get more money. I doubt Sony will care about maintaining user base if they dominates at 90% of the market share and they can get a a sizable revenue from tens of millions of users. XBox Live was up front about the fee since the beginning. A sticker shock for sure but they are not deceptive of their intentions. They have maintained their position since day one, and somehow there are people willing to pay for the service.
I have to say for a lot of things Microsoft managed to messed up lately they did all right with the Xobx Live service.
Read the Original article. The speaker clearly indicates that is the procedure (turn it off, take out the battery, seal it in a sheilded bag, then sent it to a sielded lab). It is just that not everyone is aware of the capacity of the technologies and he's trying to make everyone aware of it.
The significance of a standing army of a peaceful nation is the act of deterrance, so that people do not attempt to try to start the process of killing each other. Why do you think there were no major world wars between the nations since the coneptions and proliferations of nuclear stockpiles and the cold war started.
Let's see, running is perfectly secure system vs. running a mission-critial system that has real-world pernonnel, equipment, and environmental damage should it fail? If those two are mutually exclusive then I choose the later, segregate and isolate the network and running locally with no outside connections.
We don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately there are legacy softwares that the accompanying control hardware is difficult to be upgraded espeically if it is running at all times and it takes signifiant coordination to even do a service turn-around. The last attempt I made it takes significant coordination and countless hours of communications to personnells low and high (all the way up to the top management) to gain approval and support. It is the equivalent of pulling teeth in this environment. It is not easy to be idealistic about it as your situation when human life is at steak. Human life to me IS more important than desktop security if you ask me.
Ther velocity of the objects raveling in orbits are so high that one little piece of objects colliding to anyting would be disasterous. Cosnidering an unmanned shuttle "releasing" a small, but reasonable size object (like a solid metal ball?) and let it "float" to the desire target. The taret (rogue satellie, for example) will most likely be destroyed upon contact, or as you point out, self-destruct with proximity sensors.
Are you sure the mother Russia didn't have anything "nuclear" up in the space during the Cold War?
Is she really complaining or is she bragging like Sally Albright in the restaurant?