Asset tags truly are the only way to go. They're linked to the physical computer regardless of what it does or where it is, Any database of information or LDAP directory can be used to describe in detail the location, primary user, software, etc. all of which should never be considered permanent assignments.
Most asset tags are numbers only, however, and that means you'll need a letter prefix for host names. I suggest WS, D, or PC for desktops, and LT or N for laptops. Its very nice to be able to see just from the host name what type a given PC is, and it's exceedingly rare for a host name to be required not to change but the hardware change from a desktop to a laptop. Or you can use your company's acronym, or other standard prefix.
Having done it this way once and also having seen attempts at descriptive host names repeatedly fail spectacularly, I'd never use anything but asset tags without some pretty strong motivations.
A majority of people do not live in arctic or near-arctic climes. A majority of people do live where rain, snow, or other weather conditions would make using a motorcycle impractical for a daily commute.
It's only a reasonable comparison if you live in southern California or Arizona. In the majority of the world, motorcycles are not year-round vehicles, and are not driven in anything but the most ideal weather conditions. I live in Michigan. You'd be lucky to get 6 months out of a motorcycle between the cold and wet springs and autumns. You can't even think about riding one in the winter. That'd be suicide.
You really don't understand how they make processors, do you? I'm not going to go through the details of the optical/chemical lithography they use, but suffice it to say is this: Intel already does exactly what you're talking about.
When they make a Core 2 Duo chip, they make them in batches. Not based on speed, based merely on core design and die size. When you're making these chips, you don't know how well they're going to turn out. It's a bit like baking. So what you're hoping for is what the design is capable of: the top-of-the-line models. However, invariably there are minor defects in chips. What Intel and AMD do is test the chips to find out where the chips are stable. Sometimes they will disable portions of the chip (3 core AMD's are really 4 core chips with one defective core electrically disabled) or run it at a lower speed which prevents the flaw from manifesting itself. At the beginning of the process run, most chips will not be capable of higher speeds. This means you end up with a glut of slightly damaged, but still perfectly working, chips. So you clock those to run slow enough that they don't have errors and sell them at a lower price. Now, it costs the same to make a top end and a bottom end version of the chip, so the high end chips cost more only because they're more rare. As time goes on, you perfect the techniques for the new design manufacture, and you begin making a larger and larger proportion of higher end chips. Thus, you can reduce consumer costs and actually increase profitability. By the end, nearly every chip you make is high-end quality, but because of demand for lower priced models you can intentionally disable or downgrade chips so that they function below their capabilities. The consumer isn't being cheated because they're getting what they pay for no matter what.
As newer, better designs come online, the process begins again.
Of course. It's merely irresponsible to present an article as such. Lacing your article with fudge words like "may" gives the impression that something is a lot more important or likely than any evidence suggests.
Deep packet inspection is still circumvented by encryption. What it boils down to is that if you don't encrypt your data, someone will read it. This means unencrypted data on the Internet doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Basically, the Internet becomes subject to Open Fields.
Now it seems that we will get the same upgrade only version that everyone else gets, meaning you have to install Vista and then install Win 7 over the top of it
Holy cow, people. This has not been true in forever. Since at least Windows 98 you can perform a clean installation with an Upgrade disc. The only difference is that the installer will ask for a disc from a version of the OS you could legally update from.
Personally, I think it's a step too far to claim that AGW opponents are necessarily religious nutcases, and it's unhelpfully insulting to claim that religious nutcases are necessarily being intellectually dishonest as opposed to honestly believing in an (agreeably horribly flawed) opposing viewpoint. In any case, belittling a whole group of people who apparently merely disagree with you -- no matter how much evidence you have or how strongly you believe your opinions to be facts -- is grossly unhelpful and marks you as no better than those you seek to discredit.
I also think you're conflating intelligent design and AGW opponents, which together with your vitriolic language suggests you're motivated more by disgust and hatred than any scientific nobility. You're merely setting fire to scarecrows.
Except that English is defined by how it's used not by some arbitrary authority, in spite of what those boys up at Oxford will tell you. The fact that people use both "Linus's" and "Linus'" means that both are acceptable. By the same token, "ain't" and "y'all" are now recognized words because people use them and nobody is confused by meaning. "Google" is now a verb, as well.
If I say something in what I believe is English and you understand it unambiguously as English, then it's English or an accepted dialect.
The only reasonable counter-theory to AGW (and it's not truly a counter) is that we're in a period of increased solar activity. More solar activity, more output from the sun, and thus, the Earth is receiving more energy than normal. The test of the hypothesis is to determine if the average temperatures on the other planets is similarly increasing. I've seen a few articles that say it seems to be. (No, I no longer have links.) I don't know if this will change now that the dearth of sunspots has ended, or even if those are related.
In any case, the basis of AGW -- that changes to Earth caused by human activity can cause global climate change -- is not really up for argument. The argument is now simply how much human activity versus other factors may be causing climate change, as well as how much the climate is going to change as a result of these factors. Ultimately it's almost a moot point if it's our fault, because it doesn't matter if the temperature increase is caused by human activity or if it's solar-system-wide. If the Earth is rendered uninhabitable by humans, who really cares if it was our fault or the Sun's?
That's decidedly an anti-hero. The character is a criminal and a gangster. He promotes negative stereotypes much more than promoting any kind of positive diversity.
But it will solve the problem by "brute force", taking advantage of the massive parallelism inherent in the real world in the form of molecules or bacteria.
If you've ever looked at a diagram of how a CPU implements DIV or MUL for floating point numbers, then you wouldn't think that the brute force approach would necessarily be so bad. Take a look at size, scale, and cost of ENIAC and then come tell me a Petri dish is "slow and inefficient". Silicon takes advantage of massive speed of serial operations inherent in electron flow and the basic ability to electrically flip switches. Electrical-silicon computers are *not* efficient. They're *not* smart. They're extremely stupid extremely quickly, and that's all.
This reminds me of how the clock my parent's microwave worked. When programming the clock, the system asks for the time of day, whether it's AM or PM, and then asks for the month, date, and year. Why does the microwave care what the date is? And why does it need the year? This microwave has no progammability features for turning on in the future. It is not daylight-saving aware. You can't even ask the display to show the current date. There are no day-of-week functions either. Quite honestly, asking for AM and PM alone is generally overkill. Even worse, the microwave will not allow you to cook food or use the kitchen timer until the clock has been programmed. The clock showing the time of day is not a core feature, people! A microwave shouldn't care about the time that much!
I think the problem there comes in that a huge proportion of corporate software is contracted. Your method, which I agree is the proper way to build a successful system, simply doesn't work when the programmers are required by a quote-to-order system to do as little work as possible and may be paid by the hour for labor, and managers are required to keep costs as low as possible.
Yes, this means software contracting generally designs your system for failure. You absolutely must have in-house capabilities for systems analysis and project management.
This, I'm sure you're aware, is why the cost of Windows just doesn't matter to business. Compared to the costs of everything else, the cost of the OS -- heck the cost of the OS and the cost of the hardware -- is a drop in the ocean.
Animal tests are already complete. First they do laboratory testing on blood and tissue samples. Then they do whole animal testing. Then they test for safety on humans (often testing the drug on completely healthy subjects). Then they test for efficacy on humans. Then they test it against other, similar drugs which do the same thing. In the US, it takes roughly 15 to 20 years to progress through all the tests and analysis required before a drug hits the proverbial shelves.
TCP guarantees that the data transmitted by one host is the same data received by another host. It does not guarantee that the data stored at one host is the data stored at the second host. TCP is Transport Layer to Transport Layer integrity. That's insufficient when you're required to guarantee Application to Application integrity, or disk to disk integrity. This is part of the problem we fact with HIPAA electronic medical record transfers. There is no generic, universal, open, secure method to ensure data transport from one disk to another. Most transport methods only care about host-to-host, and that's simply not sufficient. Assuming there are no errors from NIC to disk isn't good enough. Such a system would need an integrity check at sending host, transfer, and an integrity check at the receiving host.
Several commercial FTP/SFTP programs provide extensions that allow you to run integrity checks: Vandyke Software SecureFX GlobalSCAPE EFT Server
I've not set up either, but they're both designed around the demands of HIPAA.
The simplest way to do things is to ZIP the files before you send them and then test the ZIP file on the receiving end, but that's fairly manual and is only as good as the algorithm involved: CRC-32. Good enough for most applications but not sufficient for many more.
Slashdot Mirror
Asset tags truly are the only way to go. They're linked to the physical computer regardless of what it does or where it is, Any database of information or LDAP directory can be used to describe in detail the location, primary user, software, etc. all of which should never be considered permanent assignments.
Most asset tags are numbers only, however, and that means you'll need a letter prefix for host names. I suggest WS, D, or PC for desktops, and LT or N for laptops. Its very nice to be able to see just from the host name what type a given PC is, and it's exceedingly rare for a host name to be required not to change but the hardware change from a desktop to a laptop. Or you can use your company's acronym, or other standard prefix.
Having done it this way once and also having seen attempts at descriptive host names repeatedly fail spectacularly, I'd never use anything but asset tags without some pretty strong motivations.
A majority of people do not live in arctic or near-arctic climes. A majority of people do live where rain, snow, or other weather conditions would make using a motorcycle impractical for a daily commute.
It's only a reasonable comparison if you live in southern California or Arizona. In the majority of the world, motorcycles are not year-round vehicles, and are not driven in anything but the most ideal weather conditions. I live in Michigan. You'd be lucky to get 6 months out of a motorcycle between the cold and wet springs and autumns. You can't even think about riding one in the winter. That'd be suicide.
You really don't understand how they make processors, do you? I'm not going to go through the details of the optical/chemical lithography they use, but suffice it to say is this: Intel already does exactly what you're talking about.
When they make a Core 2 Duo chip, they make them in batches. Not based on speed, based merely on core design and die size. When you're making these chips, you don't know how well they're going to turn out. It's a bit like baking. So what you're hoping for is what the design is capable of: the top-of-the-line models. However, invariably there are minor defects in chips. What Intel and AMD do is test the chips to find out where the chips are stable. Sometimes they will disable portions of the chip (3 core AMD's are really 4 core chips with one defective core electrically disabled) or run it at a lower speed which prevents the flaw from manifesting itself. At the beginning of the process run, most chips will not be capable of higher speeds. This means you end up with a glut of slightly damaged, but still perfectly working, chips. So you clock those to run slow enough that they don't have errors and sell them at a lower price. Now, it costs the same to make a top end and a bottom end version of the chip, so the high end chips cost more only because they're more rare. As time goes on, you perfect the techniques for the new design manufacture, and you begin making a larger and larger proportion of higher end chips. Thus, you can reduce consumer costs and actually increase profitability. By the end, nearly every chip you make is high-end quality, but because of demand for lower priced models you can intentionally disable or downgrade chips so that they function below their capabilities. The consumer isn't being cheated because they're getting what they pay for no matter what.
As newer, better designs come online, the process begins again.
I just want them to have more journalistic integrity than Fox News, The Sun, or Daily Mail.
Honestly, when did being a reporter and not a pundit become such a difficult thing to do?
I'm offended! If you'd ever actually been to or lived in Detroit you'd know that it's full of rats and cockroaches.
Of course. It's merely irresponsible to present an article as such. Lacing your article with fudge words like "may" gives the impression that something is a lot more important or likely than any evidence suggests.
Yes, ye olde "correlation does not imply causation" needs to be dealt with.
Not that we won't see a slew of irresponsible "psychopaths have possibly repairable brain damage" articles.
It's kdawson. The summary somehow has to create outrage and be worded in needlessly inflammatory language.
Deep packet inspection is still circumvented by encryption. What it boils down to is that if you don't encrypt your data, someone will read it. This means unencrypted data on the Internet doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Basically, the Internet becomes subject to Open Fields.
Holy cow, people. This has not been true in forever. Since at least Windows 98 you can perform a clean installation with an Upgrade disc. The only difference is that the installer will ask for a disc from a version of the OS you could legally update from.
Seriously, it's like you're not even trying.
This is Slashdot, sir. Pedantry is what we serve.
Personally, I think it's a step too far to claim that AGW opponents are necessarily religious nutcases, and it's unhelpfully insulting to claim that religious nutcases are necessarily being intellectually dishonest as opposed to honestly believing in an (agreeably horribly flawed) opposing viewpoint. In any case, belittling a whole group of people who apparently merely disagree with you -- no matter how much evidence you have or how strongly you believe your opinions to be facts -- is grossly unhelpful and marks you as no better than those you seek to discredit.
I also think you're conflating intelligent design and AGW opponents, which together with your vitriolic language suggests you're motivated more by disgust and hatred than any scientific nobility. You're merely setting fire to scarecrows.
Except that English is defined by how it's used not by some arbitrary authority, in spite of what those boys up at Oxford will tell you. The fact that people use both "Linus's" and "Linus'" means that both are acceptable. By the same token, "ain't" and "y'all" are now recognized words because people use them and nobody is confused by meaning. "Google" is now a verb, as well.
If I say something in what I believe is English and you understand it unambiguously as English, then it's English or an accepted dialect.
It's exactly that kind of short-sighted thinking that has driven nearly every commercial research and development laboratory out of the United States.
The only reasonable counter-theory to AGW (and it's not truly a counter) is that we're in a period of increased solar activity. More solar activity, more output from the sun, and thus, the Earth is receiving more energy than normal. The test of the hypothesis is to determine if the average temperatures on the other planets is similarly increasing. I've seen a few articles that say it seems to be. (No, I no longer have links.) I don't know if this will change now that the dearth of sunspots has ended, or even if those are related.
In any case, the basis of AGW -- that changes to Earth caused by human activity can cause global climate change -- is not really up for argument. The argument is now simply how much human activity versus other factors may be causing climate change, as well as how much the climate is going to change as a result of these factors. Ultimately it's almost a moot point if it's our fault, because it doesn't matter if the temperature increase is caused by human activity or if it's solar-system-wide. If the Earth is rendered uninhabitable by humans, who really cares if it was our fault or the Sun's?
That's decidedly an anti-hero. The character is a criminal and a gangster. He promotes negative stereotypes much more than promoting any kind of positive diversity.
If you've ever looked at a diagram of how a CPU implements DIV or MUL for floating point numbers, then you wouldn't think that the brute force approach would necessarily be so bad. Take a look at size, scale, and cost of ENIAC and then come tell me a Petri dish is "slow and inefficient". Silicon takes advantage of massive speed of serial operations inherent in electron flow and the basic ability to electrically flip switches. Electrical-silicon computers are *not* efficient. They're *not* smart. They're extremely stupid extremely quickly, and that's all.
It crashes FF 3.5.1 and Safari 4.0.2 for me, but not Chrome 2.0.172.37 or IE 8.
This reminds me of how the clock my parent's microwave worked. When programming the clock, the system asks for the time of day, whether it's AM or PM, and then asks for the month, date, and year. Why does the microwave care what the date is? And why does it need the year? This microwave has no progammability features for turning on in the future. It is not daylight-saving aware. You can't even ask the display to show the current date. There are no day-of-week functions either. Quite honestly, asking for AM and PM alone is generally overkill. Even worse, the microwave will not allow you to cook food or use the kitchen timer until the clock has been programmed. The clock showing the time of day is not a core feature, people! A microwave shouldn't care about the time that much!
I think the problem there comes in that a huge proportion of corporate software is contracted. Your method, which I agree is the proper way to build a successful system, simply doesn't work when the programmers are required by a quote-to-order system to do as little work as possible and may be paid by the hour for labor, and managers are required to keep costs as low as possible.
Yes, this means software contracting generally designs your system for failure. You absolutely must have in-house capabilities for systems analysis and project management.
This, I'm sure you're aware, is why the cost of Windows just doesn't matter to business. Compared to the costs of everything else, the cost of the OS -- heck the cost of the OS and the cost of the hardware -- is a drop in the ocean.
Animal tests are already complete. First they do laboratory testing on blood and tissue samples. Then they do whole animal testing. Then they test for safety on humans (often testing the drug on completely healthy subjects). Then they test for efficacy on humans. Then they test it against other, similar drugs which do the same thing. In the US, it takes roughly 15 to 20 years to progress through all the tests and analysis required before a drug hits the proverbial shelves.
TCP guarantees that the data transmitted by one host is the same data received by another host. It does not guarantee that the data stored at one host is the data stored at the second host. TCP is Transport Layer to Transport Layer integrity. That's insufficient when you're required to guarantee Application to Application integrity, or disk to disk integrity. This is part of the problem we fact with HIPAA electronic medical record transfers. There is no generic, universal, open, secure method to ensure data transport from one disk to another. Most transport methods only care about host-to-host, and that's simply not sufficient. Assuming there are no errors from NIC to disk isn't good enough. Such a system would need an integrity check at sending host, transfer, and an integrity check at the receiving host.
Several commercial FTP/SFTP programs provide extensions that allow you to run integrity checks:
Vandyke Software SecureFX
GlobalSCAPE EFT Server
I've not set up either, but they're both designed around the demands of HIPAA.
The simplest way to do things is to ZIP the files before you send them and then test the ZIP file on the receiving end, but that's fairly manual and is only as good as the algorithm involved: CRC-32. Good enough for most applications but not sufficient for many more.
This is what a governing body demanded. It doesn't have to make sense.
As opposed to reading the thread to see if the point you made was asked and answered?