About nine out of 10 men chose the baby picture, roughly 12 percent expressed no interest in the baby picture, and the remaining subjects had a range of interest.
Don't ceramics start behaving like reflectors at around 40 GHz? Nevermind that some ceramics also would become superconductive at absolute zero. I wonder what effect that would have... I'm sure it would be cool!
Replace "home" with "store" or other place of business. Homes are treated specially under the law (at least in some jurisdictions) precisely because they are special. Computers providing services on a public network are hardly akin to private dwellings.
What I'd like to know is, with all this talk about "security" and "9/11" and crap, why is it that the military can be -- even arguably -- accidentally cracked? What if the alleged "hacker" wasn't from a friendly country?
I don't care how good this "hacker" guy was. Yes, perhaps he should be punished, but if he was able to get at systems that are critical to national security at all, regardless of the means he used, then clearly someone in the military isn't doing his job. I think the people in charge in the military, who have a duty (unlike this UK civilian) to safeguard the American public, should be punished more severely.
Anybody who thinks that it's OK to go poking around obviously non-public military sites...
I think that it's reasonable to assume that if the military (who one would expect takes security very seriously, and understands the concept of an 'adversarial environment') makes something available on a public network, that it's supposed to be there.
Bullfeathers. You can still be charged with trespassing even if you leave. You entered someones home without their permission and without authority to do so. Walking across someones yard can be considered trespass. One does not have to put out a sign saying "Don't enter my house when the door is open". It should be common sense that it is someone elses property and you shouldn't be there.
I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada, "dwelling-houses" (i.e. people's private homes) are treated differently than most other things. If you walk into someone's business property or farm land, and there was not a sign or other explicit indication from the owner that you are unwelcome there, then it legally is not 'trespassing'.
I did a bit of searching, and "trespass" isn't even a criminal offense in Canada, it's governed by provincial law (e.g. see the Trespass Act of the Province of British Columbia). "Breaking and entering" (s.348), however, *is* a criminal offence, as is being in a person's dwelling-house without lawful excuse (s.349).
Anyway, my point is that using the analogy of a person's dwelling-house is inappropriate, because computers are not dwelling-houses, and dwelling-houses are treated specially under the law -- at least in some jurisdictions.
With an open format (and especially with one supported by free software) "the disabled" can commission whomever they please to develop whatever access mechanisms they need. They can even commission someone to design and implement a word processor specifically for their needs. If funds are a problem, I'm sure they could recruit a charity or two.
"It doesn't have support for the disabled" is not an excuse to switch back to Microsoft or anyone else's proprietary system.
The point I'm trying to make is that if the spec is wrong (or if you don't even have a spec) then your likelihood of producing a reliable and secure -- but complex -- system is practically nil. At least with a "provably correct" system, you know that if your spec is right, then your results will be right. If your system isn't provably correct, then your system will probably be still broken if your spec is wrong, but even if it's right, your implementation still might be broken.
It's basically a question of "Do you want problem A or problems A *and* B?"
But population and energy usage are anti-correlated.
I very strongly doubt that. Do you have any credible sources to back that up? The energy required for food production, as well as the waste that an extra person produces, is huge to begin with. And then there's the fact that the number of families -- frugal or not -- increases exponentially with the number of offspring produced per family...
So, do you then support regulations or laws governing family size, either through punitive taxes or more Chinese-style childbearing laws? Forced sterilizations? I think in any such case, there would be a huge protest and revolt by the US citizenry.
Did I make any statement whatsoever about how to deal with the problem? Or do you think that my support or non-support of various measures to deal with overpopulation somehow make it more of less real?
It is likely that, perhaps sometime soon, overpopulation will NEED to be addressed in some sort of strategic manner on a world scale. The fact that this is unpleasant does not make it any less true. I, personally, would rather discuss it with a cool head now than with thousands of people per day dying due to starvation/disease/global climate change, because we waited until the very last minute to deal with the problem.
I propose a new definition of "microkernel": If it's too big to fit in your CPU cache, or it has any sort of "network transparency" crap built into it, then it's monolithic kernel.
Quiet, heretic! We refuse to get all caught up in your technical mumbo-jumbo; We're here to defend the traditional definition of kernel... facts be damned!
Hmm... Maybe Debian (or I guess Ubuntu, since they're more into advertising than Debian) should adopt an ad campaign that lists all the useless crap that their OS doesn't do.
Some stuff is currently not doable using only open source software.
More stuff is not doable because it hasn't been invented yet, either in open or closed source software.
I've worked on both free and proprietary systems, and the fact of the matter is that I'm much more productive in doing things that have never been done before on free systems than on proprietary ones. By a factor of about 3, when compared to any platform made by Microsoft.
If "the user" wants to see real innovation in software (and high-tech in general) in the prime of his life, instead of his kids', then he's going to have to learn that what's good for developers is good for him, and what's bad for developers is bad for him.
The point is, that there is often much more involved in whether or not a programme (or operating system) is usefull than it's "correctness"
Sort of. In the scanerio you describe, the program was, in fact, not proved to be correct because the people who did the proof failed to take into account the real requirements for the system.
If you don't even know your requirements, no methodology to implement those requirements is going to work reliably.
Right. My point was that "zero net carbon emissions" is something of a red herring, because, for example, differences in NOx emissions when burning a particular fuel may (or may not; I don't know) outweigh the benefits of "zero net carbon emissions".
I agree with what dal20402 said, but I'd also like to point out that considering the world's current population and the rate of its growth, people who have large families are especially costly to the environment.
At any rate, I feel better knowing that the exhaust from our diesel vehicles at the farm is net 0 as far as carbon emissions.
Note, however, that "carbon emissions" aren't the real problem. If you dumped a catalyst into the air that converts water and carbon dioxide into methane and oxygen, the result would be to increase global warming, since methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Yet, your "net carbon emissions" would still be zero.
It's great that you've asked Slashdot users -- a community that is known throughout the world for its tact and ability to handle delicate matters -- to help solve your dilemma.
In practice, what good does it do when restarting a crashed filesystem server process means that all the real user programs crash because their file descriptors have become invalid?
Well, it makes it harder for the filesystem server to, if it's compromised, mess with ssh-agent without being detected. I'd much rather that my system crash than that my unencrypted SSH key gets sent to some script kiddie halfway around the globe.
Slashdot Mirror
Words cannot express my bewilderment.
God's speling is korrekt. It's you're speling taht's wrong.
So, just out-innovate Microsoft. Design a server case that catches chairs and throws them back!
Don't ceramics start behaving like reflectors at around 40 GHz? Nevermind that some ceramics also would become superconductive at absolute zero. I wonder what effect that would have... I'm sure it would be cool!
Stupid software-controlled clock circuitry...
I believe you mean, "I believe you mean, '1 in 10^20' or '10^-18% chance' ;)"
What I'd like to know is, with all this talk about "security" and "9/11" and crap, why is it that the military can be -- even arguably -- accidentally cracked? What if the alleged "hacker" wasn't from a friendly country?
I don't care how good this "hacker" guy was. Yes, perhaps he should be punished, but if he was able to get at systems that are critical to national security at all, regardless of the means he used, then clearly someone in the military isn't doing his job. I think the people in charge in the military, who have a duty (unlike this UK civilian) to safeguard the American public, should be punished more severely.
I think that it's reasonable to assume that if the military (who one would expect takes security very seriously, and understands the concept of an 'adversarial environment') makes something available on a public network, that it's supposed to be there.
I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada, "dwelling-houses" (i.e. people's private homes) are treated differently than most other things. If you walk into someone's business property or farm land, and there was not a sign or other explicit indication from the owner that you are unwelcome there, then it legally is not 'trespassing'.
I did a bit of searching, and "trespass" isn't even a criminal offense in Canada, it's governed by provincial law (e.g. see the Trespass Act of the Province of British Columbia). "Breaking and entering" (s.348), however, *is* a criminal offence, as is being in a person's dwelling-house without lawful excuse (s.349).
Anyway, my point is that using the analogy of a person's dwelling-house is inappropriate, because computers are not dwelling-houses, and dwelling-houses are treated specially under the law -- at least in some jurisdictions.
"It doesn't have support for the disabled" is not an excuse to switch back to Microsoft or anyone else's proprietary system.
It's basically a question of "Do you want problem A or problems A *and* B?"
I very strongly doubt that. Do you have any credible sources to back that up? The energy required for food production, as well as the waste that an extra person produces, is huge to begin with. And then there's the fact that the number of families -- frugal or not -- increases exponentially with the number of offspring produced per family...
Did I make any statement whatsoever about how to deal with the problem? Or do you think that my support or non-support of various measures to deal with overpopulation somehow make it more of less real?
It is likely that, perhaps sometime soon, overpopulation will NEED to be addressed in some sort of strategic manner on a world scale. The fact that this is unpleasant does not make it any less true. I, personally, would rather discuss it with a cool head now than with thousands of people per day dying due to starvation/disease/global climate change, because we waited until the very last minute to deal with the problem.
I propose a new definition of "microkernel": If it's too big to fit in your CPU cache, or it has any sort of "network transparency" crap built into it, then it's monolithic kernel.
Quiet, heretic! We refuse to get all caught up in your technical mumbo-jumbo; We're here to defend the traditional definition of kernel... facts be damned!
Hmm... Maybe Debian (or I guess Ubuntu, since they're more into advertising than Debian) should adopt an ad campaign that lists all the useless crap that their OS doesn't do.
Some stuff is currently not doable using only open source software.
More stuff is not doable because it hasn't been invented yet, either in open or closed source software.
I've worked on both free and proprietary systems, and the fact of the matter is that I'm much more productive in doing things that have never been done before on free systems than on proprietary ones. By a factor of about 3, when compared to any platform made by Microsoft.
If "the user" wants to see real innovation in software (and high-tech in general) in the prime of his life, instead of his kids', then he's going to have to learn that what's good for developers is good for him, and what's bad for developers is bad for him.
Sort of. In the scanerio you describe, the program was, in fact, not proved to be correct because the people who did the proof failed to take into account the real requirements for the system.
If you don't even know your requirements, no methodology to implement those requirements is going to work reliably.
Basically, I'm just being a nay-sayer. :-P
I agree with what dal20402 said, but I'd also like to point out that considering the world's current population and the rate of its growth, people who have large families are especially costly to the environment.
Note, however, that "carbon emissions" aren't the real problem. If you dumped a catalyst into the air that converts water and carbon dioxide into methane and oxygen, the result would be to increase global warming, since methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Yet, your "net carbon emissions" would still be zero.
It's great that you've asked Slashdot users -- a community that is known throughout the world for its tact and ability to handle delicate matters -- to help solve your dilemma.
Well, it makes it harder for the filesystem server to, if it's compromised, mess with ssh-agent without being detected. I'd much rather that my system crash than that my unencrypted SSH key gets sent to some script kiddie halfway around the globe.
Or your VISUAL variable. If I remember correctly, EDITOR was/is for things like ed or ex.
Just be sure not to double-tap that Z.