There's nothing wrong with that. It means that 90% of the IT tasks are half mental, whereas the other 10% of the tasks could be completely mindless or 90% mental. Or it could be on the basis of time spent on IT tasks. But it really doesn't represent any sort of problem of logic or numbers. IT and mental processing aren't so tightly bound as to make that line of reasoning sound.
Q. How long will Ksplice Uptrack for Ubuntu Desktop be freely supported?
A. Ksplice Uptrack for Ubuntu Desktop 10.04 Lucid is now available and will be freely supported for as long as Ubuntu Lucid is the newest version of Ubuntu. When the next version of Ubuntu Desktop (10.10 Meerkat) is released, we anticipate freely supporting that next version for as long as it is the newest version of Ubuntu.
The main reason is in cases where there's a bad vulnerability in the kernel which is sufficiently bad to warrant risking the live update rather than waiting for the next scheduled maintenance period. Personally I'm not sure how often that's going to happen as there's always the possibility of something going wrong when you do it, leaving you in the position of rebooting the machine anyways. I tend to think that most people that are that concerned with a few minutes of downtime are already using clustered servers and dynamically serving traffic from any of them to prevent worrying about it. In which case having an hour or so as several dozen machines reboot individually is probably not that big of a deal.
Chips can be cracked and worked around, at least for any computer that most people would be willing to buy. I personally wouldn't be willing to buy a desktop that was as locked down as my PS3 for computing, even if it did make it really, really tough to run unsigned code. Hardware measures like the NX-Bit and virtualization features do however go a fair distance towards the goal, the problem ultimately is that as the hardware and software gets better, the user will even more than now become the major target of the attacks. One of the very serious problems today is that DRM frequently requires special exceptions be added to the security software in order to run, opening up the possibility of somebody slipping a trojan or other piece of malware into that file.
Not really, it increases the likelihood that a vulnerability will be found, but decreases the likelihood that the vulnerability will affect a large number of phones. I suspect that it's ultimately a wash. More possible holes but likely fewer devices that contain said holes to exploit.
I suspect that part of the problem with Windows is that MS doesn't enforce the kind of cleanliness and neatness of code that some of the competitors do. Granted all OSes have some cruft and scariness in places, but most of the ones that are known for stability have long since shaped up and enforced something along the lines of style I'm sure that most modern projects of any size and reliability have something similar to work from. The more uniform the style is and the better the adherence the easier it is to find bugs that might be hiding security problems.
The other thing is that it's very difficult to get a look at the Windows source code legitimately, without being paid to work on it. Whereas with Linux or *BSD if you have a bug you've got the option of fixing it yourself or if you don't have the time or expertise you can usually find somebody who's willing to do so for a price. Frequently is thrilled to get to fix the problem on somebody else's dime.
Beyond that, backwards compatibility has to be careful considered and engineered otherwise you can easily end up in the situation where a vulnerability exists due to legacy code or the model itself is prone to exploitation.
So, if it's the IRA doing the piloting, that makes a substantive difference? What if instead of Muslim terrorists it's actually Mossad agents? Is that relevant? I get that there's the need to cram Muslim into every possible example of terrorism, the way that you have to reference Russia about socialism or Germany when it comes to fascism, but could we actually grow up a bit and quit being a part of the problem?
Do they? I mean there's several obvious problems with them which must have a better solution now than when they were first created. For one thing the beacon runs out of battery life very quickly and for another the heat shielding could be a lot better. More than that, there's been a lot of information on what causes planes to crash, surely there's need of a tweak to add more information than what's currently possible. I doubt very much that we've hit the point where there's too much information available in these circumstances.
Eminent Domain exists because they can take private property for public use, in certain circumstances, however there has to be compensation.
The way that usually works is they condemn the property then pay the value of the property after it's been condemned. Meaning pennies on the dollar so that tax payers don't have to cough up for the normal market price of the property. Worse still is that sometimes they'll condemn the only buildable portion of the property and only buy that leaving the developer with no property to develop and no viable way of selling it either. Basically resulting in a complete loss of the property for no gain whatsoever.
Bullshit, citation necessary, what formats are you referring to? A browser can't do much without support for JPEG and GIF. Flash is a plug in as are Windows Media and Quicktime. You don't have to install the plug ins if you don't want to. Which coincidentally is how Mozilla is handling the problem of H.264 as well, if you get the plug in you can play it. They just can't include anything that's going to obligate them to pay a licensing free.
You do realize that the death penalty is more expensive and that there's no evidence that it represents any additional deterrent effect over life without possibility of parole? Hell, even in Texas where the death penalty has been handed out liberally over the years, the rates have been dropping because life without possibility of parole is a more than adequate solution. It's tough for any punishment to deter somebody that doesn't believe he's going to be caught, let alone convicted. Worse still is that somebody that kills only one or two people is far more likely to get it than somebody that kills a dozen. The whole point of the death penalty in recent years has been as a tool to plea bargain people into a life sentence.
The idea quite frankly scares me, however, there are individuals for whom it is a necessary measure. The alternative at present is life without possibility of parole, the death penalty or permanent civil commitment to the lock down ward at the local psychiatric hospital. Beyond that though, it's tough to make something like this genuinely permanent in a way which somebody with requisite knowledge and tools can't remove. The main point of concern is who makes the decision and to what extent the appeals process is beholden to demands by the prosecution.
Prison doesn't work that way, here in the US we've got the largest prison population in the world with no evidence that it's actually getting us anything. While it is asinine to suggest that the guys that are currently being held in solitary at the regional super max, for people that are less dangerous a sentence like this could go a long ways. In some parts of the world they actually have what are essentially no security jails, where inmates are on work release and have to come back at the end of the day to the facility to sleep and check in. In the US we've got house arrest for those that meet the condtions.
This has nothing to do with liberalism, unless by liberal you mean well educated and actually capable of considering that stiffer punishments don't necessarily gain better compliance and with some crimes like child sexual abuse it's probably causes the problem more than it solves it. You can't convict somebody if it doesn't get reported, and with some classes of victim they don't want the guilty party to be punished harshly. Hence you get unreported crimes and a crime unprosecuted is not a deterrent.
Um, they had explosive charges in the Running Man. Don't you recall that part of the movie? Go outside the line for more than a couple seconds and the explosive would remove your head. It just wasn't a huge part of the movie.
How could they do that? Netflix owns the rights to the content, the only thing that Sony could do is refuse to sign the disc, but at the end of the day, it doesn't cost Sony anything, it's Netflix (Well really Amazon) servers, the customers ISP's bandwidth, the only part that has anything to do with Sony is the PS3, which has already been paid for by the customer.
Personally, I've saved myself all the money and am no longer paying MS anything. I think the disgusting abuses of market position are really enough. For instance that whole we're going to only deal with points, but you can only buy the sum of points that we want to sell you is complete bullshit. Best save all the money and not buy anything from them at all.
Just a thought, perhaps if the religious nutters weren't constantly interfering and insisting that scientists only use the worst samples they'd make some progress. What you're suggesting is a bit like saying that research into fuel efficent technology can only be done if it involves using fossil fuels, because after all the oil industry is fine with it and it's the only technology that's proven to be practical on a massive scale in recent decades.
Because this is a "Christian" nation and their right to not be offended by things like cursing, nudity, homosexuality, other religious views mustn't be called into question. It's just a matter of extreme arrogance and self centered behavior. There's a lot of people that genuinely believe that it's their right not to have to share the planet with people that disagree with their religious views even if said religious views are fucked up beyond belief. Which is why abortion is wrong, but fertility drugs and IVF are perfectly fine. Even though a single instance of IVF kills more embryos that just about any single person's life time of abortions does.
Not to split hairs, but George Lucas is no longer qualified to approve items as being authentic. There was a time where he was, but then he decided to change what authentic meant several times and re-imagine large swaths of the series, at which point he legitimately lost all claim to authority on the subject.
Intel's CPUs and integrated graphics have long had great support in the Linux kernel. Because Intel controls the tech, they can actually provide the correct and full source for the graphics drivers. The problem is that Intel integrated graphics aren't ever anything special.
Methinks you might are being a bit generous with Intel. I went with an Intel integrated chipset a number of years back because the alternatives weren't very well supported on FreeBSD, but the graphics weren't just not special, they were bad. Sufficiently bad that I've stayed away from them ever since. Which for Intel is just dumb, I have a very hard time believing that Intel couldn't do any better than what they've been doing. Hopefully with AMD owning ATI that'll kick a bit of sand in Intel's collective face so that they actually do something about it.
malware removers are great, but they're only a portion of the solution. A proper firewall, sandbox, antivirus and anti-malware is really the bare minimum needed on Windows. Beyond that you need common sense, vigilance and some knowledge of security. The problem is that it's a relatively small number of people that actually go that route.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing wrong with that. It means that 90% of the IT tasks are half mental, whereas the other 10% of the tasks could be completely mindless or 90% mental. Or it could be on the basis of time spent on IT tasks. But it really doesn't represent any sort of problem of logic or numbers. IT and mental processing aren't so tightly bound as to make that line of reasoning sound.
Q. How long will Ksplice Uptrack for Ubuntu Desktop be freely supported? A. Ksplice Uptrack for Ubuntu Desktop 10.04 Lucid is now available and will be freely supported for as long as Ubuntu Lucid is the newest version of Ubuntu. When the next version of Ubuntu Desktop (10.10 Meerkat) is released, we anticipate freely supporting that next version for as long as it is the newest version of Ubuntu.
The main reason is in cases where there's a bad vulnerability in the kernel which is sufficiently bad to warrant risking the live update rather than waiting for the next scheduled maintenance period. Personally I'm not sure how often that's going to happen as there's always the possibility of something going wrong when you do it, leaving you in the position of rebooting the machine anyways. I tend to think that most people that are that concerned with a few minutes of downtime are already using clustered servers and dynamically serving traffic from any of them to prevent worrying about it. In which case having an hour or so as several dozen machines reboot individually is probably not that big of a deal.
Chips can be cracked and worked around, at least for any computer that most people would be willing to buy. I personally wouldn't be willing to buy a desktop that was as locked down as my PS3 for computing, even if it did make it really, really tough to run unsigned code. Hardware measures like the NX-Bit and virtualization features do however go a fair distance towards the goal, the problem ultimately is that as the hardware and software gets better, the user will even more than now become the major target of the attacks. One of the very serious problems today is that DRM frequently requires special exceptions be added to the security software in order to run, opening up the possibility of somebody slipping a trojan or other piece of malware into that file.
Not really, it increases the likelihood that a vulnerability will be found, but decreases the likelihood that the vulnerability will affect a large number of phones. I suspect that it's ultimately a wash. More possible holes but likely fewer devices that contain said holes to exploit.
I suspect that part of the problem with Windows is that MS doesn't enforce the kind of cleanliness and neatness of code that some of the competitors do. Granted all OSes have some cruft and scariness in places, but most of the ones that are known for stability have long since shaped up and enforced something along the lines of style I'm sure that most modern projects of any size and reliability have something similar to work from. The more uniform the style is and the better the adherence the easier it is to find bugs that might be hiding security problems.
The other thing is that it's very difficult to get a look at the Windows source code legitimately, without being paid to work on it. Whereas with Linux or *BSD if you have a bug you've got the option of fixing it yourself or if you don't have the time or expertise you can usually find somebody who's willing to do so for a price. Frequently is thrilled to get to fix the problem on somebody else's dime.
Beyond that, backwards compatibility has to be careful considered and engineered otherwise you can easily end up in the situation where a vulnerability exists due to legacy code or the model itself is prone to exploitation.
OTOH, stay away from those sipping birds, nothin' but trouble.
Wouldn't it be easier to buy a black turtle neck and smile like a smug git, oh wait...
Don't forget cars that drive themselves at expeditious velocity. Unfortunately, they still haven't figured out how to get them to steer themselves.
So, if it's the IRA doing the piloting, that makes a substantive difference? What if instead of Muslim terrorists it's actually Mossad agents? Is that relevant? I get that there's the need to cram Muslim into every possible example of terrorism, the way that you have to reference Russia about socialism or Germany when it comes to fascism, but could we actually grow up a bit and quit being a part of the problem?
Do they? I mean there's several obvious problems with them which must have a better solution now than when they were first created. For one thing the beacon runs out of battery life very quickly and for another the heat shielding could be a lot better. More than that, there's been a lot of information on what causes planes to crash, surely there's need of a tweak to add more information than what's currently possible. I doubt very much that we've hit the point where there's too much information available in these circumstances.
Eminent Domain exists because they can take private property for public use, in certain circumstances, however there has to be compensation.
The way that usually works is they condemn the property then pay the value of the property after it's been condemned. Meaning pennies on the dollar so that tax payers don't have to cough up for the normal market price of the property. Worse still is that sometimes they'll condemn the only buildable portion of the property and only buy that leaving the developer with no property to develop and no viable way of selling it either. Basically resulting in a complete loss of the property for no gain whatsoever.
Bullshit, citation necessary, what formats are you referring to? A browser can't do much without support for JPEG and GIF. Flash is a plug in as are Windows Media and Quicktime. You don't have to install the plug ins if you don't want to. Which coincidentally is how Mozilla is handling the problem of H.264 as well, if you get the plug in you can play it. They just can't include anything that's going to obligate them to pay a licensing free.
You do realize that the death penalty is more expensive and that there's no evidence that it represents any additional deterrent effect over life without possibility of parole? Hell, even in Texas where the death penalty has been handed out liberally over the years, the rates have been dropping because life without possibility of parole is a more than adequate solution. It's tough for any punishment to deter somebody that doesn't believe he's going to be caught, let alone convicted. Worse still is that somebody that kills only one or two people is far more likely to get it than somebody that kills a dozen. The whole point of the death penalty in recent years has been as a tool to plea bargain people into a life sentence.
The idea quite frankly scares me, however, there are individuals for whom it is a necessary measure. The alternative at present is life without possibility of parole, the death penalty or permanent civil commitment to the lock down ward at the local psychiatric hospital. Beyond that though, it's tough to make something like this genuinely permanent in a way which somebody with requisite knowledge and tools can't remove. The main point of concern is who makes the decision and to what extent the appeals process is beholden to demands by the prosecution.
Prison doesn't work that way, here in the US we've got the largest prison population in the world with no evidence that it's actually getting us anything. While it is asinine to suggest that the guys that are currently being held in solitary at the regional super max, for people that are less dangerous a sentence like this could go a long ways. In some parts of the world they actually have what are essentially no security jails, where inmates are on work release and have to come back at the end of the day to the facility to sleep and check in. In the US we've got house arrest for those that meet the condtions.
This has nothing to do with liberalism, unless by liberal you mean well educated and actually capable of considering that stiffer punishments don't necessarily gain better compliance and with some crimes like child sexual abuse it's probably causes the problem more than it solves it. You can't convict somebody if it doesn't get reported, and with some classes of victim they don't want the guilty party to be punished harshly. Hence you get unreported crimes and a crime unprosecuted is not a deterrent.
Um, they had explosive charges in the Running Man. Don't you recall that part of the movie? Go outside the line for more than a couple seconds and the explosive would remove your head. It just wasn't a huge part of the movie.
How could they do that? Netflix owns the rights to the content, the only thing that Sony could do is refuse to sign the disc, but at the end of the day, it doesn't cost Sony anything, it's Netflix (Well really Amazon) servers, the customers ISP's bandwidth, the only part that has anything to do with Sony is the PS3, which has already been paid for by the customer.
Personally, I've saved myself all the money and am no longer paying MS anything. I think the disgusting abuses of market position are really enough. For instance that whole we're going to only deal with points, but you can only buy the sum of points that we want to sell you is complete bullshit. Best save all the money and not buy anything from them at all.
Just a thought, perhaps if the religious nutters weren't constantly interfering and insisting that scientists only use the worst samples they'd make some progress. What you're suggesting is a bit like saying that research into fuel efficent technology can only be done if it involves using fossil fuels, because after all the oil industry is fine with it and it's the only technology that's proven to be practical on a massive scale in recent decades.
Because this is a "Christian" nation and their right to not be offended by things like cursing, nudity, homosexuality, other religious views mustn't be called into question. It's just a matter of extreme arrogance and self centered behavior. There's a lot of people that genuinely believe that it's their right not to have to share the planet with people that disagree with their religious views even if said religious views are fucked up beyond belief. Which is why abortion is wrong, but fertility drugs and IVF are perfectly fine. Even though a single instance of IVF kills more embryos that just about any single person's life time of abortions does.
I'm guessing not very well. I mean the first time you try, you end up with a gaping hole in places where one typically prefers to be unholed.
Not to split hairs, but George Lucas is no longer qualified to approve items as being authentic. There was a time where he was, but then he decided to change what authentic meant several times and re-imagine large swaths of the series, at which point he legitimately lost all claim to authority on the subject.
Intel's CPUs and integrated graphics have long had great support in the Linux kernel. Because Intel controls the tech, they can actually provide the correct and full source for the graphics drivers. The problem is that Intel integrated graphics aren't ever anything special.
Methinks you might are being a bit generous with Intel. I went with an Intel integrated chipset a number of years back because the alternatives weren't very well supported on FreeBSD, but the graphics weren't just not special, they were bad. Sufficiently bad that I've stayed away from them ever since. Which for Intel is just dumb, I have a very hard time believing that Intel couldn't do any better than what they've been doing. Hopefully with AMD owning ATI that'll kick a bit of sand in Intel's collective face so that they actually do something about it.
malware removers are great, but they're only a portion of the solution. A proper firewall, sandbox, antivirus and anti-malware is really the bare minimum needed on Windows. Beyond that you need common sense, vigilance and some knowledge of security. The problem is that it's a relatively small number of people that actually go that route.