regular hard drives usually survive 5 years in an enterprise environment, yep yep.
Hardly a fair comparison. If an enterprise drive doesn't get stolen on the way out of dry dock, it surely won't be long before the thing is being attacked by Romulans.
Whether nothing worked is highly debatable. There have been many people over the years who've reformed there characters. I've no doubt there are modern cases available if you look, and I could even point you to stories of reformed characters that go back over 2500 years -- Angulima, for instance, who was a serial killer who wore body parts as a necklace, according to the accounts. Whether you choose to consider these anecdotes is up to you, but I think it's much less scientific to be a person who discounts human stories in discussions about the human condition, than to be a person who considers them.
Alright, at the risk of further revealing my stupidity--what does this matter? I mean, isn't the BIOS tied to the architecture of the chipset anyway?
No, not really. Small parts of a standard bios are, but if you notice BIOS version numbers for say, Award or AMI, you'll see that they don't actually vary much by motherboard; just by manufacturing date. There are also major bits that stay the same -- PCI drivers, for instance, even across different architectures like x86, AMD64, PowerPC, Alpha, etc.
Essentially, the BIOS stays the same, with a few changes for each chipset. This applies even more so, with CoreBoot, which is intended to be very open and reuseable across many chipsets, manufacturers, and even platforms.
The difference between you and me is that you would judge these people on how they are now, and deem them irreparable. I would judge the society that made them that way (including attitudes like yours, I'm sorry to say), and judge it in dire need of change.
But we have fundamentally different views, so let's not get into a long argument about this. I see where you're coming from and respect your intent. I just don't agree at all.
CCTVs are typically placed in businesses or offices and you know where they are. Typically they'll be a fixed camera pointed where you can see it or they'll be vegas style bubble cams.
You do have a point there, but the other side is that most people seem to accept CCTV on the basis that "they're not really looking at ME; just the scumbags". Which is largely equivalent to "that phone has a camera, but it's not ME he's going to photograph."
Archive.org has been doing this forever. Why is it taking other folks so long to do the same?
Because when someone implements a thing poorly, others usually just say "that's been done" or "see? I knew it was a stupid idea." Few will actually spend the time to do it better, certain that they can convince the public their system is superior to the flawed one. Free Software is an exception here, which has been able to keep going, trying to convince people of an alternative, because it's largely independent of individual companies' profit margins.
how about the CCTV's all making a noise when they photograph everyone
Very good point.
I note the difference is that people who setup CCTVs are seen as largely legitimate, whilst people use use mobile, low-quality photography are seen as largely illegitimate.
Nice to know people are still (and always have been) innocent until proven guilty, huh?
I agreed 100% with the main gist of your comment. However, this particular point stood out to me:
judges...deal with criminals of all kinds on a daily basis.
Since judges are the ones that name their "customers" criminals, it's quite obvious to me that some cyclic logic is going on here. Judges may or may not deal with criminals, depending on guilt or innocence, but by the very nature of their job they almost always claim to so. Whether they actually do so regularly is a matter of debate. Especially when discussing articles like this one, where we're talking about government seizure of legitimate press equipment.
Am I the only one who thinks we should attempt to land on it and stage an emergency scenerio drill, just to prepare for the day when there is an armageddon-destined asteriod?
Personally, I'd rather just screw Liv Tyler and forget the rest.
Prosecutors are pushing for a five-year sentence, noting the exceptional threat he represented to society.
From your comment:
...the US prosecutor could just allege that he's capable of starting World War III...
In all seriousness, it's a really bad idea to suggest that being capable of something, or representing a threat, is enough to punish someone for. Yes, this guy has probably caused a lot of damage. Should we convict him on the "probably"? No. Get some real, hard evidence, then do something. Preferably, do something useful, like show him how much damage he caused, and introduce him to the people who's lives he messed up, rather than just taking revenge on him. People who do that (namely, most of the so-called justice system) are part of the problem that makes this a dog-eat-dog world, not part of the solution.
It's more difficult to connect your mail system back to your database, than it is to simply run a program that mails from your database. Also, having lots of possibly expired email addresses to maintain is a bit of a nightmare, so it's as easy to simply ignore the expired stuff, and hope most are valid.
Why assume that wikipedia has stopped learning about how it should work?
It seemed the logical conclusion, based on the fact that this step is a step beyond the steps that were already causing problems, and that the study** recently released suggested the opposite direction, but has been ignored.
** stats on contribution, here on slashdot iirc; might want to track it down
AMD or Nvidia could beat Intel to market with a ray-tracing friendly GPU, but it doesn't seem likely that they'll bet the farm on a technology that isn't well-established.
What? Not well-established? Raytracing is probably one of the most established graphics technologies. Specifically, it's been coming to games for years; only a matter of time. In fact, I don't really know why they're making such a big deal out of it here, since I'm pretty sure I read that the original quake (or was it doom?) traced a ray or two for some mapping reason, back when the source code was released.
Raytracing has mostly been replaced with other, faster technologies these days, which produce similar results, so it's not the panacea it seemed back when you had 5-bit hand-drawn stuff OR raytracing.
None of which is to belittle the work done on this game, because it does look nice, and improves on the graphics of the games before. But so do most games. Wake me up when town characters have emotions based on that guy you killed last week who rebuilt the clock tower because you suggested it back when you weren't so torn up about your wife dying.
This is a disaster. No hierarchy is why I like Wikipedia. *sigh* end of an era.
Agreed. Wikipedia was great a few years back, but it's been growing ever more elitist. That would be justified if the elite actually were the ones writing useful content (as Jimmy thought), but a recent study proved him wrong -- actually, the people who frequent the site (these "trusted users") are actually the ones who sit and nitpick the knowledge they weren't knowledgeable enough to contribute themselves.
Well if you get competent admins to secure your network, instead of letting teaching staff do it, then you can safely leave the laptops at students' desks, and they'll be unable to access anything but their authorised work.
I wonder why monster.com holds on to their data (especially e-mail addresses) for so long.
Really? To e-commerce types, valid email addresses are like gold dust. Without them, you'll have a tough time launching your next site and getting its popularity built before your competitors do. With them, you can launch that site, spam all your existing customer with a thinly veiled "special offer" (note the "special" part which bypasses all "do not contact me" checkboxes), and you're in business.
Windows and OS X are operating systems, so they're a little different. They include many more API layers -- generally low-level ones (such as volume management, drivers, etc). On Unix (for KDE and GNOME), these are provided by unix kernels like Linux and BSD. On windows and OS X, kernels and low-level APIs also exist, but they are hidden, and tend to be more integrated, so it's more difficult to say "this belongs to the DE, and this doesn't". Still quite possible though. In OS X, you can look at Darwin to see what's available below the DE level. In windows, you can look to Core. However, the distinction isn't that clear between operating system and desktop environment here, because GNOME and KDE both provide a level of operating system abstraction, so that their programs can run on, say, Linux, or BSD.
In KDE and GNOME, if you take away all the apps, even the shell, you still have an entire layer of consistent software which provides a unified experience for developers, and the apps those developers create. Both of these desktops provide features like a common file access layer (local files, remote files, logins to remote servers, etc.), web downloads, consistent GUI widgets, ways to handle events, sounds, etc. The idea is that modern apps need to both look and feel similar, if the user is to work productively and efficiently with them, together. Note that feel is just as important, if not more so than the look -- it's not about window management, so much as having OK buttons in the same part of the screen when you get a dialog box, having the same way to access files on a server whether you're editing an html file in a text editor, uploading an image in a paint program, downloading security logs in a file manager, etc. This is also true (but to a lesser extent, mainly due to resources/project scope) in other desktop environments, like Enlightenment, GNUstep, XFCE, etc. When you get simpler window managers like Blackbox, they tend not to be called desktop environments, unless they grow up and get many more features later.
So this unified, consistent interface is not what a winder manager does, nor a shell, nor a graphical shell. A window manager very simply lets you manage windows, by moving them around the screen, and manages the display of those windows (primarily which one is on top of which others). This is one single aspect of the WIMP (windows, icons, mouse, pointer) metaphor, which is in turn a only one aspect of a modern DE (the others being the APIs and consistency etc. mentioned above).
A traditional textual shell lets you interface with an operating system enough to run programs and control how they should run. That's pretty much it. Even closing the program again is basically outside the scope of a shell. Anything else is done by the programs, not the shell. Occasionally, this definition is blurred a little to provide efficiency gains -- for example, commands like "if" have been built into some shells. In others, even that basic command is external though.
A graphical shell... that's a foggy concept. I don't even believe "shell" should be applied to a modern desktop environment -- it's a bit like drivign dumper trucks, moving to sports cars, and then demanding to know which part of the sportscar is the dumper;) However, carrying the concept of a shell over to DE's as clearly as possible, it's certainly much less than the entire desktop environment. If I had to define a graphical shell in a modern desktop, I'd probably define it as the dock in OS X, or the start menu in windows, plus the DE's APIs for launching tasks. The graphical shell would be the part of the desktop that's absolutely fundamental to running another program once you're in the desktop.
Now, there *is* overlap here with usage of a file manager, in that you might have to drag icons to the dock so the dock knows to put an icon there, ready for you to click in future. However, for the most part, the file manager is a seperate application, simply making use of the DE to pr
Because it helps with marketing of the site. Data needed for a webapp is usually a subset of data actually collected by the sites/companies running that webapp. Not much hope of changing that, but it could at least be secured better.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly a fair comparison. If an enterprise drive doesn't get stolen on the way out of dry dock, it surely won't be long before the thing is being attacked by Romulans.
The only logical reason to object to this is on grounds of practicality. If you think it makes no sense, you don't understand the issue.
Whether nothing worked is highly debatable. There have been many people over the years who've reformed there characters. I've no doubt there are modern cases available if you look, and I could even point you to stories of reformed characters that go back over 2500 years -- Angulima, for instance, who was a serial killer who wore body parts as a necklace, according to the accounts. Whether you choose to consider these anecdotes is up to you, but I think it's much less scientific to be a person who discounts human stories in discussions about the human condition, than to be a person who considers them.
No, not really. Small parts of a standard bios are, but if you notice BIOS version numbers for say, Award or AMI, you'll see that they don't actually vary much by motherboard; just by manufacturing date. There are also major bits that stay the same -- PCI drivers, for instance, even across different architectures like x86, AMD64, PowerPC, Alpha, etc.
Essentially, the BIOS stays the same, with a few changes for each chipset. This applies even more so, with CoreBoot, which is intended to be very open and reuseable across many chipsets, manufacturers, and even platforms.
The difference between you and me is that you would judge these people on how they are now, and deem them irreparable. I would judge the society that made them that way (including attitudes like yours, I'm sorry to say), and judge it in dire need of change.
But we have fundamentally different views, so let's not get into a long argument about this. I see where you're coming from and respect your intent. I just don't agree at all.
You do have a point there, but the other side is that most people seem to accept CCTV on the basis that "they're not really looking at ME; just the scumbags". Which is largely equivalent to "that phone has a camera, but it's not ME he's going to photograph."
Because when someone implements a thing poorly, others usually just say "that's been done" or "see? I knew it was a stupid idea." Few will actually spend the time to do it better, certain that they can convince the public their system is superior to the flawed one. Free Software is an exception here, which has been able to keep going, trying to convince people of an alternative, because it's largely independent of individual companies' profit margins.
I think I've heard this one. Not a fan.
Very good point.
I note the difference is that people who setup CCTVs are seen as largely legitimate, whilst people use use mobile, low-quality photography are seen as largely illegitimate.
Nice to know people are still (and always have been) innocent until proven guilty, huh?
I agreed 100% with the main gist of your comment. However, this particular point stood out to me:
Since judges are the ones that name their "customers" criminals, it's quite obvious to me that some cyclic logic is going on here. Judges may or may not deal with criminals, depending on guilt or innocence, but by the very nature of their job they almost always claim to so. Whether they actually do so regularly is a matter of debate. Especially when discussing articles like this one, where we're talking about government seizure of legitimate press equipment.
Personally, I'd rather just screw Liv Tyler and forget the rest.
From TFA:
From your comment:
In all seriousness, it's a really bad idea to suggest that being capable of something, or representing a threat, is enough to punish someone for. Yes, this guy has probably caused a lot of damage. Should we convict him on the "probably"? No. Get some real, hard evidence, then do something. Preferably, do something useful, like show him how much damage he caused, and introduce him to the people who's lives he messed up, rather than just taking revenge on him. People who do that (namely, most of the so-called justice system) are part of the problem that makes this a dog-eat-dog world, not part of the solution.
It's more difficult to connect your mail system back to your database, than it is to simply run a program that mails from your database. Also, having lots of possibly expired email addresses to maintain is a bit of a nightmare, so it's as easy to simply ignore the expired stuff, and hope most are valid.
Actually, it won't heat up that much.
Sounds like the same system, yes. I'm pretty sure it was back with Doom 1, now that I think about it more.
It seemed the logical conclusion, based on the fact that this step is a step beyond the steps that were already causing problems, and that the study** recently released suggested the opposite direction, but has been ignored.
** stats on contribution, here on slashdot iirc; might want to track it down
What? Not well-established? Raytracing is probably one of the most established graphics technologies. Specifically, it's been coming to games for years; only a matter of time. In fact, I don't really know why they're making such a big deal out of it here, since I'm pretty sure I read that the original quake (or was it doom?) traced a ray or two for some mapping reason, back when the source code was released.
Raytracing has mostly been replaced with other, faster technologies these days, which produce similar results, so it's not the panacea it seemed back when you had 5-bit hand-drawn stuff OR raytracing.
None of which is to belittle the work done on this game, because it does look nice, and improves on the graphics of the games before. But so do most games. Wake me up when town characters have emotions based on that guy you killed last week who rebuilt the clock tower because you suggested it back when you weren't so torn up about your wife dying.
I think you're vastly underestimating a nuclear weapon's potential to ruin your day.
Agreed. Wikipedia was great a few years back, but it's been growing ever more elitist. That would be justified if the elite actually were the ones writing useful content (as Jimmy thought), but a recent study proved him wrong -- actually, the people who frequent the site (these "trusted users") are actually the ones who sit and nitpick the knowledge they weren't knowledgeable enough to contribute themselves.
That cuts both ways. Only its worse when you're both impolite and wrong.
Well if you get competent admins to secure your network, instead of letting teaching staff do it, then you can safely leave the laptops at students' desks, and they'll be unable to access anything but their authorised work.
Really? To e-commerce types, valid email addresses are like gold dust. Without them, you'll have a tough time launching your next site and getting its popularity built before your competitors do. With them, you can launch that site, spam all your existing customer with a thinly veiled "special offer" (note the "special" part which bypasses all "do not contact me" checkboxes), and you're in business.
You can be screwed in the ass or sideways in the ass. Take your pick.
Windows and OS X are operating systems, so they're a little different. They include many more API layers -- generally low-level ones (such as volume management, drivers, etc). On Unix (for KDE and GNOME), these are provided by unix kernels like Linux and BSD. On windows and OS X, kernels and low-level APIs also exist, but they are hidden, and tend to be more integrated, so it's more difficult to say "this belongs to the DE, and this doesn't". Still quite possible though. In OS X, you can look at Darwin to see what's available below the DE level. In windows, you can look to Core. However, the distinction isn't that clear between operating system and desktop environment here, because GNOME and KDE both provide a level of operating system abstraction, so that their programs can run on, say, Linux, or BSD.
In KDE and GNOME, if you take away all the apps, even the shell, you still have an entire layer of consistent software which provides a unified experience for developers, and the apps those developers create. Both of these desktops provide features like a common file access layer (local files, remote files, logins to remote servers, etc.), web downloads, consistent GUI widgets, ways to handle events, sounds, etc. The idea is that modern apps need to both look and feel similar, if the user is to work productively and efficiently with them, together. Note that feel is just as important, if not more so than the look -- it's not about window management, so much as having OK buttons in the same part of the screen when you get a dialog box, having the same way to access files on a server whether you're editing an html file in a text editor, uploading an image in a paint program, downloading security logs in a file manager, etc. This is also true (but to a lesser extent, mainly due to resources/project scope) in other desktop environments, like Enlightenment, GNUstep, XFCE, etc. When you get simpler window managers like Blackbox, they tend not to be called desktop environments, unless they grow up and get many more features later.
So this unified, consistent interface is not what a winder manager does, nor a shell, nor a graphical shell. A window manager very simply lets you manage windows, by moving them around the screen, and manages the display of those windows (primarily which one is on top of which others). This is one single aspect of the WIMP (windows, icons, mouse, pointer) metaphor, which is in turn a only one aspect of a modern DE (the others being the APIs and consistency etc. mentioned above).
A traditional textual shell lets you interface with an operating system enough to run programs and control how they should run. That's pretty much it. Even closing the program again is basically outside the scope of a shell. Anything else is done by the programs, not the shell. Occasionally, this definition is blurred a little to provide efficiency gains -- for example, commands like "if" have been built into some shells. In others, even that basic command is external though.
A graphical shell... that's a foggy concept. I don't even believe "shell" should be applied to a modern desktop environment -- it's a bit like drivign dumper trucks, moving to sports cars, and then demanding to know which part of the sportscar is the dumper ;) However, carrying the concept of a shell over to DE's as clearly as possible, it's certainly much less than the entire desktop environment. If I had to define a graphical shell in a modern desktop, I'd probably define it as the dock in OS X, or the start menu in windows, plus the DE's APIs for launching tasks. The graphical shell would be the part of the desktop that's absolutely fundamental to running another program once you're in the desktop.
Now, there *is* overlap here with usage of a file manager, in that you might have to drag icons to the dock so the dock knows to put an icon there, ready for you to click in future. However, for the most part, the file manager is a seperate application, simply making use of the DE to pr
Because it helps with marketing of the site. Data needed for a webapp is usually a subset of data actually collected by the sites/companies running that webapp. Not much hope of changing that, but it could at least be secured better.