It's all so useless that this entire exercise is a waste of money and time at every level.
Indeed. This is a point that true conservatives should pick up on. I'm not talking about Republican conservatives, of course. I'm talking about the truly patriotic conservatives, who love America with all of their heart. They're the kind of people who have a true respect for responsibility, especially fiscal responsibility.
As unlikely as it may sound now, it may be time for those true conservatives to realize that their party (the Republican party) has been hijacked. It may even be time for the real conservatives in the US to stand together, members of a new party willing to fight for what conservatives truly stand for: responsibility, honesty, peace, prosperity and liberty.
Time and time again we hear about privacy, freedoms and liberties in the US being restricted in favour of "security". This is just one small example in a field of many. Now I ask a question to all Americans: do you actually feel any safer? If you do, please explain.
a) Your coworker has no business looking at your screen. He or she should be doing their own work, and should not be snooping on you. It isn't a case of somebody being loud, for instance. The viewer has the option of 1) not looking in the first place, 2) turning away, 3) ignoring the pornography, or even 4) enjoying it.
b) Like I said, had you read my post, it is perfectly fine for one's manager to object to such activity. If somebody isn't working at work while they're supposed to be working, the of course it is acceptable for the firm to take action against them. But that has nothing to do with what they were actually looking at; it just has to do with the fact that they were doing something other than work.
They have a disclaimer in which they explicitly state that they're "professionals", and then encourage that people not try the "experiments" at home, if I'm not mistaken. So it really doesn't encourage others to try such activities themselves.
The main problem is that they portray themselves as being so-called experts, but obviously have very little of the background that actual experts have. Sure, they have experience in visual effects from their past Hollywood work and can put on an entertaining show, but educational their program is not.
I have heard it suggested that each segment of their show should be preceeded by a disclaimer explaining that what they're doing is not science, but is purely entertainment.
Many people mistakenly think that the MythBusters present the proper way of performing scientific experiment, and that they present verified scientific information. Indeed, watching even a single episode shows that they have very little scientific or engineering background.
Are you using Internet Explorer or Firefox? If you are, that might be the problem. Their site renders fine with both Opera and Konqueror, but fails to work with Firefox. It's not a Flash problem, as other Flash sites work fine with Firefox.
Trying to do too much is never an excuse for doing a shoddy job.
While such a show may have entertainment value, I do admit, it should not be shown on a channel that prides (or at least used to) itself on showing educational content.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people who take the show extremely seriously. For whatever reason (ignorance, I would assume), they consider the Mythbusters to use "proper" scientific method. Of course, anyone with any science or engineering background sees the poor job they do, but your average person does not.
I have relatives in the US who recently told me about the lack of quality on the Discovery Channel. I recall watching very good shows on it around a decade or so ago. True to their name, they focused on content that most traditional channels wouldn't bother to touch.
However, what I've been hearing now is that the Discovery Channel is moving away from their specialty programming, more towards content that will appeal to a wider range of people. This change does being a decrease in quality, according to my cousins.
I think I know what they mean. Shows like American Chopper and American HotRod, which I have watched over here in the UK, are more like soap operas than educational, enlightening shows. The two or three minutes of engineering in each episode is overshadowed by 57 minutes of workplace drama and commercials.
While a show like Mythbusters isn't as bad, it still lacks the quality that previous shows on the Discovery Channel had. None of the hosts have much engineering or scientific experience, and it shows. Even watching just one episode, one will hear numerous factually incorrect statements (especially when it comes to chemistry or physics). Perhaps it is entertaining, but educational it is not.
Heaven forbid a teen sees a pair of breasts, or even penile-vaginal penetration!
Spyware can be rendered useless through the use of Linux or *BSD-based systems. Besides, the students who use such a network will learn new skills, and be exposed to superior software. That's what computer education should be all about; exposing the youth of today the technologies that they probably won't find at home.
Companies today cannot afford to not be producing at 100% efficiency. With increasing competition from China, India, and numerous other nations, any large company that is not completely efficient will quickly run into problems, if not a swift bankruptcy.
Much like a nation should never trade freedom and liberty for security, a firm cannot trade efficiency for security. The end result is a defunct nation or firm, void of all it once stood for.
I remember those times. The firm I was doing some contract work with at that point ran a solid OpenBSD and VMS network. The worst we were hit with was some wasted bandwidth.
In any case, the moral of the story is that it is often quite easy to protect one's network using a proper system like OpenBSD, or an extremely solid system like VMS. While Windows may be needed for some applications, it is quite easy to set up a proxy and firewall solution running OpenBSD on inexpensive PC hardware to protect those Windows machines.
Anyone in IT who can't maintain a Linux system, well, they probably shouldn't be in IT. A person who can't use a wrench shouldn't be a mechanic, and somebody afraid of knives and forks shouldn't be a chef.
UNIX system administration is a skill that every IT administrator should have, even if they run Windows-only networks. It's just one of those essential skills associated with the occupation, much like reading, writing, and maths.
Have you ever used USENET? Many of the comp.* groups are quite active, and many are a prime source for information concerning IT-related issues. If you want help, that's the place to go. You'll often get a quick answer, often from somebody with a high level of expertise.
That's not a problem with technology. That's a problem with a legal system that's feeble against protecting free speech and free expression.
So what if you're looking at hardcore pornography at work? It's of no concern to any coworker of yours who might happen to notice while he or she is walking. Of course, your manager may get angry at you for wasting company time. But nothing about the act of you looking at midgets sucking on horse cock, for instance, is truly harmful to anyone.
Windows users should just wait a short while, until KDE 4 is release. Due to the recent QT 4 changes, it has been anticipated that Konqueror will run natively on Windows.
The Konqueror codebase is far cleaner than that of Gecko and Firefox. Not only that, but QT may prove to be superior for writing efficient crossplatform applications.
Like it or not, such games reflect a real-world social situtation. And when we have such situations, economies often develop. That's just the nature of human survival, be it in real life, or while playing as an elf in some online game.
What interests me the most is the attitude that is being taken towards those who are able to produce goods with a comparative advantage. Those questions are much like a tariff, for instance. They inhibit the free trade between those who harvest gold in these games, and those who wish to buy.
With the move towards free trade worldwide, it will be interesting to see how the games adopt. Indeed, it could be quite a scene to see riots of sorts taking place in these game worlds, much as happens in the real world, when tough economic issues are involved.
The general theory and concepts behind UNIX are often quite sound. That's well known, and does help lead to more secure, more stable systems.
But it's only half the battle. The other half is in the implementation itself. This is where OpenBSD, for instance, really shines. They take solid, secure theory, and apply it via a well-developed implementation. That's not to say other UNICES are poor; of course they often are not! Nevertheless, it may even be said that a poor implementation of a solid/secure theory is worse than a great implementation of a poor theory.
It's not appropriate to generalize about UNIX these days, considering how many different UNIX-style systems there are.
Linux might be vulnerable in one case, while Mac OS X, UnixWare, FreeBSD, Solaris, AiX and other such systems are perfectly safe. Likewise, Solaris might be affected, while the other systems are not. And so on, and so forth.
Now, various UNIX-like systems have run into problems in the past with regards to security. Thanks to the relative degree of fragmentation, such incidents are usually isolated to a particular brand or product, and thus do not appear overly severe. But they still do exist, and we shouldn't forget that.
As users of UNIX-like systems, the best thing we can do for ourselves is always remember that our systems are vulnerable, even if they are often of a higher quality than other systems.
Just because a legitimate, completely truthful opinion angers some, it does not make the opinion "flamebait".
Words like "flamebait" and "troll" are most often used seriously by those who are trying to incite trouble amongst people who are pointing out real, solid facts.
We see this today in the media, where various governments label their opponents as "terrorists". Of course, in many cases those governments are partking in the very same actions that may be construed as "terrorism".
These sorts of labels are useless just because they are misapplied so often, by so many different people and groups.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all so useless that this entire exercise is a waste of money and time at every level.
Indeed. This is a point that true conservatives should pick up on. I'm not talking about Republican conservatives, of course. I'm talking about the truly patriotic conservatives, who love America with all of their heart. They're the kind of people who have a true respect for responsibility, especially fiscal responsibility.
As unlikely as it may sound now, it may be time for those true conservatives to realize that their party (the Republican party) has been hijacked. It may even be time for the real conservatives in the US to stand together, members of a new party willing to fight for what conservatives truly stand for: responsibility, honesty, peace, prosperity and liberty.
Time and time again we hear about privacy, freedoms and liberties in the US being restricted in favour of "security". This is just one small example in a field of many. Now I ask a question to all Americans: do you actually feel any safer? If you do, please explain.
a) Your coworker has no business looking at your screen. He or she should be doing their own work, and should not be snooping on you. It isn't a case of somebody being loud, for instance. The viewer has the option of 1) not looking in the first place, 2) turning away, 3) ignoring the pornography, or even 4) enjoying it.
b) Like I said, had you read my post, it is perfectly fine for one's manager to object to such activity. If somebody isn't working at work while they're supposed to be working, the of course it is acceptable for the firm to take action against them. But that has nothing to do with what they were actually looking at; it just has to do with the fact that they were doing something other than work.
They have a disclaimer in which they explicitly state that they're "professionals", and then encourage that people not try the "experiments" at home, if I'm not mistaken. So it really doesn't encourage others to try such activities themselves.
The main problem is that they portray themselves as being so-called experts, but obviously have very little of the background that actual experts have. Sure, they have experience in visual effects from their past Hollywood work and can put on an entertaining show, but educational their program is not.
I have heard it suggested that each segment of their show should be preceeded by a disclaimer explaining that what they're doing is not science, but is purely entertainment.
Many people mistakenly think that the MythBusters present the proper way of performing scientific experiment, and that they present verified scientific information. Indeed, watching even a single episode shows that they have very little scientific or engineering background.
If these episodes are so lost how come I have seen them all on TV?
Shit, son. This sounds like a job for the MythBusters! They could test the validity of the myth that these videos have been seen on TV before.
Are you using Internet Explorer or Firefox? If you are, that might be the problem. Their site renders fine with both Opera and Konqueror, but fails to work with Firefox. It's not a Flash problem, as other Flash sites work fine with Firefox.
They only have about 15 minutes per myth. That just isn't enough time to start up your typical Hello World! application written in Java.
Trying to do too much is never an excuse for doing a shoddy job.
While such a show may have entertainment value, I do admit, it should not be shown on a channel that prides (or at least used to) itself on showing educational content.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people who take the show extremely seriously. For whatever reason (ignorance, I would assume), they consider the Mythbusters to use "proper" scientific method. Of course, anyone with any science or engineering background sees the poor job they do, but your average person does not.
Interesting... So how do you test a torture method that could possibly go on cable tv?
You call it "fighting terrorism" and declare that it is being done "in the name of freedom and liberty".
Water torture: they question whether or not water torture can be used to extract quality information from detainees.
Otter ping pong: they test whether otters play a form of ping pong with bundles of leaves and mud.
Live power lines: they test the danger of downed power lines.
Cement build up: they question whether solidified cement can be removed from a cement truck using dynamite.
Plywood fight: they test the myth that a kick can do more harm than a piece of plywood wielded as a weapon.
I have relatives in the US who recently told me about the lack of quality on the Discovery Channel. I recall watching very good shows on it around a decade or so ago. True to their name, they focused on content that most traditional channels wouldn't bother to touch.
However, what I've been hearing now is that the Discovery Channel is moving away from their specialty programming, more towards content that will appeal to a wider range of people. This change does being a decrease in quality, according to my cousins.
I think I know what they mean. Shows like American Chopper and American HotRod, which I have watched over here in the UK, are more like soap operas than educational, enlightening shows. The two or three minutes of engineering in each episode is overshadowed by 57 minutes of workplace drama and commercials.
While a show like Mythbusters isn't as bad, it still lacks the quality that previous shows on the Discovery Channel had. None of the hosts have much engineering or scientific experience, and it shows. Even watching just one episode, one will hear numerous factually incorrect statements (especially when it comes to chemistry or physics). Perhaps it is entertaining, but educational it is not.
Heaven forbid a teen sees a pair of breasts, or even penile-vaginal penetration!
Spyware can be rendered useless through the use of Linux or *BSD-based systems. Besides, the students who use such a network will learn new skills, and be exposed to superior software. That's what computer education should be all about; exposing the youth of today the technologies that they probably won't find at home.
Companies today cannot afford to not be producing at 100% efficiency. With increasing competition from China, India, and numerous other nations, any large company that is not completely efficient will quickly run into problems, if not a swift bankruptcy.
Much like a nation should never trade freedom and liberty for security, a firm cannot trade efficiency for security. The end result is a defunct nation or firm, void of all it once stood for.
I remember those times. The firm I was doing some contract work with at that point ran a solid OpenBSD and VMS network. The worst we were hit with was some wasted bandwidth.
In any case, the moral of the story is that it is often quite easy to protect one's network using a proper system like OpenBSD, or an extremely solid system like VMS. While Windows may be needed for some applications, it is quite easy to set up a proxy and firewall solution running OpenBSD on inexpensive PC hardware to protect those Windows machines.
Anyone in IT who can't maintain a Linux system, well, they probably shouldn't be in IT. A person who can't use a wrench shouldn't be a mechanic, and somebody afraid of knives and forks shouldn't be a chef.
UNIX system administration is a skill that every IT administrator should have, even if they run Windows-only networks. It's just one of those essential skills associated with the occupation, much like reading, writing, and maths.
Have you ever used USENET? Many of the comp.* groups are quite active, and many are a prime source for information concerning IT-related issues. If you want help, that's the place to go. You'll often get a quick answer, often from somebody with a high level of expertise.
That's not a problem with technology. That's a problem with a legal system that's feeble against protecting free speech and free expression.
So what if you're looking at hardcore pornography at work? It's of no concern to any coworker of yours who might happen to notice while he or she is walking. Of course, your manager may get angry at you for wasting company time. But nothing about the act of you looking at midgets sucking on horse cock, for instance, is truly harmful to anyone.
What version of QT do they use for that? QT 3, or QT 4?
Windows users should just wait a short while, until KDE 4 is release. Due to the recent QT 4 changes, it has been anticipated that Konqueror will run natively on Windows.
The Konqueror codebase is far cleaner than that of Gecko and Firefox. Not only that, but QT may prove to be superior for writing efficient crossplatform applications.
They're one of many. They have started two wars in the last five years, you know. Wars are the epitome of terror.
Like it or not, such games reflect a real-world social situtation. And when we have such situations, economies often develop. That's just the nature of human survival, be it in real life, or while playing as an elf in some online game.
What interests me the most is the attitude that is being taken towards those who are able to produce goods with a comparative advantage. Those questions are much like a tariff, for instance. They inhibit the free trade between those who harvest gold in these games, and those who wish to buy.
With the move towards free trade worldwide, it will be interesting to see how the games adopt. Indeed, it could be quite a scene to see riots of sorts taking place in these game worlds, much as happens in the real world, when tough economic issues are involved.
The general theory and concepts behind UNIX are often quite sound. That's well known, and does help lead to more secure, more stable systems.
But it's only half the battle. The other half is in the implementation itself. This is where OpenBSD, for instance, really shines. They take solid, secure theory, and apply it via a well-developed implementation. That's not to say other UNICES are poor; of course they often are not! Nevertheless, it may even be said that a poor implementation of a solid/secure theory is worse than a great implementation of a poor theory.
It's not appropriate to generalize about UNIX these days, considering how many different UNIX-style systems there are.
Linux might be vulnerable in one case, while Mac OS X, UnixWare, FreeBSD, Solaris, AiX and other such systems are perfectly safe. Likewise, Solaris might be affected, while the other systems are not. And so on, and so forth.
Now, various UNIX-like systems have run into problems in the past with regards to security. Thanks to the relative degree of fragmentation, such incidents are usually isolated to a particular brand or product, and thus do not appear overly severe. But they still do exist, and we shouldn't forget that.
As users of UNIX-like systems, the best thing we can do for ourselves is always remember that our systems are vulnerable, even if they are often of a higher quality than other systems.
Just because a legitimate, completely truthful opinion angers some, it does not make the opinion "flamebait".
Words like "flamebait" and "troll" are most often used seriously by those who are trying to incite trouble amongst people who are pointing out real, solid facts.
We see this today in the media, where various governments label their opponents as "terrorists". Of course, in many cases those governments are partking in the very same actions that may be construed as "terrorism".
These sorts of labels are useless just because they are misapplied so often, by so many different people and groups.