"They're capable of surviving airdrops and extreme climates, and able to stay fresh for over 3 years, and the US military wants them to supplement their existing battlefield rations. The article predicts they'll eventually make it to the grocery store too. Apparently, soldiers who tried the pepperoni and barbecue-chicken pocket sandwiches have found them "acceptable"."
So if they're capable of surviving all that trauma and still able to "keep fresh", I have to wonder if they're not too durable.
Like, for example, if, after being eaten, the chewed up sandwich comes out the other end looking essentially the same as when it went down the esophagous.
My guideline: if bugs and bacteria don't like to eat something, then it's probably not meant for human consumption, either.
I guess it would make an easier move for a corporation to go from Unix to Linux, but imho Linux's real threat is MS/Unisys, not Unix.
You're half right. It is relatively easy to go from one of the high end flavors of UNIX to Linux. Reliable, familiar software at close to zero licensing costs that takes advantage of in-house UNIX experience is a no brainer decision for any corporation in that situation with a CIO that has a clue.
The second part is reversed. MS has been hoping to climb up into the server room from the desktop, leveraging the dominance of various complicated lock-in file formats and protocols it owns at the desktop. It's been partially successful since Intel compatible hardware is cheaper relative to traditional high end UNIX RISC platforms. And, with Win2K, they've finally got reliability up to the point where they aren't laughed out of the room.
But Linux is MS/Unisys' real threat, because while they focus on trying to climb up into the lucrative high end of the server room, Linux is coming up from behind, offering an even lower cost option than MS on Intel.
If I were MS, I'd see the biggest problem being high end UNIX shops tunneling through the mid-cost option of Wintel to the even better option of lowest-cost Lintel.
It rocks. I just keep thinking, If this still 0.9.x what the heck is 1.0 going to be like?
Sheesh, can't you do the math? Subtracting the two suggests that 1.0 can not possibly be more than 10% better than 0.9.x! Since x is currently at 9, we're looking at a 1% improvement!
Seriously, though, I'm composing this on 0.9.9 and I love it. Beats 4.7x all to pieces.
In the cosmology of software development with the 3 coordinates of (features, performance, inverse_bugs), the first is wonderful, the second is wonderful and the third is less than what it was in 4.7x.
I'm wondering if there might still be a performance boost to be seen in 1.0 as the more debug and error checking code is removed, if it is removed.
I agree that putting in arbitrary time locks is not a good approach to making open software secure.
Fundamentally, the best approach is to encourage sysadmins and those responsible for hiring sysadmins to take security as a serious matter.
Practically, I'd say a better approach is to have open source security scanning software that sysadmins can use to easily diagnose whether their systems and applications have a potential security problem. The raw ingredients for something like this are already out there, but I'm not sure if they are conveniently packaged.
It's one thing to see CERT and CIAC vulnerability postings and mull over whether some random application might occasionally open up a weird network port and be vulnerable to a BO, but that requires some investment of time.
A service that allows you to download and run a trusted, signed test application for each of the vulnerabilities you see on Bugtraq would be a real time saver for most sysadmins, who have quite a lot to do already.
But, just to state the obvious, the reason for all the opposition to this scheme is that it makes mincemeat of locally targeted advertising.
Those advertising dollars are what provide the lifeblood to your local radio and TV stations. If someone 14000 miles away sees that Bobby Joe's Used Car Super Palace is having a sale, they won't rush right down to buy one `o them Vehicles At Fantastic Savings. More importantly, if you're getting your national CBS TV feed from a different local market, you're not seeing those advertisements that were meant for you. That makes your local advertisers mighty unhappy.
I predict that the opposition would be considerably mollified and disappear entirely if there were a mix `n match technology so that your satellite receiver would shove the advertising stream from Bobby Joe's Used Car Super Palace into the slot occupied by some local outfit from a place many thousands of miles away.
I mean, that's what the local affiliates do by hand right now anyway.
SOAP is nothing more than a poorly designed and implemented version of xml-rpc.
I've read this complaint elsewhere and see it reiterated in several postings here: XML-RPC is a nice short small specification and SOAP is a big bloated specification that represents the union of the concerns of every member of a large committee.
So my questions is this:
Is there anyway that I can layer SOAP over XML-RPC and layer XML-RPC over SOAP so that if I go the route of doing XML-RPC I can always be assured of playing well with others?
[quoting from their conlusions] The Intel Fortran Compiler is able to further optimize the binary of GAUSSIAN 98 compared to PGI Fortran, and invaribly provide speed-up for AMD Athlons.
I found that one particularly interesting.
Do I understand correctly that using Intel's FORTRAN compiler under Linux provides speed-up over the Portland Groups FORTRAN compilers for the AMD CPU?
Sounds to me as if maybe AMD ought to put a few dollars into PGI and into the gcc effort, or are the tricks of the Intel FORTRAN compiler just too expensive to replicate?
Either that, or Intel needs to put in a "go slow" branch when on the AMD CPU:)
Oh, we weren't allowed to refresh the pages very often,
Oops.
I've often thought that a reasonable GUI could be emulated with enough server side logic (couldn't PHP be used for this?), but the premise rests heavily on having a really fast connection.
Re:running away from the world
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
People are "surprised" that anyone would have the utter lack of decency and humanity required to carry off such a horrific attack against innocent people.
I didn't express myself clearly or you didn't understand what I meant.
I don't blame the United States for the events of 9/11. I think that quite clearly the perpetrators of that event need to shoulder full responsibility for it, as well as those who trained them and provided financial support.
But you fall into the same cultural pit of isolation as the rest of us peasants. What you can call utter lack of decency (and, I, too, FWIW), believe it or not, others can refer to as a strike against Satanic and infidel immorality, justified by God. Those hijackers went to their deaths believing they were doing a good thing not an evil deed. I don't believe it was a good deed, but the fact is, they did and, more to the point, there are many people out there in the world who still do believe that sort of thing.
It's probably as incomprehensible to you as to most Americans that believe that innocent civilians should not be the targets of political violence. But there it is. It's real. They believe something different, even if you think it's a crock.
I find it ironic and interesting that the same people in one breath accuse America on the one hand of being isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world, and on the other hand of being too involved and too present in the world. It's like this: most Americans don't know a foreign language, don't read foreign media or watch foreign television. Most everything they understand about the outside world comes through network television news. I submit that they are therefore isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, many of the world's largest corporations are based in the USA. Their trade ventures into the rest of the world are very important, both to us and to the rest of the world, because of the economic benefits that derive from such trade.
What those countries see are not you and me. They see vice presidents of American corporations, negotiating business arrangements in their countries. Those Americans have a different culture, act in different ways, and are yet quite important. You may think that Americans are represented by the State Department. That's only a small part of it. America is represented by corporate officers overseas and by the media which it broadcasts, such as Baywatch, Dallas, etc.
You and I may know that America is not what is portrayed on television, but most of the rest world sees only that. They think we're all materialistic airheads, concerned more about our looks than the well-being of our fellow man, ready to go on a gun-crazed killing spree out of vengeance for some trifle.
I think America is more than that, but I harbor no illusions that just because we are good, that the rest of the world will automatically know it just as we know it.
Re:running away from the world
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I was going to say that most Americans are not actively running away from the world. [What stands for "news" in many Arabic language daily papers would leave many of us open-mouthed and incredulous.]
Rather, we ignore the rest of the world and consider America to be our world.
That's why most Americans were aghast and surprised by the 9/11 attack, because most of them didn't have any clue about the ideas that circulating in the rest of the world.
Our own media bears much responsibility in this regard, because it, too, has largely become part of an apparatus of market-based forces - infotainment used to embed valuable advertisements. George Soros makes a good point there.
I think the scariest part of globalism is that with free movement of corporations between nations, there will be a tendency for those corporations to be attracted to nations with a vacuum of regulations, enabling them to operate in what they find to be the friendliest environment from a pure market perspective. Zero corporate taxes, little corporate liability or responsibility apart from "returning shareholder value".
Unfortunately, I don't think a good, rational consensus can yet be built at the international level as to a proper corporate regulatory environment. There are too many special interests that would burden things in all kinds of contorted ways, pretty much as many nation states have done. There simply has to be a way of achieving some balanced policy that combines both perspectives, where returned shareholder value is everything, and where cost is no object to achieving a global optimum of human happiness.
As a consequence, you'll see more and more nations gravitating towards being run for corporate interests, which have only the small inertial forces of ethics among their chief executives preventing them from abandoning even more traditional human values and morals in order to achieve a better return on shareholder value.
It will probably be some years before this evolution of nation/corporate states comes to a head, but inevitably it will.
While I strongly believe that free, unfettered flow of accurate information and individual empowerment (such as democracy) are vital to finding a good solution, these two particular ideals may not necessarily be included in either the solutions that provide maximum shareholder value, or in some of the proposed solutions that supposedly provide optimum global human happiness.
I used to think that there was something intrinsically interesting about all those pr0n sites that I visited.
That is, until I found out the ugly truth: that they were flimsy front organizations displaying subliminal messages about computer technology, the OSI layer model, router configuration, and other lurid topics.
You can imagine that I was simply outraged at having been used in this way.
I thought I really wanted Britney in the worst way, when, all along, it was really just her routers that formed the basis of her great attraction.
Any school child has been thoroughly indoctrinated about these.
For instance, any one with a deck of cards asking if you'd like to play "52 Card Pickup". I only had to play that game once, at age 6.
Another great card game that any 8 year old can teach to a 5 year old is "Janitor".
The worse part of the whole thing is that, despite growing much older and more knowledgable and ostensibly working at a professional job, the workplace is still full of such games and people with mentalities to propagate them.
I especially like equivalents to "Bring Me a Rock".
Even if you have to get on the phone and track some people down it would be easier than re-proofing and re-tweaking.
That is the best advice.
Don't resort the heavy duty technical solution to the problem before exhausting the lower tech solution to the problem first.
Half a day's phone calls and tracking down the current location of your document's author is easier than what you're proposing to do.
Even then, before resorting to OCR to XML, go with the other suggestions of getting a good typist to regenerate the document.
You can do a favor to your successor by including some highly specific URL for the new document showing when it was created, what format it is in, and where on some networked device it is living at the time that the paper was produced.
It's also a nice gesture to publish the new document in several formats to increase the liklihood of future translatability.
No matter how "universal" a particular format happens to be these days, by presenting your document in more than one format you increase the effective lifetime of the document.
I've heard there's a similar phenomena that affects human beings.
That is, drivers going through construction zones with heavy traffic congestion and low speed limits tend to "slingshot" out at the end. They put the pedal to the metal and tend to exceed the speed limit even a bit more than usual after enduring these "cattle chutes".
You can't realistically expect the government to be able to attract top of the line talent in IT security with their traditional job structure.
You know: come in from 9 to 5, have a GS rating with plodding single digit percentage raises each year, put up with a few petty bureaucrats, slug it out for several decades and finally retire well off.
The people they're after are young and don't care about retirement plans, but do care they get paid what they're worth on the open market and don't want supervisors having a cow if they come in 8:05 am.
I think any plan, like this one, that helps to get those talented people into government service is just what the government desperately needs.
It reminds me of people going to medical school on military scholarships and serving a while after their schooling is finished.
...and some version of NS will find it's way onto the (*shudder*) #1 ISP in America's main distribution.
Which would be a good thing in my book.
Because suddenly all those web sites that want to cater to the AOLusers of the world will have to contend with site visitors displaying a User Agent String that looks like Mozillas.
Then, they'll throw up their hands at having to support another different browser.
But when they do, they'll end up supporting W3C standards.
And that is a real genuine plus as far as I'm concerned.
...someone like Jeremy Allison to describe the practicalities, not only of the licensing terms, but also the accuracy and the completeness of this specification document.
I have to wonder, too, just how relevent the information is from the standpoint of timeliness.
Is this something that is practically out of the bag anyway and therefore of little effective monetary value to Microsoft at this time?
It's almost certainly of some political value for them to release an interface specification of any kind at this point in time, considering the stakes at risk at the outcome of their current trials and settlement agreement.
Someone from the Samba team, someone that attempts to reverse engineer things like SMB, Active Directory and NTFS would have a much better insight into the meaning of this than most people.
With tattoo you don't need,
Batteries
Network connection
Power plug
Monitor
Keyboard or mouse (pen though)
Tattoo is about the most reliable form of interoffice communication there is. You can take it with you anywhere, you can read it anytime you want. It's lightweight, and neatly folds up into a smaller space. If you need security, tattoo can be burned or shredded. If you get really bored, you can make airplanes out of tattoos.
You want games? Tattoo has some of the most ancient and popular games ever. Tic tac tatoo, connect the dots to name a few. Tattoo even has an intuitive interface for making your own games. In fact it's so easy a toddler can do it!
Tattoo in volume can be used to prop up a montior to eye level that doesn't have a stand. Have a table with a leg that's a little short? Easy enough, some folded tattooed person under the affected leg will make that table stand on all 4 legs like new again.
Girls love tattoos! Write a love letter, send a card, these will allways get you more brownie points with your signifigant other than electronic methods.
Tattoo has been used for thousands of years, without tattoo, we wouldn't have the great teaching of our forefathers. Our constitution was written on parchment, animal tattoo!
Of course it is no surprise when you have headlines like
"Vendor Says Competitor's Products Suck."
since most consumers have a clue that there might be some bias in such claims.
But I have to really wonder about the mentality of Intel executives that approved of paying money to Aberdeen "get an independent outside assessment to say that our competitor's products suck."
Not to mention that Aberdeen's reputation as "an independent outside assessment source" has been pretty well sullied by this whole snafu. If they didn't make a lot of money from Intel on this story, then they made a bad business decision.
Intel can't hope to help its reputation among knowledgeable IT people with this kind of a move. Meanwhile, the more gullible and dupable market won't read this report because they don't really care to see "so much technical detail". Besides, the g&d market is already sold on MegaHurts as the The One Number of Comparison.
Initially I had figured it was like political mudslinging ads, but the more I look at this one it seems to be a case where the mud slinger is ending up coated with more mud than the slingee.
Intel needs someone with more common sense to be put in charge of their public relations.
When people went to their mailboxes expecting things like personal correspondence and the most annoying thing were the bills sent by creditors.
Now, I spend almost 10 minutes a week culling spam from my post office box.
The medium isn't fun any more.
Likewise, while the total amount of content has gone up on the web, the ratio of spam to content has increased.
One of the many without broadband at home, I can testify that waiting for advertising images to download over a 56k line has made web browsing a less frequent part of my life.
Ah, yes, the old problem that becoming a parent, a position of incredible responsibility, does not require you prove any qualifications to raise children well.
Reminds me of stories where employees of Toys Backwards Are Us would complain of "parents" letting off their kids at the store for several hours at a stretch instead of hiring a babysitter.
Slashdot Mirror
And fresh reports say that 'hackers' also use e-mail, telephones and postal services.
Arrgh!! Why'd you have to tell them that?
Please, please don't tell them that "hackers" eat M&M's and drink coffee!
"They're capable of surviving airdrops and extreme climates, and able to stay fresh for over 3 years, and the US military wants them to supplement their existing battlefield rations. The article predicts they'll eventually make it to the grocery store too. Apparently, soldiers who tried the pepperoni and barbecue-chicken pocket sandwiches have found them "acceptable"."
So if they're capable of surviving all that trauma and still able to "keep fresh", I have to wonder if they're not too durable.
Like, for example, if, after being eaten, the chewed up sandwich comes out the other end looking essentially the same as when it went down the esophagous.
My guideline: if bugs and bacteria don't like to eat something, then it's probably not meant for human consumption, either.
I guess it would make an easier move for a corporation to go from Unix to Linux, but imho Linux's real threat is MS/Unisys, not Unix.
You're half right. It is relatively easy to go from one of the high end flavors of UNIX to Linux. Reliable, familiar software at close to zero licensing costs that takes advantage of in-house UNIX experience is a no brainer decision for any corporation in that situation with a CIO that has a clue.
The second part is reversed. MS has been hoping to climb up into the server room from the desktop, leveraging the dominance of various complicated lock-in file formats and protocols it owns at the desktop. It's been partially successful since Intel compatible hardware is cheaper relative to traditional high end UNIX RISC platforms. And, with Win2K, they've finally got reliability up to the point where they aren't laughed out of the room.
But Linux is MS/Unisys' real threat, because while they focus on trying to climb up into the lucrative high end of the server room, Linux is coming up from behind, offering an even lower cost option than MS on Intel.
If I were MS, I'd see the biggest problem being high end UNIX shops tunneling through the mid-cost option of Wintel to the even better option of lowest-cost Lintel.
It rocks. I just keep thinking, If this still 0.9.x what the heck is 1.0 going to be like?
Sheesh, can't you do the math? Subtracting the two suggests that 1.0 can not possibly be more than 10% better than 0.9.x! Since x is currently at 9, we're looking at a 1% improvement!
Seriously, though, I'm composing this on 0.9.9 and I love it. Beats 4.7x all to pieces.
In the cosmology of software development with the 3 coordinates of (features, performance, inverse_bugs), the first is wonderful, the second is wonderful and the third is less than what it was in 4.7x.
I'm wondering if there might still be a performance boost to be seen in 1.0 as the more debug and error checking code is removed, if it is removed.
I agree that putting in arbitrary time locks is not a good approach to making open software secure.
Fundamentally, the best approach is to encourage sysadmins and those responsible for hiring sysadmins to take security as a serious matter.
Practically, I'd say a better approach is to have open source security scanning software that sysadmins can use to easily diagnose whether their systems and applications have a potential security problem. The raw ingredients for something like this are already out there, but I'm not sure if they are conveniently packaged.
It's one thing to see CERT and CIAC vulnerability postings and mull over whether some random application might occasionally open up a weird network port and be vulnerable to a BO, but that requires some investment of time.
A service that allows you to download and run a trusted, signed test application for each of the vulnerabilities you see on Bugtraq would be a real time saver for most sysadmins, who have quite a lot to do already.
there's always a need for local programming
Well, sort of.
I like to know what's happening locally.
But, just to state the obvious, the reason for all the opposition to this scheme is that it makes mincemeat of locally targeted advertising.
Those advertising dollars are what provide the lifeblood to your local radio and TV stations. If someone 14000 miles away sees that Bobby Joe's Used Car Super Palace is having a sale, they won't rush right down to buy one `o them Vehicles At Fantastic Savings. More importantly, if you're getting your national CBS TV feed from a different local market, you're not seeing those advertisements that were meant for you. That makes your local advertisers mighty unhappy.
I predict that the opposition would be considerably mollified and disappear entirely if there were a mix `n match technology so that your satellite receiver would shove the advertising stream from Bobby Joe's Used Car Super Palace into the slot occupied by some local outfit from a place many thousands of miles away.
I mean, that's what the local affiliates do by hand right now anyway.
SOAP is nothing more than a poorly designed and implemented version of xml-rpc.
I've read this complaint elsewhere and see it reiterated in several postings here: XML-RPC is a nice short small specification and SOAP is a big bloated specification that represents the union of the concerns of every member of a large committee.
So my questions is this:
[quoting from their conlusions]
The Intel Fortran Compiler is able to further optimize the binary of GAUSSIAN 98 compared to PGI Fortran, and invaribly provide speed-up for AMD Athlons.
I found that one particularly interesting.
Do I understand correctly that using Intel's FORTRAN compiler under Linux provides speed-up over the Portland Groups FORTRAN compilers for the AMD CPU?
Sounds to me as if maybe AMD ought to put a few dollars into PGI and into the gcc effort, or are the tricks of the Intel FORTRAN compiler just too expensive to replicate?
Either that, or Intel needs to put in a "go slow" branch when on the AMD CPU:)
Take your moral relativity to your utopian coffee clatch and leave it there. I believe in a single truth.
I don't believe in moral relativity.
I believe the prospects for a utopia are less than the prospects for a dystopia.
Furthermore, I believe in a single truth.
The difference between you and I, though, is that I'm not so naive as to think everyone else in the world believes as I do.
I know for a fact that they do not.
Oh, we weren't allowed to refresh the pages very often,
Oops.
I've often thought that a reasonable GUI could be emulated with enough server side logic (couldn't PHP be used for this?), but the premise rests heavily on having a really fast connection.
People are "surprised" that anyone would have the utter lack of decency and humanity required to carry off such a horrific attack against innocent people.
I didn't express myself clearly or you didn't understand what I meant.
I don't blame the United States for the events of 9/11. I think that quite clearly the perpetrators of that event need to shoulder full responsibility for it, as well as those who trained them and provided financial support.
But you fall into the same cultural pit of isolation as the rest of us peasants. What you can call utter lack of decency (and, I, too, FWIW), believe it or not, others can refer to as a strike against Satanic and infidel immorality, justified by God. Those hijackers went to their deaths believing they were doing a good thing not an evil deed. I don't believe it was a good deed, but the fact is, they did and, more to the point, there are many people out there in the world who still do believe that sort of thing.
It's probably as incomprehensible to you as to most Americans that believe that innocent civilians should not be the targets of political violence. But there it is. It's real. They believe something different, even if you think it's a crock.
I find it ironic and interesting that the same people in one breath accuse America on the one hand of being isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world, and on the other hand of being too involved and too present in the world.
It's like this: most Americans don't know a foreign language, don't read foreign media or watch foreign television. Most everything they understand about the outside world comes through network television news. I submit that they are therefore isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, many of the world's largest corporations are based in the USA. Their trade ventures into the rest of the world are very important, both to us and to the rest of the world, because of the economic benefits that derive from such trade.
What those countries see are not you and me. They see vice presidents of American corporations, negotiating business arrangements in their countries. Those Americans have a different culture, act in different ways, and are yet quite important. You may think that Americans are represented by the State Department. That's only a small part of it. America is represented by corporate officers overseas and by the media which it broadcasts, such as Baywatch, Dallas, etc.
You and I may know that America is not what is portrayed on television, but most of the rest world sees only that. They think we're all materialistic airheads, concerned more about our looks than the well-being of our fellow man, ready to go on a gun-crazed killing spree out of vengeance for some trifle.
I think America is more than that, but I harbor no illusions that just because we are good, that the rest of the world will automatically know it just as we know it.
I was going to say that most Americans are not actively running away from the world. [What stands for "news" in many Arabic language daily papers would leave many of us open-mouthed and incredulous.]
Rather, we ignore the rest of the world and consider America to be our world.
That's why most Americans were aghast and surprised by the 9/11 attack, because most of them didn't have any clue about the ideas that circulating in the rest of the world.
Our own media bears much responsibility in this regard, because it, too, has largely become part of an apparatus of market-based forces - infotainment used to embed valuable advertisements. George Soros makes a good point there.
I think the scariest part of globalism is that with free movement of corporations between nations, there will be a tendency for those corporations to be attracted to nations with a vacuum of regulations, enabling them to operate in what they find to be the friendliest environment from a pure market perspective. Zero corporate taxes, little corporate liability or responsibility apart from "returning shareholder value".
Unfortunately, I don't think a good, rational consensus can yet be built at the international level as to a proper corporate regulatory environment. There are too many special interests that would burden things in all kinds of contorted ways, pretty much as many nation states have done. There simply has to be a way of achieving some balanced policy that combines both perspectives, where returned shareholder value is everything, and where cost is no object to achieving a global optimum of human happiness.
As a consequence, you'll see more and more nations gravitating towards being run for corporate interests, which have only the small inertial forces of ethics among their chief executives preventing them from abandoning even more traditional human values and morals in order to achieve a better return on shareholder value.
It will probably be some years before this evolution of nation/corporate states comes to a head, but inevitably it will.
While I strongly believe that free, unfettered flow of accurate information and individual empowerment (such as democracy) are vital to finding a good solution, these two particular ideals may not necessarily be included in either the solutions that provide maximum shareholder value, or in some of the proposed solutions that supposedly provide optimum global human happiness.
Loves
Hates:
...looks a lot like spam I see in my inbox or on usenet.
What's the next headline:
I used to think that there was something intrinsically interesting about all those pr0n sites that I visited.
That is, until I found out the ugly truth: that they were flimsy front organizations displaying subliminal messages about computer technology, the OSI layer model, router configuration, and other lurid topics.
You can imagine that I was simply outraged at having been used in this way.
I thought I really wanted Britney in the worst way, when, all along, it was really just her routers that formed the basis of her great attraction.
by hard experience, Games Not to Play.
Any school child has been thoroughly indoctrinated about these.
For instance, any one with a deck of cards asking if you'd like to play "52 Card Pickup". I only had to play that game once, at age 6.
Another great card game that any 8 year old can teach to a 5 year old is "Janitor".
The worse part of the whole thing is that, despite growing much older and more knowledgable and ostensibly working at a professional job, the workplace is still full of such games and people with mentalities to propagate them.
I especially like equivalents to "Bring Me a Rock".
Even if you have to get on the phone and track some people down it would be easier than re-proofing and re-tweaking.
That is the best advice.
Don't resort the heavy duty technical solution to the problem before exhausting the lower tech solution to the problem first.
Half a day's phone calls and tracking down the current location of your document's author is easier than what you're proposing to do.
Even then, before resorting to OCR to XML, go with the other suggestions of getting a good typist to regenerate the document.
You can do a favor to your successor by including some highly specific URL for the new document showing when it was created, what format it is in, and where on some networked device it is living at the time that the paper was produced.
It's also a nice gesture to publish the new document in several formats to increase the liklihood of future translatability.
No matter how "universal" a particular format happens to be these days, by presenting your document in more than one format you increase the effective lifetime of the document.
I've heard there's a similar phenomena that affects human beings.
That is, drivers going through construction zones with heavy traffic congestion and low speed limits tend to "slingshot" out at the end. They put the pedal to the metal and tend to exceed the speed limit even a bit more than usual after enduring these "cattle chutes".
Moo.
You can't realistically expect the government to be able to attract top of the line talent in IT security with their traditional job structure.
You know: come in from 9 to 5, have a GS rating with plodding single digit percentage raises each year, put up with a few petty bureaucrats, slug it out for several decades and finally retire well off.
The people they're after are young and don't care about retirement plans, but do care they get paid what they're worth on the open market and don't want supervisors having a cow if they come in 8:05 am.
I think any plan, like this one, that helps to get those talented people into government service is just what the government desperately needs.
It reminds me of people going to medical school on military scholarships and serving a while after their schooling is finished.
Which would be a good thing in my book.
Because suddenly all those web sites that want to cater to the AOLusers of the world will have to contend with site visitors displaying a User Agent String that looks like Mozillas.
Then, they'll throw up their hands at having to support another different browser.
But when they do, they'll end up supporting W3C standards.
And that is a real genuine plus as far as I'm concerned.
...someone like Jeremy Allison to describe the practicalities, not only of the licensing terms, but also the accuracy and the completeness of this specification document.
I have to wonder, too, just how relevent the information is from the standpoint of timeliness.
Is this something that is practically out of the bag anyway and therefore of little effective monetary value to Microsoft at this time?
It's almost certainly of some political value for them to release an interface specification of any kind at this point in time, considering the stakes at risk at the outcome of their current trials and settlement agreement.
Someone from the Samba team, someone that attempts to reverse engineer things like SMB, Active Directory and NTFS would have a much better insight into the meaning of this than most people.
[Please don't hit me.]
With tattoo you don't need,
Batteries
Network connection
Power plug
Monitor
Keyboard or mouse (pen though)
Tattoo is about the most reliable form of interoffice communication there is. You can take it with you anywhere, you can read it anytime you want. It's lightweight, and neatly folds up into a smaller space. If you need security, tattoo can be burned or shredded. If you get really bored, you can make airplanes out of tattoos.
You want games? Tattoo has some of the most ancient and popular games ever. Tic tac tatoo, connect the dots to name a few. Tattoo even has an intuitive interface for making your own games. In fact it's so easy a toddler can do it!
Tattoo in volume can be used to prop up a montior to eye level that doesn't have a stand. Have a table with a leg that's a little short? Easy enough, some folded tattooed person under the affected leg will make that table stand on all 4 legs like new again.
Girls love tattoos! Write a love letter, send a card, these will allways get you more brownie points with your signifigant other than electronic methods.
Tattoo has been used for thousands of years, without tattoo, we wouldn't have the great teaching of our forefathers. Our constitution was written on parchment, animal tattoo!
Have you hugged your tattoo today?
Of course it is no surprise when you have headlines like
since most consumers have a clue that there might be some bias in such claims.But I have to really wonder about the mentality of Intel executives that approved of paying money to Aberdeen "get an independent outside assessment to say that our competitor's products suck."
Not to mention that Aberdeen's reputation as "an independent outside assessment source" has been pretty well sullied by this whole snafu. If they didn't make a lot of money from Intel on this story, then they made a bad business decision.
Intel can't hope to help its reputation among knowledgeable IT people with this kind of a move. Meanwhile, the more gullible and dupable market won't read this report because they don't really care to see "so much technical detail". Besides, the g&d market is already sold on MegaHurts as the The One Number of Comparison.
Initially I had figured it was like political mudslinging ads, but the more I look at this one it seems to be a case where the mud slinger is ending up coated with more mud than the slingee.
Intel needs someone with more common sense to be put in charge of their public relations.
When people went to their mailboxes expecting things like personal correspondence and the most annoying thing were the bills sent by creditors.
Now, I spend almost 10 minutes a week culling spam from my post office box.
The medium isn't fun any more.
Likewise, while the total amount of content has gone up on the web, the ratio of spam to content has increased.
One of the many without broadband at home, I can testify that waiting for advertising images to download over a 56k line has made web browsing a less frequent part of my life.
Ah, yes, the old problem that becoming a parent, a position of incredible responsibility, does not require you prove any qualifications to raise children well.
Reminds me of stories where employees of Toys Backwards Are Us would complain of "parents" letting off their kids at the store for several hours at a stretch instead of hiring a babysitter.