OK, assume that I've no clue--not a great stretch for you, right? In the last couple of presidential elections, there was at least some assumption that the youth vote would turn out, and stake out a firm position. Didn't happen. Much railing against Bush on/. but no turnout, from a historical perspective.
In the end, the youth vote simply didn't count, either for or against. Sorry, but I stand by my opinion. Slashdotters (I'm thinking of Slashdotters as a relatively youthful population, compared to the general populace) are great at spouting off, but they are far less great at actually accepting any hardship, whether that be a boycot, or simply voting.
Predominantly a bunch of lamers in search of whatever they can get for free, no sense of responsibility, and an inflated sense of self-importance. They damned sure make much of an effort to look at the real issues. RTFA is famously too much trouble for these general lamers.
OK, that's more flamebait. At this point, you could repeat your last post, with some justification. I'm cool with that. I mostly lurk here, and just generally observe the human condition. This ID is only the latest in a long string. It's just a/. ID, after all.
My post wasn't about intellectual arguments. The only people that I have to prove my intellect to are the people that *pay* me to be bright. You don't, so your opinion is irrelevant in that respect. The post was about whether a willingness to take a stand exists within the general Slashdot populace. If history is any guide, vendors of game consoles will win. Sony can do whatever they'd like 'root kit' be damned. Major US news media companies will continue to deliver eyeballs to advertisers, vice information that might be, let's say, *helpful to voters*.
Examples: a) Terrorism is far less likely to kill you than a bee sting, and we shouldn't sacrifice freedoms for it. b) Bill Clinton was the guy that approved developing the bunker-buster nuke--a singularly bad idea. c) The current administration has a horrible track record of distorting science.
OK, mod me down. It's nearly time to ditch this ID anyway, so that's irrelevant as well. But think. Find some better news sources. Perhaps when Iraq 'benchmark' news broke, it would have been better to avoid commentary from the eyeball-delivering spin-meisters here in the US, and get it in tabular form from the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294694.stm
Oh, wait. That would involve people thinking, weighing importance, and forming conclusions. That would have seriously detracting from the latest Harry Potter, Transformers, Beckham and Posh Spice making their royal entrance in Los Angeles, etc. We all get what the least common denominator deserves.
That ain't even remotely all. At the time, droves of Slashdotters were swearing to do the Right Thing. Teh Eveil Sony are R00t3d we! Many of us, who are a bit older, with perhaps a bit better judgment of human nature (or just more cynical--your call) laughed, and wondered how long that would last. Not so very much later, it's a non-issue. It's just expected that any boycott would be gone, in the frenzy for the next console. An AC gets an 'Insightful' just for saying what everyone knows anyway.
Sorry to disagree, folks, but if you've sold out so readily, it's pretty easy to see how you can be lead around by the nose. Who to vote for ("You can run, but you can't hide," to thunderous applause), what movies to watch, buying the latest Harry Potter POS book, clicking on Paris Hilton links, imagining that CNN delivers unbiased news, etc.
And Slashdot folk often think they are some sort of intellectual elite. Can you say, "Sheeple?" It's not even a matter of not being able to think for yourselves. Most can, and sometimes do. The problem is more along the lines of doing the Right Thing, which generally *won't* be done if it's any more than slightly inconvenient.
Why the world is such a mess isn't such a source of great wonder to the old and cynical. There's certainly little hope of anything like a majority putting themselves out so far as to form an intelligent conclusion on who to *vote* for. Jingoism and a herd mentality is so much easier for sheeple.
The 10% (Sturgeon was dead-on) I've conversed with, or who's posts I've read here, who represent the thoughtful and honorable, I salute. I've sometimes disagreed, and sometimes argued vehemently, but *damn* you folks are rare, and should be appreciated. The other 90%, such as the AC I'm responding to? A steaming pile of generic humanity. Primates who haven't evolved nearly so far as they imagine, if they even *accept* evolution.
The list of GPLv3 is likely to get large, very fast. The GNU pieces are obviously going to be a top priority for conversion to the new license. I just visited http://directory.fsf.org/ and found 90% of the latest 10 most recently updated programs are all GPLv3, v2 or later, or v3 or later. Some are important systems code, including cpio and dmidecode. I see no reason that trend won't continue.
Three more that need a mention. _Have Spacesuit--Will Travel_ is probably *the* juvenile work that tipped me into a technoid* life, though _The Rolling Stones_ is also in the running. _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ is absent from the library, and I need to fix that. That's some good Heinlein.
*I'm all done saying 'geek' and 'nerd'. You can regard those terms as a badge of honor, with some justification. But they also have a certain flavor of defying frat boys, sales guys, and other assorted extroverts. Screw that. I'm a vet, I work my ass off and pay taxes, I try to be a good citizen, and the role I fill is just as usefull as what others are doing in non-tech fields. I'm no longer willing to be denigrated by people that are frankly not very frapping smart. This whole "News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters" thing is a bit insulting, and has recently begun to bug the *shit* out of me.
BTW, I didn't mean my reference to the Air Force penetration/data loss as any sort of personal slam. It's a huge organization, and this was a couple of years ago. It's extremely unlikely that you were even peripherally associated with the problem. I'm thinking (hoping?) that you probably recognize that, but I thought I'd better post this anyway, as there's no knowing what random Slashdot readers might read into it...
Overall, the report shows a slight (C-) improvement from 2005's dismal D+. But whatever "large US Governemt agencies" are doing, it doesn't seem to be enough. I know how joyous I was when my personal information escaped the Veterans Administration--along with that of about half a million others. http://techdirt.com/articles/20070214/064307.shtml
Of course, for some serious good times, you have to read about the Department of Homeland Security having to report 800 security incidents (virus outbreaks, 'hacking' tools found on servers, breakins, etc.) over a two year period to Congress, as reported here on Slashdot. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/20/125 9219
I don't get to hear enough from DoD people who are down in the trenches (no pun intended) on a daily basis. That rather sucks, as I'm a security guy. Would you care to share any thoughts on what might be wrong? Or, if you're in an area where things are going well, what are you doing differently from those departments/agencies where things seem to be a complete mess?
Wow. I had no idea. I wish the banking industry took as many precautions. Probably wouldn't be possible, though. There are still a lot of very small banks, with correspondingly small IT departments.
In which case, I'd expect the Linux Router Project, which seems defunct, would suddenly become a very hot project. I'd also expect that some manufacturers of cards that can terminate DSL lines would probably do very well indeed. Anyone know manufacturers/driver status, etc.?
I'm a professional paranoid, but I can't really make myself worry about that. It would require random Win boxes to accept incoming connections from other random Win boxes. That sort of thing would have to appear in a EULA, and world + dog would freak. With good reason, as it would probably become a leading attack vector within about two days.
Or there's the possibility of a worm which propagates with Slammer-like speed. See http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2003/sapp hire/sapphire.html if you're not familiar with how truly horrible that was. The potential for an epic PR nightmare should be enough to prevent MS from doing such a thing.
In addition, firmware updates would probably be required on a gazillion routers, firewalls, etc. Assuming it's even possible to run a firewall in such an environment.
In short, this would be perhaps the most insecure software system possible. We'd need new terminology. "Optimally insecure," anyone?
You're right. I remember the niece bit now. I've apparently forgotten enough of the book to give it a read. It's been ages, but I know I still have a copy.
See the AC post #19789171 above. He has a great point about the math being an invaluable communications tool, if nothing else. A discussion couched in terms of, "My comparative tests showed good results," means describing the tests. The various asymptotic notations provide a powerful shorthand, allowing you to say, "The way I have this thing coded now, it runs in polynomial time, and shouldn't. My algorithm sucks."
Logic will only take you so far, and common sense isn't common. Math isn't needed everywhere, but it's definitely a nice tool to have in the box.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." and a couple of others are things I've been been quoting for years (decades, truth be told).
I never really thought about where they came from--programmed in by RAH, apparently, and I've no real problem with that. It makes as much fundamental sense as, "If the enemy is in range, so are you."
I wonder how many fourteen year old punks will pile in, denigrating that list. Slashdot is slashdot, after all...
In the introduction to the 1980 short story collection "The Golden Man," Dick wrote: "Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless himone of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love."
Apparently Phil Dick had a change of heart between 1966 and 1980, eh? If you think enough of the man to quote him, perhaps you should follow his lead.
That's a famous argument. Wasn't Leslyn the wife he had an open marriage with (that's the rumour, anyway) and was miserable? Too liberal? Virginia definitely floated his boat. I lean toward the left. But I'll be the first to admit that if you're lucky enough to cross paths with the SO that gets you through your stay on this miserable planet, in a state resembling happiness, you are truly blessed.
Nor am I particularly concerned with how Asimov assigns 'blame'. Prolific science writer, and I'd love to have met the man. But the two Had Arguments. It's not like he's the supreme arbiter of the period.
Every choice I see here is good--but I have to add Terry Pratchett. OK, it's fantasy, not the nuts-n-bolts SciFi I love (and which Star Drek, etc., so spectacularly fail to provide). But it's also the best satire I've ever read. There's also a large supply. You can laugh your ass off through a few dozen books.
As I read this, there are 124 posts, which should be a pretty good indicator. At one point, he was one of the Big Three (Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov).
There's no doubt that he inspired a lot of people to join NASA, etc., through his juvenile works. He absolutely was responsible for programming me to think of science and engineering as cool, as just one lame example.
So far as the test of time--no. There are a lot of arguments about him being too 'preachy', etc., in his later work. I can sympathize with most of those, at some level. OTOH, he was a brilliant SOB. Some of the sniping reminds me of midgets snapping at the heals at giants.
I'd recommend you read some Heinlein, for reasons of historical context, and some social context as well. Starship Troopers is nothing like the movie. It actually provokes *thought*, whether you agree or disagree, and not just because the hero is Filipino. Although the heroine (which was unusual in itself, in it's day) of Podkayne of Mars was black. That was very weird, for 1963. And her brother was a prototypical technoid, in every respect. Half the people on Slashdot would immediately identify with that kid.
It's tough to characterize Heinlein. Recommend you sample some, think about his influence re: the space program, etc, and form your own conclusions.
Just found parent post scored as Troll. I've just run a couple of tests on clusty.com, and was impressed. Nor did they attempt to set a cookie. Interesting site to read through (http://clusty.com/about etc.), as well.
Depending upon the sorts of things you most commonly search for, YMMV. All I'm saying is: a) It's just worked well enough to be a likely Google replacement for me. b) Thanks for the link, bcrowell!
Never is an *awfully* long time. I suggest you research the characteristics of the original, and justly famous HP Way. Then look at where that company's been headed for the past several years.
Hard UV photons impinging on the beampipe due to synchrotron radiation for the entire length of the beampipe! We mostly cared about synchrotron radiation near the ion source (highest potential area of the system). Of course, it was named synchrotron radiation for a reason, but it was never something I had to be concerned about in terms of system sensitivity, *throughout the system*. We created a lot of electrons when the beam struck photoresist (think baked-on goo) on the target silicon wafers. So at higher energies, it was factor.
And of course this was an industrial vacuum system, with a dirty ion source, usually a dirty target as well, and graphite liners in critical places such as the outer wall of the beampipe in the magnetic analysis area. Not an easy environment for developing a good vacuum. After a vent to atmosphere, we would usually pump the systems down to the low E-7 Torr range, but operating pressure was higher, throughout the system.
If I'd first read that LHC was operating in the E-10T range, I'd never have asked about an aluminum beampipe. That was a silly question, as it's simply not a suitable material for those ranges due to microscopic granularity. Nor have I ever heard of an aluminum bellows. Again, simply not a suitable material, because of both granularity and flexibility characteristics (they would develop pin-hole leaks very rapidly).
BTW, It's been some time since I worked in that industry. During one of the periodic downturns the industry was famous for, I migrated to computing. So this is a 'blast from my past', a look at where the technology has gone, and a look at where some fundamental new science will be coming from. Interesting on several levels, in other words, and thanks for your posts.
I suspect that following LHC technology and results will continue to be very interesting, even from my almost-completely lay perspective.
Half an A at 450 GeV (as per your reference, and thanks for that) mostly amazes me. I'm using the 450 GeV number as I've no background in colliders--just ion implanters used in semiconductor manufacturing. 49BF2, 75As, 11B, 31P at energies from 20KeV to 1 MeV.
Even there, material selection was tricky, which is why I was curious about beamline (Beampipe to you, but we were all linear. Extract from source, a directional jog for magnetic mass selection, and final accel) materials. Various system areas were vented to atmosphere fairly frequently for maintenance, and speed of vacuum recovery was always an issue. Loved stainless, hated aluminum. But then I had to characterize the process (while being down in the trenches), not buy the thing. Other than doing factory and plant acceptance testing on what were, essentially, million-dollar machines the size of a Winnebago. Semiconductor cleanroom space is expensive, so that was an issue.
There have been a couple of references to 'bake out', which I completely fail to get. Baking out kilometers of beamline?! Clearly not something you can do with a thermal blanket, and I seriously doubt it can be done via, say, sweeping a 40Ar beam. I used to do that, but then my beam length was closer to 3M than 30kM, and there were graphite liners in several locations.
Anyway, it's very cool to discover what the current state of the art is, in an academic vice industrial production atmosphere. It's one of a couple of things that's always kept me interested in physics (which has lead to other Good Things, not the least of which is writing software), and the history is also interesting. A very good case can be made that at least one fundamental semiconductor manufacturing technology is based on age-old work done at SLAC.
Fundamental research *always* pays, often in unexpected ways. Best wishes to you accelerator folk. I suspect (and hope) that you're all having tons o' fun.
"Colliding two beams within an average design beam spot of 16 microns, is no easy task after having them traveling around 27km."
I'd no idea the spot was so well confined. It's my understanding that the beam has enough power that is has to be brought up slowly, so as not to contact the beamline (stainless steel, or cheapo aluminum?), which would physically damage the machine. Even though it's the 'v' that's the square term in the KE equation, that implies a fairly dense beam. Unless I'm simply failing to grasp the energies. Which is quite possible--my accelerator experience ends at 1 MeV.
Serious space charge issues must have been overcome. Any idea how?
"People 20-30 years ago were just as willing to fill out income tax forms with tons of personal information, have their phone numbers and addresses printed in telephone directories, and support governments which conducted extensive surveillance operations. The only thing that's changed is that information technology got better."
I don't regard filling out income tax returns as much of a personal decision--unless you're into some sort of tax protest thing. Phone directory listings are a case where for most people, the benefits of giving away some basic contact information outweighed privacy concerns. So I don't think those two arguments have much merit. As to supporting governments that conducted extensive surveillance campaigns, you are demonstrably incorrect. The FBI got in trouble for it, as did the NSA. It was these debacles, amongst others reported to the Church Committee, that were the direct cause of the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
"A lot of things stir up resentment. The drug war stirs up resentment. Military actions stir up resentment. Whenever a new Wal-Mart moves in, it stirs up resentment. Do you see any of those things ending soon?"
No. Those are examples of the sort of thing that causes me to have a high order of trust in the ability of governments and corporations to go far enough to stir resentment. You gave three examples. Of the three, the only one where I don't see at least something of a backlash is the 'war' on drugs. Military actions are *certainly* causing one, and there seems to be a building backlash against Wal-Mart. IMHO, the summation would seem to support my cyclic viewpoint, which is precisely why I see a reasonable possibility of the same thing happening regard privacy issues.
"Why would the HMO bother to tell you the reasons why it decided on a given rate? Car insurance companies don't. Anyway, normal quantities of red meat aren't bad; you have fallen for one of the many nutritional myths that have been in circulation over the last century."
That an HMO probably would not (willingly) tell me is one of the reasons I called that example a stretch. On the other hand, they might be forced to, as either part of a backlash, or as a completely stand-alone issue. That's further off into speculation than I'm willing to go, and one of the reasons I called my example something of a stretch.
So far as the red meat issue--I'm not prepared to argue that. From my perspective, perhaps you're correct, perhaps not. That discussion might hinge on what constitutes a 'normal' amount, whether there are any genetic factors involved, etc. Frankly, it's not something that concerns me enough to try to follow, and attempt to weigh, the latest research. One more ongoing time sink isn't something I need just now.
Good examples on either side of this argument will probably be tough to find. Possibly impossible, in that one person's idea of a backlash will probably be another's inneffectual non-starter. The only way to know is to see what the privacy landscape looks like in, say, 2030. As I said in a previous post, the future will indeed be insteresting.
"Nobody who matters is interested in maintaining privacy, at least in the 20th century sense of the word. Corporations realize the money to be made on profiling customers. Governments want to send spooks after terrorists. The general public doesn't understand or care about the issue because they don't understand data mining. The advocate of 20th-century-style privacy is in the same position as a well-meaning pacifist in the 19th century saying "don't use these new artillery pieces to redraw the political maps, mkay?" Databases of personal information are inevitable; what we should be pushing for is a transparent government that we can monitor in turn."
I suspect that these things may run in cycles. Of course, that could just be wishful thinking. I'd agree that the general public, except for older people such as myself, don't currently care about privacy the way people, say 20-30 years ago did. Nor do I have any confidence in the results of any effort at teaching even the rudiments of data mining. But I have every confidence in the ability of corporations and governments to eventually go too far, and stir resentment.
Things like receiving a notice from an HMO that your rate has increased due to your being in a higher risk group because data collected via a grocer's affinity card indicates that you eat red meat, etc. That's a stretch, for several reasons--but I'm sure you get the idea.
Actually, I think that my confidence in the ability of corporations and governments to screw things up is very nearly limitless.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, assume that I've no clue--not a great stretch for you, right? In the last couple of presidential elections, there was at least some assumption that the youth vote would turn out, and stake out a firm position. Didn't happen. Much railing against Bush on /. but no turnout, from a historical perspective.
/. ID, after all.
In the end, the youth vote simply didn't count, either for or against. Sorry, but I stand by my opinion. Slashdotters (I'm thinking of Slashdotters as a relatively youthful population, compared to the general populace) are great at spouting off, but they are far less great at actually accepting any hardship, whether that be a boycot, or simply voting.
Predominantly a bunch of lamers in search of whatever they can get for free, no sense of responsibility, and an inflated sense of self-importance. They damned sure make much of an effort to look at the real issues. RTFA is famously too much trouble for these general lamers.
OK, that's more flamebait. At this point, you could repeat your last post, with some justification. I'm cool with that. I mostly lurk here, and just generally observe the human condition. This ID is only the latest in a long string. It's just a
My post wasn't about intellectual arguments. The only people that I have to prove my intellect to are the people that *pay* me to be bright. You don't, so your opinion is irrelevant in that respect. The post was about whether a willingness to take a stand exists within the general Slashdot populace. If history is any guide, vendors of game consoles will win. Sony can do whatever they'd like 'root kit' be damned. Major US news media companies will continue to deliver eyeballs to advertisers, vice information that might be, let's say, *helpful to voters*.
Examples:
a) Terrorism is far less likely to kill you than a bee sting, and we shouldn't sacrifice freedoms for it.
b) Bill Clinton was the guy that approved developing the bunker-buster nuke--a singularly bad idea.
c) The current administration has a horrible track record of distorting science.
OK, mod me down. It's nearly time to ditch this ID anyway, so that's irrelevant as well. But think. Find some better news sources. Perhaps when Iraq 'benchmark' news broke, it would have been better to avoid commentary from the eyeball-delivering spin-meisters here in the US, and get it in tabular form from the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294694.stm
Oh, wait. That would involve people thinking, weighing importance, and forming conclusions. That would have seriously detracting from the latest Harry Potter, Transformers, Beckham and Posh Spice making their royal entrance in Los Angeles, etc. We all get what the least common denominator deserves.
That ain't even remotely all. At the time, droves of Slashdotters were swearing to do the Right Thing. Teh Eveil Sony are R00t3d we! Many of us, who are a bit older, with perhaps a bit better judgment of human nature (or just more cynical--your call) laughed, and wondered how long that would last. Not so very much later, it's a non-issue. It's just expected that any boycott would be gone, in the frenzy for the next console. An AC gets an 'Insightful' just for saying what everyone knows anyway.
Sorry to disagree, folks, but if you've sold out so readily, it's pretty easy to see how you can be lead around by the nose. Who to vote for ("You can run, but you can't hide," to thunderous applause), what movies to watch, buying the latest Harry Potter POS book, clicking on Paris Hilton links, imagining that CNN delivers unbiased news, etc.
And Slashdot folk often think they are some sort of intellectual elite. Can you say, "Sheeple?" It's not even a matter of not being able to think for yourselves. Most can, and sometimes do. The problem is more along the lines of doing the Right Thing, which generally *won't* be done if it's any more than slightly inconvenient.
Why the world is such a mess isn't such a source of great wonder to the old and cynical. There's certainly little hope of anything like a majority putting themselves out so far as to form an intelligent conclusion on who to *vote* for. Jingoism and a herd mentality is so much easier for sheeple.
The 10% (Sturgeon was dead-on) I've conversed with, or who's posts I've read here, who represent the thoughtful and honorable, I salute. I've sometimes disagreed, and sometimes argued vehemently, but *damn* you folks are rare, and should be appreciated. The other 90%, such as the AC I'm responding to? A steaming pile of generic humanity. Primates who haven't evolved nearly so far as they imagine, if they even *accept* evolution.
Currently:
http://directory.fsf.org/gcc.html
Version 4.1.2 (stable) released on 2007-02-14
Licensed under GPLv2orlater, LGPLv2.1, GPL +.
http://directory.fsf.org/glibc.html
Version 2.4 (stable) released on 2006-02-01
Licensed under LGPL.
"with the GPLv3 parts replaced"
The list of GPLv3 is likely to get large, very fast. The GNU pieces are obviously going to be a top priority for conversion to the new license. I just visited http://directory.fsf.org/ and found 90% of the latest 10 most recently updated programs are all GPLv3, v2 or later, or v3 or later. Some are important systems code, including cpio and dmidecode. I see no reason that trend won't continue.
Three more that need a mention. _Have Spacesuit--Will Travel_ is probably *the* juvenile work that tipped me into a technoid* life, though _The Rolling Stones_ is also in the running. _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ is absent from the library, and I need to fix that. That's some good Heinlein.
*I'm all done saying 'geek' and 'nerd'. You can regard those terms as a badge of honor, with some justification. But they also have a certain flavor of defying frat boys, sales guys, and other assorted extroverts. Screw that. I'm a vet, I work my ass off and pay taxes, I try to be a good citizen, and the role I fill is just as usefull as what others are doing in non-tech fields. I'm no longer willing to be denigrated by people that are frankly not very frapping smart. This whole "News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters" thing is a bit insulting, and has recently begun to bug the *shit* out of me.
BTW, I didn't mean my reference to the Air Force penetration/data loss as any sort of personal slam. It's a huge organization, and this was a couple of years ago. It's extremely unlikely that you were even peripherally associated with the problem. I'm thinking (hoping?) that you probably recognize that, but I thought I'd better post this anyway, as there's no knowing what random Slashdot readers might read into it...
Well, the Air Force doesn't seem to be pulling up the DoD average, which is still an F on the 2006 Federal Computer Security Report Card. http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/ FY06FISMA.pdf
l
i ty/story/0,10801,104080,00.html?SKC=security-10408 0
5 9219
Overall, the report shows a slight (C-) improvement from 2005's dismal D+. But whatever "large US Governemt agencies" are doing, it doesn't seem to be enough. I know how joyous I was when my personal information escaped the Veterans Administration--along with that of about half a million others. http://techdirt.com/articles/20070214/064307.shtm
Nor has the Air Force been immune, though I haven't heard of a data loss there since the 2005 episode involving 33,000 officers. http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/secur
Of course, for some serious good times, you have to read about the Department of Homeland Security having to report 800 security incidents (virus outbreaks, 'hacking' tools found on servers, breakins, etc.) over a two year period to Congress, as reported here on Slashdot. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/20/12
I don't get to hear enough from DoD people who are down in the trenches (no pun intended) on a daily basis. That rather sucks, as I'm a security guy. Would you care to share any thoughts on what might be wrong? Or, if you're in an area where things are going well, what are you doing differently from those departments/agencies where things seem to be a complete mess?
Wow. I had no idea. I wish the banking industry took as many precautions. Probably wouldn't be possible, though. There are still a lot of very small banks, with correspondingly small IT departments.
In which case, I'd expect the Linux Router Project, which seems defunct, would suddenly become a very hot project. I'd also expect that some manufacturers of cards that can terminate DSL lines would probably do very well indeed. Anyone know manufacturers/driver status, etc.?
I'm a professional paranoid, but I can't really make myself worry about that. It would require random Win boxes to accept incoming connections from other random Win boxes. That sort of thing would have to appear in a EULA, and world + dog would freak. With good reason, as it would probably become a leading attack vector within about two days.
p hire/sapphire.html if you're not familiar with how truly horrible that was. The potential for an epic PR nightmare should be enough to prevent MS from doing such a thing.
Or there's the possibility of a worm which propagates with Slammer-like speed. See http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2003/sap
In addition, firmware updates would probably be required on a gazillion routers, firewalls, etc. Assuming it's even possible to run a firewall in such an environment.
In short, this would be perhaps the most insecure software system possible. We'd need new terminology. "Optimally insecure," anyone?
Age is compounding the problem. JPL has a good article up at http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/20070612. html.
You're right. I remember the niece bit now. I've apparently forgotten enough of the book to give it a read. It's been ages, but I know I still have a copy.
See the AC post #19789171 above. He has a great point about the math being an invaluable communications tool, if nothing else. A discussion couched in terms of, "My comparative tests showed good results," means describing the tests. The various asymptotic notations provide a powerful shorthand, allowing you to say, "The way I have this thing coded now, it runs in polynomial time, and shouldn't. My algorithm sucks."
Logic will only take you so far, and common sense isn't common. Math isn't needed everywhere, but it's definitely a nice tool to have in the box.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." and a couple of others are things I've been been quoting for years (decades, truth be told).
I never really thought about where they came from--programmed in by RAH, apparently, and I've no real problem with that. It makes as much fundamental sense as, "If the enemy is in range, so are you."
I wonder how many fourteen year old punks will pile in, denigrating that list. Slashdot is slashdot, after all...
From the Philip K. Dick Wikipedia ref you quote:
In the introduction to the 1980 short story collection "The Golden Man," Dick wrote: "Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless himone of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love."
Apparently Phil Dick had a change of heart between 1966 and 1980, eh? If you think enough of the man to quote him, perhaps you
should follow his lead.
That's a famous argument. Wasn't Leslyn the wife he had an open marriage with (that's the rumour, anyway) and was miserable? Too liberal? Virginia definitely floated his boat. I lean toward the left. But I'll be the first to admit that if you're lucky enough to cross paths with the SO that gets you through your stay on this miserable planet, in a state resembling happiness, you are truly blessed.
Nor am I particularly concerned with how Asimov assigns 'blame'. Prolific science writer, and I'd love to have met the man. But the two Had Arguments. It's not like he's the supreme arbiter of the period.
Every choice I see here is good--but I have to add Terry Pratchett. OK, it's fantasy, not the nuts-n-bolts SciFi I love (and which Star Drek, etc., so spectacularly fail to provide). But it's also the best satire I've ever read. There's also a large supply. You can laugh your ass off through a few dozen books.
As I read this, there are 124 posts, which should be a pretty good indicator. At one point, he was one of the Big Three (Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov).
There's no doubt that he inspired a lot of people to join NASA, etc., through his juvenile works. He absolutely was responsible for programming me to think of science and engineering as cool, as just one lame example.
So far as the test of time--no. There are a lot of arguments about him being too 'preachy', etc., in his later work. I can sympathize with most of those, at some level. OTOH, he was a brilliant SOB. Some of the sniping reminds me of midgets snapping at the heals at giants.
I'd recommend you read some Heinlein, for reasons of historical context, and some social context as well. Starship Troopers is nothing like the movie. It actually provokes *thought*, whether you agree or disagree, and not just because the hero is Filipino. Although the heroine (which was unusual in itself, in it's day) of Podkayne of Mars was black. That was very weird, for 1963. And her brother was a prototypical technoid, in every respect. Half the people on Slashdot would immediately identify with that kid.
It's tough to characterize Heinlein. Recommend you sample some, think about his influence re: the space program, etc, and form your own conclusions.
Just found parent post scored as Troll. I've just run a couple of tests on clusty.com, and was impressed. Nor did they attempt to set a cookie. Interesting site to read through (http://clusty.com/about etc.), as well.
Depending upon the sorts of things you most commonly search for, YMMV. All I'm saying is:
a) It's just worked well enough to be a likely Google replacement for me.
b) Thanks for the link, bcrowell!
"They will NEVER lie..."
Never is an *awfully* long time. I suggest you research the characteristics of the original, and justly famous HP Way. Then look at where that company's been headed for the past several years.
Thanks for the link to http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/general/acphys.htm. The Outreach area at http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machin e-outreach was also a good read.
Hard UV photons impinging on the beampipe due to synchrotron radiation for the entire length of the beampipe! We mostly cared about synchrotron radiation near the ion source (highest potential area of the system). Of course, it was named synchrotron radiation for a reason, but it was never something I had to be concerned about in terms of system sensitivity, *throughout the system*. We created a lot of electrons when the beam struck photoresist (think baked-on goo) on the target silicon wafers. So at higher energies, it was factor.
And of course this was an industrial vacuum system, with a dirty ion source, usually a dirty target as well, and graphite liners in critical places such as the outer wall of the beampipe in the magnetic analysis area. Not an easy environment for developing a good vacuum. After a vent to atmosphere, we would usually pump the systems down to the low E-7 Torr range, but operating pressure was higher, throughout the system.
If I'd first read that LHC was operating in the E-10T range, I'd never have asked about an aluminum beampipe. That was a silly question, as it's simply not a suitable material for those ranges due to microscopic granularity. Nor have I ever heard of an aluminum bellows. Again, simply not a suitable material, because of both granularity and flexibility characteristics (they would develop pin-hole leaks very rapidly).
BTW, It's been some time since I worked in that industry. During one of the periodic downturns the industry was famous for, I migrated to computing. So this is a 'blast from my past', a look at where the technology has gone, and a look at where some fundamental new science will be coming from. Interesting on several levels, in other words, and thanks for your posts.
I suspect that following LHC technology and results will continue to be very interesting, even from my almost-completely lay perspective.
Half an A at 450 GeV (as per your reference, and thanks for that) mostly amazes me. I'm using the 450 GeV number as I've no background in colliders--just ion implanters used in semiconductor manufacturing. 49BF2, 75As, 11B, 31P at energies from 20KeV to 1 MeV.
Even there, material selection was tricky, which is why I was curious about beamline (Beampipe to you, but we were all linear. Extract from source, a directional jog for magnetic mass selection, and final accel) materials. Various system areas were vented to atmosphere fairly frequently for maintenance, and speed of vacuum recovery was always an issue. Loved stainless, hated aluminum. But then I had to characterize the process (while being down in the trenches), not buy the thing. Other than doing factory and plant acceptance testing on what were, essentially, million-dollar machines the size of a Winnebago. Semiconductor cleanroom space is expensive, so that was an issue.
There have been a couple of references to 'bake out', which I completely fail to get. Baking out kilometers of beamline?! Clearly not something you can do with a thermal blanket, and I seriously doubt it can be done via, say, sweeping a 40Ar beam. I used to do that, but then my beam length was closer to 3M than 30kM, and there were graphite liners in several locations.
Anyway, it's very cool to discover what the current state of the art is, in an academic vice industrial production atmosphere. It's one of a couple of things that's always kept me interested in physics (which has lead to other Good Things, not the least of which is writing software), and the history is also interesting. A very good case can be made that at least one fundamental semiconductor manufacturing technology is based on age-old work done at SLAC.
Fundamental research *always* pays, often in unexpected ways. Best wishes to you accelerator folk. I suspect (and hope) that you're all having tons o' fun.
"Colliding two beams within an average design beam spot of 16 microns, is no easy task after having them traveling around 27km."
I'd no idea the spot was so well confined. It's my understanding that the beam has enough power that is has to be brought up slowly, so as not to contact the beamline (stainless steel, or cheapo aluminum?), which would physically damage the machine. Even though it's the 'v' that's the square term in the KE equation, that implies a fairly dense beam. Unless I'm simply failing to grasp the energies. Which is quite possible--my accelerator experience ends at 1 MeV.
Serious space charge issues must have been overcome. Any idea how?
"People 20-30 years ago were just as willing to fill out income tax forms with tons of personal information, have their phone numbers and addresses printed in telephone directories, and support governments which conducted extensive surveillance operations. The only thing that's changed is that information technology got better."
I don't regard filling out income tax returns as much of a personal decision--unless you're into some sort of tax protest thing. Phone directory listings are a case where for most people, the benefits of giving away some basic contact information outweighed privacy concerns. So I don't think those two arguments have much merit. As to supporting governments that conducted extensive surveillance campaigns, you are demonstrably incorrect. The FBI got in trouble for it, as did the NSA. It was these debacles, amongst others reported to the Church Committee, that were the direct cause of the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
"A lot of things stir up resentment. The drug war stirs up resentment. Military actions stir up resentment. Whenever a new Wal-Mart moves in, it stirs up resentment. Do you see any of those things ending soon?"
No. Those are examples of the sort of thing that causes me to have a high order of trust in the ability of governments and corporations to go far enough to stir resentment. You gave three examples. Of the three, the only one where I don't see at least something of a backlash is the 'war' on drugs. Military actions are *certainly* causing one, and there seems to be a building backlash against Wal-Mart. IMHO, the summation would seem to support my cyclic viewpoint, which is precisely why I see a reasonable possibility of the same thing happening regard privacy issues.
"Why would the HMO bother to tell you the reasons why it decided on a given rate? Car insurance companies don't.
Anyway, normal quantities of red meat aren't bad; you have fallen for one of the many nutritional myths that have been in circulation over the last century."
That an HMO probably would not (willingly) tell me is one of the reasons I called that example a stretch. On the other hand, they might be forced to, as either part of a backlash, or as a completely stand-alone issue. That's further off into speculation than I'm willing to go, and one of the reasons I called my example something of a stretch.
So far as the red meat issue--I'm not prepared to argue that. From my perspective, perhaps you're correct, perhaps not. That discussion might hinge on what constitutes a 'normal' amount, whether there are any genetic factors involved, etc. Frankly, it's not something that concerns me enough to try to follow, and attempt to weigh, the latest research. One more ongoing time sink isn't something I need just now.
Good examples on either side of this argument will probably be tough to find. Possibly impossible, in that one person's idea of a backlash will probably be another's inneffectual non-starter. The only way to know is to see what the privacy landscape looks like in, say, 2030. As I said in a previous post, the future will indeed be insteresting.
"Nobody who matters is interested in maintaining privacy, at least in the 20th century sense of the word. Corporations realize the money to be made on profiling customers. Governments want to send spooks after terrorists. The general public doesn't understand or care about the issue because they don't understand data mining. The advocate of 20th-century-style privacy is in the same position as a well-meaning pacifist in the 19th century saying "don't use these new artillery pieces to redraw the political maps, mkay?" Databases of personal information are inevitable; what we should be pushing for is a transparent government that we can monitor in turn."
I suspect that these things may run in cycles. Of course, that could just be wishful thinking. I'd agree that the general public, except for older people such as myself, don't currently care about privacy the way people, say 20-30 years ago did. Nor do I have any confidence in the results of any effort at teaching even the rudiments of data mining. But I have every confidence in the ability of corporations and governments to eventually go too far, and stir resentment.
Things like receiving a notice from an HMO that your rate has increased due to your being in a higher risk group because data collected via a grocer's affinity card indicates that you eat red meat, etc. That's a stretch, for several reasons--but I'm sure you get the idea.
Actually, I think that my confidence in the ability of corporations and governments to screw things up is very nearly limitless.