Passwords a.k.a. weak authentication are by no means a good way of authentication in a modern system. Why are they so prevalent? Because they're relatively easy to use. We use them everywhere (i.e. PIN numbers).
If you want a better system with strong authentication you need to setup an infrastructure to support it and one that is easy enough for even non-computer literate people to understand. I like things like the iButton (for more non-computer literate) and s/key generator but you definitely have to pay an upfront cost to get the system up and the hardware distributed to the users.
Are you actually a consultant or sysadmin? If you are actually consulting, you are actually being severely underpaid. For an experienced sysadmin, I would say that's an average salary.
Tell me the name a of mass-produced microprocessor at 100nm. There are none because it's too incredibly expensive. The 100nm G4 is almost certainly a demo chip produced with IBM's help. My resources tell me that the mass produced G4 is actually 0.18um. Actually I have numbers between 0.22um and 0.15um but nowhere near 0.10um.
You're right, I forgot about that experiment. I should probably look up the experiment again to see what the journals say about it. There is a strong contingent of people that say some massless particles (tachyons?) can travel faster than electromagnetic radiation but they preclude information from traveling faster than c. I remember there was a FAQ on the web that gave a bunch of FTL examples and it showed why they wouldn't work. Unfortunately it's not too scienfitic.
Yeah, basically nothing travels through a vacuum faster than electromagnetic waves. Going a different medium allows different speeds. And there are also notions of traveling waves that also go faster than light. There is something called a phase velocity and group velocity. Phase velocity can be faster than light like in a microwave waveguide but the group velocity is always less than c.
You seem to have the worst argumentative skills I have ever seen. You don't support your argument, you can't give a basis for anything you state, and you continuously try personal attacks. Now is my chance to attack you and hope that you try supporting your arguments next time so we can see that they are just wrong.
As for C++ stupidity, first they still have the same ambiguities as C. Here's another example from the FAQ: i = i++; How about typeid and templates. Here's yet another example:
int i=1; cout As for looking in the FAQ. It's called supporting one's statements with reference information. You clearly haven't done so much as try to do that. There are about four more C ambiguities there.
I still just don't get how you can't make a comparison between system calls in C++ and in Java. This is a very important and relevant part of the article. By skipping talking about this, our whole argument will become irrelevant to the original article.
Next point... if RedHat had a way of allowing you do download one patch that always made your system up to date, would you get it? Most people would. This is the point of Java. Getting one code base that doesn't have to be modified every so often for new architectures. What is your response to portable assembly code and #ifdefs?
The fact that you don't understand "hack" is usually synonymous with "kludge" makes me really wonder about your experience in programming. Are you one of the people who think's hack ONLY is supposed to mean some great inspired and clever programming? Are you still in high school? Once again I can support my arguments. Take a look in the Jargon File. The first definition of hack is...
hack 1./n./ Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. #ifdefs are work arounds and not the best way of doing cross-platform development.
Now that you start thinking about what the article actually was talking about, you can understand that I can still answer the person's question with advice of how to do it better... maybe a way they haven't thought of. I may seem like an egotistical bigot but that's just because I know what I'm talking about and can even support my arguments. You on the other hand must spew your opinions which have no basis and get by on personal attacks.
Your sig was just one more thing to inflame me. If you want to see bigotry, that was a GREAT definition.
I logged on because I like to argue and yes, this time having the chance for you to read my comment was worth logging on. So when you prepare your next reply to me... support your opinions. Didn't you ever hear that in school? What grade are you in anyway?
C compilers conforming to ANSI C behave very similar, I agree. The standard has been around for something like 17 years. I don't agree that you can get such stable behavior with different C++ compilers. Still in either case, what I mean by things ANSI doesn't specify are the ambiguous cases. Do you realize that ANSI has ambiguity in a few cases of the language? It simply is not a full specification of C/C++. Here's a stupid one but the only one I could quickly find from the C FAQ, ptr = malloc(0); Tell me what that returns.
ANSI unfortunately covers quite little when you think about it. It defines language semantics, not how it the language interacts with the system. This application deals with sockets. What does ANSI say about that? That is the exact thing I want a cross-platform language to specify in a uniform manner. What is your opinion of Java and C/C++ in this regard? You've tried to defend C but haven't said much about what you think of Java. Java is very close to achieving this.
Are you trying to tell me either a) that the Linux kernel doesn't support threading or b) that the Linux kernel is written in Java?
The kernel is 100% portable C? You mean there are no CPU dependent modifications to the kernel when cross-compiling? I think we have to clear somehthing up here. Portable code DOES NOT need #ifdefs. #ifdefs are the hacks that people need to get around the inherent cross-platform deficiencies of C and C++. Did you know assembly is cross platform? Yeah, I can just #ifdef around the code for my specific CPU at the time. Get my point? We are trying to determine the BEST way to have a cross-platform system. Your #ifdefs are not the best way of doing this.
I still don't get why people say things like this...
This quote, like the one before it, adds nothing useful to the conversation.
and their comments do nothing more than criticize mine. Again, you must have lost the point of the original article which was CROSS-PLATFORM development. You are going to spend alot of time fiddling with getting C and C++ to work cross platform when the better choice for this application is to take Java for what it is, a good feature rich, cross-platform language.
If you have something intelligent to say, you'll log in or get moderated up so I can read it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.
Apparently I did get moderated up as I usually do. I have found very few reasons to actually log in. Having the chance for you to read my comments is not one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Passwords a.k.a. weak authentication are by no means a good way of authentication in a modern system. Why are they so prevalent? Because they're relatively easy to use. We use them everywhere (i.e. PIN numbers).
If you want a better system with strong authentication you need to setup an infrastructure to support it and one that is easy enough for even non-computer literate people to understand. I like things like the iButton (for more non-computer literate) and s/key generator but you definitely have to pay an upfront cost to get the system up and the hardware distributed to the users.
Are you actually a consultant or sysadmin? If you are actually consulting, you are actually being severely underpaid. For an experienced sysadmin, I would say that's an average salary.
Tell me the name a of mass-produced microprocessor at 100nm. There are none because it's too incredibly expensive. The 100nm G4 is almost certainly a demo chip produced with IBM's help. My resources tell me that the mass produced G4 is actually 0.18um. Actually I have numbers between 0.22um and 0.15um but nowhere near 0.10um.
It was originally called Deep Thought where it was originally created (CMU). After it moved to IBM they renamed it Deep Blue.
Also in the Where Are They Now Files but one of the all-star hackers... Steve Wozniak.
You're right, I forgot about that experiment. I should probably look up the experiment again to see what the journals say about it. There is a strong contingent of people that say some massless particles (tachyons?) can travel faster than electromagnetic radiation but they preclude information from traveling faster than c. I remember there was a FAQ on the web that gave a bunch of FTL examples and it showed why they wouldn't work. Unfortunately it's not too scienfitic.
Yeah, basically nothing travels through a vacuum faster than electromagnetic waves. Going a different medium allows different speeds. And there are also notions of traveling waves that also go faster than light. There is something called a phase velocity and group velocity. Phase velocity can be faster than light like in a microwave waveguide but the group velocity is always less than c.
You seem to have the worst argumentative skills I have ever seen. You don't support your argument, you can't give a basis for anything you state, and you continuously try personal attacks. Now is my chance to attack you and hope that you try supporting your arguments next time so we can see that they are just wrong.
/n./ Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.
As for C++ stupidity, first they still have the same ambiguities as C. Here's another example from the FAQ: i = i++; How about typeid and templates. Here's yet another example:
int i=1;
cout
As for looking in the FAQ. It's called supporting one's statements with reference information. You clearly haven't done so much as try to do that. There are about four more C ambiguities there.
I still just don't get how you can't make a comparison between system calls in C++ and in Java. This is a very important and relevant part of the article. By skipping talking about this, our whole argument will become irrelevant to the original article.
Next point... if RedHat had a way of allowing you do download one patch that always made your system up to date, would you get it? Most people would. This is the point of Java. Getting one code base that doesn't have to be modified every so often for new architectures. What is your response to portable assembly code and #ifdefs?
The fact that you don't understand "hack" is usually synonymous with "kludge" makes me really wonder about your experience in programming. Are you one of the people who think's hack ONLY is supposed to mean some great inspired and clever programming? Are you still in high school? Once again I can support my arguments. Take a look in the Jargon File. The first definition of hack is...
hack 1.
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. #ifdefs are work arounds and not the best way of doing cross-platform development.
Now that you start thinking about what the article actually was talking about, you can understand that I can still answer the person's question with advice of how to do it better... maybe a way they haven't thought of. I may seem like an egotistical bigot but that's just because I know what I'm talking about and can even support my arguments. You on the other hand must spew your opinions which have no basis and get by on personal attacks.
Your sig was just one more thing to inflame me. If you want to see bigotry, that was a GREAT definition.
I logged on because I like to argue and yes, this time having the chance for you to read my comment was worth logging on. So when you prepare your next reply to me... support your opinions. Didn't you ever hear that in school? What grade are you in anyway?
ANSI unfortunately covers quite little when you think about it. It defines language semantics, not how it the language interacts with the system. This application deals with sockets. What does ANSI say about that? That is the exact thing I want a cross-platform language to specify in a uniform manner. What is your opinion of Java and C/C++ in this regard? You've tried to defend C but haven't said much about what you think of Java. Java is very close to achieving this.
The kernel is 100% portable C? You mean there are no CPU dependent modifications to the kernel when cross-compiling? I think we have to clear somehthing up here. Portable code DOES NOT need #ifdefs. #ifdefs are the hacks that people need to get around the inherent cross-platform deficiencies of C and C++. Did you know assembly is cross platform? Yeah, I can just #ifdef around the code for my specific CPU at the time. Get my point? We are trying to determine the BEST way to have a cross-platform system. Your #ifdefs are not the best way of doing this.
I still don't get why people say things like this...
and their comments do nothing more than criticize mine. Again, you must have lost the point of the original article which was CROSS-PLATFORM development. You are going to spend alot of time fiddling with getting C and C++ to work cross platform when the better choice for this application is to take Java for what it is, a good feature rich, cross-platform language.
Apparently I did get moderated up as I usually do. I have found very few reasons to actually log in. Having the chance for you to read my comments is not one of them.