What I am talking about is beyond computer literacy. Let's face it, most kids will take a generic science class and learn all sorts of neat and wonderful things, but it's not until they get into classes like Chemistry and Physics that they get a more in-depth picture and learn more about the scientific method and experimentation. I propose that we make computing on a par with these things. At the minimum, we have to teach people the basic skills to run their PC/laptop and surf the Internet wisely. Beyond that lies the detail of what the Internet is and how computers work, and if I'm not mistaken, those things really have not changed all that much. Servers are basically running either *nix or Microsoft platforms, languages like C, Perl, and Java are extensively used in programming, RDBMSs run off SQL for the most part, and you get around the Internet using a web browser. Versions and types of types of those technologies have changed but the basic systems are all the same. There have been no radical changes to the computer that eliminate the ability to teach the basics of how it works. It's like saying we shouldn't teach driver's ed because cars have changed so much, but while a Model T and a Prius are radically different cars, the basic structures are the same and their driving characteristics might be different but I venture to guess that you or I could drive either fairly easily given our current knowledge.
No curriculum is static. Math, Science, Philosophy, English, Social Studies -- they've all changed and evolved over the centuries as new knowledge has come to light. However they remain the same at their core. I think computing could be treated the same way. Perhaps my use of the word "technology" was too broad, but the premise is still sound.
The problem with that is that the lives of the crew are riding on the potential repair. Without knowing the effect in advance, the risk in making the repair is increased, beyond the risk the crew undergoes in suiting up and spacewalking in the first place. Remember, they have already had a partial glove failure. The repair itself is not without considerable risk. They have had similar gouges before and the Shuttle has landed perfectly fine. Now is not the time to experiment. They can certainly perform experiments of this type using unmanned vehicles and gain the information they need that way. That is how they tested heat shield materials in the olden, golden days.
Of course teaching a Technology curriculum, like anything, is going to have to begin at the beginning. There are kids in nursery school learning how to operate PCs/Macs, and that's where it has to begin. By the time kids get to grade school, they should be well-founded in using a computer -- then the next step would be to teach them Internet access. Of course grade schoolers aren't going to get into the esoterica of web surfing, but they should be taught how to get to useful resources. I wouldn't see kids learning about background technologies until high school, where maybe their interest in technology can be cultivated. Everybody cries about the shortage of skilled IT workers; here's the opportunity to start building them in high school.
It's definitely a worthy goal. But if I've seen anything in recent years, it's this increased propensity for school's to teach what I call "touch-feely" curricula, to try and work on children's self-esteem and socialization. I think if we arm children with knowledge, teach them how to solve problems on their own, and let them go at it, they will build personal character and have stronger self-esteem. That's how it worked in my day -- I got my self-esteem through my accomplishments and reaching the goals I set for myself.
As I've said in another post, I think Technology needs to be right up there with Math, Science, English, etc. as a curriculum of its own. I think we have the opportunity to begin to train young people in the proper use of the Internet, to teach them the basic skills they need to operate in this environment, and give them some idea of the technology behind it. Mind you, that could devolve into a fight over do we teach Microsoft, Unix, Linux, etc., but that's another fight for another day.
I think an even better idea is to raise technology to an actual curriculum area, like English, Math, etc. Right now, too many schools are using teachers in other subjects who have even a little computer knowledge as computer teachers. Instead, given the prevalence of the Internet and its underlying technology, the importance of teaching kids to use the Internet properly and to give them some insight into its inner workings would seem to be a necessity in this century and beyond.
...they push teachers to teach children basic skills like reading, writing, mathematics, public speaking, and give them a thorough knowledge of world and American history, logic, and problem solving. I suspect if you teach children how to function properly in society by giving them the necessary tools, then they won't wind up falling into these traps and will be able to make more informed decisions. Just my opinion.
But that's the difference between an aircraft and a spacecraft -- an aircraft pilot can look his plane over, read up on the maintenance, talk to his ground crew and then decide to fly or not. In NASA, it works differently. A Space Shuttle commander has command of the spacecraft, but Mission Control in Houston has command of the mission. You have to remember: the crew of the Shuttle can't just go bombing around in Earth orbit like they are flying the Millennium Falcon. Every move has to be choreographed and planned out months and even years in advance. When unexpected problems crop up, the technicians on the ground certainly know more about the workings of the machine than the crew, as they have all the data at the fingertips, they are experts in their systems, and they can draw on contractor resources to get more information. Decisions like this cannot be left to the spacecraft commander; his/her job is hard enough without having to keep in their head the compendious amount of information regarding their spacecraft.
It has been this way since Mercury; it was Chris Kraft who outlined the need for the ground to have the skills required to manage the mission and deal with problems in real time, so that the crew could concentrate on their activities in space. The system has worked extremely well over all these years, with the exception of the Columbia accident. I for one am confident that NASA knows what it is doing and will take all the precautions it can before Endeavour is allowed to land.
It's always been my contention that attempting to sterilize the environment is what's going to get us killed off eventually. Call it "War of the Worlds" Syndrome -- eventually we wipe out most bacterial life, with the possible exception of those most beneficial to us, which have been genetically altered. We move out into the universe to claim our rightful place and are felled by some bacteria from another planet that we cannot acquire an immunity to since our immune systems are so weak from not having to fight off bacteria/viruses.
The fact is our immune systems have to be exposed to these things in order to give them a chance to build up resistance/immunity. I've actually never thought of a cold as a bad thing, if it increase the armament that my immune system has available to fight disease. I used to be pretty immune to colds, though over the years stress and lack of rest have compromised my ability to fight things off like I used to.
The other scary part of the equation is, if this is killing off 99.9% of bacteria, what about that last.1%? Aren't we really creating super bacteria this way?
Because while some hospital administrator/staffer might be knowledgeable in the ways of medical equipment/supplies, I seriously doubt they are savvy enough to know the ins and outs of technology. They probably put the job out to competitive bid, Verus won out, and installed their system. And let's not forget, it wasn't a failure of the system, per se, that led to this -- it was some mistake in handling the servers and the firewall. A hospital can't be held accountable for the stupidity of the staff of a vendor in a rea outside their expertise.
Of course, by going the appeal route, they stand to have to pay out more money. And if their appeal is denied, there will then be a storm on the horizon for them, for this case has become very high profile now and if word gets out to the general populace that they are vulnerable, the wolves will surely show up at the door. So what seems like a pittance now will grow with each new case they lose and try to appeal. It will only take two or three more cases like this I think before the tide begins to turn against them. I made a joke yesterday about them having to borrow money from SCO, but given the scope of what they are trying to do and the number of people they are trying to do it to, they could find themselves in deeper than they wished.
According to the NYTimes article, Netflix set up the call center in Portland OR, shunning other popular US call center cities (because Portland natives were perceived to sound friendlier)
What the f**k?!?! Are they tryin' to say people in New Jersey aren't f**kin' friendly enough?!?!? Freakin' lunatics... them and their weepy northwestern friends. Jersey doesn't need you or your stinkin' movies...
What the vendor really needed was a security audit by an external security firm. I bet you will see more of that in its competitors (or ex-competitors).
I bet you won't. Why? Because their competitors are slapping each other on the back, laughing themselves silly, and convincing themselves it won't happen to them, their IT guys aren't that dumb. Unfortunately, with the given state of IT talent, this is going to happen to one of them next -- not this precise failure, mind you, but something similar. Data security is a joke right now, and not just for hospitals. Until there is a universal outcry and until companies that cause data breaches are hit in the wallet hard, this kind of thing is not over by a long shot.
The problem is, people are going to be suing the hospital for allowing their information to be let out into the wild. If Verus is no longer there for the hospitals to sue, then they don't stand to recoup any losses suffered when the plaintiffs win these lawsuits, and as a result the hospitals have to shell out hard-earned cash to make these people go away. End result: medical care costs go up or hospitals may close. Litigation is not always the answer, but in this case, it was the only way to make sure that the people who properly deserve the blame were held accountable. This does not absolve the hospitals completely, but it puts them and they people they serve in a bad spot.
Sure, but the patch buys them time so that they can fix the actual hole. Usually a hole is a sign of a bigger problem, and certainly any developer would want to re-write vulnerable sections to close the hole up permanently. Of course the other issue is with the development cycle; if you're coming out with a new version of the software, do you really want to invest that much time in re-writing the old code to eliminate the bug. Probably not. You'd want to patch the hole and then make sure it did not recur in the new software.
And beyond that... how come there is no redundancy? After 9/11, every IT organization on the planet began making sure there was some form or fail-over to a backup system or disaster recovery site to ensure that critical systems could not go down as the result of something similar or some other large-scale disaster. Not only was this system cobbled together apparently, there was no regard for the possibility of it failing for any reason.
Incorrect. A bug exists if a bug exists. A bug only gets fixed if the public knows about it, specifically the computer savvy segment of the population, since the average user can't tell a bug from a feature.
And so, by making it public, Novell has pretty much sealed the deal. It would be kind of hard to go back on the promise after making it to so many people. Besides, there's no impetus to sue -- they can look at what just happened to SCO. Novell sure isn't going to ruin itself as a viable company by going on a patent-hunting, copyright-infringement lawsuit binge.
I just started a new job and they gave me an HP laptop, which, when opened, had a nice shiny Vista logo on it. Horrified, I turned it on, only to see the reassuring opening stating I was running XP Professional. I breathed a very heavy sigh of relief. Vista is not making it into general use because companies have spent years getting all their systems converted to XP and now want to get some mileage out of it before they switch. Besides, no one wants to risk their IT department on it until they've seen what it does -- they'd rather have someone else take the risk and stand back and watch.
When they are a global software company that does business just about everywhere there is technology?
What does God need with a starship?
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
"Why do you need a botnet that big?" he asks. "You don't need a million [infected computers] to send spam."
For spam, a million-strong botnet might be overkill. But botnets can do much more - like launching denial-of-service attacks. These attacks aim to overwhelm a Web site or Internet server by sending it a constant stream of garbage data at a particular Web site or Internet server.
So the question is, who is controlling these botnets and why? DDoS attacks can be pretty useful if someone wants to get a point across or to extort money from someone or some company. It will be interesting to see if they can trace it back to the source.
Exactly. The pressure differential is what will more likely kill you, though even that will take time, given the tension of cell membranes. Combine the temperature and pressure differential and you're looking at a short window of maybe 30 - 60 seconds where you get by without major physical damage and perhaps 1 - 2 minutes with some sort of major but survivable damage. And don't forget long term effects, as you will be exposed to intense solar radiation with only minimal protection.
Slashdot Mirror
haven't... noticed.... slowdown.... personally.....
What I am talking about is beyond computer literacy. Let's face it, most kids will take a generic science class and learn all sorts of neat and wonderful things, but it's not until they get into classes like Chemistry and Physics that they get a more in-depth picture and learn more about the scientific method and experimentation. I propose that we make computing on a par with these things. At the minimum, we have to teach people the basic skills to run their PC/laptop and surf the Internet wisely. Beyond that lies the detail of what the Internet is and how computers work, and if I'm not mistaken, those things really have not changed all that much. Servers are basically running either *nix or Microsoft platforms, languages like C, Perl, and Java are extensively used in programming, RDBMSs run off SQL for the most part, and you get around the Internet using a web browser. Versions and types of types of those technologies have changed but the basic systems are all the same. There have been no radical changes to the computer that eliminate the ability to teach the basics of how it works. It's like saying we shouldn't teach driver's ed because cars have changed so much, but while a Model T and a Prius are radically different cars, the basic structures are the same and their driving characteristics might be different but I venture to guess that you or I could drive either fairly easily given our current knowledge.
No curriculum is static. Math, Science, Philosophy, English, Social Studies -- they've all changed and evolved over the centuries as new knowledge has come to light. However they remain the same at their core. I think computing could be treated the same way. Perhaps my use of the word "technology" was too broad, but the premise is still sound.
The problem with that is that the lives of the crew are riding on the potential repair. Without knowing the effect in advance, the risk in making the repair is increased, beyond the risk the crew undergoes in suiting up and spacewalking in the first place. Remember, they have already had a partial glove failure. The repair itself is not without considerable risk. They have had similar gouges before and the Shuttle has landed perfectly fine. Now is not the time to experiment. They can certainly perform experiments of this type using unmanned vehicles and gain the information they need that way. That is how they tested heat shield materials in the olden, golden days.
Of course teaching a Technology curriculum, like anything, is going to have to begin at the beginning. There are kids in nursery school learning how to operate PCs/Macs, and that's where it has to begin. By the time kids get to grade school, they should be well-founded in using a computer -- then the next step would be to teach them Internet access. Of course grade schoolers aren't going to get into the esoterica of web surfing, but they should be taught how to get to useful resources. I wouldn't see kids learning about background technologies until high school, where maybe their interest in technology can be cultivated. Everybody cries about the shortage of skilled IT workers; here's the opportunity to start building them in high school.
It's definitely a worthy goal. But if I've seen anything in recent years, it's this increased propensity for school's to teach what I call "touch-feely" curricula, to try and work on children's self-esteem and socialization. I think if we arm children with knowledge, teach them how to solve problems on their own, and let them go at it, they will build personal character and have stronger self-esteem. That's how it worked in my day -- I got my self-esteem through my accomplishments and reaching the goals I set for myself.
As I've said in another post, I think Technology needs to be right up there with Math, Science, English, etc. as a curriculum of its own. I think we have the opportunity to begin to train young people in the proper use of the Internet, to teach them the basic skills they need to operate in this environment, and give them some idea of the technology behind it. Mind you, that could devolve into a fight over do we teach Microsoft, Unix, Linux, etc., but that's another fight for another day.
I think an even better idea is to raise technology to an actual curriculum area, like English, Math, etc. Right now, too many schools are using teachers in other subjects who have even a little computer knowledge as computer teachers. Instead, given the prevalence of the Internet and its underlying technology, the importance of teaching kids to use the Internet properly and to give them some insight into its inner workings would seem to be a necessity in this century and beyond.
...they push teachers to teach children basic skills like reading, writing, mathematics, public speaking, and give them a thorough knowledge of world and American history, logic, and problem solving. I suspect if you teach children how to function properly in society by giving them the necessary tools, then they won't wind up falling into these traps and will be able to make more informed decisions. Just my opinion.
But that's the difference between an aircraft and a spacecraft -- an aircraft pilot can look his plane over, read up on the maintenance, talk to his ground crew and then decide to fly or not. In NASA, it works differently. A Space Shuttle commander has command of the spacecraft, but Mission Control in Houston has command of the mission. You have to remember: the crew of the Shuttle can't just go bombing around in Earth orbit like they are flying the Millennium Falcon. Every move has to be choreographed and planned out months and even years in advance. When unexpected problems crop up, the technicians on the ground certainly know more about the workings of the machine than the crew, as they have all the data at the fingertips, they are experts in their systems, and they can draw on contractor resources to get more information. Decisions like this cannot be left to the spacecraft commander; his/her job is hard enough without having to keep in their head the compendious amount of information regarding their spacecraft.
It has been this way since Mercury; it was Chris Kraft who outlined the need for the ground to have the skills required to manage the mission and deal with problems in real time, so that the crew could concentrate on their activities in space. The system has worked extremely well over all these years, with the exception of the Columbia accident. I for one am confident that NASA knows what it is doing and will take all the precautions it can before Endeavour is allowed to land.
It's always been my contention that attempting to sterilize the environment is what's going to get us killed off eventually. Call it "War of the Worlds" Syndrome -- eventually we wipe out most bacterial life, with the possible exception of those most beneficial to us, which have been genetically altered. We move out into the universe to claim our rightful place and are felled by some bacteria from another planet that we cannot acquire an immunity to since our immune systems are so weak from not having to fight off bacteria/viruses.
The fact is our immune systems have to be exposed to these things in order to give them a chance to build up resistance/immunity. I've actually never thought of a cold as a bad thing, if it increase the armament that my immune system has available to fight disease. I used to be pretty immune to colds, though over the years stress and lack of rest have compromised my ability to fight things off like I used to.
The other scary part of the equation is, if this is killing off 99.9% of bacteria, what about that last .1%? Aren't we really creating super bacteria this way?
You should hear my two-year-old daughter... she can swear like a trucker... of course it's all her mother's fault (Just kidding Honey! ;).
Because while some hospital administrator/staffer might be knowledgeable in the ways of medical equipment/supplies, I seriously doubt they are savvy enough to know the ins and outs of technology. They probably put the job out to competitive bid, Verus won out, and installed their system. And let's not forget, it wasn't a failure of the system, per se, that led to this -- it was some mistake in handling the servers and the firewall. A hospital can't be held accountable for the stupidity of the staff of a vendor in a rea outside their expertise.
Of course, by going the appeal route, they stand to have to pay out more money. And if their appeal is denied, there will then be a storm on the horizon for them, for this case has become very high profile now and if word gets out to the general populace that they are vulnerable, the wolves will surely show up at the door. So what seems like a pittance now will grow with each new case they lose and try to appeal. It will only take two or three more cases like this I think before the tide begins to turn against them. I made a joke yesterday about them having to borrow money from SCO, but given the scope of what they are trying to do and the number of people they are trying to do it to, they could find themselves in deeper than they wished.
What the f**k?!?! Are they tryin' to say people in New Jersey aren't f**kin' friendly enough?!?!? Freakin' lunatics... them and their weepy northwestern friends. Jersey doesn't need you or your stinkin' movies...
I bet you won't. Why? Because their competitors are slapping each other on the back, laughing themselves silly, and convincing themselves it won't happen to them, their IT guys aren't that dumb. Unfortunately, with the given state of IT talent, this is going to happen to one of them next -- not this precise failure, mind you, but something similar. Data security is a joke right now, and not just for hospitals. Until there is a universal outcry and until companies that cause data breaches are hit in the wallet hard, this kind of thing is not over by a long shot.
The problem is, people are going to be suing the hospital for allowing their information to be let out into the wild. If Verus is no longer there for the hospitals to sue, then they don't stand to recoup any losses suffered when the plaintiffs win these lawsuits, and as a result the hospitals have to shell out hard-earned cash to make these people go away. End result: medical care costs go up or hospitals may close. Litigation is not always the answer, but in this case, it was the only way to make sure that the people who properly deserve the blame were held accountable. This does not absolve the hospitals completely, but it puts them and they people they serve in a bad spot.
Sure, but the patch buys them time so that they can fix the actual hole. Usually a hole is a sign of a bigger problem, and certainly any developer would want to re-write vulnerable sections to close the hole up permanently. Of course the other issue is with the development cycle; if you're coming out with a new version of the software, do you really want to invest that much time in re-writing the old code to eliminate the bug. Probably not. You'd want to patch the hole and then make sure it did not recur in the new software.
And beyond that... how come there is no redundancy? After 9/11, every IT organization on the planet began making sure there was some form or fail-over to a backup system or disaster recovery site to ensure that critical systems could not go down as the result of something similar or some other large-scale disaster. Not only was this system cobbled together apparently, there was no regard for the possibility of it failing for any reason.
Well... except for all the people who were hoping to have access to the content.
Incorrect. A bug exists if a bug exists. A bug only gets fixed if the public knows about it, specifically the computer savvy segment of the population, since the average user can't tell a bug from a feature.
And so, by making it public, Novell has pretty much sealed the deal. It would be kind of hard to go back on the promise after making it to so many people. Besides, there's no impetus to sue -- they can look at what just happened to SCO. Novell sure isn't going to ruin itself as a viable company by going on a patent-hunting, copyright-infringement lawsuit binge.
I just started a new job and they gave me an HP laptop, which, when opened, had a nice shiny Vista logo on it. Horrified, I turned it on, only to see the reassuring opening stating I was running XP Professional. I breathed a very heavy sigh of relief. Vista is not making it into general use because companies have spent years getting all their systems converted to XP and now want to get some mileage out of it before they switch. Besides, no one wants to risk their IT department on it until they've seen what it does -- they'd rather have someone else take the risk and stand back and watch.
Other rejected phrases:
When they are a global software company that does business just about everywhere there is technology?
For spam, a million-strong botnet might be overkill. But botnets can do much more - like launching denial-of-service attacks. These attacks aim to overwhelm a Web site or Internet server by sending it a constant stream of garbage data at a particular Web site or Internet server.
So the question is, who is controlling these botnets and why? DDoS attacks can be pretty useful if someone wants to get a point across or to extort money from someone or some company. It will be interesting to see if they can trace it back to the source.
Exactly. The pressure differential is what will more likely kill you, though even that will take time, given the tension of cell membranes. Combine the temperature and pressure differential and you're looking at a short window of maybe 30 - 60 seconds where you get by without major physical damage and perhaps 1 - 2 minutes with some sort of major but survivable damage. And don't forget long term effects, as you will be exposed to intense solar radiation with only minimal protection.