IBM used to invest in it's employees as much as it did technology. Now, however, it's been paying for it's recent acquisitions by offshoring thousands. While I have no real problem with offshoring (it looks fine on paper), in practice it results in companies sacrificing real talent for less expensive labor. At some point, the pendulum needs to start swinging back the other way.
The article describes "envoys" that the primary site sends out to find/prepare new sites (metastasis), affirming that this preparation is necessary for secondary tumors to grow. The article also states that without the "landing pads" made possible by the "envoys", it is impossible for the secondary tumors to grow.
It seems logical to me that this kind of "prep work" is necessary for the initial tumor to grow, so if researchers can learn how to block envoys from "parent" tumors, then they might be able to develop a way to screen for "progenitor envoys".
Actually, I've long thought that having Mac OS on an Intel box would eventually lead people to buy an actual Mac; given the assumption that Apple's hardware is high end (e.g. superior to most other PC makes), once people see how Mac OS works, they might find that they want to 'go all the way' and buy a full-blown Mac the next time around.
Mac friends of mine have long held that Apple makes higher quality hardware... this move by Apple will finally enable them to quantify their beliefs.
As for me, I'll sit back and watch to see what happens.
First, that's some NICE bandwidth. Looking forward to the pictures!
A couple of semi-off-topic questions here, and not about the SDO (as impressive as it sounds)... I don't know where else to ask them....
1) Just how fast were the protons moving? Faster or slower than light? I assume slower, otherwise that would have been just as noteworthy, if not moreso.
2) How long did they take to hit Earth?
3) How fast does the sun rotate?
4) Might this ("solar-planetary magnetic propulsion") be a possible means of interplanetary transport?
Your car analogy is interesting and understandable, but flawed, and represents the similarly flawed thinking on the part of ISPs. It puts the blame on the driver of the car, but it fails to account for the fact that every driver must first be LICENSED by the government. If you don't prove at least minimal profficiency at operating a motor vehicle, then you don't get a license.
To apply this analogy to PCs & ISPs, it would then be the responsability for the ISP to make a customer prove that they know how to keep their PCs 'safe' before they are allowed to connect to the 'net. An interesting stance, but also one that would most likely induce potential customers to go elsewhere.
Given the distributed and 'personal' nature of PCs, it is highly unlikely that any government, or even a concerted effort by all ISPs, could enforce some kind of manditory minimal 'PC Security Profficiency' policy. There are simply too many PCs scattered over the world, and it also fails to account for the actual source of the problem, the hackers themselves. Think that they would comply with any laws?
This battle must be waged by ISPs, and managed by the internet infrastructure. ISPs are the gateway to the Internet, and so they become the front line. The rest of the net infrastructure (DNS system, authentication, et al) must also adapt to allow ISPs to effectively fight. The technology providers need to fight this battle, not PC owners.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM used to invest in it's employees as much as it did technology. Now, however, it's been paying for it's recent acquisitions by offshoring thousands. While I have no real problem with offshoring (it looks fine on paper), in practice it results in companies sacrificing real talent for less expensive labor. At some point, the pendulum needs to start swinging back the other way.
The article describes "envoys" that the primary site sends out to find/prepare new sites (metastasis), affirming that this preparation is necessary for secondary tumors to grow. The article also states that without the "landing pads" made possible by the "envoys", it is impossible for the secondary tumors to grow.
It seems logical to me that this kind of "prep work" is necessary for the initial tumor to grow, so if researchers can learn how to block envoys from "parent" tumors, then they might be able to develop a way to screen for "progenitor envoys".
Let's hope, anyway.
Actually, I've long thought that having Mac OS on an Intel box would eventually lead people to buy an actual Mac; given the assumption that Apple's hardware is high end (e.g. superior to most other PC makes), once people see how Mac OS works, they might find that they want to 'go all the way' and buy a full-blown Mac the next time around.
Mac friends of mine have long held that Apple makes higher quality hardware... this move by Apple will finally enable them to quantify their beliefs.
As for me, I'll sit back and watch to see what happens.
LLaP
Isn't hydrogen the most abundant element in the universe?
First, that's some NICE bandwidth. Looking forward to the pictures!
A couple of semi-off-topic questions here, and not about the SDO (as impressive as it sounds)... I don't know where else to ask them....
1) Just how fast were the protons moving? Faster or slower than light? I assume slower, otherwise that would have been just as noteworthy, if not moreso.
2) How long did they take to hit Earth?
3) How fast does the sun rotate?
4) Might this ("solar-planetary magnetic propulsion") be a possible means of interplanetary transport?
Just curious....
Where are Congressmen Paul Sarbanes and Michael Oxley nowadays? This kind of thing is right up their alley....
Your car analogy is interesting and understandable, but flawed, and represents the similarly flawed thinking on the part of ISPs. It puts the blame on the driver of the car, but it fails to account for the fact that every driver must first be LICENSED by the government. If you don't prove at least minimal profficiency at operating a motor vehicle, then you don't get a license.
To apply this analogy to PCs & ISPs, it would then be the responsability for the ISP to make a customer prove that they know how to keep their PCs 'safe' before they are allowed to connect to the 'net. An interesting stance, but also one that would most likely induce potential customers to go elsewhere.
Given the distributed and 'personal' nature of PCs, it is highly unlikely that any government, or even a concerted effort by all ISPs, could enforce some kind of manditory minimal 'PC Security Profficiency' policy. There are simply too many PCs scattered over the world, and it also fails to account for the actual source of the problem, the hackers themselves. Think that they would comply with any laws?
This battle must be waged by ISPs, and managed by the internet infrastructure. ISPs are the gateway to the Internet, and so they become the front line. The rest of the net infrastructure (DNS system, authentication, et al) must also adapt to allow ISPs to effectively fight. The technology providers need to fight this battle, not PC owners.