For Emacs there is a local wiki editor that supports linking; great way for organizing thoughts. If you're not into Emacs, there are a few dedicated apps that do the same thing, or you could get your own wiki hosted somewhere and keep it online (possibly with public and private areas).
I find the WikiWay matches pretty closely with the way that I keep my todo lists.
Obviously. But right now, you're just as capable of reverse engineering the binary distribution of seti@home or whatever and tampering with things. But nonetheless this extra "security" is what's given as the reason for not open sourcing these distributed apps, and the java sandbox solution is a better way of doing it. At least then the user can trust the program not to violate privacy (accidentally or otherwise), or to introduce serious vulnerabilities.
Not only that, but using a java applet sandbox very effectively solves the trust problem in distributed computing; the whole "I'm not going to run it if I can't build it from source myself and audit the code" on the side of the client and the "We need to distribute binary only or people will make modified versions and corrupt our results" side of the project owners.
Good idea. Not a great idea to drop on generic webpages and force people to participate in order to view the page though.
I get a similar result with Mozilla Firebird 0.7 on Win32 (windows XP)...not identical, but similar. On the test page from the advisory http://www.secunia.com/internet_explorer_address_b ar_spoofing_test/, when you hover over the link, the status bar displays "microsoft.com" instead of the real URL. There's a little tip-off that something's up though, because there's a strange character at the end; maybe a VT100 line-drawing box-top, or a cropped "unknown character" box. When you actually click the URL, the correctly encoded URL appears in the address bar though.
I might be specific to locale settings as well, but at least on my system the behavior of Firebird isn't perfect (although the URL bar is correct, so it's much more minor).
This article has some of the symptoms right, but it's got the root cause wrong. All of those things mentioned are problems caused by poor quality administrators (or just as often, poor policies that the admins have no control over).
Just as low quality developers with no sensitivity for production issues cause problems for talented admins, low quality admins with no knowledge of development cause problems for the developers. Talented administrators help your development team build bad-ass production ready apps and don't get in your way.
Mostly though, it's IT management and corporate higher ups that have created this sprawling bureaucracy, for a variety of reasons. The admins would love to change it, but really have no say.
As with anything, hire talented people and things will run more smoothly (as long as you don't shackle them with process developed by and for the untalented people:-) ). The best sysadmins are those that understand development and the best developers are those that understand the production environments.
Yeah, except that you can't get blood out of a turnip, no matter how hard you squeeze. What's the point in bumping the resolution in the name of better quality if you have to accept tons of ugly video artifacts in the process? If DVD-9 were to become the HD-DVD standard, a large portion of the market would be driven to D-Theather DVHS for high quality movies, and we'd have similar to what we had before with laserdiscs for the high-end and VHS for the mainstream.
Granted, HD-DVD-9 would be better as a "fallback" format than analog VHS, but still, since we're going to have to upgrade anyway, why not just bite the bullet and jump to the highest bandwidth/capacity disc available currently?
I dug around until I found the licensing page for Windows Rights Management. You have to have a "Rights Management Service Client access license" on top of the normal Windows 2003 CAL. Which is $37 a seat! That's pretty expensive for enterprise use. Plus if you want to use it over the internet, you need a "rights management connector license", which will run you $18,000 per server. That's a lot to pay for something that basically provides nothing more than peice of mind.
I didn't say PgSQL was a toy, I was just pointing out that Oracle advantage is in far more than just marketing; I've used it before and I will use it again, it's certainly much closer to Oracle than MySQL.
However, while it does have some of those features I mentioned, it doesn't have them as fully implemented as Oracle. Stored procedures can't return cursors, highly limiting their usefulness (at least last time I checked). Referential integrity is missing a few important peices for making your data model robust in the face of lously clients (essential in an enterprise environment), and faith in the ability to perfectly restore the system at any point in time even in the face of a system crash is not so high.
Anyway, don't get me wrong, PgSQL rocks (as does MySQL for particular tasks), but Oracle it is not.
Yeah. Who needs all those Oracle "features". Like, you know, data integrity. All that money, just so you can keep your data from being corrupted...what a waste! Who needs stored procedures, triggers, rock-solid backup/restores, and referential integrity?
Point taken; most of the really over the top hype seems to come from Steve Kemper. Still though, I don't recall a press release from Kamen saying "Everyone, calm down, it's just a scooter."
I did find this though on the theITquestion website, which I think shows that someone had some perspective on what they saw, even back then:
...Brill's Content has learned that neither Jobs nor Bezos are investors in the company and both men are deeply critical of "IT's" design and release plans. Jobs said the design "sucks" and that "its shape is not innovative, it's not elegant, it doesn't feel anthropomorphic." Bezos said, "I think this plan is dead on arrival. The U.S.A. is too hostile.".
Anothe strike against the company, backlash from all the hype. We were promised an earth shattering, mind blowing, world changing "it" of an invention. "Something people would design cities around." Instead we get an expensive scooter that you can't take with you on public transit, use on many city streets, drive on the street, or fit in your car to take with you. After a year of magical mystery hype about this wonderful invention and "leaks" about the nature of it, even if it cost $50, I'd probably not buy one out of spite.
This pretty much sums up why enterprise osftware is so bad.
The J2EE community sorely lacks a programming environment that can make Java more accessible to mainstream developers. San Jose, California-based BEA Systems Inc has come close with WebLogic Workshop but this is more for Java-based web services.
Make J2EE programming "more accessible" to main stream developers? Exactly how does a user interface technology make enterprise application development more accessible to "mainstream" developers. If Java were better integrated with Flash, would developers suddly have an easy time churning out competently designed persistent objects and messaging services? Enterprise application development is complicated; deal. If you can't figure out how to write a J2EE from the wealth of resources available, the documentation and specifications, and the free or low cost development tools available (JBoss, Enhydra, Tomcat, etc...), perhaps you have no business building large enterprise applications, since understand JMS/JMX/EJB'S/JNDI/Servlets/JSP's etc. is just the tiniest part of what you should know.
There are also some stories about people not getting put on the list if they don't use the correct wording. "Do not call here again." is not necessarily correct. "Please put me on your do-not-call list" is what the law says, and the only thing some telemarketers are going to accept. It's a loophole that might or might not hold up (probably not), but since the object is reduce phone calls, might as well go with it.
I've been doing this religiously with all telemarketers for about 2 months now, and the volume has gone _way_, _way_ down. From 1-2 day to 1 a week or so.
This is why if it's important to you, you should always check the fingerprints of keys via some secure channel. I usually don't bother with SSL, but I have a cheat sheet with my SSH host keys on it in my wallet, so I can make sure I've got the right system when I connect to one of my systems.
However, this is nothing magical, from the initial bugtraq description it sounds like just plain ole' arp snooping. Which means for encrypted, authenticated traffic (SSH/VPN/SSL), it's only going to work if the user ignores the security warnings because of the wrong keys, or the keys themselves have been stolen (a whole other ball of wax).
The problem is, there is no information that the Slashdot community can give you about legal situations that could be useful. Lawyers aren't allowed to answer (essentially) at all unless they are retained as council. The asker is certainly going to need to speak with a lawyer; period. Why not skip the uninformed legal advice and skip straight to the people who can help navigate the situation. Now, "Does anyone know a good lawyer for handling cases such as blah blah blah" would be a great slashdot question. If it's just for fun and to share anecdotes, that's fine too, but I'd probably stick that into the question somewhere just to avoid the "talk to a lawyer" contingent.
Well, theoretically of course; they will still be there, since tons of people wouldn't actually read the question. I'd suggest putting "I ALREADY HAVE A LAWYER AND AM JUST POSTING THIS FOR INTERESTING AND FUN ANECDOTES" in bold at the top. Although I'm not sure about the wisdom of discussing potentially private legal strategies in public...:-)
I doubt many modern 'c0derz' could properly knock out a simple quick-sort, let alone a fully ACID SQL DBMS.
Nor should they have to, unless they are a building a library or working for a database company. A fully ACID SQL DBMS that works in the real world would put years and years to put together. Quicksort is notoriously difficult to implement, and even if you have a firm understanding of the principles, getting the partitioning right (and not just working correctly, but working as efficiently as it should) can take a lot of testing and debugging. There is very little reason why any programmer, working on a typical system that would need to use either of these things should have to know exactly how to implement one.
That's not saying that a programmer shouldn't have a good understanding of them and a healthly curiosity for how things are working under the hood. Without understanding a bit of RDBMS implementation, it's touch to understand transactional models and the issues involved. Without having a basic idea of how quicksort works, you'll never know when to pick it or debug performance problems with it. Certainly, more understanding is almost always better, but taking the time to be able to recreate existing implementations is far beyond the time budget of most programmers. Too much time spent learning implementation details of something like a RDBMS means less time for actually solving your problem. It would take years to gain enough knowledge to write a decent one, in which time your original problem still isn't solved, and the state of the art in databases is now that much further along.
In short, teach a few implementation issues, but concentrate on where those implementation choices affect how the system is used and interacts with other systems. That's an appropriate level of knowledge for most projects.
I wonder if Hollywood is leaking these titles diliberately (or at least secretly hoping they'll leak), so that they can go in front of congress and demand strong measures to stop this mad pirating of the "crown moneymaking jewels and lifeblood of the movie industry. Sure, Potter is still going to make hundreds of millions, but imagine what it would have done if it had not been pirated..."
Given the number of people who I consider reasonably intelligent who when on and on about the "facts" that Fox's moon landing special presented, I'd say having a big, well compiled body of information debunking those claims would be highly useful.
The masses are easily swayed by one-sided propoganda and shoddy science; as lame as it is, it's probably worth the $15k to breathe some common sense into the "debate."
Yeah, statistically speaking the average Linux user spends 75.2% of their time at their computer trying to make their fonts look good, so it's actually not that strange at all.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
For Emacs there is a local wiki editor that supports linking; great way for organizing thoughts. If you're not into Emacs, there are a few dedicated apps that do the same thing, or you could get your own wiki hosted somewhere and keep it online (possibly with public and private areas).
I find the WikiWay matches pretty closely with the way that I keep my todo lists.
Solaris has always had ksh, which includes command line editing. Sounds like a bad consultant. Solaris 8 and up now includes bash as well.
Probably. I would probably use SSLCertificateChain instead, but the difference is very slight.
m l ) for more info.
Your SSL directives might be included in ssl.conf; that's the way apache 2.x works.
Checkout the variety of resources available (www.modssl.org, http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/ssl/ssl_howto.ht
Obviously. But right now, you're just as capable of reverse engineering the binary distribution of seti@home or whatever and tampering with things. But nonetheless this extra "security" is what's given as the reason for not open sourcing these distributed apps, and the java sandbox solution is a better way of doing it. At least then the user can trust the program not to violate privacy (accidentally or otherwise), or to introduce serious vulnerabilities.
Not only that, but using a java applet sandbox very effectively solves the trust problem in distributed computing; the whole "I'm not going to run it if I can't build it from source myself and audit the code" on the side of the client and the "We need to distribute binary only or people will make modified versions and corrupt our results" side of the project owners.
Good idea. Not a great idea to drop on generic webpages and force people to participate in order to view the page though.
I get a similar result with Mozilla Firebird 0.7 on Win32 (windows XP)...not identical, but similar. On the test page from the advisory http://www.secunia.com/internet_explorer_address_b ar_spoofing_test/, when you hover over the link, the status bar displays "microsoft.com" instead of the real URL. There's a little tip-off that something's up though, because there's a strange character at the end; maybe a VT100 line-drawing box-top, or a cropped "unknown character" box. When you actually click the URL, the correctly encoded URL appears in the address bar though.
I might be specific to locale settings as well, but at least on my system the behavior of Firebird isn't perfect (although the URL bar is correct, so it's much more minor).
This article has some of the symptoms right, but it's got the root cause wrong. All of those things mentioned are problems caused by poor quality administrators (or just as often, poor policies that the admins have no control over).
:-) ). The best sysadmins are those that understand development and the best developers are those that understand the production environments.
Just as low quality developers with no sensitivity for production issues cause problems for talented admins, low quality admins with no knowledge of development cause problems for the developers. Talented administrators help your development team build bad-ass production ready apps and don't get in your way.
Mostly though, it's IT management and corporate higher ups that have created this sprawling bureaucracy, for a variety of reasons. The admins would love to change it, but really have no say.
As with anything, hire talented people and things will run more smoothly (as long as you don't shackle them with process developed by and for the untalented people
Yeah, except that you can't get blood out of a turnip, no matter how hard you squeeze. What's the point in bumping the resolution in the name of better quality if you have to accept tons of ugly video artifacts in the process? If DVD-9 were to become the HD-DVD standard, a large portion of the market would be driven to D-Theather DVHS for high quality movies, and we'd have similar to what we had before with laserdiscs for the high-end and VHS for the mainstream.
Granted, HD-DVD-9 would be better as a "fallback" format than analog VHS, but still, since we're going to have to upgrade anyway, why not just bite the bullet and jump to the highest bandwidth/capacity disc available currently?
I dug around until I found the licensing page for Windows Rights Management. You have to have a "Rights Management Service Client access license" on top of the normal Windows 2003 CAL. Which is $37 a seat! That's pretty expensive for enterprise use. Plus if you want to use it over the internet, you need a "rights management connector license", which will run you $18,000 per server. That's a lot to pay for something that basically provides nothing more than peice of mind.
Can't believe I'm bothering...
I didn't say PgSQL was a toy, I was just pointing out that Oracle advantage is in far more than just marketing; I've used it before and I will use it again, it's certainly much closer to Oracle than MySQL.
However, while it does have some of those features I mentioned, it doesn't have them as fully implemented as Oracle. Stored procedures can't return cursors, highly limiting their usefulness (at least last time I checked). Referential integrity is missing a few important peices for making your data model robust in the face of lously clients (essential in an enterprise environment), and faith in the ability to perfectly restore the system at any point in time even in the face of a system crash is not so high.
Anyway, don't get me wrong, PgSQL rocks (as does MySQL for particular tasks), but Oracle it is not.
Yeah. Who needs all those Oracle "features". Like, you know, data integrity. All that money, just so you can keep your data from being corrupted...what a waste! Who needs stored procedures, triggers, rock-solid backup/restores, and referential integrity?
Point taken; most of the really over the top hype seems to come from Steve Kemper. Still though, I don't recall a press release from Kamen saying "Everyone, calm down, it's just a scooter."
...Brill's Content has learned that neither Jobs nor Bezos are investors in the company and both men are deeply critical of "IT's" design and release plans. Jobs said the design "sucks" and that "its shape is not innovative, it's not elegant, it doesn't feel anthropomorphic." Bezos said, "I think this plan is dead on arrival. The U.S.A. is too hostile.".
I did find this though on the theITquestion
website, which I think shows that someone had some perspective on what they saw, even back then:
Funny stuff.
Anothe strike against the company, backlash from all the hype. We were promised an earth shattering, mind blowing, world changing "it" of an invention. "Something people would design cities around." Instead we get an expensive scooter that you can't take with you on public transit, use on many city streets, drive on the street, or fit in your car to take with you. After a year of magical mystery hype about this wonderful invention and "leaks" about the nature of it, even if it cost $50, I'd probably not buy one out of spite.
This pretty much sums up why enterprise osftware is so bad.
The J2EE community sorely lacks a programming environment that can make Java more accessible to mainstream developers. San Jose, California-based BEA Systems Inc has come close with WebLogic Workshop but this is more for Java-based web services.
Make J2EE programming "more accessible" to main stream developers? Exactly how does a user interface technology make enterprise application development more accessible to "mainstream" developers. If Java were better integrated with Flash, would developers suddly have an easy time churning out competently designed persistent objects and messaging services? Enterprise application development is complicated; deal. If you can't figure out how to write a J2EE from the wealth of resources available, the documentation and specifications, and the free or low cost development tools available (JBoss, Enhydra, Tomcat, etc...), perhaps you have no business building large enterprise applications, since understand JMS/JMX/EJB'S/JNDI/Servlets/JSP's etc. is just the tiniest part of what you should know.
I mostly agree, but it can't be totally useless if you can define a Turing machine with it...:-)
http://www.unidex.com/turing/tmml.htm
There are also some stories about people not getting put on the list if they don't use the correct wording. "Do not call here again." is not necessarily correct. "Please put me on your do-not-call list" is what the law says, and the only thing some telemarketers are going to accept. It's a loophole that might or might not hold up (probably not), but since the object is reduce phone calls, might as well go with it.
I've been doing this religiously with all telemarketers for about 2 months now, and the volume has gone _way_, _way_ down. From 1-2 day to 1 a week or so.
Personally speaking, I'd be _way_ more afraid of the women impressed by showing them a collection of slashdot trolls. :-)
This is why if it's important to you, you should always check the fingerprints of keys via some secure channel. I usually don't bother with SSL, but I have a cheat sheet with my SSH host keys on it in my wallet, so I can make sure I've got the right system when I connect to one of my systems.
Yes, this is bad for a variety of reasons.
However, this is nothing magical, from the initial bugtraq description it sounds like just plain ole' arp snooping. Which means for encrypted, authenticated traffic (SSH/VPN/SSL), it's only going to work if the user ignores the security warnings because of the wrong keys, or the keys themselves have been stolen (a whole other ball of wax).
Most people aren't using Lisp or a similiarly powerful language, so I'd say for most programmers neither of those are trivial to understand. :-)
:-)
Besides, that's the quicksort example; where is your full-blown ACID RDBMS example?
The problem is, there is no information that the Slashdot community can give you about legal situations that could be useful. Lawyers aren't allowed to answer (essentially) at all unless they are retained as council. The asker is certainly going to need to speak with a lawyer; period. Why not skip the uninformed legal advice and skip straight to the people who can help navigate the situation. Now, "Does anyone know a good lawyer for handling cases such as blah blah blah" would be a great slashdot question. If it's just for fun and to share anecdotes, that's fine too, but I'd probably stick that into the question somewhere just to avoid the "talk to a lawyer" contingent.
Well, theoretically of course; they will still be there, since tons of people wouldn't actually read the question. I'd suggest putting "I ALREADY HAVE A LAWYER AND AM JUST POSTING THIS FOR INTERESTING AND FUN ANECDOTES" in bold at the top. Although I'm not sure about the wisdom of discussing potentially private legal strategies in public...:-)
I doubt many modern 'c0derz' could properly knock out a simple quick-sort, let alone a fully ACID SQL DBMS.
Nor should they have to, unless they are a building a library or working for a database company. A fully ACID SQL DBMS that works in the real world would put years and years to put together. Quicksort is notoriously difficult to implement, and even if you have a firm understanding of the principles, getting the partitioning right (and not just working correctly, but working as efficiently as it should) can take a lot of testing and debugging. There is very little reason why any programmer, working on a typical system that would need to use either of these things should have to know exactly how to implement one.
That's not saying that a programmer shouldn't have a good understanding of them and a healthly curiosity for how things are working under the hood. Without understanding a bit of RDBMS implementation, it's touch to understand transactional models and the issues involved. Without having a basic idea of how quicksort works, you'll never know when to pick it or debug performance problems with it. Certainly, more understanding is almost always better, but taking the time to be able to recreate existing implementations is far beyond the time budget of most programmers. Too much time spent learning implementation details of something like a RDBMS means less time for actually solving your problem. It would take years to gain enough knowledge to write a decent one, in which time your original problem still isn't solved, and the state of the art in databases is now that much further along.
In short, teach a few implementation issues, but concentrate on where those implementation choices affect how the system is used and interacts with other systems. That's an appropriate level of knowledge for most projects.
I wonder if Hollywood is leaking these titles diliberately (or at least secretly hoping they'll leak), so that they can go in front of congress and demand strong measures to stop this mad pirating of the "crown moneymaking jewels and lifeblood of the movie industry. Sure, Potter is still going to make hundreds of millions, but imagine what it would have done if it had not been pirated..."
Given the number of people who I consider reasonably intelligent who when on and on about the "facts" that Fox's moon landing special presented, I'd say having a big, well compiled body of information debunking those claims would be highly useful.
The masses are easily swayed by one-sided propoganda and shoddy science; as lame as it is, it's probably worth the $15k to breathe some common sense into the "debate."
Yeah, statistically speaking the average Linux user spends 75.2% of their time at their computer trying to make their fonts look good, so it's actually not that strange at all. :-)