There's no "pure" version of GCC for Windows is because there's no demand for anyone to build one. The only reason you'd want to would be if you had some fundamental objection to Cygwin.
I would love to see a pure version of GCC for Windows, and yes - I do have objections to using Cygwin. Even the MingW version is not quite possible for use.
Also, there's more reasons than simply no demand. For instance, GCC does libraries differently than Microsoft's compiler (VC), and I doubt the GCC team is going to modify their library output stuff for just one platform. Thus, you can't (at least easily) take a GCC built library and use it for an application built by VC. (The tricks that make it so are messed up too.)
Of course, GCC isn't the only compiler that suffers from that. A lot of compilers for Windows have that kind of issue. Thus, a good majority of development for Windows revolves around Microsoft's compiler as it is the easiest to link to - at least when it comes to APIs. This might not be an issue if you are writing a fully independent program (e.g. for the system but you're not distributing APIs to 3rd parties).
MingW is okay, but it's still a bit of a pain compared to using a native tool. Additionally, due to the library issue it's also not the best.
CygWin, on the other hand, has more issues because software built under CygWin must also run under CygWin or be distributed with the CygWin libraries as the software is built to depend on CygWin. This causes more issues - you have to figure in licensing issues if you are trying to make a commercial product (which could be prohibitive), and distribution issues (you now have to distribute CygWin stuff - so do you have to provide the CygWin code too?). You still get the library issues, which are now further complicated by the use of CygWin.
Now also add to it that GCC is not typically using the Microsoft C Library (msvcrt), so now you have multiple C Libraries in the program too - which just doesn't work. Sure, you can change this for your project - but that's more of a headache you have to remember to cure.
Honestly, the best way I've figured to manage this is using CMake to manage build environments so that you have native build environments for every platform you are writing to - and native to the tools you want to use too. (It also supports MingW and CygWin as well as Microsoft's build and nmake environments.) This helps mitigate the tool issue and just lets you get down to building software. You still have to manage the above issues, but it becomes easier.
2. The most recent sunspot minimum (2005) coincided with the hottest year ever recorded for our planet! (Or second-hottest, depending on which set of numbers you use. Also, just to head you off at the pass, note that I mentioned the planet and not just the United States.)
3. There is more than just "talk" of the ice caps melting. We just surpassed the previous minimum Arctic sea-ice records by more than 20%!! (Meanwhile, while the Antarctic sea-ice area reached a maximum, the total mass continues to decline.)
The problem being the word "recorded". The cycles have been going on a lot longer than what has been recorded, and we certainly do not have enough data to say that we know the cycles. We might know some of the sub-cycles, but we certainly do not know the cycles. To claim otherwise is foolishness.
In theory, if we could buy unlocked phones more easily, we could then choose whatever carrier we want, adn would probably be less likely to pay the cancellation fee.
What, like from Motorola's MotoStore, Nokia (a little more problematic, but there seems to be some), Samsung (Open/Generic GSM, Open/Generic CMDA - ok, so there's no CDMA ones; they still list 'em as a possible). I'm sure other phone manufacturers have them too.
So...I guess the less is - go with a GSM carrier so you can get unlocked (open/Generic) phones directly from the manufacturer.
I'm getting ready to replace two cell phones and will be buying directly from the manufacturer (Motorola) and getting unlocked phones too, so I don't have to play these games. My current phones would have cost $80 that way - I got them on my first contract for $30 each. The phones I'm looking at are $100 and $140.
Honestly, I don't see much reason not to buy an unlocked phone any more, especially with the carriers being so stuck up as to not carry non-video/camera phones at all (despite some areas having a lot of businesses that won't allow video/camera phones). Little more costly, but I get exactly what I want.
Additionally, I'm in the middle of my "renewed" contract, so no help from the carrier is available any way. They only discount the phone (even if you are eligible for replacement) if you start a new contract.
a patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, usually 20 years from the filing date.
Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.
...and just get someone to fly around in a jet doing this? Last time I checked the average person had a brain...why do we need to spend so much cash to make a new one!
Problems:
A single "jet" alone costs more than $4.9 million, let alone one that would operate at the necessary altitude and speeds required. (What, you don't think certain countries wouldn't want to shoot 'em down?)
You still have to pay for the salary of pilots to fly the plane, their training, the salaries of the maintenance people, their training, and the maintenance of the craft itself. This is also likely to cost more than $4.9 million alone - even possibly on a yearly basis.
You'd also likely need more than one aircraft - so take the costs of the previous bullets and multiply by the number of required aircraft.
You don't have to factor in the analysts as they will essentially be the same regardless, though you would likely need more analysts for your proposed method than the method proposed by the article. And yes - even with the method proposed by the article you would still have maintenance of the system proposed - what that would cost, I don't know, but not likely more than the maintenance of the aircraft-based equivalent.
Because it an UEFI - and its cousin that PheonixBIOS, which now seems to be defunct (can't find a reference to it) - are part of the Trusted Computing/Paladium nightmare. if you want TPM to lock you out of your computer or tell you how to use your computer, than so be it.
"The director of Microsoft's Open Source Lab, Bill Hilf, has added a new duty -- general manager of Windows server marketing -- to his already established role of shepherding the company's efforts to have open source software peacefully coexist with Microsoft technologies.
Can Microsoft say conflict of interest?
Because that is exactly what this is. No sane employer would do that kind of mixing.
Outlook has been pretty safe since the XP release (Outlook 2002), and even the 2000 release with a patch. That's when they stopped allowing you to open executable attachments. There was still a minor risk of javascript nastiness, but they fixed that as well. The 2003 (11) and 2007 (12) releases of Outlook have been stable and safe. (Outlook 2007 doesn't use the controversial Ribbon toolbar like the rest of the Office 12 suite)
I've used Outlook since Outlook 97 (version 1 of the software, included in Office 97, e.g. version 6). It was pretty good even then, though it did have some issues, which is why Outlook 98 was given away to customers of Outlook 97 for free. And it was a great update that solved a lot of issues. I did download Outlook 98 from Microsoft's website and install it, and used it for years - until I dropped Outlook in moving to Linux - I now use Thunderbird, which works pretty well.
Outlook 98 was pretty secure, but not necessarily by default without some patches. After the "Melisa" and "I Love You" virii went around, they released some patches that pretty much secured it up. However, even when those went around they did not affect me - and yes, I did get an e-mail or two from others that had them. (I even ran one purposely to see what it would do.)
However, the big problems with security from Outlook still exist in the latest iterations - Autopreview and the Read Pane. Until they go back to not showing an e-mail by default then it will remain to be insecure by default. This really annoyed me when work upgraded from Office 2000 to Office 2003. I had all my folder views setup for security (e.g. Autopreview turned off) and then Outlook 2003 turned Autopreview and Read pane on by default for everything. Took me a few hours to turn it all off again. Not looking forward to the next time they "upgrade" - unless it is out of Outlook entirely (not likely).
As someone else mentioned, Outlook used Outlook Express for its newsreader (e.g.usenet, etc.). It would be nice if they built that into Outlook proper instead of having it in a separate program.
The trick is in the "derives the private key" part. In a public-key system, doing that involves factoring a very large number. Large as in the product of two 1024-bit primes, which is over a million bits. 300,000+ digits is a big number to factor. And that's at the bottom end, the minimum key length for public-key encryption. We know how fast the best factoring algorithm works, so we can calculate how long it's going to take to do that job and it's measured in hundreds of years. So to make your concern an issue we'd need one or more fundamental breakthroughs in mathematics that make factoring at least 2 orders of magnitude faster than we can currently manage. As someone's noted, betting on fundamental breakthroughs happening is usually not a winning proposition.
Problem: Computing power is growing and becoming cheaper. So it's no longer in hundreds of years.
4096 bit keys are minimum now, and 8192 bit and even 16384 bit keys are probably recommended; but even they will get caught up to soon. Yes - I realize that they are very large digit sets to factor, but if you throw enough computing power at it it can be done, and Quantum Computing will do it even faster.
Problem with the GPP was that it assumed one known key. If you had a key generated 5 years ago, it would likely have been a 512 bit or 1024 bit. Through a cluster at it and it wouldn't take as long. Through it to a distributed network and it will be even faster. Fact is - if someone wants to crack it they will. And when you rely on just a single set in PKI, and a set that you cannot change very often - then you are vulnerable. That's part of the problem with PKI, and why most PKI encryption systems are doubly encrypted now (e.g. Diffie Hellman Key Exchange, etc.)
One QUID is equivalent to about 6.25 pounds, 12.50 dollars or 8.68 Euros
Honestly, couldn't they have made it easier to convert by having at least one currency defined on a whole number, even if they specified a given date for which that whole number was valid?
(E.g. 1 QUID = 13 USD on date X, and time Y; which happens to be equal to Z pounds and W Euros.)
The presence of currency means the scarcity problem hasn't been solved by the civilisation, which means they are poor primitives not worth the bother of Contacting.
The scarcity problem can never be solved so long as one person has or can create something unique that another person or more than one preson wants.
That's more of a sign of culture than of poverty.
Not that can be solved - it's called a waiting list, and organizing who gets what and when.
No, the problem is getting around the idea of trying to give something greater in order to get it now.
For example:
Tim makes a clocks. He has a waiting list of 10 people. John is the 10th person but wants his now, so instead of waiting in line, he either (a) tries to intimidate Tim into making his sooner, thus moving him up the list, (b) tries to trade something of 'greater' value to Tim than everyone else, thus moving him up the list, or (c) tries to persuade John's other customers to remove themselves from the line in front of him, thus moving him up the list - either by offering them something of 'greater' value to them to go after him, or outright intimidation.
Scarcity never really was the problem. It's people, impatience, and greed. It's a social problem. We just pretend it is scarcity because it makes it easier to mathematically quantify, and thus predict. And we have minimized the social problem by using a fake substitute called money that sustains the scarcity, which is enforced by the gov't which limits who can make money in order to ensure scarcity, and thus ensure economists a job.
Basically, he told us that SSL, while it's good at what it does, doesn't really solve the real security issues with transactions happening over the internet. Nobody sniffs the wire or does man in the middle attacks to collect the data, because it's often very difficult, and requires physical access to cables.
Well, SSL encrypts the data in transit. Regardless of whether one thinks the lines are being sniffed or not, it's still a good idea to do so. Also, since it goes over public infrastructure (at least for on-line merchants), it is like saying "telnet is good enough because no one sniffs packets". Problem is they do, and it isn't. Encryption is necessary.
What they usually do is just break into the back end database that's storing all this data. It's much easier.
There is some truth to this, but it really depends on the people cracking in. In reality, it is not so much that it is easier to get a single person's account information as it is easier to hundreds, thousands, or millions of accounts and the related information. Why go for one when we you get get two? or two when you get 100? or 100 when you can get 1000? etc.
Him and some of his colleagues came up with a much better system, whereby the credit card info never went to the retailer, but instead just a digital certificate signed by the credit card company that would authorize a payment for some certain amount. In the end, the industry decided not to go with that standard, because it was harder to implement.
That is basically PKI system, which is very difficult and fragile. Additionally, you're still sending stuff in plain text, and using keys that have to stay the same all the time in order to be relied on, thus they are crackable. In the end, what happens when someone cracks the companies key and then uses it to buy stuff themselves? All of a sudden the company needs a new key - only they might not know about it for a while as it would appear to be a legit key and in the end they would lose a lot more money than if they went with encryption.
It solved the real problem, but SSL was adopted because they figured it was good enough.
Problem is, as I just explained, it didn't solve the problem. In fact, it would have created a worse problem. SSL uses two sets of keys - the first is dynamically created, and the second is pretty constant. However, the second key is used to seed the creation of the first set. Thus every connection has a relatively unique key set and would need to be hacked on its own, which is why SSL is pretty secure. (For more info look into Diffie Hellman Key Exchange and similar algorithms.)
Now compare that to Digitally Signed - you have a public key that gets distributed for verification, and you sign the private key. The set stays constant - you keep the private key, but you pass around the public key in plain text. So then, someone can get a hold of your public key and derive the private key. Once they have done that, you are compromised as they can then pretend to be you. The only requirement for the cracker is that they have a fast enough method of deriving the key set that you cannot replace it fast enough, which as computing gets faster - and as Quantum computing comes into play - will only get easier for the cracker.
The credit company would then have two issues: (a) liability for fraudulently signed purchases, and (b) replacing all the keys in the hands of their retail customers. Using SSL makes both pretty irrelevant, which means less liability, which means better business, and better business security.
It's interesting to see that decision coming back when if they would have just done it right the first time, we'd have much less problems.
It's not coming back to bite them in any way. It's a matter of their back-end systems not being well protected, which would have been an issue either way.
As proof of the state of affairs, on the lower right corner of the default Gnome desktop in the toolbar is a little bin with a clear recycle symbol on it. Hovering over it, it indicates it is the trash. So what the heck is it? If it is trash, Apple owns it. If it is a recycling bin, Microsoft owns it.
I am sure if they could, they would have jumped on that long ago, but can't because they would have problems with much of network authentication, encryption, tabbed browsing, photo editing, and many other aspects of the software. Too much of the GUI is common to Apple, IBM OS/2, Gnome, KDE, Adobe, etc to risk opening that can of worms. Instead they hint there may be issues with patent violations of 200 Microsoft patents. Prior art and other peoples patents would be devastating to their claims.
First, that is completely off topic with relation to the GP. (On topic with relation to the GGP, which is why I'm responding.) That said...
The Apple v. Microsoft case mentioned pretty much set the bar that Interfaces are off limits wrt lawsuits of that nature. IANAL, but I think there have been some other cases too to support that.
As per Microsoft's 200 patents claim - I believe the number is actually 236 patents, which as one poster surmised is likely from the SFLC's review a while back. (I think it was the SLFC...it was one of those organizations supporting the F/OSS community in that manner...I'll let you do the google for it.) It is a thinly veiled threat about actual things, and almost none of which have to do with the GUI to start with as, to my knowledge, none of the programs mentioned had to do with GUI rendering (even if they were GUI apps themselves). Even so, the Linux kernel itself does not do GUI rendering, so that would leave X Windows, GNOME, KDE and the others as susceptible if there was something on the GUI.
Who would have believed that this once-revered company could slide down to the level of SCO with its own sleazy scam to intimidate by claiming mystery "patent infringement" that it refuses to name?
Anyone in the tech industry probably as once you get past the marketing face of Microsoft, it becomes pretty obvious, pretty quickly that this is basically how they have always done business. For example, see Wikipedia's entry on Altair BASIC:
Under the terms of the purchase agreement, MITS would receive the rights to the interpreter after it had paid a certain amount in royalties. However, Microsoft had developed versions of the interpreter for other systems such as the Motorola 6800. When they decided to leave MITS, a dispute arose over whether the full amount had been paid and whether the agreement applied to the other versions. Microsoft and MITS took the dispute to an arbitrator, who much to Roberts's surprise decided in favor of Microsoft. BASIC interpreters remained the core of Microsoft's business until the early 1980s, when it shifted to MS-DOS.
To add to the article, if I remember my history correctly - Microsoft was only suppose to get royalties on the first million; it sold better than anticipated and they sued for royalties on the rest, contrary to their contract. (That could have been with IBM and DOS though. I couldn't find anything on the Microsoft, IBM, or MS-DOS pages about it.)
Needless to say, SCO's tactics are just like Microsoft's. Expect the same from Microsoft as their monopoly deteriorates over the coming years. Or may be SCO is enough of a lesson that they won't go to the same extent.
Even if the copyrights belonged to SCO, there are less than 300 lines of code at issue in that case in the end, and it's mostly standard interface code that many believe would be found to have no copyright protection no matter who owns it. That's 300 lines of code out of more than 6 million lines of code in the Linux kernel.
Even at that, it was mostly header files - like the elf.h header file. So it didn't really stand up.
The only time to watch out for Microsoft is when Linux overtakes Windows and Open Office overtakes Microsoft Office. In other words, when they have nothing left and need a Hail-Mary play like SCO.
Even if Microsoft lost Windows entirely, they could still maintain some portion of market share with MS Office by porting it to other OS's. Unfortunately for them, they are likely too arrogant to do so and will as a result lose both equally and (in the long run) entirely.
I can relate with you there, but wouldn't a simple plugin like User Agent Switcher for Firefox work for you? It could fool a website into thinking that you're running IE, and I'm pretty sure that's all you'd need, because as far as I know, getting ActiveX to work under linux, even with IE4Linux, is a pain in the ass, and there's no guarantee that it'll work every time.
That doesn't always work. I've got a few IE-only websites that I have to go to on occasion and the User Agent Switch won't do it. I think that only reports to the server, and doesn't modify/fool the JavaScript environment used to do things like menus. But I can't run Linux for my desktop either - so I just use IE Tabs in Firefox so that I don't have to use a separate browser window just for a site or two.
True, security is not simple and requires work on the administrators part. Last year (2006) I detected that my home linux server (also acts as the network router) was being attached through SSH. (Someone was trying to login to my OpenSSH server.) They never got in, and I tracked the addresses to China.
However, I am now working on rebuilding the server - upgrading to a new box in the process too. Part of the upgrade is putting more security in as well. Testing out the firewall before it the server goes live, adding in Snort, Packet monitoring, and other tools. I am even planning out use of a Radius server to further protect the wireless portion of my network, and looking at making VPN access the only way to get in from the outside (instead of SSH or any other method). However, this is all taking work to do, and will take more work to maintain and review later. Now, I'm probably going to an extreme - quite likely - but I am also working towards a plan to be able to know what goes on on my network and be able to manage it myself. A lot of the stuff is easily automated, and easily managed. (The hardest part is getting it configured and working in the first place.)
Windows is no different, though without most of the tools. (They just started bundling a usable firewall in XP SP2, but even that is very basic and not very good.) I do have a couple Windows systems on my network, but I don't have to worry as much about them as there is a strong guard between them and the Internet - one that I actively maintain.
In the end, no matter what size your network is - you can never just "set it and forget it". At the very least you need to keep applications up to date on the server, but you also need to monitor the various logs and then respond when something does come up.
It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today.
How old is the teacher? Where did they graduate from, and when?
My mom is a certified teacher, and completed her degree in the mid 1990's, and there's a big difference between what they taught teachers on how to teach even between the 1970's and the 1990's. Older teachers typically have a more 19th century approach - sit, listen, memorize, repeat, some interactivity, but not much.
On the other hand, newer teachers are being taught about how students learn. There are 5 methods, though I don't remember them all among them are: (i) hands on, (ii) visual, (iii) hearing. If a teacher properly employs and balances their teaching across all the methods of learning, then all the students will be able to be fully engaged in the classroom and get the most of out it.
The problem is that older teachers have years of wisdom, but are not necessarily up-to-date with teaching methods. While newer teachers (especially young, new teachers) may have learned the methods but don't necessarily have the wisdom. So, in another decade or two, we should start to see a big difference in the classroom as more of the teachers that are learning these methods to teaching get the experience and fill the ranks of the schools. Right now, my guess would be that the majority of the teachers are still in the more old style of teaching, but we're probably close to the verge of where most of them are retiring and being replaced by teachers that are of the new style. Still, it'll take another decade or so for them to be able to have the wisdom aspect.
Wikipedia has some good info on learning styles; however, I am not finding the one I am thinking of and referencing above. (Don't know what it is called either.) Be aware that difference colleges/universities will teach different learning styles to their teachers, which is why I put the question in above about where did the teacher graduate from.
And why would a whiteboard be better than a blackboard? Chalk is harmless, unlike the solvent based pens, and it is far more environmentally friendly.
Chalk may be basically harmless, but it can produce dust. There are two kinds of chalk - normal, and dust-reduced. Some are allergic to the dust. Additionally, someone has to clean the chalkboard erasers.
That's not to say that white boards don't have problems of their own. They do - (i) you have to keep them clean, (ii) they break down after so long, (iii) you have to pay for solvent (typically rubbing alcohol) to clean them with and papers towels too, (iv) the ink can get on stuff and stain stuff, (v) they're not so easy to correct mistakes on (erasing isn't so fine grain, and you'll tend to smear the ink more with your fingers). That said, they're also typically cheaper for the same amount of space, and you don't have to worry about cracking them. (Improper cleaning will, however, lead to pock-mars on the surface as the materials break down.)
So it's a matter of trade-off. Personally, I use white boards a lot (I own several personally, but I am also a very visual thinker), though I always preferred real, slate black-boards in school.
For the most part I agree 100% with your post. However,...
From both personal experience (I have had the teacher role on occasion) and from my mom (an elementary teacher with specialization in special education), a lot of disruptive students can be corrected by the teacher - not all, those that are truly ADD, ADHD, etc. do need special help. The big thing here is the students that don't learn discipline at home, who talk back to their parents, don't want to listen, etc - a good teacher can get them understand that there is no place for the in the classroom or at school. I've seen this - kids that don't behave elsewhere but behave wonderfully in the classroom; you wouldn't think they were the same kids. The difference is the discipline.
Unfortunately, you also have too many parents that are parenting through medication - e.g. getting their kids classified as ADD or ADHD, etc. so that the kids can either (a) take drugs that suppress them, or (b) get into the special ed classes so they don't have to do so much work and basically get a free pass through school, regardless of their actual academic performance.
But to get back to your point - this starts from long before they go to kindergarten. It starts with whether or not you leave the kid at day care, or send them to preschool, or if you instead ensure there is a parent at home (and save that day care and preschool money too!) to be with and raise the children during the day.
You may have noticed I did not say anything about teachers. There is a reason. Most are good and most do it because they love it. Most of them do not do it for the pay. They would make more in store management at WalMart. I know the salaries of each. There are those truly outstanding teachers who can reach across boundaries and perform miracles. We can not afford to hire all the people in the world like that to teach. We can afford to make the classrooms and the students more teachable. Those who are truly bad teachers (not disillusioned nor worn out - these are normally caused by the problems in the schools) can still be removed. But, parental involvement goes a long way to making that more productive - not the parents getting rid of teachers, but the parents supporting teachers to help prevent so much of the burn-out.
Very true. I have had teachers who had to work at a Wal-mart type job in addition to their teaching job just to make ends meat. I have also had at least one teacher who was a millionaire and didn't need the money at all - he just enjoyed what he did.
While a good - or excellent - teacher can do wonders in the class room, it really does start with the parents. If you teach your kid to behave, you have just helped out the teacher by reducing their stress and helping them keep order in the classroom. If the teacher had 29 students all misbehaving - imagine the impact of one parent on one student and what that could mean for (a) the class, and (b) the teacher. If they have 30 students with 29 misbehaving, then that is one less student they have to worry about as they know that student will behave. (Of course, it is usually the other way around - but even then, that one parent has a big impact.)
That's peripheral to the argument.. and anyway, it probably seems like that to most teachers... perhaps an analogy like 'what if you were taught addition on an abacus when there was a perfectly good blackboard available?' would help in that respect.
On the other hand, you have the analogy of the calculator. Students need to be trained how to do stuff without the tools too - e.g. writing by hand, no spelling or grammar check, no calculator, etc. - so that they learn how to actually do the work too.
That's not to say the technology doesn't have a place - it does - but wrt education, students have to learn how to do the work both with and without the technology. The prime example is the calculator as when people are trained how to do math with the calculator, they tend to be dumber about how to do it without one depending on how much the calculator was used in the training. (E.g. if it was solely used and students were not forced to do at least some stuff by hand vs. being forced to do everything by hand, vs. somewhere in between.) Don't get me wrong - you need to learn how to use a calculator too, but you should also be able to do the work without one; and the education should emphasize it as a tool to help with and not rely on. (Queue a 'dumb blonde' joke about having the answer 'E', 'Err', or 'Error' for everything on the math test.)
Lawyer: Did you mean to shoot your wife||husband?
Defendant: I was so mad I may have thought about it but in no way did I consciously shoot him. My arm has a mind of his own
Feel sorry for the man when a thought goes stray in anger in the rest room...
On a serious note though, you certainly wouldn't want this connected to the Internet (or any network) in order to protect somewhat again hackers...perhaps it would need some shielding too to keep from line-of-sight hacking.
There's also the fact that audiophiles are almost always old guys. Old guys have bad hearing. As you age, your tympanum membrane hardens, reducing the dynamic range that your ear is sensitive to. So an audiophile 15 years your senior telling you that he can hear a difference where you can't is likely only saying that *because* he's your senior and wants to exert his authority, or because he's going senile, or both.
That depends - there is probably a bit of truth both ways.
Sure - as you get older your hearing deteriorates. However, listening to excessively high volume sounds will do it to you as well regardless of your age.
So - if both of you have equally listened to (or not listened to - e.g. 'virgin' ears) high volume sounds, then yes you are right. But if the older guy didn't, and you did - then you may be equal (again, depending on how much or how little you did), or (depending on how much you did) he may have better hearing. If, however, he did and you didn't, then you are right again.
There is also a reason why a lot of bands - and especially older band members who are promoting this to younger band m - where ear plugs during a concert they are performing. If they didn't, they will damage their own hearing. If they do, they can hear the music more clearly. I do the same for going to concerts as the music - even several rows back - is just way too loud.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, there's more reasons than simply no demand. For instance, GCC does libraries differently than Microsoft's compiler (VC), and I doubt the GCC team is going to modify their library output stuff for just one platform. Thus, you can't (at least easily) take a GCC built library and use it for an application built by VC. (The tricks that make it so are messed up too.)
Of course, GCC isn't the only compiler that suffers from that. A lot of compilers for Windows have that kind of issue. Thus, a good majority of development for Windows revolves around Microsoft's compiler as it is the easiest to link to - at least when it comes to APIs. This might not be an issue if you are writing a fully independent program (e.g. for the system but you're not distributing APIs to 3rd parties).
MingW is okay, but it's still a bit of a pain compared to using a native tool. Additionally, due to the library issue it's also not the best.
CygWin, on the other hand, has more issues because software built under CygWin must also run under CygWin or be distributed with the CygWin libraries as the software is built to depend on CygWin. This causes more issues - you have to figure in licensing issues if you are trying to make a commercial product (which could be prohibitive), and distribution issues (you now have to distribute CygWin stuff - so do you have to provide the CygWin code too?). You still get the library issues, which are now further complicated by the use of CygWin.
Now also add to it that GCC is not typically using the Microsoft C Library (msvcrt), so now you have multiple C Libraries in the program too - which just doesn't work. Sure, you can change this for your project - but that's more of a headache you have to remember to cure.
Honestly, the best way I've figured to manage this is using CMake to manage build environments so that you have native build environments for every platform you are writing to - and native to the tools you want to use too. (It also supports MingW and CygWin as well as Microsoft's build and nmake environments.) This helps mitigate the tool issue and just lets you get down to building software. You still have to manage the above issues, but it becomes easier.
So...I guess the less is - go with a GSM carrier so you can get unlocked (open/Generic) phones directly from the manufacturer.
I'm getting ready to replace two cell phones and will be buying directly from the manufacturer (Motorola) and getting unlocked phones too, so I don't have to play these games. My current phones would have cost $80 that way - I got them on my first contract for $30 each. The phones I'm looking at are $100 and $140.
Honestly, I don't see much reason not to buy an unlocked phone any more, especially with the carriers being so stuck up as to not carry non-video/camera phones at all (despite some areas having a lot of businesses that won't allow video/camera phones). Little more costly, but I get exactly what I want.
Additionally, I'm in the middle of my "renewed" contract, so no help from the carrier is available any way. They only discount the phone (even if you are eligible for replacement) if you start a new contract.
- A single "jet" alone costs more than $4.9 million, let alone one that would operate at the necessary altitude and speeds required. (What, you don't think certain countries wouldn't want to shoot 'em down?)
- You still have to pay for the salary of pilots to fly the plane, their training, the salaries of the maintenance people, their training, and the maintenance of the craft itself. This is also likely to cost more than $4.9 million alone - even possibly on a yearly basis.
- You'd also likely need more than one aircraft - so take the costs of the previous bullets and multiply by the number of required aircraft.
You don't have to factor in the analysts as they will essentially be the same regardless, though you would likely need more analysts for your proposed method than the method proposed by the article. And yes - even with the method proposed by the article you would still have maintenance of the system proposed - what that would cost, I don't know, but not likely more than the maintenance of the aircraft-based equivalent.I choose freedom.
Yep, and would do it more too. I've supported a friend's band this way.
I'm even considering recording and releasing my own stuff as an independent. (side business)
Because that is exactly what this is. No sane employer would do that kind of mixing.
Outlook 98 was pretty secure, but not necessarily by default without some patches. After the "Melisa" and "I Love You" virii went around, they released some patches that pretty much secured it up. However, even when those went around they did not affect me - and yes, I did get an e-mail or two from others that had them. (I even ran one purposely to see what it would do.)
However, the big problems with security from Outlook still exist in the latest iterations - Autopreview and the Read Pane. Until they go back to not showing an e-mail by default then it will remain to be insecure by default. This really annoyed me when work upgraded from Office 2000 to Office 2003. I had all my folder views setup for security (e.g. Autopreview turned off) and then Outlook 2003 turned Autopreview and Read pane on by default for everything. Took me a few hours to turn it all off again. Not looking forward to the next time they "upgrade" - unless it is out of Outlook entirely (not likely).
As someone else mentioned, Outlook used Outlook Express for its newsreader (e.g.usenet, etc.). It would be nice if they built that into Outlook proper instead of having it in a separate program.
4096 bit keys are minimum now, and 8192 bit and even 16384 bit keys are probably recommended; but even they will get caught up to soon. Yes - I realize that they are very large digit sets to factor, but if you throw enough computing power at it it can be done, and Quantum Computing will do it even faster.
Problem with the GPP was that it assumed one known key. If you had a key generated 5 years ago, it would likely have been a 512 bit or 1024 bit. Through a cluster at it and it wouldn't take as long. Through it to a distributed network and it will be even faster. Fact is - if someone wants to crack it they will. And when you rely on just a single set in PKI, and a set that you cannot change very often - then you are vulnerable. That's part of the problem with PKI, and why most PKI encryption systems are doubly encrypted now (e.g. Diffie Hellman Key Exchange, etc.)
(E.g. 1 QUID = 13 USD on date X, and time Y; which happens to be equal to Z pounds and W Euros.)
No, the problem is getting around the idea of trying to give something greater in order to get it now.
For example:
Tim makes a clocks. He has a waiting list of 10 people. John is the 10th person but wants his now, so instead of waiting in line, he either (a) tries to intimidate Tim into making his sooner, thus moving him up the list, (b) tries to trade something of 'greater' value to Tim than everyone else, thus moving him up the list, or (c) tries to persuade John's other customers to remove themselves from the line in front of him, thus moving him up the list - either by offering them something of 'greater' value to them to go after him, or outright intimidation.
Scarcity never really was the problem. It's people, impatience, and greed. It's a social problem. We just pretend it is scarcity because it makes it easier to mathematically quantify, and thus predict. And we have minimized the social problem by using a fake substitute called money that sustains the scarcity, which is enforced by the gov't which limits who can make money in order to ensure scarcity, and thus ensure economists a job.
Now compare that to Digitally Signed - you have a public key that gets distributed for verification, and you sign the private key. The set stays constant - you keep the private key, but you pass around the public key in plain text. So then, someone can get a hold of your public key and derive the private key. Once they have done that, you are compromised as they can then pretend to be you. The only requirement for the cracker is that they have a fast enough method of deriving the key set that you cannot replace it fast enough, which as computing gets faster - and as Quantum computing comes into play - will only get easier for the cracker.
The credit company would then have two issues: (a) liability for fraudulently signed purchases, and (b) replacing all the keys in the hands of their retail customers. Using SSL makes both pretty irrelevant, which means less liability, which means better business, and better business security. It's not coming back to bite them in any way. It's a matter of their back-end systems not being well protected, which would have been an issue either way.
The Apple v. Microsoft case mentioned pretty much set the bar that Interfaces are off limits wrt lawsuits of that nature. IANAL, but I think there have been some other cases too to support that.
As per Microsoft's 200 patents claim - I believe the number is actually 236 patents, which as one poster surmised is likely from the SFLC's review a while back. (I think it was the SLFC...it was one of those organizations supporting the F/OSS community in that manner...I'll let you do the google for it.) It is a thinly veiled threat about actual things, and almost none of which have to do with the GUI to start with as, to my knowledge, none of the programs mentioned had to do with GUI rendering (even if they were GUI apps themselves). Even so, the Linux kernel itself does not do GUI rendering, so that would leave X Windows, GNOME, KDE and the others as susceptible if there was something on the GUI.
Needless to say, SCO's tactics are just like Microsoft's. Expect the same from Microsoft as their monopoly deteriorates over the coming years. Or may be SCO is enough of a lesson that they won't go to the same extent.
True, security is not simple and requires work on the administrators part. Last year (2006) I detected that my home linux server (also acts as the network router) was being attached through SSH. (Someone was trying to login to my OpenSSH server.) They never got in, and I tracked the addresses to China.
However, I am now working on rebuilding the server - upgrading to a new box in the process too. Part of the upgrade is putting more security in as well. Testing out the firewall before it the server goes live, adding in Snort, Packet monitoring, and other tools. I am even planning out use of a Radius server to further protect the wireless portion of my network, and looking at making VPN access the only way to get in from the outside (instead of SSH or any other method). However, this is all taking work to do, and will take more work to maintain and review later. Now, I'm probably going to an extreme - quite likely - but I am also working towards a plan to be able to know what goes on on my network and be able to manage it myself. A lot of the stuff is easily automated, and easily managed. (The hardest part is getting it configured and working in the first place.)
Windows is no different, though without most of the tools. (They just started bundling a usable firewall in XP SP2, but even that is very basic and not very good.) I do have a couple Windows systems on my network, but I don't have to worry as much about them as there is a strong guard between them and the Internet - one that I actively maintain.
In the end, no matter what size your network is - you can never just "set it and forget it". At the very least you need to keep applications up to date on the server, but you also need to monitor the various logs and then respond when something does come up.
My mom is a certified teacher, and completed her degree in the mid 1990's, and there's a big difference between what they taught teachers on how to teach even between the 1970's and the 1990's. Older teachers typically have a more 19th century approach - sit, listen, memorize, repeat, some interactivity, but not much.
On the other hand, newer teachers are being taught about how students learn. There are 5 methods, though I don't remember them all among them are: (i) hands on, (ii) visual, (iii) hearing. If a teacher properly employs and balances their teaching across all the methods of learning, then all the students will be able to be fully engaged in the classroom and get the most of out it.
The problem is that older teachers have years of wisdom, but are not necessarily up-to-date with teaching methods. While newer teachers (especially young, new teachers) may have learned the methods but don't necessarily have the wisdom. So, in another decade or two, we should start to see a big difference in the classroom as more of the teachers that are learning these methods to teaching get the experience and fill the ranks of the schools. Right now, my guess would be that the majority of the teachers are still in the more old style of teaching, but we're probably close to the verge of where most of them are retiring and being replaced by teachers that are of the new style. Still, it'll take another decade or so for them to be able to have the wisdom aspect.
Wikipedia has some good info on learning styles; however, I am not finding the one I am thinking of and referencing above. (Don't know what it is called either.) Be aware that difference colleges/universities will teach different learning styles to their teachers, which is why I put the question in above about where did the teacher graduate from.
That's not to say that white boards don't have problems of their own. They do - (i) you have to keep them clean, (ii) they break down after so long, (iii) you have to pay for solvent (typically rubbing alcohol) to clean them with and papers towels too, (iv) the ink can get on stuff and stain stuff, (v) they're not so easy to correct mistakes on (erasing isn't so fine grain, and you'll tend to smear the ink more with your fingers). That said, they're also typically cheaper for the same amount of space, and you don't have to worry about cracking them. (Improper cleaning will, however, lead to pock-mars on the surface as the materials break down.)
So it's a matter of trade-off. Personally, I use white boards a lot (I own several personally, but I am also a very visual thinker), though I always preferred real, slate black-boards in school.
From both personal experience (I have had the teacher role on occasion) and from my mom (an elementary teacher with specialization in special education), a lot of disruptive students can be corrected by the teacher - not all, those that are truly ADD, ADHD, etc. do need special help. The big thing here is the students that don't learn discipline at home, who talk back to their parents, don't want to listen, etc - a good teacher can get them understand that there is no place for the in the classroom or at school. I've seen this - kids that don't behave elsewhere but behave wonderfully in the classroom; you wouldn't think they were the same kids. The difference is the discipline.
Unfortunately, you also have too many parents that are parenting through medication - e.g. getting their kids classified as ADD or ADHD, etc. so that the kids can either (a) take drugs that suppress them, or (b) get into the special ed classes so they don't have to do so much work and basically get a free pass through school, regardless of their actual academic performance.
But to get back to your point - this starts from long before they go to kindergarten. It starts with whether or not you leave the kid at day care, or send them to preschool, or if you instead ensure there is a parent at home (and save that day care and preschool money too!) to be with and raise the children during the day. Very true. I have had teachers who had to work at a Wal-mart type job in addition to their teaching job just to make ends meat. I have also had at least one teacher who was a millionaire and didn't need the money at all - he just enjoyed what he did.
While a good - or excellent - teacher can do wonders in the class room, it really does start with the parents. If you teach your kid to behave, you have just helped out the teacher by reducing their stress and helping them keep order in the classroom. If the teacher had 29 students all misbehaving - imagine the impact of one parent on one student and what that could mean for (a) the class, and (b) the teacher. If they have 30 students with 29 misbehaving, then that is one less student they have to worry about as they know that student will behave. (Of course, it is usually the other way around - but even then, that one parent has a big impact.)
That's not to say the technology doesn't have a place - it does - but wrt education, students have to learn how to do the work both with and without the technology. The prime example is the calculator as when people are trained how to do math with the calculator, they tend to be dumber about how to do it without one depending on how much the calculator was used in the training. (E.g. if it was solely used and students were not forced to do at least some stuff by hand vs. being forced to do everything by hand, vs. somewhere in between.) Don't get me wrong - you need to learn how to use a calculator too, but you should also be able to do the work without one; and the education should emphasize it as a tool to help with and not rely on. (Queue a 'dumb blonde' joke about having the answer 'E', 'Err', or 'Error' for everything on the math test.)
On a serious note though, you certainly wouldn't want this connected to the Internet (or any network) in order to protect somewhat again hackers...perhaps it would need some shielding too to keep from line-of-sight hacking.
Sure - as you get older your hearing deteriorates. However, listening to excessively high volume sounds will do it to you as well regardless of your age.
So - if both of you have equally listened to (or not listened to - e.g. 'virgin' ears) high volume sounds, then yes you are right. But if the older guy didn't, and you did - then you may be equal (again, depending on how much or how little you did), or (depending on how much you did) he may have better hearing. If, however, he did and you didn't, then you are right again.
There is also a reason why a lot of bands - and especially older band members who are promoting this to younger band m - where ear plugs during a concert they are performing. If they didn't, they will damage their own hearing. If they do, they can hear the music more clearly. I do the same for going to concerts as the music - even several rows back - is just way too loud.