Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:SSB radio (Score 1) 371

by Dan Dankleton (#44115483) Attached to: FCC Considering Proposal For Encrypted Ham Radio
In the UK it is:
11(2) The Licensee shall only address Messages to other Amateurs or to the stations of those Amateurs and shall not encrypt these Messages for the purpose of rendering the Message unintelligible to other radio spectrum users.

Australia allows encryption for emergency incidents, but I believe most of the world have similar clauses to the one above in their licence.

Comment: Re:It's dead either way, why not try this? (Score 1) 371

by Dan Dankleton (#44113161) Attached to: FCC Considering Proposal For Encrypted Ham Radio
The internet is better for communicating with random strangers, sure.

But show me how you can experiment with different modulation schemes using the internet... show me how you can do something as geekycool as bouncing a signal of Venus and receiving it just to see if it can be done using the internet.

Comment: Re:New Poke (Score 5, Insightful) 786

by Dan Dankleton (#43640707) Attached to: Microsoft's "New Coke" Moment?
Windows 8 doesn't suck because of the lack of a start button.
It doesn't suck because of a lack of an Aero like interface
The Metro interface doesn't suck

Windows 8 sucks because it flips between the classic and the metro interface seemingly at random. Yes, we computer folks know that it depends on whether the program has been written as a metro program or a classic one, but from the start screen there is no way to tell what interface you'll end up in when you click on a program. And I'm pretty sure that consistency is one of the central tenets of good UI design.

Comment: Re:Yawn, yet another filesystem... (Score 1) 268

by Dan Dankleton (#43571043) Attached to: Btrfs Is Getting There, But Not Quite Ready For Production

1. One size doesn't fit all though. Most filesystems aside from ZFS sacrifice correctness for the sake of performance. * For enterprise correctness is more important then performance. * For home use performance is more important then correctness.

There's another issue mixed in there: only 3 of those systems support clustering - and that's counting OCFS and OCFS2 as different filesystems. So you can add single machine performance vs. distributed performance into the mix. Then there's small file vs. large file performance: if you're only ever storing virtual machine disk images and you could get a 1% I/O boost by using an optimized FS then you'd probably take it. Suddenly the number of filesystems which need supporting starts to look reasonable.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 268

by Dan Dankleton (#43571003) Attached to: Btrfs Is Getting There, But Not Quite Ready For Production
Given a choice of production ready according to (my tests) or production ready according to (my tests Red Hat tests) I'd take the latter every time.

Yes, sooner or later Red Hat WILL miss something. Sooner or later I WILL miss something too. I trust Red Hat to do a breadth of testing which I don't do, and then I do a depth of testing for my specific workload as best as I can model it (and real life has this really annoying habit of finding inventive ways not to conform to my models.)

Comment: Re:Have you tried all these? (Score 5, Insightful) 238

by Dan Dankleton (#43380671) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Dealing With Unwanted But Official Security Probes?

You've asked for a meeting with their security people so that you can jointly plan to do whatever is needed?

I never have mod points when there's something I want to moderate! This is the thing to do. Get in touch with the hospital's security people. If the scans are causing any problems with IT operations then arrange with them to schedule the scans differently. Otherwise, explain that you've picked up the scans and blocked them per procedure. Ask if they want you to unblock their specific scan so that they can find any issues which would reveal weaknesses you could defend against in more depth.

All this may be unwelcome but it doesn't sound like there's much you can do about it, so treat it as an opportunity.

Comment: Re:Easy... (Score 1) 1121

True, but that's the most glaring one. Also, if you can't make it to chapter two without a discrepancy, what hope is there for the rest of it?

Wherever there's a discrepancy they'll just say "Oh, that bit's metaphorical, you have to interpret it as XXXXXX."

But he's asking people to disprove that Genesis is literally true. If he is saying that the discrepancies are caused by some of Genesis not being literally true then his argument vanishes in a puff of logic.

Comment: Re:Absurd (Score 1) 274

by Dan Dankleton (#42857135) Attached to: GNU Hurd To Develop SATA, USB, Audio Support
I think you misunderstood the GNU/Linux claim.
The GNU people have never (as far as I know) claimed to have built the Linux kernel. They got upset that people were running systems where everything except the kernel was written by GNU(*), and they weren't getting any credit. Referring to the systems as GNU/Linux was an attempt to redress that.

(*): Admittedly, many users would have been running XFree86 and other software not written by GNU as well, but I don't think anyone was running a Linux kernel and not running GNU.

Comment: Re:I prefer to think of inventions as discoveries (Score 1) 417

by Dan Dankleton (#42761615) Attached to: Are There Any Real Inventors Left?
But the Internet has been around since 1969 (and the idea for it since 1962.) The web was just an incremental improvement over Gopher. Nothing about the Internet as in invention in 1990 (or 1995) was surprising to people who knew what had come before. The invention itself contained no surprise.

What surprised Microsoft (and others) wasn't "The Internet," it was people's response to it and the fact that a HUGE network effect meant that an exponentially growing number of people wanted to use the internet.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...