Just now I niced it up a bit taking http proxies into account, report the results and do some error checking (I'm absolutely no php wiz, just grabbed the function from http://blog.4rev.net/2007-10/get-ip-address-of-the-visitor-php-script/ and added the rest... it's all pretty simple):
<?php
function getIP() { if (isset($_SERVER['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'])) $ip = $_SERVER['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR']; else if (isset($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'])) $ip = $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR']; else $ip = "UNKNOWN"; return $ip; }
You'll need to visudo to grant permissions to www-data to mess with iptables as root, and create a.htaccess file in the dir if you'd want to password protect the php script.
Yeah these worms were attacking my home linux router as well, like a year ago or some.
Worms just tried to brute force ssh using "administrator" and such as username. I guess they were trying to get into badly (default) configured broadband routers. That's never going to work of course on my linux box but all the login attempts caused the hd to be busy *all* the time.
My sollution was to drop ssh packets by default in the firewall. Not that these attacks were likely to succeed but I didn't want my consumer grade hd to wear down in a year;) I then created a small php script that'd insert a firewall rule to accept ssh connections from the IP it's called from. Finally I password protected the php script with.htaccess.
So now I can enable ssh to my machine wherever I am, while still blocking the rest of the internet.
Hmmm maybe I misunderstood TFA... but I had the impression it was mostly about the tens of thousands of people *working* there, covering news and stuff. They won't be using cellphones all day to get their info, but stick a couple of extra notebooks and a terminal or two in their equipment.
If it's about the general public getting some results cellphones can go a long way.
It sounds like a wonderful plan, reducing energy consumption. After all, we really need to get a grasp on Co2 emissions with all the global warming and stuff.
But unless humans get their wifi implants before 2012 this will just move the cost of the energy consumption to different parties.
Haha! Actually, I guess I was looking at this picture after newsvine bought it.
All in all, we can say newsvine pretty much sucks. They cheaply ripped off the story over at helium, slapped a picture on it without even looking at it, and got some good slashvertisement;P
It was *seriously* showing a right hand on the right hand side of the keyboard... I didn't believe they'd make a mistake like that and checked it, hold my hand up etc...:P It's the same picture but reversed... The arm also was on the left side of the picture while it's on the right side now... I guess someone saw it and told them...
Look at the picture, there's a long key on the side you're looking at... that's the enter key on the *right* side of a keyboard!
Also look at the shade between the keys, a few keys from the side of the keyboard. It is caused by some extra space between the keys. If you look at the distance from that shade to the side of the keyboard, you'll see it's all the same for the top row (supposedly the function keys), the second and third row... Further down, the finger makes it hard to see more. Anyways, for as far as we can see, the shade runs down in a straight line.
Now look at the left side of your (any!) keyboard, and at the right side of your keyboard, and decide where you could see straight lines like those...
It could have been a keyboard like this The left side of such a keyboard will always resemble something like this... but with all the thousands of photos of keyboards you can find on that side... you won't find *one* matching the one in the picture currently at newsvine, unless you reverse it;)
First thing i noticed when i went to the page was that the picture is showing a *right* hand on the *right* side of the keyboard... and carries the subscript "One word uses 12 keys from the left side of the keyboard."
Wonder what side of the brain was working there...;)
Well, the mods go either way, mostly. We're into deep offtopic territory here now. It really depends on whether or not people with mod points think that a) his drivel is valuable; and b) whether or not his shilling is "OK" because of (a).
Read this if you have time. It's linked from the journal that documents his gaming of the moderation system, but it captures the whole thing very well. That's who you're dealing with here, so I generally recommend just stepping away or risk getting some twitter on your shoes, which is generally not hygienic:)
I don't have modpoints but I can write a nice rant.
Why do you think anybody cares? You're as much as a troll doubling up every discussion he might start. Quit it. I don't care. I recognize a troll without your help. Hell I don't even look at the names before reading the comment. Who cares who wrote what where at what time. Who cares who's abusing/trolling the karma system to get his karma to "excellent". Make 4 funny posts and you've got the same result.
I'm here for new content, not to read the gripes of some vigilante hero who needs to point out the obvious troll on every damn page I read. You're getting far more boring than any troll.
You're feeding him. He'll just have 25 "sockpuppet accounts" in some time instead of 20 thanks to your efforts. You won't make him stop. He enjoys it.
So please don't spend your time on pointing out one troll over and over again. We don't need it. Trolls have probably been part of slashdot longer than you, slashdot survived just fine to let you join, and it'll probably survive just fine without your "help" polluting every page some *more*.
Do you think people should *not* decide for themselves if they're going to develop a new software project instead of contributing to an existing one?
People can decide to jump off a cliff if they think, it's a great idea. This does not mean that others have to support their stupid decisions, or avoid protesting, ignoring or ridiculing them in public just because of some kind of "freedom-loving" ideology.
Indeed! These others are free to do as they see fit as well, I'd say. It works both ways.
Seriously though, I think every doctrine derived from the bible (or any "holy book") is inevitably derived from an interpretation of the bible, not from the book itself. In other words, if you have 100 people read the bible a couple of times and then ask them about their ideas on god (or what the true christian doctrine should be like), you'll get 100 different answers.
That's because the bible is full of stupid shit that can not be implemented in any kind of society.
I'd suggest that it works that way with about *any* book.
The only thing it's good for is justification of various acts of idiocy by selective quoting, and this is why religious people are so often recruited to do things that the rest of society (including other religious people) considers stupid, evil or both.
Not *only* though. Sad as it is that people justify their actions by pointing at a book, there are still other uses for it.
It could still be read as a book, to learn from. I'm not a religious person, yet I think the bible still provides a view on thoughts from so long ago. Also, the stories of the kings are still interesting just to see how the different kings behave differently, with corresponding results. How does this king treat the people, how does he make decisions, and what is the result, both in prosperity and treatment he gets from the people?
Also, while we have a whole lot of science these days, we can read the bible, and see what we know now to explain the things in the bible, but in a logical manner. There's a *lot* of psychology involved, things people back then just didn't understand. Like if you'd get "insanely mad" now, people might have said you'd be "posessed" back then. The word "insane" wasn't even known at the time, being introduced into our dictionary by psychology and mental health studies... in the same way as you won't find "relativity" even in an early 20th century dictionary.
Basically, I don't really get the whole evolution debate. I fit the whole bible and christianity and what not *into* the cultural evolution we've gone through as humanity without any problem.
Just like Libertarian ideology, except it's used to justify only one thing -- granting ever-expanding power to entities that managed to seize control over some resources.
I seriously think that says more about the people doing those things than about the bible or liberterian ideology. People have justified their actions by any possible means throughout history.
"Okay, but who or what set up the whole process in the first place?" These questions will never be answered and will always exist as long as we do.
Yeah. The agnostic viewpoint, so to speak. Sad thing about that is that if *everyone* believes these questions can't be answered, nobody will be looking for the answers.
For me, it's weird and disturbing to think there's just this bunch of physical universes here for no reason. It almost feels more illogical that it would exist out of the blue than for there to be something that "made" it all.
While that might be true, I'd say that introducing a god to the model does *not* make it more logical or more plausible... on the contrary!
If you say that it's unlikely the universe came to be out of nothing just like that... perhaps you're right... but if that "unlikely" is a chance you could compute somehow, you'd see that it's even *less* likely that god created the universe out of nothing just like that... because the universe would *still* be created out of nothing just like that, and god itself is not something we are 100% sure of.
So the *only* thing introducing a god to our model could do is *decrease* the chance of our model being true!
Even without this probability based logic, you could still reject the god idea based on the questions you started with... because... every one of those questions you had about the universe now applies to your god... What created it? Out of what? How?
Of course when you're spoon fed with the beliefs that God just is, can do anything, cannot be understood, may not be questioned, and the idea is scare mongered, indoctrinated and guild tripped into your brain since day one of your life etcetcetc, then the idea "god created the universe" sounds perfectly sane... because you'll have lived with that god in your head and held it true all this time... and you''ve learned to not ask these questions in the first place.
It would sound true because it'd match the ideas you'd hold true.
It's a maddening question.
It's not bothering me that much.
Then again, I didn't grow up in a reli-nazi society where people bomb abortion clinics just to "save the soul" of the unborn and their mothers.
I don't really understand the meaning and relevance of your comment. It looks like you're saying, hey, you like freedom of choice, you're a fucking libertarian?
Precisely so. Choice is always limited by the very nature of society, the only question is the nature and degree of those limitations.
Yeah, so, if you like freedom of choice in *any* way that makes you a liberterian that needs to be fucked?
Do you think people should *not* decide for themselves if they're going to develop a new software project instead of contributing to an existing one?
If so, who should decide it for them?
If so, so fucking what?
Also, I've never approached any stranger by sticking a gun at him and saying hi. Is that the way libertarians in America treat strangers on the street? It doesn't sound like a libertarian thing to do though.
Obviously Libertarians imagine something different, however that's only because they are too stupid to realize what would happen if they actually consistently applied their ideas to reality.
Well sir, if you call me a liberterian, and you say liberterians walk past strangers on the street pointing a gun at them and say "Hi", while I've never done that, and can't imagine me doing anything like that but the "Hi" part, perhaps here's a chance to get your own ideas a little more in touch with reality?
That might be a better spending of time than trying to improve other people's view of reality, or even worrying about it.
One probably wouldn't recognize it as a Christian thing to do if a person responsible for nuclear weapons launched an ICBM at his home town after experiencing a hallucination, however that would be the only consistent way to implement Christian doctrine (as the equivalent of Abraham's sacrifice -- you must trust anything you see as God talking to you, no matter how little sense it makes and how much damage would happen as its obvious consequences).
Yeah... hmm... if your version of the only consistent way of implementing christian doctrine is right, we're quite lucky not everybody is that consistent, or we'd all be living in countries ran by the Taliban;)
Seriously though, I think every doctrine derived from the bible (or any "holy book") is inevitably derived from an interpretation of the bible, not from the book itself. In other words, if you have 100 people read the bible a couple of times and then ask them about their ideas on god (or what the true christian doctrine should be like), you'll get 100 different answers.
In the same way, I think god only exists in the minds of people who believe in the concept, in their own virtual world they call reality, while in true reality us humans can not know reality as it is, but humbly have to do with our perception of it. God is what people need it to be, think it should be, want it to be, or have learned it to be.
Just because of that, and this will not surprise you probably, I think people should be free to have or have not their own ideas about god and their doctrine, as long as they're not going to tell me what to believe, and as long as their doctrine will not dictate me what to do, as I will not dictate them to abandon their beliefs, which I do think are mostly the product of misunderstanding, honest attempts at understanding human origin, thought and emotion as well as nature surrounding us, in a time man could not possibly know enough to understand any of that at all.
We know a lot more now, and still don't understand it.
Which all makes for a nice discussion... unless you think their christian doctrine told google to develop Document instead of Writer this is getting hopelessly offtopic though, perhaps we should continue elsewhere, if we were to continue it at all?
If you've used Windows in a corporate environment and still feel that way, there is something wrong with your organization. I've been with my current company for just over a year now and yesterday I called the help desk for my first Windows related problem.
Perhaps the gp was on the other end of the line, dealing with the nightmare to keep the rest of the organization including you, clear from it. In other words, your experience with your office desktop computer might say more about the quality of the IT department that installed the OS than about the flaws in the installed OS.
It's stable, period. Now, all the antivirus, security, firewall etc they install makes the thing so slow it's awful to use, but that's beside the point.
No, that is *not* beside the point. You see, if you *need* to bog down your OS with third party software to keep it working reliably at all, I'd say that the flaws in this OS are exactly what causes your pc to slow down to the point that it's awful to use.
One thing is for sure, though. I don't want to make an 'Impress' presentation and send it to a client unless I'm sure they are going to be able to open it in Powerpoint.
Yeah or in something else they might have, like Impress;) I actually don't know Impress, btw. But I get your point.
Rofl. I'm Dutch... I had to laugh about your joke... I'll humbly attempt to translate this piece:)
Lego went to the European court of justice to battle Canadian competitioner Mega Brands, who released a block onto the market that will fit onto Lego's blocks. Today, the court ruled that the Lego's design is not protected by European trademark law, so any exclusive rights are out of the question.
It will be very interesting to see what happens in Legoland in the next few years. Disney grew strong by getting the lifetime on their protected trademarks prolonged and prolonged. What will happen to Lego now, and their market? Will it force Lego to come up with better designs and more attractive stuff now there's competition? Will there really be cheaper Lego-like blocks available at the toy stores? Will this new open market in Lego blocks produce good designs and nifty things, or will the cheap copycats take over? Will Lego's annual sales of 1,049 billion Euro dry down so quickly they're bankrupt in a couple of years? Would that really hurt the economy at large, or would it improve the situation for everyone but Lego?
I mean, it might answer some of the very basic questions that are quite often at the core of the discussions about trademarks. Talk is cheap, this is the real thing happening.
I don't really understand the meaning and relevance of your comment. It looks like you're saying, hey, you like freedom of choice, you're a fucking libertarian? If so, so fucking what?
Also, I've never approached any stranger by sticking a gun at him and saying hi. Is that the way libertarians in America treat strangers on the street? It doesn't sound like a libertarian thing to do though.
Could you please elaborate your comment? I'm also very interested to hear how this fits into the whole Document/Writer discussion. You think Google should be forced to work with OOo?
So let me make sure I understand... this is basically the EU equivalent of a United States Senator [Marco Cappato, a Liberal member of the European Parliament] asking the House of Representatives [the European Council] for a contract the House negotiated on behalf of the government and getting denied?
Well yes at least to my understanding that would, unfortunately, be quite accurate.
In a good world, Google Apps would collaborate with OOo,
No. In a good world, people are free to do as they see fit, as long as they can do so without harming others. The whole "people *must*collaborate* to make it a good world" thing is nothing but idealism, which in practice would take the freedom away to do anything but join the existing one party with a project going on.
Come on. If someone wants to create something new, it's his decision, just as it'd be his decision to collaborate with an existing project. Nothing good or bad about it. Things might or might not work out the way the person had hoped for but that's a whole different story.
I, for one, like the google competition. Let's just send them a clear message: "NOT good enough!" and hope they'll get Document up to Writer's level. If they don't, nothing is lost, because we still have Writer. If they do, it might give Writer a nice push, or perhaps even leave Writer in the dust.
and we'd get OOo with use anywhere functionality. You can use it stand alone, or when away from the office/home/computer you can use your data via web based tools.
Or, you might find out OOo is unsuitable to build a web app from, and start from scratch anyways after a long frustrating delay trying to get a large complex codebase to do something it won't.
IMO, that is the best possible outcome, what I would like to see. For now, I use a USB drive to port things around where I need them because Google apps doesn't quite get me what I want and need.
IMHO, you're doing better right now than a web app could deliver. Yes you'll need to carry around an usb drive. You could use one of those 16Gb USB sticks, that should be *plenty* for a complete Linux system with anything you'd otherwise use a web app for. That's not like lugging around a zip drive or external hdd or anything.
Your biggest advantages? It's faster, you don't depend on an internet connection and a working service, you keep control over which version of the software you're running, and you keep control over your data.
Google can *keep* its web apps as far as I'm concerned:)
It was the fault of the masses not paying their bills, and the fault of the Wall Street greeds to sell insecure mortgages as "secure" loans. The combination of the two proved to be really bad.
Perhaps someone should make a movie about a mass of zombies attacking a real meanass vampire.
The only requirements you can get from users are the ones that they consciously understand and can verbalize effectively. There are painstaking processes you can go through with the users to develop that understanding together. One of the best, in my experience, is showing them working software, or a good mock-up.
Yeah I've even made pencil and paper sketches on the fly to get the basic outline for the UI straight, while showing half a "program" that did contain the data structures but basically didn't do much of anything yet 'cept for showing three main UI pages. I did *not* mean you need to design all of the program, create it and present a finished program to the users... that'll never work.
Also, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my original comment, it's not just requirements I want to find out during these interviews. I'm mostly interested in data. What data is used, and where? Once I have my data I can create the data structures I need, from there on there's just no way we're going to have to throw away the codebase because of some UI stuff we need to change.
Don't think of an unusable early version as a failure. Think of it as a requirements gathering tool, and compare its cost to the cost of doing comprehensive up-front requirements gathering without it.
I do like to think of an early version as something that we can grow. If I made something that isn't viable, I'd like to find out as soon as possible, and not when I'm knee deep into the project. Getting the users involved like you say does help greatly there, also just to make it grow into the right direction. Throwing out a codebase is not a disaster and not the end of anybody's life.
However, that doesn't just mean the interviewing and data analysis have become worthless, and it's not an excuse to not do it. Poor analysis is a sure way to produce worthless code. As long as I get my data structures right we can rewrite half our code without a problem. If I get my data structures wrong, we'll find ourselves throwing out much (if not all) of the code after much frustration. Yes we did learn in the mean time but I'll still hold that it's a terrible waste of time and effort.
I'm working on a project that's been going probably 10+ years.
Which is entirely different from coding something from the ground up and then finding out it doesnt meet the requirements up to a point you might need to throw out your codebase and the framework it's built on, right?
No, I wasn't one of the originals - none of them are even around. So just pretend for a moment that all the technology we have today was available 10 years ago. You're pretty pro, think you can get _all_ of the requirements for the next 10 years and beyond out of your client on the first try before you write a single line of code? Good luck.
No, I don't think you can, and I'd like you to point out where I wrote that, before telling me I'm missing any point.
Customers don't know what they want. Period. You can ask them, interview them, and you'll get a lot of very telling answers. You'll build what they said they wanted... and it's not what they wanted! Why not? Because it was what they wanted 6 months ago when you started.
Worse than that, customers have a nasty habit of not knowing what they want until its delivered. We did a photoshop mockup of a UI for a feature we were adding, and got it approved by our customer, before proceeding on a recent feature-addition. He still liked it the day we tried to deliver... until he used it. Then we spent another two weeks changing the UI and some of the underlying functionality linked to it.
The fact of the matter is that the requirements and scope change. You can't prevent it. Yes, you should spend some time determining requirements, try to minimize the harmful effects of change, but you cannot _cannot_ prevent it.
No, but you can do the work good enough to not need throw away your codebase.
he probably would not have used if he'd taken time and effort to get the design right!
. . . yeah, because people never change their minds after you interview them and later they discover that what would be "really great" is if the project could also do such and such . ..
They do, and you, as software engineer, you *know* they will.
Of course, you could always tell your manager that if they wanted that added functionality they just mentioned, that they should have requested it 6 months ago when you asked them. Because you know, that usually works, and goes over quite well to boot.
Yeah you could. But I believe the results would be less desirable than the suggestion I offered. Did you even read the entire comment?
I'm sure your manager will know better next time. Will know better than to ask you to work on their projects.
Perhaps he might, if he'd go along with the words you try to put into my mouth.
Other than that he might be happy with someone who doesn't sit around waiting for a customer to "change his mind" about the functionality of a program, but actively participates in this "mind changing" during the design.
Or he might be happier hiring a "programmer" who knows nothing about design.
He already has one version out and is now finding out what the software really needs to do. That sounds pretty damn successful to me.
It sounds like a mistake in the design stage to me. Did he interview the people who were going to use his software? Did he understand what they were going to expect from the software? Did he analyze the information needed by the software, and by its users? Did he define the software's scope and discuss it with its users?
I get the impression he didn't make the mistake of coding *beyond* the requirements, which is almost always a waste of time... But did he take a well coordinated effort to get the requirements clear before he wrote the first line of code or even chose the framework?
Now he's dithering about rewriting and replacing some of the libraries, which he would have had to do anyway even if they were custom-written.
Of course you'll chose to use libraries over writing it by yourself. I'd like to emphasize tho that the biggest benefit is not the time you'd need to write the code... but the time you'd need to debug it!
Libraries have usually been out in the wild for some time, been used in many different situations by different people, been looked at, debugged, improved, simplified and documented. Quite often all the functions in a library have a coherent interface, which makes for easy, "intuitive" use and a short learning curve.
So on my left I have hard time writing pages of code and annoying debug work, and on my right I have a comfortable ride quickly producing nice looking code that just works.
My two non-lazy braincells tell the rest of them that it's a no brainer;)
[...]
Remember, he chose Hibernate, which turned out to be unsuitable, because didn't know the requirements when he started. He would have been damn lucky if he had just happened to develop a custom persistance layer that neatly anticipated the unknown requirements.
Yeah. Very lucky indeed. To get a decent course in software engineering, with an emphasis on interviewing techniques and information analysis. You don't really *need* to just code something out of the blue and be lucky to meet the requirements. It's not necessarily a process of trial and error.
The people you're writing software for can tell you what it's required to do. You can make a crude design and discuss it with them without even writing a single line of code. Once you have your design you start looking for an environment to implement in.
I think that would have had a good chance of avoiding the hassle in the first place. Right now he's doing what he should have done before writing the code, and finds his hands tied to a codebase and a framework that he probably would not have used if he'd taken time and effort to get the design right!
So to the guy asking the question... You cannot answer those questions without getting your design right... treat the code you have now as just a piece of code out there... then trust your laziness to chose the right tools to get the job done. If that's gonna be what you wrote yourself and the framework you're using now, or something else, who cares?
It's likely that processors will eventually have more than 256 cores, but that's going to take a long time, I'm not necessarily convinced that we will.
Intel already showed off a 80 core processor a few weeks ago. It's not unthinkable they'd get that to 256. I'd guess they'd have that within 2 years. That'd be novemeber 2010.
Windows 7 is scheduled for 2010. It's not unknown for windows releases to be delayed.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the 256 core processor would arrive *before* you can buy Windows 7.
At some point we will hit the smallest possible transister size and I'm not sure that will leave physical room for all the extra cores without moving to a much larger chip size.
Apparently we're not at that point even with current technologies. If any of those atom scale technologies ever produces a working chip, things will be muuuuuch smaller still. Yes that's theoretical stuff atm but so were our current multi-Ghz multi-core processors some while ago.
That being said, if we're still using Windows 7 when mainstream computers have more than 256 cores there's something very wrong going on.
If mainstream is defined by "what i have on my desk at home", then you're absolutely right.
Linux probably will need that kind of scalability, but it's because of the sort of rolling release schedule where releases are expected to be based upon the previous version, if loosely at times.
No. That's reversing reality to make it meet your theory. Linux does not grow the way it does because people expect it and push for it, but people expect it because it has grown the way it does.
Of course each new linux version will appear to be base upon the previous version. That's because people made 2.4 grow to 2.6. They didn't write 2.6 from scratch and make it compatible with 2.4.
The only reason linux supports 4096 cores today is that somebody thought it'd be worthwhile to (pay somebody to) implement that. Not because of some release agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Mine was called "router" I think... hmm I'd guess they're not smarter than just targeting ssh daemons on port 22 tho.
btw in /etc/sudoers I use
www-data localhost = NOPASSWD: /sbin/iptables
For .htaccess check out this page
Sure there's not a whole lot to check out tho ;-)
/sbin/iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -s $ip --dport 22 -j ACCEPT");
/sbin/iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -s $ip --dport 22 -j ACCEPT"); /sbin/iptables -nL INPUT|head -n3|tail -n1");
.htaccess file in the dir if you'd want to password protect the php script.
Well initially I just had
<?php
$ip = $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'];
exec("sudo
?>
Just now I niced it up a bit taking http proxies into account, report the results and do some error checking (I'm absolutely no php wiz, just grabbed the function from http://blog.4rev.net/2007-10/get-ip-address-of-the-visitor-php-script/ and added the rest... it's all pretty simple):
<?php
function getIP()
{
if (isset($_SERVER['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'])) $ip = $_SERVER['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'];
else if (isset($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'])) $ip = $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'];
else $ip = "UNKNOWN";
return $ip;
}
$ip = getIP();
if ($ip != "UNKOWN") {
system("sudo
system("sudo
} else {
print("Could not determine IP address");
}
?>
You'll need to visudo to grant permissions to www-data to mess with iptables as root, and create a
HTH
Yeah these worms were attacking my home linux router as well, like a year ago or some.
Worms just tried to brute force ssh using "administrator" and such as username. I guess they were trying to get into badly (default) configured broadband routers. That's never going to work of course on my linux box but all the login attempts caused the hd to be busy *all* the time.
My sollution was to drop ssh packets by default in the firewall. Not that these attacks were likely to succeed but I didn't want my consumer grade hd to wear down in a year ;) I then created a small php script that'd insert a firewall rule to accept ssh connections from the IP it's called from. Finally I password protected the php script with .htaccess.
So now I can enable ssh to my machine wherever I am, while still blocking the rest of the internet.
Like cellphones?
Hmmm maybe I misunderstood TFA... but I had the impression it was mostly about the tens of thousands of people *working* there, covering news and stuff. They won't be using cellphones all day to get their info, but stick a couple of extra notebooks and a terminal or two in their equipment.
If it's about the general public getting some results cellphones can go a long way.
It sounds like a wonderful plan, reducing energy consumption. After all, we really need to get a grasp on Co2 emissions with all the global warming and stuff.
But unless humans get their wifi implants before 2012 this will just move the cost of the energy consumption to different parties.
Haha! Actually, I guess I was looking at this picture after newsvine bought it.
All in all, we can say newsvine pretty much sucks. They cheaply ripped off the story over at helium, slapped a picture on it without even looking at it, and got some good slashvertisement ;P
HUH?!?!
It was *seriously* showing a right hand on the right hand side of the keyboard... I didn't believe they'd make a mistake like that and checked it, hold my hand up etc... :P It's the same picture but reversed... The arm also was on the left side of the picture while it's on the right side now... I guess someone saw it and told them...
Look at the picture, there's a long key on the side you're looking at... that's the enter key on the *right* side of a keyboard!
Also look at the shade between the keys, a few keys from the side of the keyboard. It is caused by some extra space between the keys. If you look at the distance from that shade to the side of the keyboard, you'll see it's all the same for the top row (supposedly the function keys), the second and third row... Further down, the finger makes it hard to see more. Anyways, for as far as we can see, the shade runs down in a straight line.
Now look at the left side of your (any!) keyboard, and at the right side of your keyboard, and decide where you could see straight lines like those...
It could have been a keyboard like this The left side of such a keyboard will always resemble something like this... but with all the thousands of photos of keyboards you can find on that side... you won't find *one* matching the one in the picture currently at newsvine, unless you reverse it ;)
Sooo funny :P
First thing i noticed when i went to the page was that the picture is showing a *right* hand on the *right* side of the keyboard... and carries the subscript "One word uses 12 keys from the left side of the keyboard."
Wonder what side of the brain was working there... ;)
Well, the mods go either way, mostly. We're into deep offtopic territory here now. It really depends on whether or not people with mod points think that a) his drivel is valuable; and b) whether or not his shilling is "OK" because of (a).
Read this if you have time. It's linked from the journal that documents his gaming of the moderation system, but it captures the whole thing very well. That's who you're dealing with here, so I generally recommend just stepping away or risk getting some twitter on your shoes, which is generally not hygienic :)
I don't have modpoints but I can write a nice rant.
Why do you think anybody cares? You're as much as a troll doubling up every discussion he might start. Quit it. I don't care. I recognize a troll without your help. Hell I don't even look at the names before reading the comment. Who cares who wrote what where at what time. Who cares who's abusing/trolling the karma system to get his karma to "excellent". Make 4 funny posts and you've got the same result.
I'm here for new content, not to read the gripes of some vigilante hero who needs to point out the obvious troll on every damn page I read. You're getting far more boring than any troll.
You're feeding him. He'll just have 25 "sockpuppet accounts" in some time instead of 20 thanks to your efforts. You won't make him stop. He enjoys it.
So please don't spend your time on pointing out one troll over and over again. We don't need it. Trolls have probably been part of slashdot longer than you, slashdot survived just fine to let you join, and it'll probably survive just fine without your "help" polluting every page some *more*.
Do you think people should *not* decide for themselves if they're going to develop a new software project instead of contributing to an existing one?
People can decide to jump off a cliff if they think, it's a great idea. This does not mean that others have to support their stupid decisions, or avoid protesting, ignoring or ridiculing them in public just because of some kind of "freedom-loving" ideology.
Indeed! These others are free to do as they see fit as well, I'd say. It works both ways.
Seriously though, I think every doctrine derived from the bible (or any "holy book") is inevitably derived from an interpretation of the bible, not from the book itself. In other words, if you have 100 people read the bible a couple of times and then ask them about their ideas on god (or what the true christian doctrine should be like), you'll get 100 different answers.
That's because the bible is full of stupid shit that can not be implemented in any kind of society.
I'd suggest that it works that way with about *any* book.
The only thing it's good for is justification of various acts of idiocy by selective quoting, and this is why religious people are so often recruited to do things that the rest of society (including other religious people) considers stupid, evil or both.
Not *only* though. Sad as it is that people justify their actions by pointing at a book, there are still other uses for it.
It could still be read as a book, to learn from. I'm not a religious person, yet I think the bible still provides a view on thoughts from so long ago. Also, the stories of the kings are still interesting just to see how the different kings behave differently, with corresponding results. How does this king treat the people, how does he make decisions, and what is the result, both in prosperity and treatment he gets from the people?
Also, while we have a whole lot of science these days, we can read the bible, and see what we know now to explain the things in the bible, but in a logical manner. There's a *lot* of psychology involved, things people back then just didn't understand. Like if you'd get "insanely mad" now, people might have said you'd be "posessed" back then. The word "insane" wasn't even known at the time, being introduced into our dictionary by psychology and mental health studies... in the same way as you won't find "relativity" even in an early 20th century dictionary.
Basically, I don't really get the whole evolution debate. I fit the whole bible and christianity and what not *into* the cultural evolution we've gone through as humanity without any problem.
Just like Libertarian ideology, except it's used to justify only one thing -- granting ever-expanding power to entities that managed to seize control over some resources.
I seriously think that says more about the people doing those things than about the bible or liberterian ideology. People have justified their actions by any possible means throughout history.
"Okay, but who or what set up the whole process in the first place?" These questions will never be answered and will always exist as long as we do.
Yeah. The agnostic viewpoint, so to speak. Sad thing about that is that if *everyone* believes these questions can't be answered, nobody will be looking for the answers.
For me, it's weird and disturbing to think there's just this bunch of physical universes here for no reason. It almost feels more illogical that it would exist out of the blue than for there to be something that "made" it all.
While that might be true, I'd say that introducing a god to the model does *not* make it more logical or more plausible... on the contrary!
If you say that it's unlikely the universe came to be out of nothing just like that... perhaps you're right... but if that "unlikely" is a chance you could compute somehow, you'd see that it's even *less* likely that god created the universe out of nothing just like that... because the universe would *still* be created out of nothing just like that, and god itself is not something we are 100% sure of.
So the *only* thing introducing a god to our model could do is *decrease* the chance of our model being true!
Even without this probability based logic, you could still reject the god idea based on the questions you started with... because... every one of those questions you had about the universe now applies to your god... What created it? Out of what? How?
Of course when you're spoon fed with the beliefs that God just is, can do anything, cannot be understood, may not be questioned, and the idea is scare mongered, indoctrinated and guild tripped into your brain since day one of your life etcetcetc, then the idea "god created the universe" sounds perfectly sane... because you'll have lived with that god in your head and held it true all this time... and you''ve learned to not ask these questions in the first place.
It would sound true because it'd match the ideas you'd hold true.
It's a maddening question.
It's not bothering me that much.
Then again, I didn't grow up in a reli-nazi society where people bomb abortion clinics just to "save the soul" of the unborn and their mothers.
I don't really understand the meaning and relevance of your comment. It looks like you're saying, hey, you like freedom of choice, you're a fucking libertarian?
Precisely so. Choice is always limited by the very nature of society, the only question is the nature and degree of those limitations.
Yeah, so, if you like freedom of choice in *any* way that makes you a liberterian that needs to be fucked?
Do you think people should *not* decide for themselves if they're going to develop a new software project instead of contributing to an existing one?
If so, who should decide it for them?
If so, so fucking what?
Also, I've never approached any stranger by sticking a gun at him and saying hi. Is that the way libertarians in America treat strangers on the street? It doesn't sound like a libertarian thing to do though.
Obviously Libertarians imagine something different, however that's only because they are too stupid to realize what would happen if they actually consistently applied their ideas to reality.
Well sir, if you call me a liberterian, and you say liberterians walk past strangers on the street pointing a gun at them and say "Hi", while I've never done that, and can't imagine me doing anything like that but the "Hi" part, perhaps here's a chance to get your own ideas a little more in touch with reality?
That might be a better spending of time than trying to improve other people's view of reality, or even worrying about it.
One probably wouldn't recognize it as a Christian thing to do if a person responsible for nuclear weapons launched an ICBM at his home town after experiencing a hallucination, however that would be the only consistent way to implement Christian doctrine (as the equivalent of Abraham's sacrifice -- you must trust anything you see as God talking to you, no matter how little sense it makes and how much damage would happen as its obvious consequences).
Yeah ... hmm ... if your version of the only consistent way of implementing christian doctrine is right, we're quite lucky not everybody is that consistent, or we'd all be living in countries ran by the Taliban ;)
Seriously though, I think every doctrine derived from the bible (or any "holy book") is inevitably derived from an interpretation of the bible, not from the book itself. In other words, if you have 100 people read the bible a couple of times and then ask them about their ideas on god (or what the true christian doctrine should be like), you'll get 100 different answers.
In the same way, I think god only exists in the minds of people who believe in the concept, in their own virtual world they call reality, while in true reality us humans can not know reality as it is, but humbly have to do with our perception of it. God is what people need it to be, think it should be, want it to be, or have learned it to be.
Just because of that, and this will not surprise you probably, I think people should be free to have or have not their own ideas about god and their doctrine, as long as they're not going to tell me what to believe, and as long as their doctrine will not dictate me what to do, as I will not dictate them to abandon their beliefs, which I do think are mostly the product of misunderstanding, honest attempts at understanding human origin, thought and emotion as well as nature surrounding us, in a time man could not possibly know enough to understand any of that at all.
We know a lot more now, and still don't understand it.
Which all makes for a nice discussion... unless you think their christian doctrine told google to develop Document instead of Writer this is getting hopelessly offtopic though, perhaps we should continue elsewhere, if we were to continue it at all?
If you've used Windows in a corporate environment and still feel that way, there is something wrong with your organization. I've been with my current company for just over a year now and yesterday I called the help desk for my first Windows related problem.
Perhaps the gp was on the other end of the line, dealing with the nightmare to keep the rest of the organization including you, clear from it. In other words, your experience with your office desktop computer might say more about the quality of the IT department that installed the OS than about the flaws in the installed OS.
It's stable, period. Now, all the antivirus, security, firewall etc they install makes the thing so slow it's awful to use, but that's beside the point.
No, that is *not* beside the point. You see, if you *need* to bog down your OS with third party software to keep it working reliably at all, I'd say that the flaws in this OS are exactly what causes your pc to slow down to the point that it's awful to use.
One thing is for sure, though. I don't want to make an 'Impress' presentation and send it to a client unless I'm sure they are going to be able to open it in Powerpoint.
Yeah or in something else they might have, like Impress ;) I actually don't know Impress, btw. But I get your point.
Appears that my understanding was wrong :) See the other comments.
Still don't like it though.
Rofl. I'm Dutch... I had to laugh about your joke... I'll humbly attempt to translate this piece :)
Lego went to the European court of justice to battle Canadian competitioner Mega Brands, who released a block onto the market that will fit onto Lego's blocks. Today, the court ruled that the Lego's design is not protected by European trademark law, so any exclusive rights are out of the question.
It will be very interesting to see what happens in Legoland in the next few years. Disney grew strong by getting the lifetime on their protected trademarks prolonged and prolonged. What will happen to Lego now, and their market? Will it force Lego to come up with better designs and more attractive stuff now there's competition? Will there really be cheaper Lego-like blocks available at the toy stores? Will this new open market in Lego blocks produce good designs and nifty things, or will the cheap copycats take over? Will Lego's annual sales of 1,049 billion Euro dry down so quickly they're bankrupt in a couple of years? Would that really hurt the economy at large, or would it improve the situation for everyone but Lego?
I mean, it might answer some of the very basic questions that are quite often at the core of the discussions about trademarks. Talk is cheap, this is the real thing happening.
I don't really understand the meaning and relevance of your comment. It looks like you're saying, hey, you like freedom of choice, you're a fucking libertarian? If so, so fucking what?
Also, I've never approached any stranger by sticking a gun at him and saying hi. Is that the way libertarians in America treat strangers on the street? It doesn't sound like a libertarian thing to do though.
Could you please elaborate your comment? I'm also very interested to hear how this fits into the whole Document/Writer discussion. You think Google should be forced to work with OOo?
I don't get you.
Are you ok?
Would you like me to call a doctor for you?
So let me make sure I understand ... this is basically the EU equivalent of a United States Senator [Marco Cappato, a Liberal member of the European Parliament] asking the House of Representatives [the European Council] for a contract the House negotiated on behalf of the government and getting denied?
Well yes at least to my understanding that would, unfortunately, be quite accurate.
I'm a EU citizen... I don't like this *at*all*.
In a good world, Google Apps would collaborate with OOo,
No. In a good world, people are free to do as they see fit, as long as they can do so without harming others. The whole "people *must*collaborate* to make it a good world" thing is nothing but idealism, which in practice would take the freedom away to do anything but join the existing one party with a project going on.
Come on. If someone wants to create something new, it's his decision, just as it'd be his decision to collaborate with an existing project. Nothing good or bad about it. Things might or might not work out the way the person had hoped for but that's a whole different story.
I, for one, like the google competition. Let's just send them a clear message: "NOT good enough!" and hope they'll get Document up to Writer's level. If they don't, nothing is lost, because we still have Writer. If they do, it might give Writer a nice push, or perhaps even leave Writer in the dust.
and we'd get OOo with use anywhere functionality. You can use it stand alone, or when away from the office/home/computer you can use your data via web based tools.
Or, you might find out OOo is unsuitable to build a web app from, and start from scratch anyways after a long frustrating delay trying to get a large complex codebase to do something it won't.
IMO, that is the best possible outcome, what I would like to see. For now, I use a USB drive to port things around where I need them because Google apps doesn't quite get me what I want and need.
IMHO, you're doing better right now than a web app could deliver. Yes you'll need to carry around an usb drive. You could use one of those 16Gb USB sticks, that should be *plenty* for a complete Linux system with anything you'd otherwise use a web app for. That's not like lugging around a zip drive or external hdd or anything.
Your biggest advantages? It's faster, you don't depend on an internet connection and a working service, you keep control over which version of the software you're running, and you keep control over your data.
Google can *keep* its web apps as far as I'm concerned :)
It was the fault of the masses not paying their bills, and the fault of the Wall Street greeds to sell insecure mortgages as "secure" loans. The combination of the two proved to be really bad.
Perhaps someone should make a movie about a mass of zombies attacking a real meanass vampire.
The only requirements you can get from users are the ones that they consciously understand and can verbalize effectively. There are painstaking processes you can go through with the users to develop that understanding together. One of the best, in my experience, is showing them working software, or a good mock-up.
Yeah I've even made pencil and paper sketches on the fly to get the basic outline for the UI straight, while showing half a "program" that did contain the data structures but basically didn't do much of anything yet 'cept for showing three main UI pages. I did *not* mean you need to design all of the program, create it and present a finished program to the users... that'll never work.
Also, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my original comment, it's not just requirements I want to find out during these interviews. I'm mostly interested in data. What data is used, and where? Once I have my data I can create the data structures I need, from there on there's just no way we're going to have to throw away the codebase because of some UI stuff we need to change.
Don't think of an unusable early version as a failure. Think of it as a requirements gathering tool, and compare its cost to the cost of doing comprehensive up-front requirements gathering without it.
I do like to think of an early version as something that we can grow. If I made something that isn't viable, I'd like to find out as soon as possible, and not when I'm knee deep into the project. Getting the users involved like you say does help greatly there, also just to make it grow into the right direction. Throwing out a codebase is not a disaster and not the end of anybody's life.
However, that doesn't just mean the interviewing and data analysis have become worthless, and it's not an excuse to not do it. Poor analysis is a sure way to produce worthless code. As long as I get my data structures right we can rewrite half our code without a problem. If I get my data structures wrong, we'll find ourselves throwing out much (if not all) of the code after much frustration. Yes we did learn in the mean time but I'll still hold that it's a terrible waste of time and effort.
Sorry Duckie, but you're still missing the point.
It remains to be seen who's missing what point.
I'm working on a project that's been going probably 10+ years.
Which is entirely different from coding something from the ground up and then finding out it doesnt meet the requirements up to a point you might need to throw out your codebase and the framework it's built on, right?
No, I wasn't one of the originals - none of them are even around. So just pretend for a moment that all the technology we have today was available 10 years ago. You're pretty pro, think you can get _all_ of the requirements for the next 10 years and beyond out of your client on the first try before you write a single line of code? Good luck.
No, I don't think you can, and I'd like you to point out where I wrote that, before telling me I'm missing any point.
Customers don't know what they want. Period. You can ask them, interview them, and you'll get a lot of very telling answers. You'll build what they said they wanted... and it's not what they wanted! Why not? Because it was what they wanted 6 months ago when you started.
Worse than that, customers have a nasty habit of not knowing what they want until its delivered. We did a photoshop mockup of a UI for a feature we were adding, and got it approved by our customer, before proceeding on a recent feature-addition. He still liked it the day we tried to deliver... until he used it. Then we spent another two weeks changing the UI and some of the underlying functionality linked to it.
The fact of the matter is that the requirements and scope change. You can't prevent it. Yes, you should spend some time determining requirements, try to minimize the harmful effects of change, but you cannot _cannot_ prevent it.
No, but you can do the work good enough to not need throw away your codebase.
he probably would not have used if he'd taken time and effort to get the design right!
. . . yeah, because people never change their minds after you interview them and later they discover that what would be "really great" is if the project could also do such and such . . .
They do, and you, as software engineer, you *know* they will.
Of course, you could always tell your manager that if they wanted that added functionality they just mentioned, that they should have requested it 6 months ago when you asked them. Because you know, that usually works, and goes over quite well to boot.
Yeah you could. But I believe the results would be less desirable than the suggestion I offered. Did you even read the entire comment?
I'm sure your manager will know better next time. Will know better than to ask you to work on their projects.
Perhaps he might, if he'd go along with the words you try to put into my mouth.
Other than that he might be happy with someone who doesn't sit around waiting for a customer to "change his mind" about the functionality of a program, but actively participates in this "mind changing" during the design.
Or he might be happier hiring a "programmer" who knows nothing about design.
Perhaps he might even hire a troll. Who knows.
Did he really make a mistake?
Maybe.
He already has one version out and is now finding out what the software really needs to do. That sounds pretty damn successful to me.
It sounds like a mistake in the design stage to me. Did he interview the people who were going to use his software? Did he understand what they were going to expect from the software? Did he analyze the information needed by the software, and by its users? Did he define the software's scope and discuss it with its users?
I get the impression he didn't make the mistake of coding *beyond* the requirements, which is almost always a waste of time... But did he take a well coordinated effort to get the requirements clear before he wrote the first line of code or even chose the framework?
Now he's dithering about rewriting and replacing some of the libraries, which he would have had to do anyway even if they were custom-written.
Of course you'll chose to use libraries over writing it by yourself. I'd like to emphasize tho that the biggest benefit is not the time you'd need to write the code... but the time you'd need to debug it!
Libraries have usually been out in the wild for some time, been used in many different situations by different people, been looked at, debugged, improved, simplified and documented. Quite often all the functions in a library have a coherent interface, which makes for easy, "intuitive" use and a short learning curve.
So on my left I have hard time writing pages of code and annoying debug work, and on my right I have a comfortable ride quickly producing nice looking code that just works.
My two non-lazy braincells tell the rest of them that it's a no brainer ;)
[...]
Remember, he chose Hibernate, which turned out to be unsuitable, because didn't know the requirements when he started. He would have been damn lucky if he had just happened to develop a custom persistance layer that neatly anticipated the unknown requirements.
Yeah. Very lucky indeed. To get a decent course in software engineering, with an emphasis on interviewing techniques and information analysis. You don't really *need* to just code something out of the blue and be lucky to meet the requirements. It's not necessarily a process of trial and error.
The people you're writing software for can tell you what it's required to do. You can make a crude design and discuss it with them without even writing a single line of code. Once you have your design you start looking for an environment to implement in.
I think that would have had a good chance of avoiding the hassle in the first place. Right now he's doing what he should have done before writing the code, and finds his hands tied to a codebase and a framework that he probably would not have used if he'd taken time and effort to get the design right!
So to the guy asking the question... You cannot answer those questions without getting your design right... treat the code you have now as just a piece of code out there... then trust your laziness to chose the right tools to get the job done. If that's gonna be what you wrote yourself and the framework you're using now, or something else, who cares?
[...]
It's a moot point.
For your desktop, maybe.
It's likely that processors will eventually have more than 256 cores, but that's going to take a long time, I'm not necessarily convinced that we will.
Intel already showed off a 80 core processor a few weeks ago. It's not unthinkable they'd get that to 256. I'd guess they'd have that within 2 years. That'd be novemeber 2010.
Windows 7 is scheduled for 2010. It's not unknown for windows releases to be delayed.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the 256 core processor would arrive *before* you can buy Windows 7.
At some point we will hit the smallest possible transister size and I'm not sure that will leave physical room for all the extra cores without moving to a much larger chip size.
Apparently we're not at that point even with current technologies. If any of those atom scale technologies ever produces a working chip, things will be muuuuuch smaller still. Yes that's theoretical stuff atm but so were our current multi-Ghz multi-core processors some while ago.
That being said, if we're still using Windows 7 when mainstream computers have more than 256 cores there's something very wrong going on.
If mainstream is defined by "what i have on my desk at home", then you're absolutely right.
Linux probably will need that kind of scalability, but it's because of the sort of rolling release schedule where releases are expected to be based upon the previous version, if loosely at times.
No. That's reversing reality to make it meet your theory. Linux does not grow the way it does because people expect it and push for it, but people expect it because it has grown the way it does.
Of course each new linux version will appear to be base upon the previous version. That's because people made 2.4 grow to 2.6. They didn't write 2.6 from scratch and make it compatible with 2.4.
The only reason linux supports 4096 cores today is that somebody thought it'd be worthwhile to (pay somebody to) implement that. Not because of some release agenda.