Hmm. Is it narcissistic, or is it perhaps the typical OSS response of "you want to help? Ok, then show me the code you're writing".
It's still a bullshit response.
One doesn't need to know how to find a solution in order to identify a problem. It's rather how the human species gets from point A to B. Fundamentally, this is why criticism is generally valid, and "the typical OSS response" is so reviled by developers and non-developers alike. It's a response that's aggressive, unhelpful, and, frankly, quite rude. No person is going to be inclined to help someone who is so rude. I understand that application support is tiresome and draining on developers who often answer the same question over and over or make the same argument over and over. It sucks, but reacting rudely is simply the worst possible choice. You alienate rather than build a community. It's anathema to the basic ideals behind OSS.
No, no, they got it to work right. It worked four times as fast (at the time) but it cost more than four times as much. And they didn't allow anybody else to produce the chips by refusing to sell license their patent to other manufacturers. And you had to buy in pairs (and have those stupid blanks in unpopulated slots, and who wants to buy those stupid things?). And they didn't reduce the price at all even though the competition began to close the gap in speed and surpassed them in capacity.
RDRAM failed because it was more expensive due to price fixing monopoly, short in supply due to monopoly, more difficult to use and install, and advanced more slowly than the competition (due to a smaller set of researchers working on improving it). And Intel priced their processors far and above the price of AMD's DDR-only, better-performing competition. RDRAM is a good example of customer demand shaping the market.
Both options are just back-ends, you'll have to write a front-end. However, it shouldn't be too hard to do that
"... unless you're not a programmer."
Seriously, since when is "program it yourself" a solution to "are there any open source software packages that do what I want?"? The answer you're looking for is "no". That's the correct answer.
Here, here's a nice car analogy since we're on Slashdot: when you need a car do you buy a kit car, or do you buy one factory built? This is like telling someone who wants a car to drive to work that they should simply buy Chevy big block engine and build the rest from scratch. Just because I need a car doesn't mean I must be an automotive engineer and metal fabricator. Similarly, just because I need dictation software doesn't make me a software architect or a linguist. Directing this person to program their own software is not answering the question.
Cripes. People wonder where the "open source is only free if your time has no value" line came from.
WPA was designed as an intermediate standard which would function on WEP-only hardware. That's why WPA uses TKIP instead of AES (which is what WPA2 uses). The devices may require firmware updates (which, of course, may not exist or may no longer be available) but the hardware itself is capable of WPA.
The standard includes specifications for copper. 40GBASE-CR4 for 40GB which specifies 4 lanes of twinax cable, and 100GBASE-CR10 for 100GB which specifies 10 lanes of twinax.
Surprise, surprise. Serial too slow? Try parallel!
PLCs and PXI chassis are used for stands in industrial environments. In those environments, you need to have a good reason to change something that's an established and understood standard. "New hotness" is not good enough; it's got to offer real improvements. It's the same reason NI devices (as well as networking equipment from almost every vendor come to think of it) still maintain standard serial console ports. PCI-E's bandwidth and smaller form factor make it a significant improvement in bus design. If these were not the case, I believe the PXI chassis would simply have put a PCI bus controller on Intel's now-mandatory native PCI-E bus and maintained the status quo on their hardware with the more mature PCI bus.
National Instruments began gravitating towards PCI-E in 2006 because of the much greater bandwidth allowed. I'd imagine by now that most of the PLCs and PXI computers my former employer uses for new stands are all PCI-E. There is no problem because the industry has already acknowledged that PCI-E is better than PCI.
*shrug* The fact that the Higgs particle was supposed to help prove the Grand Unified Field Theory (all 5 forces = 1 force) made me think of it. The fact that electricity and magnetism and one of the nuclear forces have already been unified means this theory is partially complete. It was what Einstein was working on when he died.
I'm sure it's probably not why they're calling for five particles, but it seemed an interesting line of thought.
Yes, and the Grand Unified Field Theory says that all five are supposed to be the same force, but it hasn't been proven. The Higgs particle was supposed to help prove that.
Just another example that the American Civil court system has lost all touch with reality and is just a bunch of lawyers working the system to make a buck for themselves.
Good thing you posted AC. You could get sued for libel!
Considering that the Higgs boson was, in part, supposed to help explain how mass worked, it makes me wonder if this is the reason for the number they're arriving at.
Sure, he did something right (full disclosure when the vendor fails to act or work with you). He also did several things wrong (arguably early full disclosure, a patch which did not fix the issue). Good intentions and laudable goals do not absolve you of criticism, let alone criticism of what you do incorrectly.
I'm all for full disclosure for irresponsible vendors, but I primarily see it as a check against those vendors who ignore or neglect vulnerabilities they know about through responsible disclosure. A good vendor who acts upon vulnerabilities in a timely manner and works with researchers deserves the benefit of responsible disclosure. If they fail.
My thinking: 1) If exploit in the wild --> immediate full disclosure (there is no benefit to responsible disclosure here) 2) If irresponsible vendor --> full disclosure 3) If no exploit ITW and responsible vendor --> responsible disclosure to vendor with time limit based on severity and impact
Honestly, there ought to be some form of general "vulnerability trust agreement," but vendors generally don't like to hear that their products need fixing. It would be really nice if CERT could coordinate this kind of thing between researchers and vendors better.
It depends entirely on what you do once inside. Entering an unlocked home is mere trespassing (generally a misdemeanor offense). If you damage something, that's destruction of property. If you take something, that's theft. If you take or destroy something of significant value that's a felony. The law isn't binary. It allows for a significant sliding scale as long as you don't do stupid things like "zero tolerance" or "mandatory sentencing" laws.
So it depends entirely on what happened when the data was accessed. Merely accessing the data isn't such a big deal. Copying the data is much worse. Actually profiting from this (now stolen) information should have even stiffer penalties. You'll note that this is how the HIPAA law reads with respect to protected health information. In addition to punishing those who access, steal, and profit from use of protected health information, the HIPAA laws also require the data holders to take adequate measures to protect the data. You face stiff fines and possible prosecution for negligence. Just because the guy who took the data did something wrong (and illegal) doesn't mean the entity in charge of protecting the data didn't. I think it's time there exists some accountability on the part of information holders for all personally identifiable information, quite frankly.
I don't care how they do it. I just know RDP works amazingly well and VNC is bloody awful. I see no need to apologize for an inferior protocol simply because it's open source.
I tested this extensively on WinXP SP2 for a hospital worried about HIPAA. These methods only work if the UsbStor key hasn't already been created. Once it's there you can keep plugging devices in and they will all install normally (new or old).
Under Vista and 7 there's supposed to be a new Group Policy that will prevent USB drives, but I'm not sure how it works.
I use audacious on Linux, but none of those applications are cross-platform. Yes, it's possibly to get Amarok to work under KDE for Windows, but that's honestly more painful to set up than just using Windows Media Player.
I tried Songbird, too. I wanted a music player with a modern interface that was cross-platform so I could always have the same expectations on Windows or Linux. Firefox and Thunderbird taught me the value of that. I was also frustrated with the slow loading times, however, and have found that I simply listen to music less often overall. In the end I've never found anything I've liked quite as much as Winamp 2.95.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still a bullshit response.
One doesn't need to know how to find a solution in order to identify a problem. It's rather how the human species gets from point A to B. Fundamentally, this is why criticism is generally valid, and "the typical OSS response" is so reviled by developers and non-developers alike. It's a response that's aggressive, unhelpful, and, frankly, quite rude. No person is going to be inclined to help someone who is so rude. I understand that application support is tiresome and draining on developers who often answer the same question over and over or make the same argument over and over. It sucks, but reacting rudely is simply the worst possible choice. You alienate rather than build a community. It's anathema to the basic ideals behind OSS.
I believe the term he's looking for is "underemployed".
No, no, they got it to work right. It worked four times as fast (at the time) but it cost more than four times as much. And they didn't allow anybody else to produce the chips by refusing to sell license their patent to other manufacturers. And you had to buy in pairs (and have those stupid blanks in unpopulated slots, and who wants to buy those stupid things?). And they didn't reduce the price at all even though the competition began to close the gap in speed and surpassed them in capacity.
RDRAM failed because it was more expensive due to price fixing monopoly, short in supply due to monopoly, more difficult to use and install, and advanced more slowly than the competition (due to a smaller set of researchers working on improving it). And Intel priced their processors far and above the price of AMD's DDR-only, better-performing competition. RDRAM is a good example of customer demand shaping the market.
"... unless you're not a programmer."
Seriously, since when is "program it yourself" a solution to "are there any open source software packages that do what I want?"? The answer you're looking for is "no". That's the correct answer.
Here, here's a nice car analogy since we're on Slashdot: when you need a car do you buy a kit car, or do you buy one factory built? This is like telling someone who wants a car to drive to work that they should simply buy Chevy big block engine and build the rest from scratch. Just because I need a car doesn't mean I must be an automotive engineer and metal fabricator. Similarly, just because I need dictation software doesn't make me a software architect or a linguist. Directing this person to program their own software is not answering the question.
Cripes. People wonder where the "open source is only free if your time has no value" line came from.
You must be the same guy for whom upon installation of Linux has always had device drivers for your hardware perfectly autodetect, too.
WPA was designed as an intermediate standard which would function on WEP-only hardware. That's why WPA uses TKIP instead of AES (which is what WPA2 uses). The devices may require firmware updates (which, of course, may not exist or may no longer be available) but the hardware itself is capable of WPA.
The standard includes specifications for copper. 40GBASE-CR4 for 40GB which specifies 4 lanes of twinax cable, and 100GBASE-CR10 for 100GB which specifies 10 lanes of twinax.
Surprise, surprise. Serial too slow? Try parallel!
PLCs and PXI chassis are used for stands in industrial environments. In those environments, you need to have a good reason to change something that's an established and understood standard. "New hotness" is not good enough; it's got to offer real improvements. It's the same reason NI devices (as well as networking equipment from almost every vendor come to think of it) still maintain standard serial console ports. PCI-E's bandwidth and smaller form factor make it a significant improvement in bus design. If these were not the case, I believe the PXI chassis would simply have put a PCI bus controller on Intel's now-mandatory native PCI-E bus and maintained the status quo on their hardware with the more mature PCI bus.
National Instruments began gravitating towards PCI-E in 2006 because of the much greater bandwidth allowed. I'd imagine by now that most of the PLCs and PXI computers my former employer uses for new stands are all PCI-E. There is no problem because the industry has already acknowledged that PCI-E is better than PCI.
*shrug* The fact that the Higgs particle was supposed to help prove the Grand Unified Field Theory (all 5 forces = 1 force) made me think of it. The fact that electricity and magnetism and one of the nuclear forces have already been unified means this theory is partially complete. It was what Einstein was working on when he died.
I'm sure it's probably not why they're calling for five particles, but it seemed an interesting line of thought.
Yes, and the Grand Unified Field Theory says that all five are supposed to be the same force, but it hasn't been proven. The Higgs particle was supposed to help prove that.
I've heard of csh. I've heard of bash. I've even heard of tcsh. I've never heard of assh.
I'm betting it's something that comes after dash.
Exactly. It's only fair that the people who worked on the project get the chance to be credited with at least a few of the important discoveries.
Want first crack at the data? Launch your own satellite. Otherwise get in line.
Good thing you posted AC. You could get sued for libel!
First thing I thought of when I read this is that there are five fundamental forces in the universe:
1. Electricity
2. Magnetism
3. Gravity
4. Weak Nuclear
5. Strong Nuclear
Considering that the Higgs boson was, in part, supposed to help explain how mass worked, it makes me wonder if this is the reason for the number they're arriving at.
Sure, he did something right (full disclosure when the vendor fails to act or work with you). He also did several things wrong (arguably early full disclosure, a patch which did not fix the issue). Good intentions and laudable goals do not absolve you of criticism, let alone criticism of what you do incorrectly.
I'm all for full disclosure for irresponsible vendors, but I primarily see it as a check against those vendors who ignore or neglect vulnerabilities they know about through responsible disclosure. A good vendor who acts upon vulnerabilities in a timely manner and works with researchers deserves the benefit of responsible disclosure. If they fail.
My thinking:
1) If exploit in the wild --> immediate full disclosure (there is no benefit to responsible disclosure here)
2) If irresponsible vendor --> full disclosure
3) If no exploit ITW and responsible vendor --> responsible disclosure to vendor with time limit based on severity and impact
Honestly, there ought to be some form of general "vulnerability trust agreement," but vendors generally don't like to hear that their products need fixing. It would be really nice if CERT could coordinate this kind of thing between researchers and vendors better.
It depends entirely on what you do once inside. Entering an unlocked home is mere trespassing (generally a misdemeanor offense). If you damage something, that's destruction of property. If you take something, that's theft. If you take or destroy something of significant value that's a felony. The law isn't binary. It allows for a significant sliding scale as long as you don't do stupid things like "zero tolerance" or "mandatory sentencing" laws.
So it depends entirely on what happened when the data was accessed. Merely accessing the data isn't such a big deal. Copying the data is much worse. Actually profiting from this (now stolen) information should have even stiffer penalties. You'll note that this is how the HIPAA law reads with respect to protected health information. In addition to punishing those who access, steal, and profit from use of protected health information, the HIPAA laws also require the data holders to take adequate measures to protect the data. You face stiff fines and possible prosecution for negligence. Just because the guy who took the data did something wrong (and illegal) doesn't mean the entity in charge of protecting the data didn't. I think it's time there exists some accountability on the part of information holders for all personally identifiable information, quite frankly.
Bullshit. Looking at the release folder, I can't even figure out what I'm supposed to download to install without reading the documentation.
I don't care how they do it. I just know RDP works amazingly well and VNC is bloody awful. I see no need to apologize for an inferior protocol simply because it's open source.
I tested this extensively on WinXP SP2 for a hospital worried about HIPAA. These methods only work if the UsbStor key hasn't already been created. Once it's there you can keep plugging devices in and they will all install normally (new or old).
Under Vista and 7 there's supposed to be a new Group Policy that will prevent USB drives, but I'm not sure how it works.
I use audacious on Linux, but none of those applications are cross-platform. Yes, it's possibly to get Amarok to work under KDE for Windows, but that's honestly more painful to set up than just using Windows Media Player.
I tried Songbird, too. I wanted a music player with a modern interface that was cross-platform so I could always have the same expectations on Windows or Linux. Firefox and Thunderbird taught me the value of that. I was also frustrated with the slow loading times, however, and have found that I simply listen to music less often overall. In the end I've never found anything I've liked quite as much as Winamp 2.95.
Yeah, the good ones never got convicted of the crimes they've done.
What do you mean "these days"?
I should a lot of people would be very upset by the lack of porn.