It just makes it a tad harder to categorize your levels of security. Since brains to do that properly are rather seldom, it may end up up costing you more money to put stuff on the cloud if you want to do it properly.
Well, I do not "hate" the hype, I just find it funny. Along the same way as the GP has said, and one poster above disclaiming he was an " IT Security professional":
If you are planning doomsday scenarios, then don't have you computers connected to anything. I have been running my systems for 20 years without any intrusion that I am aware of. This doesn't mean I am not owned. So yes, you could put some stuff on the cloud. From an "IT Security professional" point of view: you categorize the levels of security you are comfortable with and act accordingly.
Nothing is 100% secure unless it is completely disconnected from any network, nobody has the passwd to login and the power is off.
Binary distributions should be a little more risky but there is nothing like a back-door hiding in plain site, there for anyone to see in the source code but not getting detected in most source code audits.
At last, somebody who knows what he is talking about !
I admit I pushed it a little far with direct to disk . The important thing is to keep it analog all the way. Your proposal is more serious indeed.
On a side note, even back in the 70's, it was amazing how we would get cheaply pressed LPs in America. We had to import them from Germany or what not and pay 50$ instead of 12$ and you could really tell the difference. That is 1975 dollars. That would be 200$ at least in 2013 dollars. Cheap CDs sell much better in 2013;-)
Analog is much more costly than digital. There you go!
And for the other ACs that do not believe my GP post, I will specify that one of these cost more than 100$ and that you need a 5000$ turnable and a 30,000$ sound system, usually driven by lamps to really appreciate the difference.
But hey, history always repeats itself an even the supposedly nerds at/. are now saying that digital sound recording is better for some reason and they are more than happy with their mp3s and flacs. Here is why you never heard about what I am telling you about:
People like things that are not expensive and have a tendency to convince themselves that for some reason, what they use is the best. Do I use mp3 and a digital sound appliances?: Yes. Am I trying to convince myself it is the best sound I ever heard?: No. Trying to do so would be like trying to convince myself that my VOIP phone sounds better than an old 150$, in 1980 dollars, analog phone from Northern Telecom.
Lossless is impossible with digital. You have virtually infinite ways to groove an old LP record. With digital, there is a very finite ways to set the bits to zero or one.
That's a reason why old musician and audiophiles usually prefer LPs. They say they are better with harmonics and they say they can tell the difference, especially with instruments like the violin.
Personally, I find that a brand new high quality LP played on a high end sound system sounds better than numeric, even with no compression at all (raw) formats.
We could also use DNS to cache malling addresses so I can do a look up when I forget my postal code. Caching phone numbers so I can lookup my own phone number would be great too. We could also feed our agendas into DNS so, when I do a lookup for Sat.Jun.8.10.00.00.EDT.2013.mydomain.com, I get the coordinates of my 10 o'clock meeting, that took place this morning.
I think that we are really in the Stone Age with regard to DNS. We haven't even started to realize the mighty power that DNS possesses and we haven't discovered even 0.0000001% of use cases where DNS could be used to help save humanity.
The NTP protocol knows nothing about time zones. You would need to extend the protocol.
"NTP provides Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) including scheduled leap second adjustments. No information about time zones or daylight saving time is transmitted; this information is outside its scope and must be obtained separately."
There is little things that need to be changed for time to time when you upgrade to a newer jdk version. Nothing compared to upgrading PHP although, so you are mostly right. I run apps that were developed with java 1.0 on java 6 without problems and without any need to change anything in the app.
Look at the bottom of this article for "org.apache.struts.validator.DynaValidatorActionForm" :
However html has transformed from a way to displaying documents, to more of an application platform.
I know this obviously, I just asked if we had over done it? Never ask a question for which you do not already know the answer. The answer is yes, we have over done it, mostly not paying attention to code optimization at the core. More memory and faster CPU cycles is nowadays cheaper that efficiency at the core of program logic.
Complain if you like about it, but it is here to stay, and modern heavy html has solved a lot of problems. Such as platform independent programs, universal access to a program, easy deployment, etc...
Yes we have sacrificed speed for convenience, but I think it is worth it.
I never complained about anything. My OP was merely an observation of what had happened; We got lazy, not everybody can code efficiently and it is cheaper to rely on more horsepower than to optimize code logic nowadays while code efficiency was much more important a few decades ago. This is exactly why we are still talking about page load speed in 2013.
Page used to load really fast in 1990s in mosaic then, Netscape as long as you had something like a T1 connection. Now, funnily enough, the software layer involved in serving dynamic content and all the xml, third party sites and what not network calls the browser has to make before actually counting the page as loaded make it seem like the software layer has become the bottle-neck. This sounds silly to me, maybe we over did a bit?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd write "even the Brits" or "even England".
Please guys, stop that "my father (country) is stronger that yours attitude. ;-)
What you are suggesting is a global waking up. Be careful, posting as anon ain't that safe ;-)
It just makes it a tad harder to categorize your levels of security. Since brains to do that properly are rather seldom, it may end up up costing you more money to put stuff on the cloud if you want to do it properly.
Well, I do not "hate" the hype, I just find it funny. Along the same way as the GP has said, and one poster above disclaiming he was an " IT Security professional":
If you are planning doomsday scenarios, then don't have you computers connected to anything. I have been running my systems for 20 years without any intrusion that I am aware of. This doesn't mean I am not owned. So yes, you could put some stuff on the cloud. From an "IT Security professional" point of view: you categorize the levels of security you are comfortable with and act accordingly.
Nothing is 100% secure unless it is completely disconnected from any network, nobody has the passwd to login and the power is off.
good one!
anything that works fits the bill.
Right, the perfect way to gain the opposite results.
Luke, concentrate on the force instead.
true. I use to download and install gnu-tar on aix...
Binary distributions should be a little more risky but there is nothing like a back-door hiding in plain site, there for anyone to see in the source code but not getting detected in most source code audits.
Duh ;-)
At last, somebody who knows what he is talking about !
I admit I pushed it a little far with direct to disk . The important thing is to keep it analog all the way. Your proposal is more serious indeed.
On a side note, even back in the 70's, it was amazing how we would get cheaply pressed LPs in America. We had to import them from Germany or what not and pay 50$ instead of 12$ and you could really tell the difference. That is 1975 dollars. That would be 200$ at least in 2013 dollars. Cheap CDs sell much better in 2013 ;-)
Analog is much more costly than digital. There you go!
You are the man!
Jeez guys, I thought /. was for nerds ;-)
Here is your answer: They are not mixed at all, they are recorded straight to the master record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_to_disc_recording
And for the other ACs that do not believe my GP post, I will specify that one of these cost more than 100$ and that you need a 5000$ turnable and a 30,000$ sound system, usually driven by lamps to really appreciate the difference.
But hey, history always repeats itself an even the supposedly nerds at /. are now saying that digital sound recording is better for some reason and they are more than happy with their mp3s and flacs. Here is why you never heard about what I am telling you about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_to_disc_recording#Albums_and_public_reception
People like things that are not expensive and have a tendency to convince themselves that for some reason, what they use is the best. Do I use mp3 and a digital sound appliances?: Yes. Am I trying to convince myself it is the best sound I ever heard?: No. Trying to do so would be like trying to convince myself that my VOIP phone sounds better than an old 150$, in 1980 dollars, analog phone from Northern Telecom.
Lossless is impossible with digital. You have virtually infinite ways to groove an old LP record. With digital, there is a very finite ways to set the bits to zero or one.
That's a reason why old musician and audiophiles usually prefer LPs. They say they are better with harmonics and they say they can tell the difference, especially with instruments like the violin.
Personally, I find that a brand new high quality LP played on a high end sound system sounds better than numeric, even with no compression at all (raw) formats.
Good point I guess, I have 7 or 8 phones in my drawer and none of them are "in use".
"will outnumber the atoms in the universe"
Illogical.
-Seven of Nine.
We could also use DNS to cache malling addresses so I can do a look up when I forget my postal code. Caching phone numbers so I can lookup my own phone number would be great too. We could also feed our agendas into DNS so, when I do a lookup for Sat.Jun.8.10.00.00.EDT.2013.mydomain.com, I get the coordinates of my 10 o'clock meeting, that took place this morning.
I think that we are really in the Stone Age with regard to DNS. We haven't even started to realize the mighty power that DNS possesses and we haven't discovered even 0.0000001% of use cases where DNS could be used to help save humanity.
The NTP protocol knows nothing about time zones. You would need to extend the protocol.
"NTP provides Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) including scheduled leap second adjustments. No information about time zones or daylight saving time is transmitted; this information is outside its scope and must be obtained separately."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol
There is little things that need to be changed for time to time when you upgrade to a newer jdk version. Nothing compared to upgrading PHP although, so you are mostly right. I run apps that were developed with java 1.0 on java 6 without problems and without any need to change anything in the app.
Look at the bottom of this article for "org.apache.struts.validator.DynaValidatorActionForm" :
http://blogtech.oc9.com/index.php?view=article&id=239%3Ajava20091022&option=com_content&Itemid=16
This makes me think; somebody from the open source community should be able to make a timezone patch freely available for Oracle's JDK.
You also need a lead developer who has the last word. Otherwise, forget about it.
However html has transformed from a way to displaying documents, to more of an application platform.
I know this obviously, I just asked if we had over done it? Never ask a question for which you do not already know the answer. The answer is yes, we have over done it, mostly not paying attention to code optimization at the core. More memory and faster CPU cycles is nowadays cheaper that efficiency at the core of program logic.
Complain if you like about it, but it is here to stay, and modern heavy html has solved a lot of problems. Such as platform independent programs, universal access to a program, easy deployment, etc...
Yes we have sacrificed speed for convenience, but I think it is worth it.
I never complained about anything. My OP was merely an observation of what had happened; We got lazy, not everybody can code efficiently and it is cheaper to rely on more horsepower than to optimize code logic nowadays while code efficiency was much more important a few decades ago. This is exactly why we are still talking about page load speed in 2013.
Page used to load really fast in 1990s in mosaic then, Netscape as long as you had something like a T1 connection. Now, funnily enough, the software layer involved in serving dynamic content and all the xml, third party sites and what not network calls the browser has to make before actually counting the page as loaded make it seem like the software layer has become the bottle-neck. This sounds silly to me, maybe we over did a bit?
Christ Pete, Update!
http://www.petefinnigan.com/