You know, DHS has many sub-organizations within it. There are different groups responsible for IT Security within the different organizations and there is nothing that says "You will do this..." because there are different requirements for each location.
Well, that is part of the problem isn't it. DHS has now had a couple of years to come up with a coherent security plan. While I could understand if they were having problem implementing it over all the different sub-organizations, I think they most certainly should have some "you will do this" documents prepared by this point.
How many of you techs work in an enviornment where you can't download drivers from an FTP site without approval and access to a specific machine that is locked down? A 2 min download takes a day to get signed off on.
Probably more than you think. I don't think I've ever worked somewhere where things like driver upgrades to "locked down" production systems did not require somebody to signoff on it. Generally it required things like a deployment plan, some sort of certification of code on a test system, and a roll-back plan should things not go as planned. If you are interested in security, allowing folks to download drivers from the Internet on their own is not a good idea. Most software should be coming from some central organization which manages a secure software repository. While I understand your frustration, your attitude is part of the problem.
It may not be like this in all of DHS, but, I can tell you that there are locations where someone needs to do a review to relax the existing level of security to allow people to do some work. This whole issue is B.S. in my eyes. The only way to make a passing grade based on government standards is to kick out all of the users and build a token-ring that's not connected to the outside world.
Perhaps you should view keeping data secure as part of getting some work done. And if you are fail to do so, your work is a failure. View security as a requirement rather than an problem. Some agencies seem to be able to manage secure thanselves without cutting themselves of from the world. From TFA, "The National Science Foundation and the General Services Administration each saw their scores rise from a C-plus in 2004 to an A last year. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor earned A-plus grades in 2005, up from B and B-minus respectively."
News Flash, we had enough information to stop the attack on the WTC on 9/11. The problem was not collecting information, or even processing it; the problem was acting on the information. Given the performance of DHS responding to last years hurricanes, I don't have much faith that there had been any improvement in their ability to act on information. The problem seems to be in the vast beuracracy, increasingly made up of political appointees.
As presented by the President, the WTC style attack was foiled in Asia. A more accurate portrayal of the announcment would be "a plot was foiled" not "a plot was foiled by the White House." The President made no direct claims that U.S. policy or personnel played any role in the those arrests. Given this administrations willingness to reveal and even manufacture classified information for the sake of scoring political points, it seems likely that if the Patriot Act or NSA played any major role in those arrests, they would have specifically pointed it out.
Perhaps you remember shortly after 9/11, and shortly before the passing of the Patriot act, there were anthrax attacks targeted against memebers of the media and leaders within the opposition party? Appearantly, the abilities to monitor all communications, break into any residence, and to steal any property have not been sufficient to bring those attackers to justice. Last I heard, the strain of anthrax was traced back to a U.S. weapons lab. Perhaps we should just round up everyone who has had contact with that strain, send them off to secret prisons, and torture them until somebody talks. I know I'd feel safer.
The Patriot act and the war powers of the President seem insufficient to the task of keeping us safe. They clearly need to be expanded. All these rights and liberties are so "anti national security", they just might be un-American. Personally, I favor "equiping" all people under U.S. control with collars which allow for tracking, surveilence, interrogation, and termination. Maybe then we can be "safe". Oh, by the way, did I mention my uncle has a company which makes such security devices? He likes the name "Freedom Collar", but I think "Patriot Collar" would be an easier sell.
Neither study seems like a good measure of the rate of civilian casualties. The iraqbodycount.org site seems to be tracking Iraqi civilian deaths due to violence during the war. The U.N. study is trying to estimate the impact of the sanctions, including things like starvation and lack of medical care. Is anyone even counting those types of deaths at the moment?
The war brought an interruption and general degradation of basic services. Ending the embargo has helped things in some areas, but the lack of security, unreliability of basic services, and high unemployment may well offset it with regard to the actual "rate of civilian casualties in Iraq." Iraqbodycount.org certainly does not seem to be factoring in starvation or any increase in mortality rates due to lack of basic services. Your defense of Bush seems to be based on a faulty comparison.
There are a lot of similarities between the Kennedy family and the Bush family. Do their sins really just cancel each other out? Does the fact that half of the criminals call themselves Democrats while the other half call themselves Republican really make it O.K. that the country is being run by criminals?
I find it difficult to believe that you don't have slower options. Perhaps not from your current provider, but you can probably get dial-up or wireless.
What bandwidth and pricing tiers a given provider offers is a fairly complex and important business decision. While at some point, these are implemented by settings on switches, it involves a lot more than that. Provider capacity does not just magically appear. They need to upgrade infrastructure to support greater bandwidth. They pay for those upgrades by charging customers for higher bandwitdh links. If your provider offered a 1Mb service, they it would have to charge more for their 5Mb service to cover the lost revenue. If they want to upgrade to offering 100Mb or 1Gb service, why not set the basic entry point at 5Mb to help foster developement of higher bandwidth applictions.
The fact that most users don't use most of their bandwidth doesn't really matter. As available bandwidth increases, I think the amount of "unused" bandwidth with increase as well. But total bandwidth utilization is not really what anybody is or should be aiming for. If you want a responsive, reliable network experience, you don't want total bandwidth utilization; you want bandwidth on demand and low latency.
High bandwidth applications already exist. The basic "surfing" experience is much different over low bandwidth links today, and I think this trend will continue as the high bandwidth market grows. As all communications converge on IP and the Internet, the uses for more bandwidth seem pretty endless.
This is really simple. Scientists made observations. They reported their results. The results were in line with predictions made by existing theory. Therefore, the theory is strengthened rather than weakened. This is the scientific method. The "wild speculation" that organic chemicals could exist around a star prior to planetary formation now has some more concrete evidence. Their observations were the test; their results are their proof. Sure their observations do not answer all the questions, but science never answers all the questions.
People have been gazing through telescopes making observations of hundreds of years before there was "practical space technology". At one point, it was "wild speculation" that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Building theories to explain observations is how science works. Hard science is driven by educated speculation. A little bit more of "science fiction" has slipped into the realm of "science fact".
I thought the GPL was a legalistic hack to protect the ethical right to share information. If the government goes and legalises that, then the GPL becomes almost, but not quite, entirely redundant.
Your ethical right to share your own information has never been in danger. You could always release to the public domain. The GPL prevents you from taking the shared information, using it, and distributing it but not sharing the result. OSS certainly benefits from the GPL, but it does not require it.
But the article only mentions music and movies, so I'm not certain the GPL would be impacted. They are not talking about repealing copyright; they are talking about expanding fair use. It does not sound like it would be legal for me to take a movie, replace all the credits with my own, and release it to theaters or sell it on DVD. Not having read the proposal itself, I would assume that sharing means a non-profit/p2p sort of thing, not a for profit/selling movies and music online sort of thing.
Bush doesn't seem the type to expend his scarce political capital on someone who can't help him anymore.
That is why pardons tend to be delivered as the President is leaving office, when most all political capital is gone anyway. Mr. Clinton's list included some interesting people. I'm sure Mr. Bush's will as well.
IANAL, but I can't see how this can be so. The encryption on movies prevents you from producing unlicensed players or unencrypted versions, but does not prevent you from copying the bits. You don't need to circumvent anything to read the disc. I would think that simple backups would be covered by fair use. Storing images on an Internet attached device would probably even pass, though sharing them certainly wouldn't. There seems to be a healthy market in hardware and software specifically for DVD movie back-up.
It's interesting to see what goodwill (none) France has gotten by pandering to the Islamists. Perhaps that will influence future French behaviour when dealing with radical Islamic states.
Huh? I don't call banning their religeous observation, pandering. Were you referring to Iraq? They weren't a "radical Islamic state". They are moving that way now, but we don't like to talk about that. Otherwise, the French have been fighting in Afganistan.
1. If we stick $300 billion dollars into fusion research; all we'll get is a lot of physicists who are $300 billion dollars richer.
Most of the money never gets down to that level. How about we just redirect the money spent on "missle defense" and new nuclear weapons? Even if fusion research produced nothing, no real net change.
2. We could do the same thing already by building more nuclear power plants. The reason we don't is because of liberal evironmentalist whacknuts.
It is really amazing just how many people become "liberal evironmentalist whacknuts" when someone wants to build a nuclear plant or waste disposal site near their home.
The people of the U.S. are fearful of nuclear power mainly due to lack of education. Most American are wholly ingorant of modern nuclear technolgoy. Many Americans distrust scientists. The current leadership has done nothing to change this, and in most cases encourages it.
3. Who says that liberal environmentalist whacknuts won't get all prissy about fusion power too?
In my opinion, the group most likely to get prissy about nuclear power is those who have invested billions/trillions in things like oil and gas refineries, oil and coal mining rights, oil/gas/coal power plants, etc.
I mean, look at who controls Congress and the Whitehouse. You're going to blame their actions on the "liberal environmentalis whacknuts"? The reason the energy bill did not contain major new investments in nuclear power was not because of environmentalists, it was to help maximize the ROI of the current energy cartel.
You appear to be dismissing the study for reasons that go beyond simply the data in the study.
And your point is? Studies are often criticized on their methods and conclusions rather than their data. For example, most global warming studies are not challenged based on their data; the challenge is made that their data does not support their conclusions.
How does the U.Md. note delve into ideological bias while the other does?
Well the U.Md. study seems to be testing knowledge of four facts, and then reporting the result. It does not attempt to draw an ideological conclusion; it simply states the summary of the data they collected. They did not claim to be testing bias, simply misconceptions of certain facts. Those misconceptions could be due to bias in reporting, but I don't see where the study claimed that.
The UCLA/Stanford study on the other hand, claims to be discovering bias. However, the measurements they are taking (their overall methodology) doesn't support the types of conclusions they are making.
The UCLA/Stanford study examined actual news reporting to see what groups were cited, what quotes were presented, and what opinions were given.
Perhaps you should double check. The piece you posted says they measured simply based on number of citations and the length of citations. They do not mention that they took the content of the citations or the context of their presentation into account in any way. I think it would be difficult to examine the content and context in an objective manner, which is probably why they avoided it; but it would make their conclusions somewhat more meaningful.
You're disregarding one study and propping another. Why could that be?
How about because one study seems to have simply done a survey and reported the results, while the other study created their own "measures" and claims those measures mean something which they probably don't.
For example, say I start a "news" organization which is dedicated to debunking all the claims made by The Heritage Foundation. I quote everything they produce extensively, and spend the rest of the time pontificating on how insane it all is. The UCLA/Stanford method would find me to be an uber-conservative, when in fact the opposite was true. I don't need to question their data, because their method is seriously flawed.
Picking and choosing studies based on which ones fit the conclusion you'd more likely want to be true can be dangerous.
Not critically examining any study can be dangerous, if you agree with it or not. Many studies are flawed, and most of the coverage given to studies is inaccurate, overstated, and incomplete. The pharse "lies, damn lies, and statistics" did came about for a reason.
I haven't worked on IIS for a long time, but have they ever changed anything which made web apps not run between versions? If you have a large web app which needs to be ported to the new version of IIS, allowing both versions to run side by side would allow you to do the migration with half as many machines.
This feature would also be useful if you wanted to write a web app which would reliably install and run under multiple versions of IIS. The number of machines required for QA could be reduced signifcantly.
Or, simply to run a patched and unpatched version to test security patches.
You can probably run different versions of IIS on one machine with something like VMWARE.
IIS works this way because Microsoft gets to sell you more copies of Windows. There is no real reason Microsoft would want you to run two copies of their "free" web server on one machine, but there are reasons a user might. I think it is pretty much a "one per customer" sort of thing.
- If you leave a Windows box running IIS alone in the corner of your office (Like I have), you will rarly touch it, I usually install updates once every few months.
Most folks find web servers more useful when connected to a network.
i look at it this way, when all the taboos are gone and we can even rationalize away killing people society ends.
Killing people has been part of society since the beginning, and probably before. The rationalizations vary somewhat over time, but they are certainly not new; and, certainly not a sign of the end of society.
So, if a study's conclusions speak against your beliefs or way of life, suddenly it's a biased advertisement stroking the right-wing-conservatives?
Well, you know, in the same way that most of the global warming studies are biased advertisements stroking the left-wing-liberals, and evolution is just a theory. In fairness, there are probably plenty of left-wing-liberal women on the "porn is evil" bandwagon.
I mean, *WHAT IF* what the book says is true? Oh of course not, that would condemn us all netporn-addicted slashdotters, so it must NOT be true! In fact, it's heresy! Lets bring our torches and burn that book!
I think the point is that the review is bad. I agree it was closer to an advertisement than a review. Calling it a review is like calling most U.S. news productions journalism.
Is the author specifically selecting studies which backup her position, or does a random sampling of studies lead to the same conclusions? This review simply recites the claims made by the book and agrees with them. Besides hinting at lots of data/studies, the review gives no specific references. The reviewer talks about the authors conclusions, but doesn't really spell out what those are, aside from the general tone of "oh my, the Internet has made porn so much worse!".
You know, I used to think books were judged by the veracity of the facts they presented, not by whether their words made some people feel (Heaven forbid! *gasp*) judged.
Then you should be agreeing that this "review" sucked. The author of the "review" agrees with the author of the book. The reviewer did nothing to check the veracity of the facts. Stern seems to take the facts as presented at face value without question. This is a good book because it makes him feel judged, "correct". I mean, how can the author "presents most of this neutrally", while showing "contempt for non-pornographic websites that link to porn sites". What does the author show for sites that actually have porn? The bias is clear; it just happens to agree with the reviewer's opinion. This book is not an objective study, and neither is the review.
The reviewer seems impressed by anecdotes, stories, and simple conclusions. For example, I doubt law enforcement ever thought that child porn had been wiped out. If it had been, wouldn't prosecutions have risen more dramatically? 23 times "wiped out" is not really threatening. Digital media and the Internet have dramatically increased the trade in all types of information. I find the fact it has increased the trade in child porn unremarkable. Digital media and the Internet also make this trade more open and easier to infiltrate. The reviewer and possibly the book fail to mention the ways the Internet enables law enforcement to locate and catch those involved in child porn, or how much that may contribute to the increase in prosecutions. And, I'm pretty sure there were Sunday school teachers eyeing their pupils long before the Internet.
I don't even think the reviewer supports his own conclusion. I don't see how showing how the Internet has made porn so much "worse" moves the debate from morality vs. free speech. At least by his review, it sounds like the book is simply attempting to strengthen the "morality" argument by making porn that much more threatening. The role of technology seems to be dealt with in a very superficial and one-sided way.
I think Sun knows where their market is. This "review" and probably the/. posting are simply hopeful marketing.
Sun needs Solaris x86 because they are selling Opteron machines. And why would I buy an Opteron from Sun if I wanted to run Linux or Windows?
3) People who want a *nix solution and will pay for it/support.
Number 3s - Sun joins the likes of Red Hat etc fighting for market share.
Since Sun still sells hardware, they would really be fighting with IBM and to some degree Apple. I think their stategy is to be a better Linux than Linux. Not to steal the OS market, but to give you are reason to keep buying Sun hardware.
I think the hope in Open Solaris is to attact developers. If Sun can make it a more pleasant environment for FOSS developers, they could attact some. These developers would then write things like device drivers and perhaps even ports to different CPU's. That could open new markets for Sun, without much investment on their part.
Linux certainly has nothing to worry about. I think the tone of review title was intended to get it noticed and posted here. It does get it noticed by more FOSS folk than "Open Solaris, it's Solaris!" or "solaris_x86_not_too_shabby/". Won't kill Linux, but will it help to save Sun?
Clinton gave us NAFTA and the DMCA. Those were different times, but Clinton was not really a friend of the people.
From a strategic point of view, it may well be easier to implant chips in the population after we have national health care. Just think of how safe the children will be then!
I think the U.S. has a kinder, gentler form of tyranny and oppression, compassionate fascism. Lobbyists are mainly controlled by big money donors. They more or less dictate policy to both parties. The conflict between the parties serves to distract the population from many important issues.
I think the real suprise is that you totally buy the whole "we're so inept we can't find a dialysis patient in the middle of a country the size of Texas" argument.
Well, the ineptitude defense is just so well developed at this point. Couple that with partisan politics, and it is far more pleasant "reality". Most people really don't want to believe that most domestic and foreign policy are only about creating business opportunities for and handing contracts to rich, powerful special interests. I think most Americans still believe in "liberty and justice for all". It is a lot harder to feel good about being an American when you realize it is now little more than a marketing slogan.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, DHS has many sub-organizations within it. There are different groups responsible for IT Security within the different organizations and there is nothing that says "You will do this..." because there are different requirements for each location.
Well, that is part of the problem isn't it. DHS has now had a couple of years to come up with a coherent security plan. While I could understand if they were having problem implementing it over all the different sub-organizations, I think they most certainly should have some "you will do this" documents prepared by this point.
How many of you techs work in an enviornment where you can't download drivers from an FTP site without approval and access to a specific machine that is locked down? A 2 min download takes a day to get signed off on.
Probably more than you think. I don't think I've ever worked somewhere where things like driver upgrades to "locked down" production systems did not require somebody to signoff on it. Generally it required things like a deployment plan, some sort of certification of code on a test system, and a roll-back plan should things not go as planned. If you are interested in security, allowing folks to download drivers from the Internet on their own is not a good idea. Most software should be coming from some central organization which manages a secure software repository. While I understand your frustration, your attitude is part of the problem.
It may not be like this in all of DHS, but, I can tell you that there are locations where someone needs to do a review to relax the existing level of security to allow people to do some work. This whole issue is B.S. in my eyes. The only way to make a passing grade based on government standards is to kick out all of the users and build a token-ring that's not connected to the outside world.
Perhaps you should view keeping data secure as part of getting some work done. And if you are fail to do so, your work is a failure. View security as a requirement rather than an problem. Some agencies seem to be able to manage secure thanselves without cutting themselves of from the world. From TFA, "The National Science Foundation and the General Services Administration each saw their scores rise from a C-plus in 2004 to an A last year. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor earned A-plus grades in 2005, up from B and B-minus respectively."
News Flash, we had enough information to stop the attack on the WTC on 9/11. The problem was not collecting information, or even processing it; the problem was acting on the information. Given the performance of DHS responding to last years hurricanes, I don't have much faith that there had been any improvement in their ability to act on information. The problem seems to be in the vast beuracracy, increasingly made up of political appointees.
As presented by the President, the WTC style attack was foiled in Asia. A more accurate portrayal of the announcment would be "a plot was foiled" not "a plot was foiled by the White House." The President made no direct claims that U.S. policy or personnel played any role in the those arrests. Given this administrations willingness to reveal and even manufacture classified information for the sake of scoring political points, it seems likely that if the Patriot Act or NSA played any major role in those arrests, they would have specifically pointed it out.
Perhaps you remember shortly after 9/11, and shortly before the passing of the Patriot act, there were anthrax attacks targeted against memebers of the media and leaders within the opposition party? Appearantly, the abilities to monitor all communications, break into any residence, and to steal any property have not been sufficient to bring those attackers to justice. Last I heard, the strain of anthrax was traced back to a U.S. weapons lab. Perhaps we should just round up everyone who has had contact with that strain, send them off to secret prisons, and torture them until somebody talks. I know I'd feel safer.
The Patriot act and the war powers of the President seem insufficient to the task of keeping us safe. They clearly need to be expanded. All these rights and liberties are so "anti national security", they just might be un-American. Personally, I favor "equiping" all people under U.S. control with collars which allow for tracking, surveilence, interrogation, and termination. Maybe then we can be "safe". Oh, by the way, did I mention my uncle has a company which makes such security devices? He likes the name "Freedom Collar", but I think "Patriot Collar" would be an easier sell.
Grammar for Article Submitters are Minimal?
All your grammar are belong to us!
Yes. A desire to keep their own job. I don't believe that the 'officials' that the reporter mentioned in the article are the final say on the matter.
I would think most 'officials' in Alaska travel by small aircraft fairly frequently.
Neither study seems like a good measure of the rate of civilian casualties. The iraqbodycount.org site seems to be tracking Iraqi civilian deaths due to violence during the war. The U.N. study is trying to estimate the impact of the sanctions, including things like starvation and lack of medical care. Is anyone even counting those types of deaths at the moment?
The war brought an interruption and general degradation of basic services. Ending the embargo has helped things in some areas, but the lack of security, unreliability of basic services, and high unemployment may well offset it with regard to the actual "rate of civilian casualties in Iraq." Iraqbodycount.org certainly does not seem to be factoring in starvation or any increase in mortality rates due to lack of basic services. Your defense of Bush seems to be based on a faulty comparison.
There are a lot of similarities between the Kennedy family and the Bush family. Do their sins really just cancel each other out? Does the fact that half of the criminals call themselves Democrats while the other half call themselves Republican really make it O.K. that the country is being run by criminals?
I find it difficult to believe that you don't have slower options. Perhaps not from your current provider, but you can probably get dial-up or wireless.
What bandwidth and pricing tiers a given provider offers is a fairly complex and important business decision. While at some point, these are implemented by settings on switches, it involves a lot more than that. Provider capacity does not just magically appear. They need to upgrade infrastructure to support greater bandwidth. They pay for those upgrades by charging customers for higher bandwitdh links. If your provider offered a 1Mb service, they it would have to charge more for their 5Mb service to cover the lost revenue. If they want to upgrade to offering 100Mb or 1Gb service, why not set the basic entry point at 5Mb to help foster developement of higher bandwidth applictions.
The fact that most users don't use most of their bandwidth doesn't really matter. As available bandwidth increases, I think the amount of "unused" bandwidth with increase as well. But total bandwidth utilization is not really what anybody is or should be aiming for. If you want a responsive, reliable network experience, you don't want total bandwidth utilization; you want bandwidth on demand and low latency.
High bandwidth applications already exist. The basic "surfing" experience is much different over low bandwidth links today, and I think this trend will continue as the high bandwidth market grows. As all communications converge on IP and the Internet, the uses for more bandwidth seem pretty endless.
This is really simple. Scientists made observations. They reported their results. The results were in line with predictions made by existing theory. Therefore, the theory is strengthened rather than weakened. This is the scientific method. The "wild speculation" that organic chemicals could exist around a star prior to planetary formation now has some more concrete evidence. Their observations were the test; their results are their proof. Sure their observations do not answer all the questions, but science never answers all the questions.
People have been gazing through telescopes making observations of hundreds of years before there was "practical space technology". At one point, it was "wild speculation" that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Building theories to explain observations is how science works. Hard science is driven by educated speculation. A little bit more of "science fiction" has slipped into the realm of "science fact".
I thought the GPL was a legalistic hack to protect the ethical right to share information. If the government goes and legalises that, then the GPL becomes almost, but not quite, entirely redundant.
Your ethical right to share your own information has never been in danger. You could always release to the public domain. The GPL prevents you from taking the shared information, using it, and distributing it but not sharing the result. OSS certainly benefits from the GPL, but it does not require it.
But the article only mentions music and movies, so I'm not certain the GPL would be impacted. They are not talking about repealing copyright; they are talking about expanding fair use. It does not sound like it would be legal for me to take a movie, replace all the credits with my own, and release it to theaters or sell it on DVD. Not having read the proposal itself, I would assume that sharing means a non-profit/p2p sort of thing, not a for profit/selling movies and music online sort of thing.
Raw Story is well known to be a source of very early, unripe, possibly wrong information.
Two of those are fine, the third makes it completely uncredible as a "news" source, sorry.
By that standard, are there any credible news sources?
Bush doesn't seem the type to expend his scarce political capital on someone who can't help him anymore.
That is why pardons tend to be delivered as the President is leaving office, when most all political capital is gone anyway. Mr. Clinton's list included some interesting people. I'm sure Mr. Bush's will as well.
IANAL, but I can't see how this can be so. The encryption on movies prevents you from producing unlicensed players or unencrypted versions, but does not prevent you from copying the bits. You don't need to circumvent anything to read the disc. I would think that simple backups would be covered by fair use. Storing images on an Internet attached device would probably even pass, though sharing them certainly wouldn't. There seems to be a healthy market in hardware and software specifically for DVD movie back-up.
I am always amazed at the shouts from the left that they are being "oppressed" in this country. I am going practically deaf from their oppression.
Some people say they are just providing cover for their upcoming "War on Christmas". Get the details on Fox!
It's interesting to see what goodwill (none) France has gotten by pandering to the Islamists. Perhaps that will influence future French behaviour when dealing with radical Islamic states.
Huh? I don't call banning their religeous observation, pandering. Were you referring to Iraq? They weren't a "radical Islamic state". They are moving that way now, but we don't like to talk about that. Otherwise, the French have been fighting in Afganistan.
So perhaps you can explain what you mean?
1. If we stick $300 billion dollars into fusion research; all we'll get is a lot of physicists who are $300 billion dollars richer.
Most of the money never gets down to that level. How about we just redirect the money spent on "missle defense" and new nuclear weapons? Even if fusion research produced nothing, no real net change.
2. We could do the same thing already by building more nuclear power plants. The reason we don't is because of liberal evironmentalist whacknuts.
It is really amazing just how many people become "liberal evironmentalist whacknuts" when someone wants to build a nuclear plant or waste disposal site near their home.
The people of the U.S. are fearful of nuclear power mainly due to lack of education. Most American are wholly ingorant of modern nuclear technolgoy. Many Americans distrust scientists. The current leadership has done nothing to change this, and in most cases encourages it.
3. Who says that liberal environmentalist whacknuts won't get all prissy about fusion power too?
In my opinion, the group most likely to get prissy about nuclear power is those who have invested billions/trillions in things like oil and gas refineries, oil and coal mining rights, oil/gas/coal power plants, etc.
I mean, look at who controls Congress and the Whitehouse. You're going to blame their actions on the "liberal environmentalis whacknuts"? The reason the energy bill did not contain major new investments in nuclear power was not because of environmentalists, it was to help maximize the ROI of the current energy cartel.
You appear to be dismissing the study for reasons that go beyond simply the data in the study.
And your point is? Studies are often criticized on their methods and conclusions rather than their data. For example, most global warming studies are not challenged based on their data; the challenge is made that their data does not support their conclusions.
How does the U.Md. note delve into ideological bias while the other does?
Well the U.Md. study seems to be testing knowledge of four facts, and then reporting the result. It does not attempt to draw an ideological conclusion; it simply states the summary of the data they collected. They did not claim to be testing bias, simply misconceptions of certain facts. Those misconceptions could be due to bias in reporting, but I don't see where the study claimed that.
The UCLA/Stanford study on the other hand, claims to be discovering bias. However, the measurements they are taking (their overall methodology) doesn't support the types of conclusions they are making.
The UCLA/Stanford study examined actual news reporting to see what groups were cited, what quotes were presented, and what opinions were given.
Perhaps you should double check. The piece you posted says they measured simply based on number of citations and the length of citations. They do not mention that they took the content of the citations or the context of their presentation into account in any way. I think it would be difficult to examine the content and context in an objective manner, which is probably why they avoided it; but it would make their conclusions somewhat more meaningful.
You're disregarding one study and propping another. Why could that be?
How about because one study seems to have simply done a survey and reported the results, while the other study created their own "measures" and claims those measures mean something which they probably don't.
For example, say I start a "news" organization which is dedicated to debunking all the claims made by The Heritage Foundation. I quote everything they produce extensively, and spend the rest of the time pontificating on how insane it all is. The UCLA/Stanford method would find me to be an uber-conservative, when in fact the opposite was true. I don't need to question their data, because their method is seriously flawed.
Picking and choosing studies based on which ones fit the conclusion you'd more likely want to be true can be dangerous.
Not critically examining any study can be dangerous, if you agree with it or not. Many studies are flawed, and most of the coverage given to studies is inaccurate, overstated, and incomplete. The pharse "lies, damn lies, and statistics" did came about for a reason.
I am more afraid of politicians who would usurp fundamental rights than those that would enact provisions for special interests.
The problem is that these often overlap. The evolution of IP law provides many examples of this.
I haven't worked on IIS for a long time, but have they ever changed anything which made web apps not run between versions? If you have a large web app which needs to be ported to the new version of IIS, allowing both versions to run side by side would allow you to do the migration with half as many machines.
This feature would also be useful if you wanted to write a web app which would reliably install and run under multiple versions of IIS. The number of machines required for QA could be reduced signifcantly.
Or, simply to run a patched and unpatched version to test security patches.
You can probably run different versions of IIS on one machine with something like VMWARE.
IIS works this way because Microsoft gets to sell you more copies of Windows. There is no real reason Microsoft would want you to run two copies of their "free" web server on one machine, but there are reasons a user might. I think it is pretty much a "one per customer" sort of thing.
- If you leave a Windows box running IIS alone in the corner of your office (Like I have), you will rarly touch it, I usually install updates once every few months.
Most folks find web servers more useful when connected to a network.
i look at it this way, when all the taboos are gone and we can even rationalize away killing people society ends.
Killing people has been part of society since the beginning, and probably before. The rationalizations vary somewhat over time, but they are certainly not new; and, certainly not a sign of the end of society.
Here is one source. I have heard the story of NM offering troops, the offer being accepted, and them waiting on paperwork from D.C. from many sources.
So, if a study's conclusions speak against your beliefs or way of life, suddenly it's a biased advertisement stroking the right-wing-conservatives?
Well, you know, in the same way that most of the global warming studies are biased advertisements stroking the left-wing-liberals, and evolution is just a theory. In fairness, there are probably plenty of left-wing-liberal women on the "porn is evil" bandwagon.
I mean, *WHAT IF* what the book says is true? Oh of course not, that would condemn us all netporn-addicted slashdotters, so it must NOT be true! In fact, it's heresy! Lets bring our torches and burn that book!
I think the point is that the review is bad. I agree it was closer to an advertisement than a review. Calling it a review is like calling most U.S. news productions journalism.
Is the author specifically selecting studies which backup her position, or does a random sampling of studies lead to the same conclusions? This review simply recites the claims made by the book and agrees with them. Besides hinting at lots of data/studies, the review gives no specific references. The reviewer talks about the authors conclusions, but doesn't really spell out what those are, aside from the general tone of "oh my, the Internet has made porn so much worse!".
You know, I used to think books were judged by the veracity of the facts they presented, not by whether their words made some people feel (Heaven forbid! *gasp*) judged.
Then you should be agreeing that this "review" sucked. The author of the "review" agrees with the author of the book. The reviewer did nothing to check the veracity of the facts. Stern seems to take the facts as presented at face value without question. This is a good book because it makes him feel judged, "correct". I mean, how can the author "presents most of this neutrally", while showing "contempt for non-pornographic websites that link to porn sites". What does the author show for sites that actually have porn? The bias is clear; it just happens to agree with the reviewer's opinion. This book is not an objective study, and neither is the review.
The reviewer seems impressed by anecdotes, stories, and simple conclusions. For example, I doubt law enforcement ever thought that child porn had been wiped out. If it had been, wouldn't prosecutions have risen more dramatically? 23 times "wiped out" is not really threatening. Digital media and the Internet have dramatically increased the trade in all types of information. I find the fact it has increased the trade in child porn unremarkable. Digital media and the Internet also make this trade more open and easier to infiltrate. The reviewer and possibly the book fail to mention the ways the Internet enables law enforcement to locate and catch those involved in child porn, or how much that may contribute to the increase in prosecutions. And, I'm pretty sure there were Sunday school teachers eyeing their pupils long before the Internet.
I don't even think the reviewer supports his own conclusion. I don't see how showing how the Internet has made porn so much "worse" moves the debate from morality vs. free speech. At least by his review, it sounds like the book is simply attempting to strengthen the "morality" argument by making porn that much more threatening. The role of technology seems to be dealt with in a very superficial and one-sided way.
Both pizza consumption and skin cancer rates have risen over the past 50 years. Do you belive pizza causes skin cancer?
The pepperoni is clearly migrating.
I think Sun knows where their market is. This "review" and probably the /. posting are simply hopeful marketing.
Sun needs Solaris x86 because they are selling Opteron machines. And why would I buy an Opteron from Sun if I wanted to run Linux or Windows?
3) People who want a *nix solution and will pay for it/support.
Number 3s - Sun joins the likes of Red Hat etc fighting for market share.
Since Sun still sells hardware, they would really be fighting with IBM and to some degree Apple. I think their stategy is to be a better Linux than Linux. Not to steal the OS market, but to give you are reason to keep buying Sun hardware.
I think the hope in Open Solaris is to attact developers. If Sun can make it a more pleasant environment for FOSS developers, they could attact some. These developers would then write things like device drivers and perhaps even ports to different CPU's. That could open new markets for Sun, without much investment on their part.
Linux certainly has nothing to worry about. I think the tone of review title was intended to get it noticed and posted here. It does get it noticed by more FOSS folk than "Open Solaris, it's Solaris!" or "solaris_x86_not_too_shabby/". Won't kill Linux, but will it help to save Sun?
Clinton gave us NAFTA and the DMCA. Those were different times, but Clinton was not really a friend of the people.
From a strategic point of view, it may well be easier to implant chips in the population after we have national health care. Just think of how safe the children will be then!
I think the U.S. has a kinder, gentler form of tyranny and oppression, compassionate fascism. Lobbyists are mainly controlled by big money donors. They more or less dictate policy to both parties. The conflict between the parties serves to distract the population from many important issues.
I think the real suprise is that you totally buy the whole "we're so inept we can't find a dialysis patient in the middle of a country the size of Texas" argument.
Well, the ineptitude defense is just so well developed at this point. Couple that with partisan politics, and it is far more pleasant "reality". Most people really don't want to believe that most domestic and foreign policy are only about creating business opportunities for and handing contracts to rich, powerful special interests. I think most Americans still believe in "liberty and justice for all". It is a lot harder to feel good about being an American when you realize it is now little more than a marketing slogan.