The only real "protection" against rogue admins is to have multiple admins who can monitor each other and (if required by audit) sign off on each other's work. Most organizations of any significant size have more than one person at the top, so that (at the very least) if any one admin is sick or leaves in a huff, one or more of the other's can take his place and/or revoke what permissions that admin had. This can take some forethought to prepare.
Without seeing the survey I can't confirm this, but I would suspect that they are only counting Internet connections to the home or office.
The number is much larger when you consider the number of people in developing and 3rd world nations who access the Internet in public venues, like cafes and libraries. But getting a good count here would be very complex.
Because of the open-source origin of the material, the publisher cannot claim copyright in the book." Actually, that is completely wrong. The publish can't claim copyright on the book because they don't own the original copyrights and are making no effort to acquire them, because there is no need to. The original copyright holders still have their copyrights, and if someone could track them all down and get them to agree to it, they could, in theory, sell the copyright to the publisher, and dual license wikipedia.
Of course, the publisher does own the copyright on any edits and corrections they make to the text. This does not, however, release them of the obligations that they have toward the license of the original source material.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the bulk of U.S. law had always said that a letter or other written communication was always the property of the person who received it, not the sender. The act of delivery transfers ownership to the recipient.
The theory is similar to the way that the owner of a house, rather than the architect who built it, has certain implicit rights to the design (like to right to photograph it, for instance), and the way that the owner of a physical painting is allowed to make reproductions of it, etc.
Who exactly, even among these groups that you have named, benefits from the leap second, and how?
I contend that all of the things that you mentioned: GPS, space travel, electrical grids, and all of those clocks--no matter how precise they must be--would still work just fine and be correct without the leap second.
When we use the leap second, the number of seconds that has passed has not changed, only our perception of how long a year is supposed to be. Our standard of measurement keeps changing every few years. But what value is there in having a rapidly changing, sliding scale for the length of a year? It introduces artificial complexity into our science and our timekeeping.
The leap second is only important to the people who have to deal with the consequences of its existence, and I am willing to bet that what a leap second, for them, is just a possible source of error and of a solution looking for a problem.
As much as we play around with daylight savings time, more often then not local earth time and the relative position of the sun overhead don't match anyway. More importantly, it has been even longer since most people cared. The philosophical questions are now moot, the scientific and engineering questions have workarounds (no one measures anything serious in local time, they just convert to it), and all that is left is the question of whether or not we need to expend the effort to adjust our clocks every time they are just one second off from some fully imaginary standard.
My understanding of the movie copyright is that it expired in the 1960's due to a technicality. In those days copyrights had to be renewed in order to extend to the full term, and MGM forgot to renew the copyright on the Wizard of Oz. Hence it has entered the public domain, although this is not widely known.
Correct me if I am wrong, but all 14 original Oz books and the MGM movie are all public domain. As long as you only base you canon on this material, you can make whatever movie you want, and you don't have to pay anyone a dime.
Now, the characters name are another matter. Many of those are still trademarked by various corporations.
The quality of American chocolate is every bit fine as American cheese, American Pizza, American Wine, American beer... oh wait!
And the best part is that American cheese doubles as tile grout, American Pizzas make fine tires, American Wine is a capital oven cleaner, and American beer is the choice replacement for kerosene!
This is really a rather moving article, in the sense that it makes me wonder what I have doing with my life and the things that I am being complacent about. It also makes me wonder how robust--in the macro-evolutionary sense--that our technological projects and infrastructures really are. The power and communications networks have always struck me very fragile and resistant to both change and attack (you would think that we would have learned from WWII Europe). Communications networks we can probably shore up by moving into stronger forms of wireless communication, although this opens the question of wide-spread jamming. However robust power networks present no obviously good solution until localized power (such as solar and wind) becomes cost competitive with centralized power.
This biggest problem with this theory is that it does not explain why hive death has started now. We have had more than a critical mass of cell phones for years now, especially in Europe. It also fails to explain this rather telling quote from TFA itself: "The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives."
Lucky for me I happen to be a Michigan resident living in a strained economic area. I can attest fully that this idea is beyond moronic in our current economic climate.
I work in higher education IT, and I have a fair idea about what does and does not work in the classroom. This is yet another example of people believing that throwing technology at students will make them learn better. We have done this on a grand national scale to the tune of billion of dollars in various programs, and so far it has not had a measurable impact. Where I work we just had one of the major DOE education program spends thousands of dollars on an enormous wide-format printer for underprivileged students. So that they can print posters. Posters. In college. This is their idea of a sound technological investment in education. Not to mention that we already had one just like it.
The fact of the matter is that no one "gets it" when it comes to technology in the classroom. An until they do, crap like this will keep creeping into legislation. The only silver lining about this is that there is no way in hell the governor will sign this measure into law.
Can you give me a good reason we should prop up an obsolete business model besides nostalgia or personal preference?
The bricks-and-mortar business model can sustain many more low and medium-end jobs for the people who would never be heired by an Amazon.com or a Newegg in a million years. It is all well and good to want to close Walmart because it is no longer relevent, but you will need to find an answer about what to do with their workforce first.
Additionally, ordering online drastically increases the quantities of good shipped over long distances, which would have a negative impact on America's gas supply, roads, and rail system at this juncture. The infrastructure that we have is robust, but it is not good enough or efficient enough to replace the hundreds of millions of people who shop at thousands of stored every single day.
There have been many examples of failed software killing people. One of the most famous was when the control software for a cancer-killing radiation laser (I can't remember the company name, alt-something) had a calculation error and overdosed several dozen people. Some of them died. There are "mission critical" software applications everywhere. My doctor's office has a patient file system on Windows, I am sure that my police station has several as well. Any one of these systems could potentially lead to loss-of-life if it failed.
I ask this question in all seriousness, knowing that it is very hard to get a serious answer on Slashdot where Microsoft is concerned: Is it time to start holding software vendors, like Microsoft, financially and criminally liable for an inability to correctly implement fundamental security measures in their products? Enough is enough, and perhaps it is time for government to step in. If an automotive vendor engineers bad vehicles, they are still liable for the people they hurt, no matter how hard the task of good safety may be for them. Why should it be any different for software vendors?
How would you ever get that many people to cooperate that consistently over that long of a time period? How would you prevent the intermediate generations from feeling like they are meaningless just because they only exist to father the generations that will be able to accomplish something? The rate of clinical depression caused by that would be probably staggering. How do you prevent the development of new religions or philosophies or conspiracy theories that would hinder the progress of the voyage, or perhaps express doubts its goals? Not to mention the more mundane problems like new bacteria and viruses mutating on the tiny ecosystem and wiping out all of its occupants, and liberationists starting political revolutions (ala: we didn't choose this voyage, why should we finish it?), and psychopathic serial killers, and the question of how such a tiny economy would maintain itself (do we go communist or capitalist on this voyage)?
There is just something fundamentally appealing to owning a powerful calculator 90% of the population can't even add two numbers on... One word: abacus
You know, that is funny, because as a member of a University IT department, we need to upgrade to Office 2007 this spring, because that is what the employers will expect all of our student's to know. Moreover, this is what our students demand that we teach them. Remember that Colleges are business too, and few students understand the term "de facto standard". They want the latest and the greatest or they will take their money elsewhere. Period.
The editors must be desperate today, or else they don't read these things before they post them. I can't find any good reason why I should trust anything this guy is saying on his blog: maybe he has run into a major issue with IE, or maybe he just does not know how to code JavaScript correctly. If his JavaScript is anything like his grammar, error is a high probability.
No, actually what is sounds like is another random social experiemnt being conducted by graduate studnets in psychology who need foder for their resarch papers.
Re:Al Queda, witches, devil worshippers, and gangs
on
Gangs on the Internet
·
· Score: 1
You need get you head our of your ass and be more appreciative of the religious biases of this country, my friend. You would not, I believe, be talking this way if the author had mentioned Jews or Hindus in the same light. Witches (Wicca) and devil-worshipers (I assume he means either Lucifarians or Satanists here) are well-established religions with long histories and complex traditions and all have exactly as much right to dignity as Christians, Jews, and all of the other "main stream" religions.
I wish people would try to feel a little more empathy once and a while. Just move to a nation where your particular faith (or lack there of, since tolerence inclueds athests and agnostics too) is looked down upon--and I guarentee there is at least one--and see how it feels.
The fact that the parent brings up hackers is irrelvent in this case, because being a Hacker is the same as being a person who pratices a particular trade, it has nothing at all to do with your belief structures (although, I will not deny that Hackers may share semi-uniform values) and only serves to distort the point.
I don't think that anyone is suprised by this. After all, it is common sense that the virtual OS's security is at the pleasure of the host, in much the same way that the security of a user-mode process is at the pleasure of the operating system. If there is anything between you and the actual naked hardware, then there is always the possiblity that that layer is doing something with your data that you don't lie.
Can someone explain to me how the 4-way handshake is better than the 3-way handshake. I mean, sure the resource allocation has been moved down the process, but a client bent on DOS could still flood the server with INT packets and then just follow up with COOKIE-ACKs, all the while actually not allocating any resources on its side, and you would have the same end result.
Now, if the COOKIE-ACKs required some signficiant processing (like encryption with a public key) then I could understand how this would reduce DOS potential.
Slashdot Mirror
The only real "protection" against rogue admins is to have multiple admins who can monitor each other and (if required by audit) sign off on each other's work. Most organizations of any significant size have more than one person at the top, so that (at the very least) if any one admin is sick or leaves in a huff, one or more of the other's can take his place and/or revoke what permissions that admin had. This can take some forethought to prepare.
It might be out of your price range, but the industry standard in your situation would be Blackbaud's Raiser's Edge solution.
Without seeing the survey I can't confirm this, but I would suspect that they are only counting Internet connections to the home or office. The number is much larger when you consider the number of people in developing and 3rd world nations who access the Internet in public venues, like cafes and libraries. But getting a good count here would be very complex.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the bulk of U.S. law had always said that a letter or other written communication was always the property of the person who received it, not the sender. The act of delivery transfers ownership to the recipient. The theory is similar to the way that the owner of a house, rather than the architect who built it, has certain implicit rights to the design (like to right to photograph it, for instance), and the way that the owner of a physical painting is allowed to make reproductions of it, etc.
Who exactly, even among these groups that you have named, benefits from the leap second, and how? I contend that all of the things that you mentioned: GPS, space travel, electrical grids, and all of those clocks--no matter how precise they must be--would still work just fine and be correct without the leap second. When we use the leap second, the number of seconds that has passed has not changed, only our perception of how long a year is supposed to be. Our standard of measurement keeps changing every few years. But what value is there in having a rapidly changing, sliding scale for the length of a year? It introduces artificial complexity into our science and our timekeeping. The leap second is only important to the people who have to deal with the consequences of its existence, and I am willing to bet that what a leap second, for them, is just a possible source of error and of a solution looking for a problem.
As much as we play around with daylight savings time, more often then not local earth time and the relative position of the sun overhead don't match anyway. More importantly, it has been even longer since most people cared. The philosophical questions are now moot, the scientific and engineering questions have workarounds (no one measures anything serious in local time, they just convert to it), and all that is left is the question of whether or not we need to expend the effort to adjust our clocks every time they are just one second off from some fully imaginary standard.
My understanding of the movie copyright is that it expired in the 1960's due to a technicality. In those days copyrights had to be renewed in order to extend to the full term, and MGM forgot to renew the copyright on the Wizard of Oz. Hence it has entered the public domain, although this is not widely known.
Correct me if I am wrong, but all 14 original Oz books and the MGM movie are all public domain. As long as you only base you canon on this material, you can make whatever movie you want, and you don't have to pay anyone a dime. Now, the characters name are another matter. Many of those are still trademarked by various corporations.
And the best part is that American cheese doubles as tile grout, American Pizzas make fine tires, American Wine is a capital oven cleaner, and American beer is the choice replacement for kerosene!
This is really a rather moving article, in the sense that it makes me wonder what I have doing with my life and the things that I am being complacent about. It also makes me wonder how robust--in the macro-evolutionary sense--that our technological projects and infrastructures really are. The power and communications networks have always struck me very fragile and resistant to both change and attack (you would think that we would have learned from WWII Europe). Communications networks we can probably shore up by moving into stronger forms of wireless communication, although this opens the question of wide-spread jamming. However robust power networks present no obviously good solution until localized power (such as solar and wind) becomes cost competitive with centralized power.
This biggest problem with this theory is that it does not explain why hive death has started now. We have had more than a critical mass of cell phones for years now, especially in Europe. It also fails to explain this rather telling quote from TFA itself: "The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives."
This makes it sound like a new disease to me.
Lucky for me I happen to be a Michigan resident living in a strained economic area. I can attest fully that this idea is beyond moronic in our current economic climate.
I work in higher education IT, and I have a fair idea about what does and does not work in the classroom. This is yet another example of people believing that throwing technology at students will make them learn better. We have done this on a grand national scale to the tune of billion of dollars in various programs, and so far it has not had a measurable impact. Where I work we just had one of the major DOE education program spends thousands of dollars on an enormous wide-format printer for underprivileged students. So that they can print posters. Posters. In college. This is their idea of a sound technological investment in education. Not to mention that we already had one just like it.
The fact of the matter is that no one "gets it" when it comes to technology in the classroom. An until they do, crap like this will keep creeping into legislation. The only silver lining about this is that there is no way in hell the governor will sign this measure into law.
I am a segmentor all the way. My job is just a means to an end, and if I forget that then I will never achieve that end.
There have been many examples of failed software killing people. One of the most famous was when the control software for a cancer-killing radiation laser (I can't remember the company name, alt-something) had a calculation error and overdosed several dozen people. Some of them died. There are "mission critical" software applications everywhere. My doctor's office has a patient file system on Windows, I am sure that my police station has several as well. Any one of these systems could potentially lead to loss-of-life if it failed.
I ask this question in all seriousness, knowing that it is very hard to get a serious answer on Slashdot where Microsoft is concerned: Is it time to start holding software vendors, like Microsoft, financially and criminally liable for an inability to correctly implement fundamental security measures in their products? Enough is enough, and perhaps it is time for government to step in. If an automotive vendor engineers bad vehicles, they are still liable for the people they hurt, no matter how hard the task of good safety may be for them. Why should it be any different for software vendors?
How would you ever get that many people to cooperate that consistently over that long of a time period? How would you prevent the intermediate generations from feeling like they are meaningless just because they only exist to father the generations that will be able to accomplish something? The rate of clinical depression caused by that would be probably staggering. How do you prevent the development of new religions or philosophies or conspiracy theories that would hinder the progress of the voyage, or perhaps express doubts its goals? Not to mention the more mundane problems like new bacteria and viruses mutating on the tiny ecosystem and wiping out all of its occupants, and liberationists starting political revolutions (ala: we didn't choose this voyage, why should we finish it?), and psychopathic serial killers, and the question of how such a tiny economy would maintain itself (do we go communist or capitalist on this voyage)?
You know, that is funny, because as a member of a University IT department, we need to upgrade to Office 2007 this spring, because that is what the employers will expect all of our student's to know. Moreover, this is what our students demand that we teach them. Remember that Colleges are business too, and few students understand the term "de facto standard". They want the latest and the greatest or they will take their money elsewhere. Period.
The editors must be desperate today, or else they don't read these things before they post them. I can't find any good reason why I should trust anything this guy is saying on his blog: maybe he has run into a major issue with IE, or maybe he just does not know how to code JavaScript correctly. If his JavaScript is anything like his grammar, error is a high probability.
No, actually what is sounds like is another random social experiemnt being conducted by graduate studnets in psychology who need foder for their resarch papers.
You need get you head our of your ass and be more appreciative of the religious biases of this country, my friend. You would not, I believe, be talking this way if the author had mentioned Jews or Hindus in the same light. Witches (Wicca) and devil-worshipers (I assume he means either Lucifarians or Satanists here) are well-established religions with long histories and complex traditions and all have exactly as much right to dignity as Christians, Jews, and all of the other "main stream" religions.
I wish people would try to feel a little more empathy once and a while. Just move to a nation where your particular faith (or lack there of, since tolerence inclueds athests and agnostics too) is looked down upon--and I guarentee there is at least one--and see how it feels.
The fact that the parent brings up hackers is irrelvent in this case, because being a Hacker is the same as being a person who pratices a particular trade, it has nothing at all to do with your belief structures (although, I will not deny that Hackers may share semi-uniform values) and only serves to distort the point.
I don't think that anyone is suprised by this. After all, it is common sense that the virtual OS's security is at the pleasure of the host, in much the same way that the security of a user-mode process is at the pleasure of the operating system. If there is anything between you and the actual naked hardware, then there is always the possiblity that that layer is doing something with your data that you don't lie.
Can someone explain to me how the 4-way handshake is better than the 3-way handshake. I mean, sure the resource allocation has been moved down the process, but a client bent on DOS could still flood the server with INT packets and then just follow up with COOKIE-ACKs, all the while actually not allocating any resources on its side, and you would have the same end result.
Now, if the COOKIE-ACKs required some signficiant processing (like encryption with a public key) then I could understand how this would reduce DOS potential.