I am currently on my gaming laptop (which I also use for work) which is nice for using on a table or desk. When I'm out and about or I go to play games with friends, I use my Samsung Series 7 Slate which is a tablet, but I bring a wireless keyboard if I need it or just a game pad. When I'm laying on the couch, I use my HTPC connected to a projector with a 110" screen. Though, sometimes my son displaces me and makes me play using the game PC connected to the projector with a 85" screen on the perpendicular wall. That's 4 computers I use to play games many times all in the same day. Of course, I sometimes play Lego games hooked up to the Mac Mini connected to the living room TV. My son might decide to play on either his laptop or the mac mini connected to the screen in his bed. My daughter might play on the mac book or on the HTPC connected to the TV in her bedroom or we can play on the HTPC connected to the TV in our bedroom. My wife and I have laid in bed playing lego harry potter like that often enough.
Altogether, when I buy a game, if it has restrictive DRM, it should at most limit the number of PCs it can be played on at a time. Maybe make it so you can only access the online portions of the game from one PC at a time per license. But since I have 10 PCs just in my house which are often used for gaming.. and another 5 notebooks I keep around for having friends over for game nights, I can't be bothered with stupid things like trying to figure out which PC I want to play a game on.
Just because we're biologically to always try to be the Alpha or at least try to exert our dominance in an attempt to find our station... and often to resort to back handed methods to rise in the chain, culture trains us not to run around with clubs in our hands and pound each other over their heads.
Women aren't programmed to try to exert dominance, therefore, they don't let hormones get in the way of making wiser decisions which is to have the dominant role without exerting it competitively. Even this response to your response is at least on some level an example of me, a relatively mellow kind of guy who actually doesn't like sports purely because the concept of competition requires that for one opponent to win, it must be at the expense of another opponent, I still am exerting my personal superiority in a bait to have a deeper competition and to prove my dominance by forcing you to either adopt my opinion (right or wrong) or submit. Women would probably either read your comment and move on or just take a moment to slap you around with a dead fish and move on.
I am very willing (especially after raising both a son and a daughter) to suggest that much of our upbringing is about exerting environment over instinct. I have watched many boys who were quite aggressive in their first few years mold into much more relaxed and polite people in the next 5 years. This comes from people teaching them "right from wrong". I have also watched the children of highly aggressive parent become more aggressive since their parents consider it natural to train their children to attempt to club people over the heads to show how important they are (oddly thinking of a cop/soccer coach's kid in this instance specifically).
The real initial point I had intended to make is that sexism itself is not a biological thing. It's cultural because boys are biologically and instinctively competitive against everyone and misinterpret lack of competition from others as weakness on their behalf. Therefore the fact that most females are less likely to see value in the competition and therefore choose to ignore the invitation to compete by their male counterparts, it does not mean they submit and are weaker, it's just that less intelligent people misinterpret it as such. Though, the same could be said for example about my own son who is non-competitive, though strong enough to snap most of his peers due to his viking blood and build. He's more like the big dog sitting quietly inside the house as opposed to the little one with something to prove who barks 24 hours a day. Though because he is so quiet, the little dogs keep trying to bite his ears to prove how much tougher they are than him. And if the big dog just lays there and ignores the little dogs jibe, the little dog eventually walks away with an air of accomplishment for showing his strength.
This type of behavior isn't strictly sexist, it's an issue that sexist people tend to bark loudly about all the people they feel dominant over... justified or not. The fact that there are far more women that aren't willing to rise to the bait then there are men, they'll single women out as being less than them. Funny thing is how many of those guys eventually end up married to a women who beats them senseless with a rolling pin.
If I read correctly, it says you can't install another OS that isn't signed. So, buy/download a bootloader which is signed or wait a week until EFI secure boot is cracked.
In fact, I'm tempted to consider making a boot loader for ARM linux which I'll get signed somehow. I'm pretty sure that Intel can't say no. I'll release the code under an open source license but I'll charge $2 for the signed version of it.
I like your response on this one. I personally do purchase substantially more than I pirate. In fact, every time I pirate something, I send a mail (with my contact information) to the rights holder explaining why I pirated it and how they could have avoided having me pirate it. For the most part, the majority of my current piracy activity is due to either:
1) Price gouging. I'll pay for the first 10 episodes of a TV season and pirate the remaining 12. This being because I shouldn't have to pay $50 for a TV season from the online providers when it's average price is $20 at the stores.
2) Releasing it online and then restricting me from purchasing it because I'm not in the right location. This is 2012, eBooks, AudioBooks, music and movies do not need to be printed or distributed in other countries through third party printers or CD/DVD duplicators and more. If I go to Amazon, Audible, iTunes etc... and am told I need to wait to download the U.S. version (meaning color instead of colour) versions of ebooks or audiobooks or whatever, I'll pirate the book as it's the only way to get it. Then, when they decided to release that same book at the same price they charge to Americans (or direct dollar to euro conversion is barely acceptable) then I'll consider buying from them.
3) Location based price gouging. I refuse to pay extra to download something in Norway than to download it from the U.S. or the U.K.. This type of gouging is wrong. Again, I'll spend the same price as I would have in the states.. like buy 4 tracks of the album and pirate the rest, just so the publisher gets from me what they would have gotten if they let me pay U.S. prices, but I won't be taken advantage of just because I live in a country that generally allows itself to be exploited.
There are other reasons as well. But those are the key ones. And... as I am an American, I feel like so long as the publisher doesn't need to pay shipping and tariffs, I should pay what Americans pay in the U.S.
I am in agreement with the White House response to this. SOPA as it is written is entirely wrong. The spirit of what SOPA is trying to accomplish... basically attempting to protect rights holders from piracy is probably a good thing. I think however that the laws unfortunately are being written by law makers and not by people who actually understand it. The people presenting the laws are the ones who feel like they're under attack and their response is inappropriate and instead of someone detached from IP law attempting to devise a solution that would best represent everyone's needs, their are two entirely different sides involved.
There are some real issue with SOPA beyond the whole "Great Firewall" problem which is what gets my panties in a bunch.
1) SOPA, PIPA, etc... do nothing to present any solution related to the problem. They have no practical application beyond making a statement. People currently use torrents because they're easy and established. But just like napster, kazaa and everything else, there's always and the technological solutions proposed to the bill are meaningless and are just wasting government funds if they truly believe that the bill is to in fact protect IP. The bills as they stand today do however give what I feel to be unjustified power to the government that can be used to manipulate the internet in a terribly negative way. For example, under the provisions involved, the white house would be allowed to hijack websites lawfully until such time as their objection to the site can be properly disputed. So, for example, if a website were to be overly critical to the standing first term president (doesn't have to be the one we have now, can be the next one or the one after), the whitehouse could in theory start using interesting interpretations of copyright infringement to take down websites that they feel could be seen a hurtful to the presidential campaign. Of course this would likely be political suicide to try, but on a wide enough scale, it could seriously hu
If I were to write a virus or other malware these days, that would be one of the first things I would consider getting right.
Scanning network traffic is a waste of time. A proper virus these days would do things by sending and receiving in bursts.. maybe on PCs left on 24/7 in the middle of the night for example. I run a CheckPoint Firewall-1 based router in my house with live virus and malware scanning and frankly, I still run antivirus on my PC. It's free and it does actually work.
There are some great programs which don't have to be installed which simply list the executables, DLLs and etc running on your PC and checks against online databases to see if the file and/or version that is running is legit. It doesn't do anything, but in a matter of less than a minute each month, you can just check your machine for anything naughty.
I on the other hand have two kids who use all my computers, so I run anti-virus because you can't be sure when the next time they'll try the new "Pokemon Forever free game!!!!" is. Then before you know it, there will be pictures of my kids playing games on a Saturday morning in their underwear in perverts hands all over the world. For that reason I actually also put tape over the webcams on my laptops which don't have sliding shutters. I'm not paranoid, but I do know that if you were that kind of perv, you'd only need to show up on Google for a matter of an hour or two under the name Pokemon if you're into little boys or Beiber if you're into girls and you can flood a server with endless images. Anti-virus wouldn't even catch that. Now that I think of it... I think I'll write a nifty little generic webcam driver which will simulate the shutter by posting a default image there instead... something like road kill. Then when you specifically enable the web camera, it would switch back. I bet I could sell that for $1 a copy for Windows or Mac:)
I would look at it more as "The more crap coders out there, the more cash there is in telling them what and how to code it". Let's be honest, even with new graduates from the university with computer science degrees, they lack the experience to put together a real program of any complexity. I am a 36 year old engineer that regularly mentors those guys and it takes some time to teach them how to think. They are full of energy, full of great ideas and they left school often with the latest and greatest in coding theory. The bad part is, often when you tell them "On this device you can't use exceptions because while the compiler itself support it, the operating system (or lack thereof) can't route the exceptions to the programs when they occur. I actually will often suggest hiring a great coder who has made an application for Linux and had a good coding style as opposed to a fresh out of school graduate. At least then you can see if they "Get it".
If you get a bunch of new guys learning to code, then they can do things in the open source and gain experience. Then you can hire them. Without any student loans to pay, they'll be much less expensive. A masters grad who did something useful in the open source is worth $85k, without the open source is worth $70k, just the open source $55k, just and online course like this $40k. Notice I don't even mention the bachelors degree... this is because in computer science a bachelors degree is little more than a high school diploma with advanced math. Unless they do a really great open source project which shows how they can apply that math (like a well written codec), then I wouldn't treat them any differently than with no degree at all.
Oh... the main reason a university degree REALLY matters is that it proves to guys like me that the guy who was in the university was forced to finish projects no matter how stupid, boring or mundane they were. I don't actually expect them to have any useful skills other than learning how to get the job done using the tools they were told to use.
"You actually can't do in COBOL everything you can do in C because it lacks explicit pointers. Without pointers you can't reference arbitrary locations in memory. That's why the only CICS system I ever designed had an assembler module for the non-standard stuff."
Yep... this is where I refer to it as a crippled and retarded. To a minimal extent, though far less in modern times through pragmas and extensions, C is the same. You for example wouldn't generally write the boot loader or that task switcher of an operating system in C (though I figure you could today, tcc is quite nice) and of course boot loaders are less of an issue with the introduction of EFI. So I'd say that the register push/pop operation of a task switcher is likely still best done at least in inline assembler in C, but still best done in assembler. COBOL, I guess in theory could do most things without dropping to 370 assembler (or balrog as I liked to call it in the day), but even the COBOL vendors who added extensions to do more things haven't gone so far as to add inline assembler as far as I know:) This is a great benefit of COBOL.
I actually like this quite a bit about modern C# and.NET in general with regards to the "unsafe" code block stuff. In a way, I'd like to see an extension defining how unsafe a given piece of code might be. This allows.NET to be used for writing operating systems (most of one anyway) but still keeping most code pretty well sandboxed. Metro apps will be even nicer as Microsoft is pretty much blocking most system level access without proper permissions. Though this leads to the 'could you do in 64 lines....' being an issue again since needing to be explicit about everything in order to ensure secure code can quickly lead to people just explicitly allowing everything.
"Security-through-obscurity is thoroughly discredited. At least, Whitfield Diffie [zdnet.com] thinks so. David Wheeler's book is online and not a bad place to start if you want to update yourself on security."
Security through obscurity is discredited if you're simply trying to make insecure code secure by obfuscation or hiding things. On the other hand, having two different types of stacks with two different types of security makes hacking require a greater amount of effort and knowledge. If both stacks are almost 100% secure but their holes require two different exploits, then the obscurity is there not to completely secure the system, but to make whoever is hacking it have to work harder for it.
"If you think "most IP stacks today are about 99.9995% secure" and you (implicitly) agree with my argument that bug counts decrease as code is used, why do you think your infiniband stack will be better?" - and - "That's a big if. I don't know what "99.9995% secure" means (what the denominator?) but I don't believe there's ever been an exploit via the TCP stack. It's one of those highly improbable events that, if it ever did happen, would suddenly subject millions of machines to attack. Your database server would be the least of your worries."
I've been working on LWIP recently which is one of the most widely used IP stacks on the planet. And given the style of coding in the stack, I have to say, I don't believe that it can actually be secure. There are some obvious weaknesses in the code that I feel could not be removed without a full rewrite. I've worked on the Linux stack before as well and while it is considerably better, there is a great deal more complexity in the stack and given the scale of the complexity, I believe that there are still holes that haven't been found or exploited yet. Though I do believe some creative hacker will find them in due time. Also given the massive scale of the IP stack in Linux, I believe that changes can't be easily made to the stack without risking opening up holes in it. This is less of an issue for patches maintained by the kernel teams themselves, but I feel that patches that are applied as part of debian, ubuntu, redhat, etc..
I've used shutter glasses at 120hz and so called 240hz and frankly, I still see flicker, but florescent lighting gives me headaches at 300hz. But I'll concede that 120hz sucks a little less than 48hz.
I still stand by and say "Don't go buy a 46" 3D LCD if you already have a 46" LCD that you're replacing". There's just something ethically wrong with that.
Once they're in the office, they don't really have anything requiring them to follow through on promises or even to listen to the people who elected them. The only responsibility a politician has from the day he first steps into office is lining up his next job.
There used to be a middle... it's a little left of where Obama stands.
I hate the I'm in the middle argument... think intelligently and think independently and screw the parties altogether. In the middle suggests there's some sort of a line that you can't leave. Take the high road or the low road. This road those assholes are standing on seems to have major traffic problems. It's funny... we insult people for thinking too one dimensionally, it's time to start insulting people for not getting into the 3D age.
The U.S. really needs a socialist, a laborers party and a conservative party. Currently all they have are two parties representing the corporations and neither of them are worth a damn. The Tea Party... well that's just funny as hell. The Tea Baggers aren't even running their own ticket, they're trying to use the republican ticket instead.
Right now, I am praying that Melinda Gates comes out and puts her name on the ballot as an independent. I would gladly contribute to her campaign. Between her husband's political connections and her fantastic work at the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, I sincerely believe she can probably accomplish a great deal more in Washington than anyone else. It's also pretty damn hard to bully someone like her around. She's in a position where the decisions she makes can be made because she believes them to be the right thing to do. If anyone opposes her or tries to earmark her to death, she can crush them in the media.
We don't need another asshole politician as president. We need someone who has the balls to do what he or she things is right and then to kick the shit out of the opposition that wants to play politics over it. Someone needs to say "Either back the bill, get the hell out of my office and oppose me at your own peril or try to convince me that what I'm doing is morally or ethically wrong. If you block it purely on the grounds that I refused your earmarks, I'll destroy you."
That's where Obama screwed up. His health bill got earmarked so badly that its original purpose got altered in to "It's still called a health bill and it has some stuff in it, but they're all doomed to fail because the glue to hold it together is gone." but it's covered with earmarks with special interests... not just from republicans, but from his fellow democrats as well. Then there was the new deal... that was 10 times worse... with that one, they wrote the bill, passed it to the opposition and said "do with it what you will, we have to pass this" and they did... and when it got back, it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The man is such an utter weakling that not only was his first term thoroughly useless, but it was damaging because now if someone says "Socialized Medicine", the opposition will laugh and say "Yeh, we tried that already... stupid idea, doesn't work".
It really doesn't matter who you vote for in the primaries for the democrats or the republicans... the only type of people that can even get their names on the ballot are precisely the people we shouldn't be voting for in the first place. If you doubt that.. just look at who's on there now. The last time around, Obama was about as good as anyone else. They were all shit.
People who have 46" or larger screens with a playstation 3 to play video games on tend to enjoy it. The thing is, if the content is generated, designed and rendered in 3D it's not too awful. Of course, those same games look pretty damn good without it.
What bothers me most about 3D is that it's a gimmick.
When people upgraded from CRT to LCD, it often was because they could now have a larger screen size and not use up their entire house to get it. Rear projection screens were popular for a while because they used less floor space than the equally large CRT screen. Sometimes they were popular because you couldn't even buy such a large CRT. But these days, you can purchase from 4" to 110" LCD or Plasma screens so you can get one that fits the space.
I personally justified the switch from our 28" CRT to a 46" LCD because it used 1/6th the power. So throwing away the CRT to cut down on my power consumption was justified. I also threw away all my halogen and incandescent bulbs in favor of LED lighting years ago. I rebuilt all the servers and desktop machines in my house to use 25 watts or less when idle. etc... The switch for me was to pretend I'm green (though I'm a hypocrite)
3D doesn't satisfy any practical need. All it does is add a feature which requires replacing your LCD, BluRay (sometimes) and buy additional accessories to gain a feature. What's worse is that the screens today are utterly shitty quality. The best of the ones using the glasses are still pretty crappy for seeing 3D and the ones which are auto-stereoscopic are just "Look what I can do" type items. They will need to be replaced as time progresses and new technologies that look less shitty comes out. (We have a few of those screens here in the office... top of the line ones... they suck).
So... if people buy a screen for 3D, they're almost certainly replacing an otherwise perfectly good screen for no reason... well other than to get a IR transmitter which is synchronized to the vertical sync of the screen. Most screens could be upgraded to the needed frame rate with a firmware patch. All screens can do 48 FPS anyway, and since the source materials IS 48 FPS, there's no need for 120 or 240Hz unless you want to flip the same frame back and forth more often... which accomplishes... well nothing.
Now, what's really quite surprising is that over HDMI when displaying in native resolution (so 1080p), the vertical sync is known... or at least predictable. So, if an enterprising person wanted to, they could make a device which places itself between the HDMI source (like set-top box, bluray player, game console or pc) and the TV, then by running a simple calibration using a color detection element, it could find the retrace delay and then broadcast the shutter flip just as well as the TV would have otherwise. Maybe using a remote control, it can be fine tuned a little.
So... they want us to buy new TVs... but in reality, all we need is another set-top box... and that can easily be done (plus a lot more) using a $25 PC, a LED and a photo transistor.
And there's the real problem isn't it. You have to tell the government that you intend to fornicate with a person before you can be legally bound to them. And if you happen to live somewhere where it is frowned upon to fornicate with that chosen person due to race, gender or religion, you are denied those rights.
Therefore, the government shouldn't even see marriage but instead some form of civil union. Let the churches do marriage. And never shall the two be mangled together into one again.
I often make the mistake of using words improperly and in this case, I more than likely am interchanging ISAM with another word having fully believed ISAM is that. Therefore I concede that there can be a fully logical flaw based on misuse of the term. The way I see it from my perspective is that an ISAM is the datastore itself, a series of tables and indices which can be used for efficient searches when the index corresponds to the search. My experience with DB/2 is that this API (especially in COBOL) is incredibly efficient and when indices exist for the searches of interest, it far better than an SQL front end which, while capable of making use of indices as well, generally is used on a more generic level. I would imagine that modern SQL implementations will work in a similar fashion to a tracing JIT and automatically produce index caches implicitly instead of explicitly for performance reasons on searches which are common. Instead of referring to the data store of DB/2 as an ISAM, there is more likely a better wording that can be chosen. However, the APIs provided by DB/2 that I also imagine are the APIs used by the SQL front end, meet the requirements of a relational database.
C has no I/O capability and no memory management which is precisely the problem with C. You find yourself reinventing the wheel over and over and over again. This leads to huge amounts of insecure code. I am willing to believe that most IP stacks today are about 99.9995% secure, I am even willing to believe that much of the more popular C based web servers are as must as 99% secure. But, the insecurities that are left tend to be the kind which when they're exploited are used to provide root access to the operating systems they're on. I won't say that Java or.NET is more secure, but I would say the sandbox they provide makes the playground the hacker has to make use of substantially smaller and less critical.
You're example of "can you do in C what COBOL does in 64 lines?" using a proper library... yes. C differentiates between the language and the libraries that are used. So, if I had a C library designed for database manipulation such as one I recall using many many moons ago though I can't recall the name... sure no problem. And as a result, I can have shitty code which is more than likely full of bugs. And while COBOL does have an I/O library and I admit it does function on machines with a true console, it's more likely to make use of the "Screen section". Which I have to admit I kinda forgot about since I've never used the "screen section" in COBOL as I've always used third party UI systems.
The important thing is... when you're making a UI in COBOL using the screen section, you define a set of fields and validation syntax etc... which is all possible using third party libraries in most other languages, but for the most part, in COBOL, you either use the screen section OR you use another language or utility for UI and COBOL becomes for the most part, the equivalent to the controller in an MVC paradigm. This is what I like best about it.
To me I really for the most part don't care which language is used specifically, so long as the run time is thoroughly sand boxed and for the most part crippled. COBOL offers this kind of sandbox whether due to limitations in the language itself or due to limitations in the environment. And yes, I know you could theoretically do everything in COBOL you do in C... it would require huge amounts of hackish code and simply calling a C function from the COBOL would be far more intelligent. Of course, in a database environment, this would be a pretty bad idea.
I stand by ditching TCP/IP... as I sit here implementing an OSPFv2 protocol handler for a device I'm working on. I have far too much respect for the flexibility of the IP stacks on many systems to trust them completely. And I stand by replacing it using message passing via MPI over Infiniband or just about anything else.
1) People know IP and know how to hack it. So you gain a great deal of securit
Uhh... yeh... and how does that contradict what I said? DB/2 IS an ISAM and there IS (though I didn't think it needed mentioning as it's irrelevant) an SQL front end to it. But, if you designed your database properly and are using COBOL, I can't imagine why you would want to use SQL. Then it just seems almost redundant.
DB/2 is precisely what I said... it's a large scale ISAM... and all ISAMs are relational databases if used as such. DB/2 is the back end of a system which surprisingly enough also has an SQL front end. However, secure code does not use the SQL front end as such. They perform searches against explicit indices. COBOL doesn't need SQL to find to a data set with DB/2 and for the most part is slower in most cases if you do. If you're performing a search using an SQL query as opposed to an index then you probably don't have the index and therefore it's inefficient. So I just don't see what you're complaining about. Or were you just using the opportunity to show that you knew about System R.
And... to be a weener... just because DB/2 supports SQL and when compared to other SQL DBMSs it accounts for 20% of the market, it doesn't mean it was purchased or is necessarily used as an SQL server. DB/2 from an SQL side is pretty boring and I won't say whether it's a real competitive product or not, but it's not like when you're looking for an SQL server you immediately think DB/2, instead if you're using DB/2 and you want to connect to it from something other than your COBOL or other ISAM based code, you use SQL.
Your last statement isn't so bad... but you need to consider the real issue which isn't SQL injection, it's SQL connection. Although SQL does have security levels and such, if you hack into the web server and want to read the contents of the database on another server, the ability to write generic queries in SQL makes security a much bigger job and much harder to pin down. Though, I'm not against the idea of using stored procedures for all queries and disabling remote use of select. So long as the stored procedures are required to check the format of their parameters before using them. SQL is too generic for a secure system... it's great for pumping out lots of code really fast... and on the database server, there's no reason to not use SQL accessing data. But there should be no possibility for the web server to execute SQL scripts directly on database server. In fact, this is a great place for DB/2 as it still has highly evolved ISAM RDBMS APIs without having to depend on SQL.
I'm sure we could have a religious argument about this. But, I'm amazed that on one hand you're defending a COBOL as not being crippled (which I stand by... yeh you can do absolutely anything, just need the APIs and those need to come from another language or you need to hack them to hell and back). And COBOL generally being used for only processing things is precisely why it's so good. C on the other hand is generally used for doing absolutely everything and there's an API for it. And that's why for security it is so weak. You can do everything and generally people DO do everything. Sure it can be used for "just processing", but the amount of code needed to write secure C code is substantially greater and harder to manage than it would be in a simple garbage collected, bounds checked, exceptions based environment.
The biggest problem in security is that web programmers are just web programmers, system administrators are just system administrators and to do anything useful, it would be far beyond the reach of a single person to cover everything. So, if you design the system from the start with the idea that "Someone will miss something" and "Not everyone will understand it all" and "Sooner or later there will be a new guy and he'll start changing shit before he knows all the policies", then you design a highly secure system based trying to limit what can be done without extra work.
Probably so... but it seems that it should be a single package bundle for those things. Like you could just go to the post office, fill out a form, get it notarized and send it in and that would be the whole thing. And it should be just fine for circumstances such as some old ladies living together who are codependent and want those rights with each other as well.
Problem is, when you call it marriage it seems that there must be some sort of sexual consummation to it. We sure as hell don't need marriage to have sex and make kids. At the same time, it's utterly ridiculous that you should need to have sex to have the rights of being married. I think the same should go for child adoption as well. If there are two or more people who want to raise a child or children together... why should they have to be married to do so? A legal binding securing the same rights for the child as they would have with their own parents should be easy as pie. Who cares if two of the guys or girls are sleeping together. If you have people who really want to provide a great home and awesome upbringing for a child that otherwise would be stuck in an orphanage and being forced to go to church, having a happy home with parents who love the child is always going to be healthier. And a simple form letter giving the parents the legal situation necessary to make it happen makes obvious sense.
I was an adopted child... got lucky since Rowe vs. Wade had just passed and abortion was a fashion thing at the time. I was raised by a family that made me go to hebrew school for 4 hours a week, temple for another 8 hours a week and that part of my upbringing was miserable. But, they loved me as their own. Fact is, if I'd have been raised by two people who just lived in the same house together and wanted to do what was best for me, I believe I would have done just as well. If those people (choose your combination of genders) chose to have a sexual relationship, I don't think I'd have noticed. I never noticed if my parents did.
Marriage combines sexual relationships with codependency and that just doesn't belong in the government.
What kind of a moron wait until they graduate to find a job? You'd think you'd have that lined up nearly a year before hand.
Also.... even lamer... you were willing to move to Japan to teach English as opposed to for example looking at the endless list of jobs of civil engineers making $80k or better in countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France or even $60k a year doing the same in China... where'd you'd actually take home more.
I guess it's hard to find these jobs... after all with this new Internet thingy, typing monster.no, monster.se, monster.fr, monster.dk, monster.de could be tricky.
So... while in my earlier message I credited you for solving a problem, I'm really believing at the moment that your lack of ability to find a job might be more about you than anything else.
Pay off a huge student loan in 5 years during a period famously known as a recession bordering on a depression. I'm loving this:) Just so you know... most of my generation is still paying off their student loans 20 years later. It must be nice to have lived in a such a perfect dream world for so long
First... you're bitching like a whiner baby when you phrase it that way.
Oddly, you have it right that I bitched about your generation and my generation was the same for the most part. What you failed to miss is that you were obviously not someone who was being targeted.
You're an engineer... you solved the problem by getting off your ass, moving and finding a solution to a problem using the tools you had available to you. You recognized you had another skill that was marketable in another field while you improved your living situation and went looking for a job knowing you could always fall back on what you have. As a result, you sold yourself into a company that will make it so you will no longer be entry level when you next look for a job. I don't know about you... but until you got all defensive, you were not the asshole I was complaining about.
As to being debt free in 5 years after graduating... let me just say this... if you spent one extra year in school to lighten your course load and worked help desk at Dell or some other company where you could do your homework when the phone wasn't ringing, you'd half less than half the student debt you have now. That's what responsible people who plan do. Responsible people don't willingly accept loans like the one you did... am I calling the majority of people going to the university irresponsible? Absolutely... just because everyone does it, it doesn't make ti right. Just like I think that many of the people being foreclosed on did it to themselves. If you make $20,000 a year and you buy a house that costs $200,000, you're an idiot. If you take out $100,000 in student loans, you're an idiot. If you started school in 2004 and ran up $100,000 in debt right after the market collapsed in 2000 thinking that the market was going to be SOOOO good when you came out of school and that the wall street assholes who caused the Dot Bomb all of a sudden would grow up and be smart... you are a moron!!! Planning to pay off a student loan in 5 years is idiotic. Grave yard shift at companies like Xerox where you spend most of your time playing with paper airplanes pays like $18 an hour to "Be the tech support department". You could have worked 4 days a week and paid for your entire university education and left with no debt and a hell of a nice resume.
And I personally moved to Norway as well. So, I know all about relocating. I have now settled down here too... but as an American I still bitch like one. As a New Yorker, I bitch louder than most. I won't be worrying about social security as I sure as hell hope you won't either. Because if you're as good at solving problems when you're older as you are now without even knowing it, then you'll plan ahead like I have. I don't consider social security to be something I depend on. It's gravy. I fill my pillow cases with money and I do things like pay down a nearly 7 digit mortgage and most importantly, I teach my children how to plan ahead and not depend on governments. If all goes to shit and my pillow cases burn, I'll live in their basement and even if I'm 70, I'll break out a computer and start hacking and make something to sell. I personally only work so that someone else will pay me to do something I'd be doing otherwise for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I am currently on my gaming laptop (which I also use for work) which is nice for using on a table or desk. When I'm out and about or I go to play games with friends, I use my Samsung Series 7 Slate which is a tablet, but I bring a wireless keyboard if I need it or just a game pad. When I'm laying on the couch, I use my HTPC connected to a projector with a 110" screen. Though, sometimes my son displaces me and makes me play using the game PC connected to the projector with a 85" screen on the perpendicular wall. That's 4 computers I use to play games many times all in the same day. Of course, I sometimes play Lego games hooked up to the Mac Mini connected to the living room TV. My son might decide to play on either his laptop or the mac mini connected to the screen in his bed. My daughter might play on the mac book or on the HTPC connected to the TV in her bedroom or we can play on the HTPC connected to the TV in our bedroom. My wife and I have laid in bed playing lego harry potter like that often enough.
Altogether, when I buy a game, if it has restrictive DRM, it should at most limit the number of PCs it can be played on at a time. Maybe make it so you can only access the online portions of the game from one PC at a time per license. But since I have 10 PCs just in my house which are often used for gaming.. and another 5 notebooks I keep around for having friends over for game nights, I can't be bothered with stupid things like trying to figure out which PC I want to play a game on.
It's still cultural really.
Just because we're biologically to always try to be the Alpha or at least try to exert our dominance in an attempt to find our station... and often to resort to back handed methods to rise in the chain, culture trains us not to run around with clubs in our hands and pound each other over their heads.
Women aren't programmed to try to exert dominance, therefore, they don't let hormones get in the way of making wiser decisions which is to have the dominant role without exerting it competitively. Even this response to your response is at least on some level an example of me, a relatively mellow kind of guy who actually doesn't like sports purely because the concept of competition requires that for one opponent to win, it must be at the expense of another opponent, I still am exerting my personal superiority in a bait to have a deeper competition and to prove my dominance by forcing you to either adopt my opinion (right or wrong) or submit. Women would probably either read your comment and move on or just take a moment to slap you around with a dead fish and move on.
I am very willing (especially after raising both a son and a daughter) to suggest that much of our upbringing is about exerting environment over instinct. I have watched many boys who were quite aggressive in their first few years mold into much more relaxed and polite people in the next 5 years. This comes from people teaching them "right from wrong". I have also watched the children of highly aggressive parent become more aggressive since their parents consider it natural to train their children to attempt to club people over the heads to show how important they are (oddly thinking of a cop/soccer coach's kid in this instance specifically).
The real initial point I had intended to make is that sexism itself is not a biological thing. It's cultural because boys are biologically and instinctively competitive against everyone and misinterpret lack of competition from others as weakness on their behalf. Therefore the fact that most females are less likely to see value in the competition and therefore choose to ignore the invitation to compete by their male counterparts, it does not mean they submit and are weaker, it's just that less intelligent people misinterpret it as such. Though, the same could be said for example about my own son who is non-competitive, though strong enough to snap most of his peers due to his viking blood and build. He's more like the big dog sitting quietly inside the house as opposed to the little one with something to prove who barks 24 hours a day. Though because he is so quiet, the little dogs keep trying to bite his ears to prove how much tougher they are than him. And if the big dog just lays there and ignores the little dogs jibe, the little dog eventually walks away with an air of accomplishment for showing his strength.
This type of behavior isn't strictly sexist, it's an issue that sexist people tend to bark loudly about all the people they feel dominant over... justified or not. The fact that there are far more women that aren't willing to rise to the bait then there are men, they'll single women out as being less than them. Funny thing is how many of those guys eventually end up married to a women who beats them senseless with a rolling pin.
If I read correctly, it says you can't install another OS that isn't signed. So, buy/download a bootloader which is signed or wait a week until EFI secure boot is cracked.
In fact, I'm tempted to consider making a boot loader for ARM linux which I'll get signed somehow. I'm pretty sure that Intel can't say no. I'll release the code under an open source license but I'll charge $2 for the signed version of it.
This just doesn't sounds like an issue to me.
I like your response on this one. I personally do purchase substantially more than I pirate. In fact, every time I pirate something, I send a mail (with my contact information) to the rights holder explaining why I pirated it and how they could have avoided having me pirate it. For the most part, the majority of my current piracy activity is due to either :
1) Price gouging. I'll pay for the first 10 episodes of a TV season and pirate the remaining 12. This being because I shouldn't have to pay $50 for a TV season from the online providers when it's average price is $20 at the stores.
2) Releasing it online and then restricting me from purchasing it because I'm not in the right location. This is 2012, eBooks, AudioBooks, music and movies do not need to be printed or distributed in other countries through third party printers or CD/DVD duplicators and more. If I go to Amazon, Audible, iTunes etc... and am told I need to wait to download the U.S. version (meaning color instead of colour) versions of ebooks or audiobooks or whatever, I'll pirate the book as it's the only way to get it. Then, when they decided to release that same book at the same price they charge to Americans (or direct dollar to euro conversion is barely acceptable) then I'll consider buying from them.
3) Location based price gouging. I refuse to pay extra to download something in Norway than to download it from the U.S. or the U.K.. This type of gouging is wrong. Again, I'll spend the same price as I would have in the states.. like buy 4 tracks of the album and pirate the rest, just so the publisher gets from me what they would have gotten if they let me pay U.S. prices, but I won't be taken advantage of just because I live in a country that generally allows itself to be exploited.
There are other reasons as well. But those are the key ones. And... as I am an American, I feel like so long as the publisher doesn't need to pay shipping and tariffs, I should pay what Americans pay in the U.S.
I am in agreement with the White House response to this. SOPA as it is written is entirely wrong. The spirit of what SOPA is trying to accomplish... basically attempting to protect rights holders from piracy is probably a good thing. I think however that the laws unfortunately are being written by law makers and not by people who actually understand it. The people presenting the laws are the ones who feel like they're under attack and their response is inappropriate and instead of someone detached from IP law attempting to devise a solution that would best represent everyone's needs, their are two entirely different sides involved.
There are some real issue with SOPA beyond the whole "Great Firewall" problem which is what gets my panties in a bunch.
1) SOPA, PIPA, etc... do nothing to present any solution related to the problem. They have no practical application beyond making a statement. People currently use torrents because they're easy and established. But just like napster, kazaa and everything else, there's always and the technological solutions proposed to the bill are meaningless and are just wasting government funds if they truly believe that the bill is to in fact protect IP. The bills as they stand today do however give what I feel to be unjustified power to the government that can be used to manipulate the internet in a terribly negative way. For example, under the provisions involved, the white house would be allowed to hijack websites lawfully until such time as their objection to the site can be properly disputed. So, for example, if a website were to be overly critical to the standing first term president (doesn't have to be the one we have now, can be the next one or the one after), the whitehouse could in theory start using interesting interpretations of copyright infringement to take down websites that they feel could be seen a hurtful to the presidential campaign. Of course this would likely be political suicide to try, but on a wide enough scale, it could seriously hu
If I were to write a virus or other malware these days, that would be one of the first things I would consider getting right.
:)
Scanning network traffic is a waste of time. A proper virus these days would do things by sending and receiving in bursts.. maybe on PCs left on 24/7 in the middle of the night for example. I run a CheckPoint Firewall-1 based router in my house with live virus and malware scanning and frankly, I still run antivirus on my PC. It's free and it does actually work.
There are some great programs which don't have to be installed which simply list the executables, DLLs and etc running on your PC and checks against online databases to see if the file and/or version that is running is legit. It doesn't do anything, but in a matter of less than a minute each month, you can just check your machine for anything naughty.
I on the other hand have two kids who use all my computers, so I run anti-virus because you can't be sure when the next time they'll try the new "Pokemon Forever free game!!!!" is. Then before you know it, there will be pictures of my kids playing games on a Saturday morning in their underwear in perverts hands all over the world. For that reason I actually also put tape over the webcams on my laptops which don't have sliding shutters. I'm not paranoid, but I do know that if you were that kind of perv, you'd only need to show up on Google for a matter of an hour or two under the name Pokemon if you're into little boys or Beiber if you're into girls and you can flood a server with endless images. Anti-virus wouldn't even catch that. Now that I think of it... I think I'll write a nifty little generic webcam driver which will simulate the shutter by posting a default image there instead... something like road kill. Then when you specifically enable the web camera, it would switch back. I bet I could sell that for $1 a copy for Windows or Mac
I would look at it more as "The more crap coders out there, the more cash there is in telling them what and how to code it". Let's be honest, even with new graduates from the university with computer science degrees, they lack the experience to put together a real program of any complexity. I am a 36 year old engineer that regularly mentors those guys and it takes some time to teach them how to think. They are full of energy, full of great ideas and they left school often with the latest and greatest in coding theory. The bad part is, often when you tell them "On this device you can't use exceptions because while the compiler itself support it, the operating system (or lack thereof) can't route the exceptions to the programs when they occur. I actually will often suggest hiring a great coder who has made an application for Linux and had a good coding style as opposed to a fresh out of school graduate. At least then you can see if they "Get it".
If you get a bunch of new guys learning to code, then they can do things in the open source and gain experience. Then you can hire them. Without any student loans to pay, they'll be much less expensive. A masters grad who did something useful in the open source is worth $85k, without the open source is worth $70k, just the open source $55k, just and online course like this $40k. Notice I don't even mention the bachelors degree... this is because in computer science a bachelors degree is little more than a high school diploma with advanced math. Unless they do a really great open source project which shows how they can apply that math (like a well written codec), then I wouldn't treat them any differently than with no degree at all.
Oh... the main reason a university degree REALLY matters is that it proves to guys like me that the guy who was in the university was forced to finish projects no matter how stupid, boring or mundane they were. I don't actually expect them to have any useful skills other than learning how to get the job done using the tools they were told to use.
"You actually can't do in COBOL everything you can do in C because it lacks explicit pointers. Without pointers you can't reference arbitrary locations in memory. That's why the only CICS system I ever designed had an assembler module for the non-standard stuff."
:) This is a great benefit of COBOL.
.NET in general with regards to the "unsafe" code block stuff. In a way, I'd like to see an extension defining how unsafe a given piece of code might be. This allows .NET to be used for writing operating systems (most of one anyway) but still keeping most code pretty well sandboxed. Metro apps will be even nicer as Microsoft is pretty much blocking most system level access without proper permissions. Though this leads to the 'could you do in 64 lines....' being an issue again since needing to be explicit about everything in order to ensure secure code can quickly lead to people just explicitly allowing everything.
Yep... this is where I refer to it as a crippled and retarded. To a minimal extent, though far less in modern times through pragmas and extensions, C is the same. You for example wouldn't generally write the boot loader or that task switcher of an operating system in C (though I figure you could today, tcc is quite nice) and of course boot loaders are less of an issue with the introduction of EFI. So I'd say that the register push/pop operation of a task switcher is likely still best done at least in inline assembler in C, but still best done in assembler. COBOL, I guess in theory could do most things without dropping to 370 assembler (or balrog as I liked to call it in the day), but even the COBOL vendors who added extensions to do more things haven't gone so far as to add inline assembler as far as I know
I actually like this quite a bit about modern C# and
"Security-through-obscurity is thoroughly discredited. At least, Whitfield Diffie [zdnet.com] thinks so. David Wheeler's book is online and not a bad place to start if you want to update yourself on security."
Security through obscurity is discredited if you're simply trying to make insecure code secure by obfuscation or hiding things. On the other hand, having two different types of stacks with two different types of security makes hacking require a greater amount of effort and knowledge. If both stacks are almost 100% secure but their holes require two different exploits, then the obscurity is there not to completely secure the system, but to make whoever is hacking it have to work harder for it.
"If you think "most IP stacks today are about 99.9995% secure" and you (implicitly) agree with my argument that bug counts decrease as code is used, why do you think your infiniband stack will be better?"
- and -
"That's a big if. I don't know what "99.9995% secure" means (what the denominator?) but I don't believe there's ever been an exploit via the TCP stack. It's one of those highly improbable events that, if it ever did happen, would suddenly subject millions of machines to attack. Your database server would be the least of your worries."
I've been working on LWIP recently which is one of the most widely used IP stacks on the planet. And given the style of coding in the stack, I have to say, I don't believe that it can actually be secure. There are some obvious weaknesses in the code that I feel could not be removed without a full rewrite. I've worked on the Linux stack before as well and while it is considerably better, there is a great deal more complexity in the stack and given the scale of the complexity, I believe that there are still holes that haven't been found or exploited yet. Though I do believe some creative hacker will find them in due time. Also given the massive scale of the IP stack in Linux, I believe that changes can't be easily made to the stack without risking opening up holes in it. This is less of an issue for patches maintained by the kernel teams themselves, but I feel that patches that are applied as part of debian, ubuntu, redhat, etc..
I was leaning towards 4 in 5, but ok :)
I've used shutter glasses at 120hz and so called 240hz and frankly, I still see flicker, but florescent lighting gives me headaches at 300hz. But I'll concede that 120hz sucks a little less than 48hz.
I still stand by and say "Don't go buy a 46" 3D LCD if you already have a 46" LCD that you're replacing". There's just something ethically wrong with that.
Didn't they contact their representatives using heavy inanimate objects?
Once they're in the office, they don't really have anything requiring them to follow through on promises or even to listen to the people who elected them. The only responsibility a politician has from the day he first steps into office is lining up his next job.
Hmm... endocrinological? That's what the rubber gloves are for
You seriously think his name isn't already on "The List"?
What about Al Franken? All things considered, this past few years, he seems to be the only guy in Washington actually trying to do the right thing.
Why the hell isn't he running for president this time around? I'd contribute to his campaign
I would only support him over Obama if I could support him high enough that when I dropped him, it would take them both out!
There used to be a middle... it's a little left of where Obama stands.
I hate the I'm in the middle argument... think intelligently and think independently and screw the parties altogether. In the middle suggests there's some sort of a line that you can't leave. Take the high road or the low road. This road those assholes are standing on seems to have major traffic problems. It's funny... we insult people for thinking too one dimensionally, it's time to start insulting people for not getting into the 3D age.
The U.S. really needs a socialist, a laborers party and a conservative party. Currently all they have are two parties representing the corporations and neither of them are worth a damn. The Tea Party... well that's just funny as hell. The Tea Baggers aren't even running their own ticket, they're trying to use the republican ticket instead.
Right now, I am praying that Melinda Gates comes out and puts her name on the ballot as an independent. I would gladly contribute to her campaign. Between her husband's political connections and her fantastic work at the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, I sincerely believe she can probably accomplish a great deal more in Washington than anyone else. It's also pretty damn hard to bully someone like her around. She's in a position where the decisions she makes can be made because she believes them to be the right thing to do. If anyone opposes her or tries to earmark her to death, she can crush them in the media.
We don't need another asshole politician as president. We need someone who has the balls to do what he or she things is right and then to kick the shit out of the opposition that wants to play politics over it. Someone needs to say "Either back the bill, get the hell out of my office and oppose me at your own peril or try to convince me that what I'm doing is morally or ethically wrong. If you block it purely on the grounds that I refused your earmarks, I'll destroy you."
That's where Obama screwed up. His health bill got earmarked so badly that its original purpose got altered in to "It's still called a health bill and it has some stuff in it, but they're all doomed to fail because the glue to hold it together is gone." but it's covered with earmarks with special interests... not just from republicans, but from his fellow democrats as well. Then there was the new deal... that was 10 times worse... with that one, they wrote the bill, passed it to the opposition and said "do with it what you will, we have to pass this" and they did... and when it got back, it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The man is such an utter weakling that not only was his first term thoroughly useless, but it was damaging because now if someone says "Socialized Medicine", the opposition will laugh and say "Yeh, we tried that already... stupid idea, doesn't work".
It really doesn't matter who you vote for in the primaries for the democrats or the republicans... the only type of people that can even get their names on the ballot are precisely the people we shouldn't be voting for in the first place. If you doubt that.. just look at who's on there now. The last time around, Obama was about as good as anyone else. They were all shit.
People who have 46" or larger screens with a playstation 3 to play video games on tend to enjoy it. The thing is, if the content is generated, designed and rendered in 3D it's not too awful. Of course, those same games look pretty damn good without it.
What bothers me most about 3D is that it's a gimmick.
When people upgraded from CRT to LCD, it often was because they could now have a larger screen size and not use up their entire house to get it. Rear projection screens were popular for a while because they used less floor space than the equally large CRT screen. Sometimes they were popular because you couldn't even buy such a large CRT. But these days, you can purchase from 4" to 110" LCD or Plasma screens so you can get one that fits the space.
I personally justified the switch from our 28" CRT to a 46" LCD because it used 1/6th the power. So throwing away the CRT to cut down on my power consumption was justified. I also threw away all my halogen and incandescent bulbs in favor of LED lighting years ago. I rebuilt all the servers and desktop machines in my house to use 25 watts or less when idle. etc... The switch for me was to pretend I'm green (though I'm a hypocrite)
3D doesn't satisfy any practical need. All it does is add a feature which requires replacing your LCD, BluRay (sometimes) and buy additional accessories to gain a feature. What's worse is that the screens today are utterly shitty quality. The best of the ones using the glasses are still pretty crappy for seeing 3D and the ones which are auto-stereoscopic are just "Look what I can do" type items. They will need to be replaced as time progresses and new technologies that look less shitty comes out. (We have a few of those screens here in the office... top of the line ones... they suck).
So... if people buy a screen for 3D, they're almost certainly replacing an otherwise perfectly good screen for no reason... well other than to get a IR transmitter which is synchronized to the vertical sync of the screen. Most screens could be upgraded to the needed frame rate with a firmware patch. All screens can do 48 FPS anyway, and since the source materials IS 48 FPS, there's no need for 120 or 240Hz unless you want to flip the same frame back and forth more often... which accomplishes... well nothing.
Now, what's really quite surprising is that over HDMI when displaying in native resolution (so 1080p), the vertical sync is known... or at least predictable. So, if an enterprising person wanted to, they could make a device which places itself between the HDMI source (like set-top box, bluray player, game console or pc) and the TV, then by running a simple calibration using a color detection element, it could find the retrace delay and then broadcast the shutter flip just as well as the TV would have otherwise. Maybe using a remote control, it can be fine tuned a little.
So... they want us to buy new TVs... but in reality, all we need is another set-top box... and that can easily be done (plus a lot more) using a $25 PC, a LED and a photo transistor.
And there's the real problem isn't it. You have to tell the government that you intend to fornicate with a person before you can be legally bound to them. And if you happen to live somewhere where it is frowned upon to fornicate with that chosen person due to race, gender or religion, you are denied those rights.
Therefore, the government shouldn't even see marriage but instead some form of civil union. Let the churches do marriage. And never shall the two be mangled together into one again.
I often make the mistake of using words improperly and in this case, I more than likely am interchanging ISAM with another word having fully believed ISAM is that. Therefore I concede that there can be a fully logical flaw based on misuse of the term. The way I see it from my perspective is that an ISAM is the datastore itself, a series of tables and indices which can be used for efficient searches when the index corresponds to the search. My experience with DB/2 is that this API (especially in COBOL) is incredibly efficient and when indices exist for the searches of interest, it far better than an SQL front end which, while capable of making use of indices as well, generally is used on a more generic level. I would imagine that modern SQL implementations will work in a similar fashion to a tracing JIT and automatically produce index caches implicitly instead of explicitly for performance reasons on searches which are common. Instead of referring to the data store of DB/2 as an ISAM, there is more likely a better wording that can be chosen. However, the APIs provided by DB/2 that I also imagine are the APIs used by the SQL front end, meet the requirements of a relational database.
.NET is more secure, but I would say the sandbox they provide makes the playground the hacker has to make use of substantially smaller and less critical.
C has no I/O capability and no memory management which is precisely the problem with C. You find yourself reinventing the wheel over and over and over again. This leads to huge amounts of insecure code. I am willing to believe that most IP stacks today are about 99.9995% secure, I am even willing to believe that much of the more popular C based web servers are as must as 99% secure. But, the insecurities that are left tend to be the kind which when they're exploited are used to provide root access to the operating systems they're on. I won't say that Java or
You're example of "can you do in C what COBOL does in 64 lines?" using a proper library... yes. C differentiates between the language and the libraries that are used. So, if I had a C library designed for database manipulation such as one I recall using many many moons ago though I can't recall the name... sure no problem. And as a result, I can have shitty code which is more than likely full of bugs. And while COBOL does have an I/O library and I admit it does function on machines with a true console, it's more likely to make use of the "Screen section". Which I have to admit I kinda forgot about since I've never used the "screen section" in COBOL as I've always used third party UI systems.
The important thing is... when you're making a UI in COBOL using the screen section, you define a set of fields and validation syntax etc... which is all possible using third party libraries in most other languages, but for the most part, in COBOL, you either use the screen section OR you use another language or utility for UI and COBOL becomes for the most part, the equivalent to the controller in an MVC paradigm. This is what I like best about it.
To me I really for the most part don't care which language is used specifically, so long as the run time is thoroughly sand boxed and for the most part crippled. COBOL offers this kind of sandbox whether due to limitations in the language itself or due to limitations in the environment. And yes, I know you could theoretically do everything in COBOL you do in C... it would require huge amounts of hackish code and simply calling a C function from the COBOL would be far more intelligent. Of course, in a database environment, this would be a pretty bad idea.
I stand by ditching TCP/IP... as I sit here implementing an OSPFv2 protocol handler for a device I'm working on. I have far too much respect for the flexibility of the IP stacks on many systems to trust them completely. And I stand by replacing it using message passing via MPI over Infiniband or just about anything else.
1) People know IP and know how to hack it. So you gain a great deal of securit
Uhh... yeh... and how does that contradict what I said? DB/2 IS an ISAM and there IS (though I didn't think it needed mentioning as it's irrelevant) an SQL front end to it. But, if you designed your database properly and are using COBOL, I can't imagine why you would want to use SQL. Then it just seems almost redundant.
Ok... I'm sorry I hurt your languages feelings...
... and all ISAMs are relational databases if used as such. DB/2 is the back end of a system which surprisingly enough also has an SQL front end. However, secure code does not use the SQL front end as such. They perform searches against explicit indices. COBOL doesn't need SQL to find to a data set with DB/2 and for the most part is slower in most cases if you do. If you're performing a search using an SQL query as opposed to an index then you probably don't have the index and therefore it's inefficient. So I just don't see what you're complaining about. Or were you just using the opportunity to show that you knew about System R.
DB/2 is precisely what I said... it's a large scale ISAM
And... to be a weener... just because DB/2 supports SQL and when compared to other SQL DBMSs it accounts for 20% of the market, it doesn't mean it was purchased or is necessarily used as an SQL server. DB/2 from an SQL side is pretty boring and I won't say whether it's a real competitive product or not, but it's not like when you're looking for an SQL server you immediately think DB/2, instead if you're using DB/2 and you want to connect to it from something other than your COBOL or other ISAM based code, you use SQL.
Your last statement isn't so bad... but you need to consider the real issue which isn't SQL injection, it's SQL connection. Although SQL does have security levels and such, if you hack into the web server and want to read the contents of the database on another server, the ability to write generic queries in SQL makes security a much bigger job and much harder to pin down. Though, I'm not against the idea of using stored procedures for all queries and disabling remote use of select. So long as the stored procedures are required to check the format of their parameters before using them. SQL is too generic for a secure system... it's great for pumping out lots of code really fast... and on the database server, there's no reason to not use SQL accessing data. But there should be no possibility for the web server to execute SQL scripts directly on database server. In fact, this is a great place for DB/2 as it still has highly evolved ISAM RDBMS APIs without having to depend on SQL.
I'm sure we could have a religious argument about this. But, I'm amazed that on one hand you're defending a COBOL as not being crippled (which I stand by... yeh you can do absolutely anything, just need the APIs and those need to come from another language or you need to hack them to hell and back). And COBOL generally being used for only processing things is precisely why it's so good. C on the other hand is generally used for doing absolutely everything and there's an API for it. And that's why for security it is so weak. You can do everything and generally people DO do everything. Sure it can be used for "just processing", but the amount of code needed to write secure C code is substantially greater and harder to manage than it would be in a simple garbage collected, bounds checked, exceptions based environment.
The biggest problem in security is that web programmers are just web programmers, system administrators are just system administrators and to do anything useful, it would be far beyond the reach of a single person to cover everything. So, if you design the system from the start with the idea that "Someone will miss something" and "Not everyone will understand it all" and "Sooner or later there will be a new guy and he'll start changing shit before he knows all the policies", then you design a highly secure system based trying to limit what can be done without extra work.
Probably so... but it seems that it should be a single package bundle for those things. Like you could just go to the post office, fill out a form, get it notarized and send it in and that would be the whole thing. And it should be just fine for circumstances such as some old ladies living together who are codependent and want those rights with each other as well.
Problem is, when you call it marriage it seems that there must be some sort of sexual consummation to it. We sure as hell don't need marriage to have sex and make kids. At the same time, it's utterly ridiculous that you should need to have sex to have the rights of being married. I think the same should go for child adoption as well. If there are two or more people who want to raise a child or children together... why should they have to be married to do so? A legal binding securing the same rights for the child as they would have with their own parents should be easy as pie. Who cares if two of the guys or girls are sleeping together. If you have people who really want to provide a great home and awesome upbringing for a child that otherwise would be stuck in an orphanage and being forced to go to church, having a happy home with parents who love the child is always going to be healthier. And a simple form letter giving the parents the legal situation necessary to make it happen makes obvious sense.
I was an adopted child... got lucky since Rowe vs. Wade had just passed and abortion was a fashion thing at the time. I was raised by a family that made me go to hebrew school for 4 hours a week, temple for another 8 hours a week and that part of my upbringing was miserable. But, they loved me as their own. Fact is, if I'd have been raised by two people who just lived in the same house together and wanted to do what was best for me, I believe I would have done just as well. If those people (choose your combination of genders) chose to have a sexual relationship, I don't think I'd have noticed. I never noticed if my parents did.
Marriage combines sexual relationships with codependency and that just doesn't belong in the government.
hahah Love it...
:)
I was talking about with your friends, you chat and drink coffee... I'd hope most people do that... plus more with their wife
Thanks for the giggle.
What kind of a moron wait until they graduate to find a job? You'd think you'd have that lined up nearly a year before hand.
:) Just so you know... most of my generation is still paying off their student loans 20 years later. It must be nice to have lived in a such a perfect dream world for so long
Also.... even lamer... you were willing to move to Japan to teach English as opposed to for example looking at the endless list of jobs of civil engineers making $80k or better in countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France or even $60k a year doing the same in China... where'd you'd actually take home more.
I guess it's hard to find these jobs... after all with this new Internet thingy, typing monster.no, monster.se, monster.fr, monster.dk, monster.de could be tricky.
So... while in my earlier message I credited you for solving a problem, I'm really believing at the moment that your lack of ability to find a job might be more about you than anything else.
Pay off a huge student loan in 5 years during a period famously known as a recession bordering on a depression. I'm loving this
First... you're bitching like a whiner baby when you phrase it that way.
Oddly, you have it right that I bitched about your generation and my generation was the same for the most part. What you failed to miss is that you were obviously not someone who was being targeted.
You're an engineer... you solved the problem by getting off your ass, moving and finding a solution to a problem using the tools you had available to you. You recognized you had another skill that was marketable in another field while you improved your living situation and went looking for a job knowing you could always fall back on what you have. As a result, you sold yourself into a company that will make it so you will no longer be entry level when you next look for a job. I don't know about you... but until you got all defensive, you were not the asshole I was complaining about.
As to being debt free in 5 years after graduating... let me just say this... if you spent one extra year in school to lighten your course load and worked help desk at Dell or some other company where you could do your homework when the phone wasn't ringing, you'd half less than half the student debt you have now. That's what responsible people who plan do. Responsible people don't willingly accept loans like the one you did... am I calling the majority of people going to the university irresponsible? Absolutely... just because everyone does it, it doesn't make ti right. Just like I think that many of the people being foreclosed on did it to themselves. If you make $20,000 a year and you buy a house that costs $200,000, you're an idiot. If you take out $100,000 in student loans, you're an idiot. If you started school in 2004 and ran up $100,000 in debt right after the market collapsed in 2000 thinking that the market was going to be SOOOO good when you came out of school and that the wall street assholes who caused the Dot Bomb all of a sudden would grow up and be smart... you are a moron!!! Planning to pay off a student loan in 5 years is idiotic. Grave yard shift at companies like Xerox where you spend most of your time playing with paper airplanes pays like $18 an hour to "Be the tech support department". You could have worked 4 days a week and paid for your entire university education and left with no debt and a hell of a nice resume.
And I personally moved to Norway as well. So, I know all about relocating. I have now settled down here too... but as an American I still bitch like one. As a New Yorker, I bitch louder than most. I won't be worrying about social security as I sure as hell hope you won't either. Because if you're as good at solving problems when you're older as you are now without even knowing it, then you'll plan ahead like I have. I don't consider social security to be something I depend on. It's gravy. I fill my pillow cases with money and I do things like pay down a nearly 7 digit mortgage and most importantly, I teach my children how to plan ahead and not depend on governments. If all goes to shit and my pillow cases burn, I'll live in their basement and even if I'm 70, I'll break out a computer and start hacking and make something to sell. I personally only work so that someone else will pay me to do something I'd be doing otherwise for free.