Will you please create some kind of CD or DVD archives so we can buy a copy of the entirety of the cryptome archives in case you ever get downed with the current U.S. foolishness?
They'll only fix or redesign those items that they are motivated to fix. For most of them, the niggling problems that the rest of their user population think are really obnoxious really aren't as important as hacking in that "new feature" they've been thinking about for the past three or four weeks.
After all, they're not making money off the software, and they're quite happy to let their users do the work on their own (and accept the patches.)
Commercial houses have extensive bug-tracking software--and, based on user pressure, fix those bugs on a regular, and timely basis. Else they lose their customers to someone else who does. (Exception: Microsoft.) They expend vast resources to track these issues (using TeamTrack, DevTrack, or something (yuck) from Rational). And their developers are usually paid specifically to cater to their larger or more influential customers--ie: fix the damn bugs or change the behaviour.
*shrug* Simple question of motivation. Self-motivation is notoriously less reliable than employment-motivation.:) IMHO..
I was never impressed by this kind of story. The costs involved are enough to keep these treatments out of the hands of the general populace and always have been--techniques such as rebuilding cartilage, specialized arthroscopy, and now computerized knee-braces are not for anyone but the ultra-rich and those who can afford to see private sports-medicine practitioners.
It's like we're in the middle of one of the things Tyler Durden in Fight Club complained about: We've all been raised to believe we can be movie stars, or presidents, or super-rich businessmen, or wealthy enough to afford care like this.
But we won't, and we can't.
Makes me sick to read your crappy stories about how some super-overpaid jock gets the best care in the world, while the rest of us suffer our destroyed knees without that kind of medical attention. Jerks!
Looks like they're reluctant to break the cncryption on the system by reverse engineering or cryptographic attacks. Looks perhaps like they're afraid of DMCA repercussions if they lose the case?
Let this be something we all do--encrypt all our traffic between any applications they think are borderline, and do it in such a way as to make their job "just that much more difficult."
No one says we can't use the DMCA ourselves until it's struck down, right?
Hey.. You missed the part where they said that they shouldn't (or couldn't?) engage warp until slightly after Jupiter. While the implication was that they'd be at Warp 4.5 for the entire trip, I think it's quite clear that they're just at impulse engines to Jupiter, then slam it to warp 4.5 to make the round-trip to Neptune, then impulse back again.
I work locally here in Victoria, BC in a permanent "consulting" job for an American company in Alameda, CA. And I've got to tell you, I'm still having a great time. We have a foosball table, a ping pong table, a relaxed environment, and I get to deal with really smart people all day long. (Programmers, developers, and engineers from Microsoft's WebTV, U.S. Navy Weapons Division, NASA's JPL, etc.)
The job isn't in danger of going anywhere, I get to stay in Canada, we have a stocked refrigerator, and there's skylights throughout the building. (Big difference between natural light and artificial.)
I have fun at my job. I think there's a terrible fallacy going on right now though: There are a tonne of jobs available--lots of them. All over. But the qualified individuals are lost in the sea of layoffs from the other idiot companies.
If you know what you're doing, you won't have trouble finding a job. Really! If you're not an arrogant ass, you won't have trouble finding a job. Honestly!
The problem is convincing your potential employer that you aren't lying like a sack of sh*t and that you really do know those things on your resume. With all those layoffs, the market is inundated with unskilled wannabe professionals who were spoiled by the dot-bombs. They're making it hard for those of us (or more appropriately, you kind folk) who've been here from the start, and so really good people get passed by because they don't know how to attract positive attention to themselves.
There's lots of jobs--just a bad signal:noise ratio.
Re: (One of) The architects did say such a thing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
So if I were typing quickly trying to get what I knew to the rest of the/. community and used a slightly incorrect article ("the"), sue me.
Perhaps the primary designer was the underling and not Yamasaki at all? How do you know? The guy I heard on the radio claimed to be "the architect". Maybe he was just a nobody after all and was sucking in the news station with incredibly realistic and self-deprecating statements that did nothing to bolster his reputation nor fame as an architect?
Perhaps the interviewer used an incorrect term when referring to the interviewee and the interviewee didn't hear the introduction so he could correct him on the matter?
The source material was a radio interview, Tuesday afternoon around 6:00 p.m. PST, on a local (possibly CBC-affiliated) radio station broadcast in Victoria, BC, Canada. I may be able to track down the specific interviewer if you like because I recognize his voice and can probably do so again.
The interviewee was in California at the time.. possible Los Angeles? I forget the city, now. San Francisco "feels" more likely.
Re:The architect said no such thing...he's dead
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Yamasaki *and associates* did the architecture you dumbass.
They were NOT designed to take an aircraft impact.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The architect of the buildings themselves gave an interview that specifically said that the building were over-engineered for NATURAL disasters, not aircraft crashes. He said they did withstand the impacts but the explosive forces of the impacts probably stripped the fire-proofing from the steel supports, which then probably melted in the jet-fuel heat.
He said that the sprinkler systems were designed for paper, cardboard, and desk fire loads--jet fuel doesn't respond so well to water sprinklers, that's why the aviation buildings he designed have foam fire extinguisher systems--NOT water.
Once again, the architect of the trade towers themselves insisted that the buildings were prepared for any natural disaster, but that disasters like this could obviously *not* be prepared for.
He also said he didn't even know whether or not the sprinkler systems were activated, let alone helping or hindering matters any.
He said that the heat from the jet fuel melted the steel supports and that probably only a single floor gave way--but that the momentum from the drop (with all the floors above it) was enough to overload the supports below, and the supports below that, and so on right down to ground floor.
So please make the correction--they weren't designed to withstand jet impact. Maybe a propellor airplane, maybe not--I have no idea where you got that info from. Doesn't matter.
-sudog
Wonderful-Comparisons between software and bridges
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
So let's extend this analogy just a little shall we? How many moving parts does a plain bridge have? What sorts of user interaction is there aside from walking on it?
If I had a program and all it did was add 2 to every number I gave it--well duh! There's the equivalent of a simple archway over a stream.
But what about vehicles, automobiles? Machinery? Robotics? You think those systems don't have specific limitations in them? You think if you drive the wrong way down a one-way street, it's the car's duty to turn you back around again? No--and in a head-on collision, the best a car can do is crumple and absorb the impact of your stupidity, or flatten the opposing vehicle. The car is then a write-off. Period. Yet it sounds to me like you expect software to bounce back and survive catastrophy.
If a bridge is built for x lbs of weight on it, and you dump 5x right in the middle, you think the bridge is going to be okay after that? But software should be able to. Ah. I see.
Large software systems are so completely different from real-world systems that comparing them is silly. (And is that Visual Basic I see there to try to prove your case with?)
Am I the only one that this Slashdot story makes almost no sense whatsoever to? The sentence doesn't even syntactically pick up where it left off before the huge parentheses aside!
Good grief! What the heck are you trying to say, you goofy Slashdot posters?
This is such a blatant antagonism I can't believe it's still making the rounds. The note was posted to Bugtraq and has become the poster child for the anti-full-disclosure crews.
Slashdot is trolling us--successfully, it looks like. Too bad we can't mod the story itself down!
This debate is hashed through time and time again, and solved--time and time again. Anyone who argues against full disclosure has never been a system admin or been deep enough into someone else's exploit-ridden code to feel the pain.
Exploit disclosures are like the work-saving packages collections of *BSD. Someone else has done the work for you. For those who are in the know this means we don't have to fire up our own copy of IDA or grep spaghetti source code to figure out what the heck is going on.
Why should I worry about the lower forms of system admin life and hold their ignorant hands when my more important systems and the systems of my clients are at stake? If you can't stand the heat, bloody well get out the kitchen and leave the work for someone who knows what they're doing.
It seems to me that Free Software according to the FSF is a philosophy. To feel guilty about using free software and to think that whoever wrote it somehow deserves a reward seems to me to be contrary to the reason they wrote the sotware to begin with. Using it and contributing to it if you can is one thing, but feeling like you owe them money is another altogether.
The answer is simple: Don't send them money and don't feel bad for using their great software, as though it's worth money and you got away with some naughty act in the privacy of your home where no one but your conscience watches over you.
The best thing you can do for them is to:
1. Use their software.
2. Contribute to their software (if you can.)
3. Don't support their commercial competitors.
4. Spread the word about their software in particular. There's enough religious zealots as it is--don't add your voice to zealotry, add it instead to the promotion of good, specific packages.
The whole concept of money in exchange for software seems to me to fly in the face of what they're striving for to begin with.
Supporting an organization as a whole and acknowledging the fact that it costs money to operate or even exist is another matter entirely, while a human being who has chosen to write free software without doing something to make money for themselves doesn't really "get" what's going on around us. Giving him money means he might as well have not released his software under the GPL at all.
On the other hand, the FSF is a foundation that does more than write software--and thus depends on donations to even exist--that's its whole premise from the get-go.
See? Now you know what you're doing. The person is more important than trivial details, his ability to communicate and stay positive in the face of adversity..
The joke question is excellent--and leaves open the possibility to talk about something other than the job at hand: interests (even computer-based ones), goals, history, interesting experiences.
You're a bloody mook. If you're kicking people out just because they can't remember what the hell a "non-continuous netmask" is, or whether by filetype you mean filetype by convention or actual file/device/hardlink/whatever, then thank god you're kicking those people out--they'd do much better ignoring your crappy job and getting one somewhere else.
Your questions suck and are variable in answer depending on what operating system context you're using--which you haven't defined. Thus your questions are completely useless. Do you really run all those OS's in your shop? Do you really think that the ability to decode a.tar.gz.shar.uu is an asset? Besides that, what if the file contents are different? UNIX don't give two shits about the filename, and nor do most utilities.
Not only all the above, but how can you possibly expect to get a decent system admin who actually uses rsh rather than ssh? Do you really think that separating the/usr/var and/home directories onto separate partitions is useful when the underlying drive structure hasn't been defined? If it's a single drive what do you save by splitting them up? Maybe/var, but the point is valid.
Do you honestly think that the ability to customize an xterm (when everyone uses Eterm anyway) is somehow an asset to a decent system admin?
chgrp isn't needed, either--so your questions about "what three utilities control file permissions" is also lame--use chown with the user:group format on systems that support it.
So let me ask you--you only question whether the applicant knows different UNIXen and then ask a lame seemingly DOS-specific question about the FAT table?
What the heck does question #6 in your networking section mean? Usable internally and freely? Or usable on the internet with proper SWIP/allocations?
Your disk controller questions are woefully out of date--the SCSI chains are different lengths dependong on which SCSI controller type you're using along with which SCSI drive types you're using. SCSI U160? SCSI old-style 50-pin?
Your NFS questions are also broken and depend on the implementation and compiled-in defaults. I can enable root access by default on my NFS. Can you? Do you think it matters whether the applicant knows about ypxferd or not? If you're so hot on man pages (in previous questions) then why are you asking application-specific questions in these sections?
Bah. The questionnaire is utter crap. If I ever had a job interview with you (thankfully that will probably never happen) I would smile warmly, shake your hand, and tell you I don't think I would fit in at your shop.
Mitnick GAVE UP his right to a bail hearing. They didn't just hold him for years without one you mook. He specifically signed away his right to it because they pressured him into it with threats.
If he had remained hard-nosed they would've been forced to have hearings and trials. But he also would've been thrown back into the nasty places in prison with the dangerous offenders population.
You can't convert any base to any other base "just like that"! After the decimal place you end up dealing with fractions that are sometimes impossible to properly convert to fractions of another base.
Here's an easy proof: Try converting 0.025 into a clean non-repeating binary fraction.
Slashdot Mirror
...sigh.
Will you please create some kind of CD or DVD archives so we can buy a copy of the entirety of the cryptome archives in case you ever get downed with the current U.S. foolishness?
They'll only fix or redesign those items that they are motivated to fix. For most of them, the niggling problems that the rest of their user population think are really obnoxious really aren't as important as hacking in that "new feature" they've been thinking about for the past three or four weeks.
:) IMHO..
After all, they're not making money off the software, and they're quite happy to let their users do the work on their own (and accept the patches.)
Commercial houses have extensive bug-tracking software--and, based on user pressure, fix those bugs on a regular, and timely basis. Else they lose their customers to someone else who does. (Exception: Microsoft.) They expend vast resources to track these issues (using TeamTrack, DevTrack, or something (yuck) from Rational). And their developers are usually paid specifically to cater to their larger or more influential customers--ie: fix the damn bugs or change the behaviour.
*shrug* Simple question of motivation. Self-motivation is notoriously less reliable than employment-motivation.
I was never impressed by this kind of story. The costs involved are enough to keep these treatments out of the hands of the general populace and always have been--techniques such as rebuilding cartilage, specialized arthroscopy, and now computerized knee-braces are not for anyone but the ultra-rich and those who can afford to see private sports-medicine practitioners.
It's like we're in the middle of one of the things Tyler Durden in Fight Club complained about: We've all been raised to believe we can be movie stars, or presidents, or super-rich businessmen, or wealthy enough to afford care like this.
But we won't, and we can't.
Makes me sick to read your crappy stories about how some super-overpaid jock gets the best care in the world, while the rest of us suffer our destroyed knees without that kind of medical attention. Jerks!
Looks like they're reluctant to break the cncryption on the system by reverse engineering or cryptographic attacks. Looks perhaps like they're afraid of DMCA repercussions if they lose the case?
Let this be something we all do--encrypt all our traffic between any applications they think are borderline, and do it in such a way as to make their job "just that much more difficult."
No one says we can't use the DMCA ourselves until it's struck down, right?
It's clear, unambiguous, and I'm happy to say very fair.
Hey.. You missed the part where they said that they shouldn't (or couldn't?) engage warp until slightly after Jupiter. While the implication was that they'd be at Warp 4.5 for the entire trip, I think it's quite clear that they're just at impulse engines to Jupiter, then slam it to warp 4.5 to make the round-trip to Neptune, then impulse back again.
Jerry Rice? That's Jerry Lynn Ryan you mook!
I work locally here in Victoria, BC in a permanent "consulting" job for an American company in Alameda, CA. And I've got to tell you, I'm still having a great time. We have a foosball table, a ping pong table, a relaxed environment, and I get to deal with really smart people all day long. (Programmers, developers, and engineers from Microsoft's WebTV, U.S. Navy Weapons Division, NASA's JPL, etc.)
The job isn't in danger of going anywhere, I get to stay in Canada, we have a stocked refrigerator, and there's skylights throughout the building. (Big difference between natural light and artificial.)
I have fun at my job. I think there's a terrible fallacy going on right now though: There are a tonne of jobs available--lots of them. All over. But the qualified individuals are lost in the sea of layoffs from the other idiot companies.
If you know what you're doing, you won't have trouble finding a job. Really! If you're not an arrogant ass, you won't have trouble finding a job. Honestly!
The problem is convincing your potential employer that you aren't lying like a sack of sh*t and that you really do know those things on your resume. With all those layoffs, the market is inundated with unskilled wannabe professionals who were spoiled by the dot-bombs. They're making it hard for those of us (or more appropriately, you kind folk) who've been here from the start, and so really good people get passed by because they don't know how to attract positive attention to themselves.
There's lots of jobs--just a bad signal:noise ratio.
So if I were typing quickly trying to get what I knew to the rest of the /. community and used a slightly incorrect article ("the"), sue me.
Perhaps the primary designer was the underling and not Yamasaki at all? How do you know? The guy I heard on the radio claimed to be "the architect". Maybe he was just a nobody after all and was sucking in the news station with incredibly realistic and self-deprecating statements that did nothing to bolster his reputation nor fame as an architect?
Perhaps the interviewer used an incorrect term when referring to the interviewee and the interviewee didn't hear the introduction so he could correct him on the matter?
The source material was a radio interview, Tuesday afternoon around 6:00 p.m. PST, on a local (possibly CBC-affiliated) radio station broadcast in Victoria, BC, Canada. I may be able to track down the specific interviewer if you like because I recognize his voice and can probably do so again.
The interviewee was in California at the time.. possible Los Angeles? I forget the city, now. San Francisco "feels" more likely.
Yamasaki *and associates* did the architecture you dumbass.
The architect of the buildings themselves gave an interview that specifically said that the building were over-engineered for NATURAL disasters, not aircraft crashes. He said they did withstand the impacts but the explosive forces of the impacts probably stripped the fire-proofing from the steel supports, which then probably melted in the jet-fuel heat.
He said that the sprinkler systems were designed for paper, cardboard, and desk fire loads--jet fuel doesn't respond so well to water sprinklers, that's why the aviation buildings he designed have foam fire extinguisher systems--NOT water.
Once again, the architect of the trade towers themselves insisted that the buildings were prepared for any natural disaster, but that disasters like this could obviously *not* be prepared for.
He also said he didn't even know whether or not the sprinkler systems were activated, let alone helping or hindering matters any.
He said that the heat from the jet fuel melted the steel supports and that probably only a single floor gave way--but that the momentum from the drop (with all the floors above it) was enough to overload the supports below, and the supports below that, and so on right down to ground floor.
So please make the correction--they weren't designed to withstand jet impact. Maybe a propellor airplane, maybe not--I have no idea where you got that info from. Doesn't matter.
-sudog
So let's extend this analogy just a little shall we? How many moving parts does a plain bridge have? What sorts of user interaction is there aside from walking on it?
If I had a program and all it did was add 2 to every number I gave it--well duh! There's the equivalent of a simple archway over a stream.
But what about vehicles, automobiles? Machinery? Robotics? You think those systems don't have specific limitations in them? You think if you drive the wrong way down a one-way street, it's the car's duty to turn you back around again? No--and in a head-on collision, the best a car can do is crumple and absorb the impact of your stupidity, or flatten the opposing vehicle. The car is then a write-off. Period. Yet it sounds to me like you expect software to bounce back and survive catastrophy.
If a bridge is built for x lbs of weight on it, and you dump 5x right in the middle, you think the bridge is going to be okay after that? But software should be able to. Ah. I see.
Large software systems are so completely different from real-world systems that comparing them is silly. (And is that Visual Basic I see there to try to prove your case with?)
Am I the only one that this Slashdot story makes almost no sense whatsoever to? The sentence doesn't even syntactically pick up where it left off before the huge parentheses aside!
Good grief! What the heck are you trying to say, you goofy Slashdot posters?
This is such a blatant antagonism I can't believe it's still making the rounds. The note was posted to Bugtraq and has become the poster child for the anti-full-disclosure crews.
Slashdot is trolling us--successfully, it looks like. Too bad we can't mod the story itself down!
This debate is hashed through time and time again, and solved--time and time again. Anyone who argues against full disclosure has never been a system admin or been deep enough into someone else's exploit-ridden code to feel the pain.
Exploit disclosures are like the work-saving packages collections of *BSD. Someone else has done the work for you. For those who are in the know this means we don't have to fire up our own copy of IDA or grep spaghetti source code to figure out what the heck is going on.
Why should I worry about the lower forms of system admin life and hold their ignorant hands when my more important systems and the systems of my clients are at stake? If you can't stand the heat, bloody well get out the kitchen and leave the work for someone who knows what they're doing.
It seems to me that Free Software according to the FSF is a philosophy. To feel guilty about using free software and to think that whoever wrote it somehow deserves a reward seems to me to be contrary to the reason they wrote the sotware to begin with. Using it and contributing to it if you can is one thing, but feeling like you owe them money is another altogether.
The answer is simple: Don't send them money and don't feel bad for using their great software, as though it's worth money and you got away with some naughty act in the privacy of your home where no one but your conscience watches over you.
The best thing you can do for them is to:
1. Use their software.
2. Contribute to their software (if you can.)
3. Don't support their commercial competitors.
4. Spread the word about their software in particular. There's enough religious zealots as it is--don't add your voice to zealotry, add it instead to the promotion of good, specific packages.
The whole concept of money in exchange for software seems to me to fly in the face of what they're striving for to begin with.
Supporting an organization as a whole and acknowledging the fact that it costs money to operate or even exist is another matter entirely, while a human being who has chosen to write free software without doing something to make money for themselves doesn't really "get" what's going on around us. Giving him money means he might as well have not released his software under the GPL at all.
On the other hand, the FSF is a foundation that does more than write software--and thus depends on donations to even exist--that's its whole premise from the get-go.
Small difference but important.
See? Now you know what you're doing. The person is more important than trivial details, his ability to communicate and stay positive in the face of adversity..
The joke question is excellent--and leaves open the possibility to talk about something other than the job at hand: interests (even computer-based ones), goals, history, interesting experiences.
First computer? That's Gold, Jerry! Gold!
Bah! Real men use root exclusively and don't waste their time "sudo"'ing or "su -l"'ing constantly!
In all my years of running as root and not some lame user I've not once had a serious screw up that couldn't be fixed with a few minutes of greps.
BAH!
You're a bloody mook. If you're kicking people out just because they can't remember what the hell a "non-continuous netmask" is, or whether by filetype you mean filetype by convention or actual file/device/hardlink/whatever, then thank god you're kicking those people out--they'd do much better ignoring your crappy job and getting one somewhere else.
Well, smartass? You going to put that code up for someone else to take a look at and tear apart? Give it up to us dude!
Your questions suck and are variable in answer depending on what operating system context you're using--which you haven't defined. Thus your questions are completely useless. Do you really run all those OS's in your shop? Do you really think that the ability to decode a .tar.gz.shar.uu is an asset? Besides that, what if the file contents are different? UNIX don't give two shits about the filename, and nor do most utilities.
/usr /var and /home directories onto separate partitions is useful when the underlying drive structure hasn't been defined? If it's a single drive what do you save by splitting them up? Maybe /var, but the point is valid.
Not only all the above, but how can you possibly expect to get a decent system admin who actually uses rsh rather than ssh? Do you really think that separating the
Do you honestly think that the ability to customize an xterm (when everyone uses Eterm anyway) is somehow an asset to a decent system admin?
chgrp isn't needed, either--so your questions about "what three utilities control file permissions" is also lame--use chown with the user:group format on systems that support it.
So let me ask you--you only question whether the applicant knows different UNIXen and then ask a lame seemingly DOS-specific question about the FAT table?
What the heck does question #6 in your networking section mean? Usable internally and freely? Or usable on the internet with proper SWIP/allocations?
Your disk controller questions are woefully out of date--the SCSI chains are different lengths dependong on which SCSI controller type you're using along with which SCSI drive types you're using. SCSI U160? SCSI old-style 50-pin?
Your NFS questions are also broken and depend on the implementation and compiled-in defaults. I can enable root access by default on my NFS. Can you? Do you think it matters whether the applicant knows about ypxferd or not? If you're so hot on man pages (in previous questions) then why are you asking application-specific questions in these sections?
Bah. The questionnaire is utter crap. If I ever had a job interview with you (thankfully that will probably never happen) I would smile warmly, shake your hand, and tell you I don't think I would fit in at your shop.
ttyl
If he had remained hard-nosed they would've been forced to have hearings and trials. But he also would've been thrown back into the nasty places in prison with the dangerous offenders population.
and the same reason you pay GST and (unless you're Albertan) PST.
...wishing I held onto my Yukon residency but mired in the beaurocracy of BC.. sigh..
Or a Yukoner. They don't pay PST/TST up there either and in fact enjoy far more benefits than Albertan ever have.
You can't convert any base to any other base "just like that"! After the decimal place you end up dealing with fractions that are sometimes impossible to properly convert to fractions of another base.
Here's an easy proof: Try converting 0.025 into a clean non-repeating binary fraction.
Don't waste your time. You can't.
Hey. Can people stop using lowercase b when they mean uppercase? 3800TB is a completely different beast than 3800Tb.
Thank you, I'm done.