Consolidation of wealth is the single most dangerous aspect of the American economy, and should disturb any country depending on the American economy. Everyone pays a few cents extra for gas, for insurance, for cell phones, for grain-based foods, operating systems, movies, entertainment. It doesn't look like a lot at the time, but it adds up, and the average consumer runs out of money. 1000 people control $3.6 Billion, and most of that comes from consumer goods, directly or indirectly. At some point, unless this trend stops, we will be right back to feudalism where we can't even afford land to build a house on. Working will be a requirement in order to use the rich man's land.
"Between 2000 and 2007, the average American worker's productivity rose 19.2%, yet more of those gains are going to top managers,... Adjusted for inflation, average wages have grown just 0.7% per year since June 2000. In 1979, the ratio between the average CEO's pay and the typical workers pay was 27 to 1. By 2007, it had widened to 275 to 1." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/econ-s05.shtml
Carlos Slim - Mexican cell phones Bill Gates - Convicted operating system monopolist Warren Buffet - invests insurance float from Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), basically you pay him to borrow your money interest-free. Mukesh Ambani - Oil/gas Lakshmi Mittal - Indian steel. Who doesn't use steel? Lawrence Ellison - Oracle. You pay a business a few cents extra, that company sends a lump check to Oracle Bernard Arnault - Luxury goods, France. The rich man's consolidation of wealth target. But wait - don't normal people spend way too much on Louis Vuitton and Moet & Chandon just to keep up appearances? Yes, they do Eike Batista - Brazilian Mining, Oil - more fuel Amancio Ortega - fashion retail, normal people covering themselves from the elements using dollar bills. Karl Albrecht - German supermarkets. Your grocery bill pads this guy's wallet, and he's #10 in the world. Germany's population is estimated at 81,757,600, so he has $287 for each person in Germany, or 1% of Germany's GDP. Ingvar Kamprad - Ikea, selling to poor college students everywhere Christy Walton - Wal-mart. Poor people everywhere throwing money at cheap goods with limited lifetimes Stefan Persson - Fashion More Waltons, fashion, makeup
None of them did, and/. helped. I could have tried elsewhere... where does/. suggest I post this question? I don't want benchmarks, I don't want architecture discussions, I don't want nerd rage.
What I wanted was a broad range of input from people who most likely buy computers, but don't always geek out on following all of the hardware every release. I posted questions similar to this on Nvidia and ATI forums, and got less information than found here - basically see what's on the shelf at computer stores and buy those. Things I didn't consider before reading these posts: driver stability, open source support, virtualization.
Normally I'd build a database of all available hardware, link which ones are compatible, add attributes I want, eliminate ones that don't fit, then add pricing to the database for the remaining ones and buy from there. That's the geek way. But that's not how people buy things. In short, I wanted opinions from the wide range of experience here, not specialized zealotry.
Just wanted to let you know that you win the award for most useless post here. Not only does it make no sense, if you try to make sense out of it (which I shouldn't have tried, my fault) it devolves into outright idiocy.
"Computer Science" has very little to do with specific hardware, and more to do with things that work across different hardware. Not sure why you specified x86, since x64 is more likely and ATOM or ARM are certainly possibilities, although Oblivion won't run. There are piles of other posters who agree: marketing naming is out of control, and to expect someone to follow every hardware release when their primary occupation is software development is just ignorant. Assembling a PC was not a requirement - I summarized my question as "How do you buy a PC?" Your hypothetical 14 year old is what makes me certain you are a troll. "Any competent 14 year old" implies you mean competent in building computers, which is as tautological as you can get. The average 14 year old has no idea what parts even make up a computer, so you'll have to limit yourself to a very small subset for that to be remotely true. Finally, for this 14 year old to accomplish this in an afternoon, you're going to require living within an hour's drive of a well-stocked computer parts store, or prior ordering from an internet site. All it takes is a single mismatch so your processor doesn't even fit in the mobo, your DDR3 memory isn't supported, overlooking a missing HDMI or DVI port, mixing up AGP and PCI-E, and far more subtle things like the mobo doesn't support CPU or GPU functionality, and the whole thing falls apart.
Posts like this which gloss over the Intel VT issues were in the running for most idiotic post as well. Once I understand, it makes sense. Thanks, that helped. I should have just meditated and the spirit of jon3k will enlighten me once I attain oneness with the electrons.
To most people, it appears to be one-click, but you're basically patenting the idea of fooling people into thinking you have one-click ordering.
I have always wondered about this "feature". I'm used to having all of my items in one shipment, one box. Then Amazon's fulfillment centers became - not sure how to describe it, but more of a "just in time" inventory system. So your orders can come from different warehouses. They asked if you wanted it all in one box, or ship as things become available, or cheapest shipping.
To me, that was far more innovative than "click", box ships, "click", box ships, "click", box ships.
In fact, based on your description "one-click" purchases simply queue up for a length of time and they decide how to ship the lot themselves. To me, this is less useful than any other way they do it, and gives Amazon the opportunity to get the most shipping fees out of you.
In theory you're right. In practice, this will get you crucified politically. Here's my related post - as a summary, Jim Bunning did the exact thing you describe (trying to follow PayGo) and nearly all news coverage has been negative. The trick here is, he isn't running for re-election so he doesn't care if he operates on principle instead of future votes.
The problem is whomever speaks first usually gets repeated, while updates and corrections get passed on more slowly, if at all.
It just happened, and not the way you described. Jim Bunning is currently reviled by lots of people for trying to enforce the Paygo system. The bill did not have a way to pay for continued unemployment benefits, and he held it up until someone came up with a way to pay for it. His explanation was legit, or seemed to be, but all of the coverage is "Bunning is a dickhead."
This is proposed annually by the citizenry, and nothing ever happens. The people who make the rules hate making rules for themselves unless it's for a pay raise. Feel free to stop reading now.
Your congress person does not want to be held accountable, they just want your vote. So they slip unrelated things into an otherwise good bill, and no one can say "you voted for X". They either claim they didn't read it, only a summarized version (resulting in "read the bills" movement), or they claim voting for the bill was overall a positive step, even if it did include a tiny provision they didn't like.
If you vote no on a bill for a single item, the other side says you're holding up the bill, or voting against babies and jesus. Look at Bunning's latest hold - it was a legitimate principle (respecting PayGo which was passed by the same people trying to bypass it), but he got ravaged by the other side because he didn't set up his move before he made it. He figured it would be self-explanatory, or easily explained.
The last time a staffer slipped in an update to a bill just before it got voted on, and congress were all surprised, this proposition was all over the place. Didn't happen then, will not happen.
Basically it's the same reputation-based research you use anywhere - if a reputable source links to it, or even better offers it for download, your reputation improves exactly like PageRank. If dubious sites link to it, it looks like a bad idea to download.
Consider it from a different angle - if you are a Micro ISV, how do people hear about your product in the first place? Chances are you're not getting first-page google results unless you have a truly niche product. However people hear about it is a channel you want to strengthen.
Makes it easier to migrate from IIS to Apache. Install Apache and let it use your current ISAPI modules, so your website basically works the same. Then gradually turn off each ISAPI module as you configure it the Apache way.
There are piles of ISAPI filters in use, and it's unlikely that someone going through a conversion is going to dump all of the ISAPI they paid for immediately. Or rewrite what they implemented in-house. This reduces the amount of testing and debugging that has to be done up-front, and/or allows immediate reuse of in-house code without having to 'port' it to run on Apache. Most people working on something like this will probably be Microsoft-centric, and will appreciate the ability to move gradually instead of a hard switchover, which requires a steeper learning curve.
You have a scenario of replace and regression test, instead of rebuild from scratch and run the full lot of test cases. As your renewals come up, use your projected recurring license savings to move other modules to Apache.
Would it make you happy if someone were to list every possible high-availability best practice we currently know, and make some inferences about the probable architecture and design of the system, applying each best practice to that aspect of the design? It's not like DDoS or high availability is a new thing, it's been around for quite some time. And you likewise contain no counterargument, just pointing out that there is nothing to argue against. You didn't add anything to the conversation, you proved no point, you certainly did not earn your informative moderation. Not that it matters to an AC. Why the hell am I even typing this? Oh well, here we go.
The simplest way to prevent DDoS in a situation like this is to have an front-end server (load balanced/clustered) which routes your request to either the authentication system (if your connection hasn't been authenticated) to validate the installation such as checking the license key and verifying whatever else they verify. Or if authenticated it goes to the "simply reply" server. Both of these servers can dynamically update the firewall rules on the front-end, or even before the front-end, if they have something like IPtables accepting input from a specific set of IPs on the intranet-facing rail. The front-end uses these to block any connections which send garbage data or try to re-authenticate using multiple license keys (brute-forcing) or basically try any type of connection other than the two allowed above - initial auth or continued ping. So you have 3 tiers for your IP addresses - initial (send to authentication), authenticated (send to keep-alive) and "other", which simply force-closes the connection, and the front-end redirects as needed. An expiration time of an hour or two should be sufficient, at which time it gets removed from the list and will go to authentication.
Customer service should be able to manually update the list to unblock you if you have a legitimate key. The only time a person should have to call customer service is if a continued DDoS is going on, and only if the user has a dynamic IP address or the DDoS is using spoofed IP addresses and managed to invalidate your connection. So this isn't an unworkable solution - it's a worst case high-call-volume type scenario, and a company would do everything in its power to keep paying customers working.
The front-end itself can have several IP addresses in the DNS entry, so you can scale up that part as needed.
The front-end deals with IP filtering, the second stage does request routing, and a server farm does either auth or ping. It would be trivial to create a list from the front-end so that the hosting provider can filter out the most egregious of offenders before it even hits the Ubisoft network. This is all pretty basic stuff, and most of it comes directly from reading other reports of DDoS and how it was handled.
At that point the only real problem is IP spoofing from a very large botnet, which would pretty much ruin your day. Even that has its defenses, but much trickier. It's unlikely that they planned for packet-inspection as part of the filtering, but anything that contains unexpected packet contents can be ignored, since you know what the client will be sending. Only a targeted DDoS would be effective then, crafting packets to appear to be legit.
Software could be optimized, for example if it's a simple database contention issue, or move to a RAID type solution allowing for faster access to the validation keys.
It's possible you're saying to yourself "Yes, but that won't prevent a DDoS, just mitigate it." I'll go ahead and address that before you post more rhetoric. "There are various techniques to battle against DDoS even on network level." Poster did not claim to completely prevent DDoS, just work around it.
Having said that, it's impossible to say whether they can use this particular description because we don't know whether they use authentication and keepalive, so the most we can say is either they implemented an unpro
As it is, the article was substantially more convincing. Had you included references to his other works such as
Moreover, Dodgson was a rather exceptional student of Aristotelian logic, and he delighted his friends with games, puzzles and riddles. Dodgson's mock-heroic poem, The Hunting of the Snark (1876), ending with the line "For the Snark was a Bojuum, you see", received mixed reviews when it appeared. The meaning of the poem, which tells of the journey to capture the mythical Snark, has puzzled generations of readers. "I'm very much afraid I didn't mean anything but nonsense!" Dodgson later said.
Also, if you accounted for your method of understanding the intentions of someone who is now deceased, and has been for a while, we might have been able to independently confirm your theory, or properly and with all authority label you a quack.
All that remains is for you to post a picture of yourself so that we may properly ridicule you, since you have left us nothing else by which to counter your theory.
Everyone else already covered the parts where you don't reinvent the wheel, and real programmers would learn the language instead of just copying something they read on a blog, and I'll skip the part where I add that.NET is so minimally documented that the only way to learn it is to buy a Microsoft Press book or read the blogs of the language developers, and go right to the heart of what really bothers me.
I think you meant to say "Copy and paste", because if you cut from a blog you don't actually change the blog contents by removing the block you selected. Unless you're more of a hacking type.
Let's whittle this down a bit and say: When you're creating a new work based on requirements, you have to have a sales team, even if that's you, the developer, business owner, sales team, QA department, and so on.
Make it clear - we can do pricing one of two ways. One, it's a work for hire and it will cost you 49 brazillion dollars, and you own the code. That's because I can no longer use the code I used to write your application - I can't use my normal shortcuts and libraries and give it to you to own.
Or, it can cost $13k and I own the copyright, including the code, but you retain all of your IP that you contribute (copyright on text you supply or graphics or trademark on company name) and all of that.
First discussion, out of the way and signed, and everyone should be clear. Even a caveman could do it.
I assume you work for a legally incorporated or otherwise registered employer, otherwise your comment is irrelevant. I also assume that as part of your hiring process you signed en employment contract of some kind.
I further assume your lawyer looked over your employment contract, the one with your signature on it (or a suitable facsimile) and came to this conclusion.
Most people employed to write code have a clause that anything they produce is a work for hire, and is owned by the company. Of these people, most also have a clause which says if you create code *not* for the company, but while being employed *by* the company at a salary, then anything you write while not at work is also company property, due to you very likely using company time, resources, training, best practices, or something else to do so.
No arguments on whether this should be the case - the contracts are signed. So while this might be your situation (I'd advise you to double-check), most people are not in the same boat.
At a previous employer, I was asked by management to estimate how much time I spend doing "research", left undefined. The explanation - it's for tax purposes, and we can get a credit for research.
I'm not going to say I read the relevant laws to find the definition, but I did follow company policy and made a best guess based on what I thought should reasonably qualify under a sane tax system. So although I didn't claim anything that a normal person would call foul, I'm sure there were some hours that wouldn't qualify.
Hours were turned into dollars, and the results collected and turned in as "research and development" spending for tax purposes. We met both the letter and spirit of the law, as much as was possible. But we were not a product company, nor a major innovator in our market(s). We did lots of research with very little to show for it. The intended purpose of the law of course would be to encourage invention if not innovation, and have a more efficient and/or productive economy, resulting in snowballing gains as different sectors picked up on advances in other areas. Makes sense.
I'm sure someone else will point out how many cool things MS research announces then fails to turn into a marketable product, so I won't go into that. I'm also sure that Microsoft's obligations to its shareholders have continually been ignored as dividend payouts have been begrudgingly given, on the odd chances they are given at all. While sitting on piles of cash. As a shareholder, i'd like to see MS Research almost entirely dismantled, dividends you can count on, and for fuck's sake replace the entire marketing silo with a small panel of the following makeup who will say which products get to market and how:
A graphic designer A soccer/hockey/whatever mom or dad Someone employed in middle management of a non-technology company One person of any type who has never seen an episode of survivor or american idol One person who knows the words to every Lady GaGa song (artist to be updated by annual shareholder vote) One person who belongs to every social network known to man and has no concept of privacy (must have an entry on http://failbooking.com/) Bill Gates A rat terrier (for product testing), alternatively a young japanese man will substitute as needed A 14 year old girl (preferably familiar with glitter and whose favorite color is pink, replaced annually for obvious reasons) A business analyst with a marketing related education, who counts as 1/2 vote
There's your entire marketing department, and they will make better decisions and cost less money. You can probably pay them in MacBooks, Comp tickets, maid service, fairy dust and unicorn shit, rainbowed versions of normal objects like neon beer signs and the like, permanent Bing #1 results for keyword 'smush', certificates for a discount on the next purchase of a Windows(tm) product, used panties, arcade crane game baubles, and insurance benefits with an occasional kick to the balls, respectively.
I agreed with you initially. Then I realized that air travel is a completely different problem, requiring a different solution. Try to justify your position and you'll see what I mean. Here's what I came up with, basically it would be an edge case, return on investment is going to be negative, that's why it's not already a law.
If 57% of the accidents in airplanes were caused by the passengers, we would not have even thought about black box recorders. Roughly 10% of accidents (not deaths) have the vehicle as a factor, and only a portion of those are fatalities.
Given that lots of people have problems with GPS and SpeedPass systems, how would you explain your desire to log everything a vehicle did just to catch a few data points in the off chance it's helpful? When a plane goes down, you don't have options like pulling over to the side of the air, or pointing towards an uphill slope to slow you down, or moving it into neutral, or other tricks - you can only hope you're near water. The people are likely to die, leaving no explanation of what happened. Driver deaths are much less likely due to safety features of the car, and the car generally not leaving the ground, so you usually have someone who can describe what went wrong. That's really where this idea falls apart - air incidents are very rare, but much more likely to result in total loss of anyone who can intelligently report on the event, proving the need for data recorders.
It's not the number of deaths which is important - the question is, how many of those could be prevented with additional logging? Evidence points to a much smaller number than you might think. Going with the other replies, 40,000 every year at 10% gives roughly 4,000 events where the vehicle is part of the problem. How many of those are mechanical vs. electronic? I'm going with a small percent, simply because of things like tire underinflation, or other maintenance issues which could also be rectified.
So you'd have to analyze the logs of every car crash, to see if anything strange happened or identify trends. Who's going to do that? Otherwise you let the logs die with the car, and wait until a mystery pattern like this emerges. We might see a problem faster, and identify the cause faster, but all of this time and money and effort prevents how many crashes? GM just did a recall for around 10 crashes with 1 fatality. All of this *might* have saved one person's life for that particular issue. What's the return on investment there?
In short, your proposal is the equivalent of the proctologist giving you an oral exam - it's good information to have, but useless in almost every case.
Also forgot to add, you are not allowed to download things like console BIOS/firmware. Those are considered part of the hardware. You don't need a backup because if the firmware/BIOS is corrupt - it is treated as a hardware problem and the BIOS replaced, like any other defective part. So there's no fair use claim for those things, that might be what you were thinking of.
I think what you meant to say is that uploading an MP3 when you don't own the copyright is clearly illegal, while downloading an MP3 you own is legally an unknown.
An online streaming music service (My.mp3.com) was shut down because it provided copyrighted music - even though the service checked to make sure you were licensed by requiring you to register the personal CD. So you can listen to you music online, anywhere, and not have to search for the CD. So they had to shut down, but the idea of downloading music you own was not tested in that case - only the right of the company to upload (which was determined to be nonexistent).
MAFIAA cases are based on uploading. Even their specious "making available" claim was based on the uploader being the copy provider, ignoring downloads.
That article was from 2001, both sides learned a lot since then. I'm not sure half the stuff I mentioned was even needed in 2001 except for the most esoteric of applications.
Then for posterity, I'll just leave this here. Been waiting for it.
I was not aware of Roland until just before his death, and mostly just by the 'onoitsroland' tags. Slashdot's virtual service for him came to the conclusion "yeah he wasn't so bad, his submissions were blogwhoring but otherwise interesting, if quirky".
I doubt roland would have posted "Advanced users don't know about Fiddler or WireShark or localhost proxy."
Slashdot Mirror
Consolidation of wealth is the single most dangerous aspect of the American economy, and should disturb any country depending on the American economy. Everyone pays a few cents extra for gas, for insurance, for cell phones, for grain-based foods, operating systems, movies, entertainment. It doesn't look like a lot at the time, but it adds up, and the average consumer runs out of money. 1000 people control $3.6 Billion, and most of that comes from consumer goods, directly or indirectly. At some point, unless this trend stops, we will be right back to feudalism where we can't even afford land to build a house on. Working will be a requirement in order to use the rich man's land.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/17/1928-resemblances/
Some ranting in this one:
http://www.theygaveusarepublic.com/diary/995/
"Between 2000 and 2007, the average American worker's productivity rose 19.2%, yet more of those gains are going to top managers,... Adjusted for inflation, average wages have grown just 0.7% per year since June 2000. In 1979, the ratio between the average CEO's pay and the typical workers pay was 27 to 1. By 2007, it had widened to 275 to 1."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/econ-s05.shtml
Carlos Slim - Mexican cell phones
Bill Gates - Convicted operating system monopolist
Warren Buffet - invests insurance float from Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), basically you pay him to borrow your money interest-free.
Mukesh Ambani - Oil/gas
Lakshmi Mittal - Indian steel. Who doesn't use steel?
Lawrence Ellison - Oracle. You pay a business a few cents extra, that company sends a lump check to Oracle
Bernard Arnault - Luxury goods, France. The rich man's consolidation of wealth target. But wait - don't normal people spend way too much on Louis Vuitton and Moet & Chandon just to keep up appearances? Yes, they do
Eike Batista - Brazilian Mining, Oil - more fuel
Amancio Ortega - fashion retail, normal people covering themselves from the elements using dollar bills.
Karl Albrecht - German supermarkets. Your grocery bill pads this guy's wallet, and he's #10 in the world. Germany's population is estimated at 81,757,600, so he has $287 for each person in Germany, or 1% of Germany's GDP.
Ingvar Kamprad - Ikea, selling to poor college students everywhere
Christy Walton - Wal-mart. Poor people everywhere throwing money at cheap goods with limited lifetimes
Stefan Persson - Fashion
More Waltons, fashion, makeup
None of them did, and /. helped. I could have tried elsewhere... where does /. suggest I post this question? I don't want benchmarks, I don't want architecture discussions, I don't want nerd rage.
What I wanted was a broad range of input from people who most likely buy computers, but don't always geek out on following all of the hardware every release. I posted questions similar to this on Nvidia and ATI forums, and got less information than found here - basically see what's on the shelf at computer stores and buy those. Things I didn't consider before reading these posts: driver stability, open source support, virtualization.
Normally I'd build a database of all available hardware, link which ones are compatible, add attributes I want, eliminate ones that don't fit, then add pricing to the database for the remaining ones and buy from there. That's the geek way. But that's not how people buy things. In short, I wanted opinions from the wide range of experience here, not specialized zealotry.
Just wanted to let you know that you win the award for most useless post here. Not only does it make no sense, if you try to make sense out of it (which I shouldn't have tried, my fault) it devolves into outright idiocy.
"Computer Science" has very little to do with specific hardware, and more to do with things that work across different hardware.
Not sure why you specified x86, since x64 is more likely and ATOM or ARM are certainly possibilities, although Oblivion won't run.
There are piles of other posters who agree: marketing naming is out of control, and to expect someone to follow every hardware release when their primary occupation is software development is just ignorant.
Assembling a PC was not a requirement - I summarized my question as "How do you buy a PC?"
Your hypothetical 14 year old is what makes me certain you are a troll. "Any competent 14 year old" implies you mean competent in building computers, which is as tautological as you can get. The average 14 year old has no idea what parts even make up a computer, so you'll have to limit yourself to a very small subset for that to be remotely true.
Finally, for this 14 year old to accomplish this in an afternoon, you're going to require living within an hour's drive of a well-stocked computer parts store, or prior ordering from an internet site.
All it takes is a single mismatch so your processor doesn't even fit in the mobo, your DDR3 memory isn't supported, overlooking a missing HDMI or DVI port, mixing up AGP and PCI-E, and far more subtle things like the mobo doesn't support CPU or GPU functionality, and the whole thing falls apart.
Posts like this which gloss over the Intel VT issues were in the running for most idiotic post as well. Once I understand, it makes sense. Thanks, that helped. I should have just meditated and the spirit of jon3k will enlighten me once I attain oneness with the electrons.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1575698&cid=31428544
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1575698&cid=31415088
You, sir, are fired from the internet. Go pick up cross-stitching or pinochle and let the adults speak.
You sunk my battleship!
To most people, it appears to be one-click, but you're basically patenting the idea of fooling people into thinking you have one-click ordering.
I have always wondered about this "feature". I'm used to having all of my items in one shipment, one box. Then Amazon's fulfillment centers became - not sure how to describe it, but more of a "just in time" inventory system. So your orders can come from different warehouses. They asked if you wanted it all in one box, or ship as things become available, or cheapest shipping.
To me, that was far more innovative than "click", box ships, "click", box ships, "click", box ships.
In fact, based on your description "one-click" purchases simply queue up for a length of time and they decide how to ship the lot themselves. To me, this is less useful than any other way they do it, and gives Amazon the opportunity to get the most shipping fees out of you.
In theory you're right. In practice, this will get you crucified politically. Here's my related post - as a summary, Jim Bunning did the exact thing you describe (trying to follow PayGo) and nearly all news coverage has been negative. The trick here is, he isn't running for re-election so he doesn't care if he operates on principle instead of future votes.
The problem is whomever speaks first usually gets repeated, while updates and corrections get passed on more slowly, if at all.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1577878&cid=31430344
It just happened, and not the way you described. Jim Bunning is currently reviled by lots of people for trying to enforce the Paygo system. The bill did not have a way to pay for continued unemployment benefits, and he held it up until someone came up with a way to pay for it. His explanation was legit, or seemed to be, but all of the coverage is "Bunning is a dickhead."
Bunning's explanation:
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=21648539-d0e8-4c3b-6078-362af45228d7&Region_id=&Issue_id=
News coverage:
House Moves to Repay U.S. DOT Workers Furloughed by Bunning Filibuster
Crazy Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning throws a curveball at helping poor, struggling Americans
Seven states hit hard by Jim Bunning's delay on unemployment benefits
This is proposed annually by the citizenry, and nothing ever happens. The people who make the rules hate making rules for themselves unless it's for a pay raise. Feel free to stop reading now.
Your congress person does not want to be held accountable, they just want your vote. So they slip unrelated things into an otherwise good bill, and no one can say "you voted for X". They either claim they didn't read it, only a summarized version (resulting in "read the bills" movement), or they claim voting for the bill was overall a positive step, even if it did include a tiny provision they didn't like.
If you vote no on a bill for a single item, the other side says you're holding up the bill, or voting against babies and jesus. Look at Bunning's latest hold - it was a legitimate principle (respecting PayGo which was passed by the same people trying to bypass it), but he got ravaged by the other side because he didn't set up his move before he made it. He figured it would be self-explanatory, or easily explained.
The last time a staffer slipped in an update to a bill just before it got voted on, and congress were all surprised, this proposition was all over the place. Didn't happen then, will not happen.
some options:
WOT has the same problem as anything else, false negatives. I found many different sites offering software with this name.
This one has links to tucows and is the Google keyword sponsored link, making it look legit: http://pdf-suite.com/us/default.asp
This has the same picture but entirely different website, looking suspicious: http://www.pdf-suite.com/
This looks like different software with the same name: http://www.aloaha.com/wi-software-en/printing.php
But that's featured on TechSite. Do you trust Techsite? http://www.techspot.com/downloads/4109-aloaha-pdf-suite.html
Basically it's the same reputation-based research you use anywhere - if a reputable source links to it, or even better offers it for download, your reputation improves exactly like PageRank. If dubious sites link to it, it looks like a bad idea to download.
Consider it from a different angle - if you are a Micro ISV, how do people hear about your product in the first place? Chances are you're not getting first-page google results unless you have a truly niche product. However people hear about it is a channel you want to strengthen.
Makes it easier to migrate from IIS to Apache. Install Apache and let it use your current ISAPI modules, so your website basically works the same. Then gradually turn off each ISAPI module as you configure it the Apache way.
There are piles of ISAPI filters in use, and it's unlikely that someone going through a conversion is going to dump all of the ISAPI they paid for immediately. Or rewrite what they implemented in-house. This reduces the amount of testing and debugging that has to be done up-front, and/or allows immediate reuse of in-house code without having to 'port' it to run on Apache. Most people working on something like this will probably be Microsoft-centric, and will appreciate the ability to move gradually instead of a hard switchover, which requires a steeper learning curve.
You have a scenario of replace and regression test, instead of rebuild from scratch and run the full lot of test cases. As your renewals come up, use your projected recurring license savings to move other modules to Apache.
Would it make you happy if someone were to list every possible high-availability best practice we currently know, and make some inferences about the probable architecture and design of the system, applying each best practice to that aspect of the design? It's not like DDoS or high availability is a new thing, it's been around for quite some time. And you likewise contain no counterargument, just pointing out that there is nothing to argue against. You didn't add anything to the conversation, you proved no point, you certainly did not earn your informative moderation. Not that it matters to an AC. Why the hell am I even typing this? Oh well, here we go.
The simplest way to prevent DDoS in a situation like this is to have an front-end server (load balanced/clustered) which routes your request to either the authentication system (if your connection hasn't been authenticated) to validate the installation such as checking the license key and verifying whatever else they verify. Or if authenticated it goes to the "simply reply" server. Both of these servers can dynamically update the firewall rules on the front-end, or even before the front-end, if they have something like IPtables accepting input from a specific set of IPs on the intranet-facing rail. The front-end uses these to block any connections which send garbage data or try to re-authenticate using multiple license keys (brute-forcing) or basically try any type of connection other than the two allowed above - initial auth or continued ping. So you have 3 tiers for your IP addresses - initial (send to authentication), authenticated (send to keep-alive) and "other", which simply force-closes the connection, and the front-end redirects as needed. An expiration time of an hour or two should be sufficient, at which time it gets removed from the list and will go to authentication.
Customer service should be able to manually update the list to unblock you if you have a legitimate key. The only time a person should have to call customer service is if a continued DDoS is going on, and only if the user has a dynamic IP address or the DDoS is using spoofed IP addresses and managed to invalidate your connection. So this isn't an unworkable solution - it's a worst case high-call-volume type scenario, and a company would do everything in its power to keep paying customers working.
The front-end itself can have several IP addresses in the DNS entry, so you can scale up that part as needed.
The front-end deals with IP filtering, the second stage does request routing, and a server farm does either auth or ping. It would be trivial to create a list from the front-end so that the hosting provider can filter out the most egregious of offenders before it even hits the Ubisoft network. This is all pretty basic stuff, and most of it comes directly from reading other reports of DDoS and how it was handled.
At that point the only real problem is IP spoofing from a very large botnet, which would pretty much ruin your day. Even that has its defenses, but much trickier. It's unlikely that they planned for packet-inspection as part of the filtering, but anything that contains unexpected packet contents can be ignored, since you know what the client will be sending. Only a targeted DDoS would be effective then, crafting packets to appear to be legit.
Software could be optimized, for example if it's a simple database contention issue, or move to a RAID type solution allowing for faster access to the validation keys.
It's possible you're saying to yourself "Yes, but that won't prevent a DDoS, just mitigate it." I'll go ahead and address that before you post more rhetoric. "There are various techniques to battle against DDoS even on network level." Poster did not claim to completely prevent DDoS, just work around it.
Having said that, it's impossible to say whether they can use this particular description because we don't know whether they use authentication and keepalive, so the most we can say is either they implemented an unpro
As it is, the article was substantially more convincing. Had you included references to his other works such as
along with a verifiable reference like: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/lcarroll.htm
your comment might have had a little more sway.
Also, if you accounted for your method of understanding the intentions of someone who is now deceased, and has been for a while, we might have been able to independently confirm your theory, or properly and with all authority label you a quack.
All that remains is for you to post a picture of yourself so that we may properly ridicule you, since you have left us nothing else by which to counter your theory.
Everyone else already covered the parts where you don't reinvent the wheel, and real programmers would learn the language instead of just copying something they read on a blog, and I'll skip the part where I add that .NET is so minimally documented that the only way to learn it is to buy a Microsoft Press book or read the blogs of the language developers, and go right to the heart of what really bothers me.
I think you meant to say "Copy and paste", because if you cut from a blog you don't actually change the blog contents by removing the block you selected. Unless you're more of a hacking type.
Audacity is open source, so anyone can have it.
Here's my citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audacity
Let's whittle this down a bit and say: When you're creating a new work based on requirements, you have to have a sales team, even if that's you, the developer, business owner, sales team, QA department, and so on.
Make it clear - we can do pricing one of two ways. One, it's a work for hire and it will cost you 49 brazillion dollars, and you own the code. That's because I can no longer use the code I used to write your application - I can't use my normal shortcuts and libraries and give it to you to own.
Or, it can cost $13k and I own the copyright, including the code, but you retain all of your IP that you contribute (copyright on text you supply or graphics or trademark on company name) and all of that.
First discussion, out of the way and signed, and everyone should be clear. Even a caveman could do it.
I assume you work for a legally incorporated or otherwise registered employer, otherwise your comment is irrelevant. I also assume that as part of your hiring process you signed en employment contract of some kind.
I further assume your lawyer looked over your employment contract, the one with your signature on it (or a suitable facsimile) and came to this conclusion.
Most people employed to write code have a clause that anything they produce is a work for hire, and is owned by the company. Of these people, most also have a clause which says if you create code *not* for the company, but while being employed *by* the company at a salary, then anything you write while not at work is also company property, due to you very likely using company time, resources, training, best practices, or something else to do so.
No arguments on whether this should be the case - the contracts are signed. So while this might be your situation (I'd advise you to double-check), most people are not in the same boat.
At a previous employer, I was asked by management to estimate how much time I spend doing "research", left undefined. The explanation - it's for tax purposes, and we can get a credit for research.
I'm not going to say I read the relevant laws to find the definition, but I did follow company policy and made a best guess based on what I thought should reasonably qualify under a sane tax system. So although I didn't claim anything that a normal person would call foul, I'm sure there were some hours that wouldn't qualify.
Hours were turned into dollars, and the results collected and turned in as "research and development" spending for tax purposes. We met both the letter and spirit of the law, as much as was possible. But we were not a product company, nor a major innovator in our market(s). We did lots of research with very little to show for it. The intended purpose of the law of course would be to encourage invention if not innovation, and have a more efficient and/or productive economy, resulting in snowballing gains as different sectors picked up on advances in other areas. Makes sense.
I'm sure someone else will point out how many cool things MS research announces then fails to turn into a marketable product, so I won't go into that. I'm also sure that Microsoft's obligations to its shareholders have continually been ignored as dividend payouts have been begrudgingly given, on the odd chances they are given at all. While sitting on piles of cash. As a shareholder, i'd like to see MS Research almost entirely dismantled, dividends you can count on, and for fuck's sake replace the entire marketing silo with a small panel of the following makeup who will say which products get to market and how:
A graphic designer
A soccer/hockey/whatever mom or dad
Someone employed in middle management of a non-technology company
One person of any type who has never seen an episode of survivor or american idol
One person who knows the words to every Lady GaGa song (artist to be updated by annual shareholder vote)
One person who belongs to every social network known to man and has no concept of privacy (must have an entry on http://failbooking.com/)
Bill Gates
A rat terrier (for product testing), alternatively a young japanese man will substitute as needed
A 14 year old girl (preferably familiar with glitter and whose favorite color is pink, replaced annually for obvious reasons)
A business analyst with a marketing related education, who counts as 1/2 vote
There's your entire marketing department, and they will make better decisions and cost less money. You can probably pay them in MacBooks, Comp tickets, maid service, fairy dust and unicorn shit, rainbowed versions of normal objects like neon beer signs and the like, permanent Bing #1 results for keyword 'smush', certificates for a discount on the next purchase of a Windows(tm) product, used panties, arcade crane game baubles, and insurance benefits with an occasional kick to the balls, respectively.
I agreed with you initially. Then I realized that air travel is a completely different problem, requiring a different solution. Try to justify your position and you'll see what I mean. Here's what I came up with, basically it would be an edge case, return on investment is going to be negative, that's why it's not already a law.
A 1985 study by K. Rumar, using British and American crash reports as data, found that 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors and 1% to combined roadway and vehicle factors.... A 1985 report based on British and American crash data found driver error, intoxication and other human factors contribute wholly or partly to about 93% of crashes
If 57% of the accidents in airplanes were caused by the passengers, we would not have even thought about black box recorders. Roughly 10% of accidents (not deaths) have the vehicle as a factor, and only a portion of those are fatalities.
Given that lots of people have problems with GPS and SpeedPass systems, how would you explain your desire to log everything a vehicle did just to catch a few data points in the off chance it's helpful? When a plane goes down, you don't have options like pulling over to the side of the air, or pointing towards an uphill slope to slow you down, or moving it into neutral, or other tricks - you can only hope you're near water. The people are likely to die, leaving no explanation of what happened. Driver deaths are much less likely due to safety features of the car, and the car generally not leaving the ground, so you usually have someone who can describe what went wrong. That's really where this idea falls apart - air incidents are very rare, but much more likely to result in total loss of anyone who can intelligently report on the event, proving the need for data recorders.
It's not the number of deaths which is important - the question is, how many of those could be prevented with additional logging? Evidence points to a much smaller number than you might think. Going with the other replies, 40,000 every year at 10% gives roughly 4,000 events where the vehicle is part of the problem. How many of those are mechanical vs. electronic? I'm going with a small percent, simply because of things like tire underinflation, or other maintenance issues which could also be rectified.
So you'd have to analyze the logs of every car crash, to see if anything strange happened or identify trends. Who's going to do that? Otherwise you let the logs die with the car, and wait until a mystery pattern like this emerges. We might see a problem faster, and identify the cause faster, but all of this time and money and effort prevents how many crashes? GM just did a recall for around 10 crashes with 1 fatality. All of this *might* have saved one person's life for that particular issue. What's the return on investment there?
In short, your proposal is the equivalent of the proctologist giving you an oral exam - it's good information to have, but useless in almost every case.
Also forgot to add, you are not allowed to download things like console BIOS/firmware. Those are considered part of the hardware. You don't need a backup because if the firmware/BIOS is corrupt - it is treated as a hardware problem and the BIOS replaced, like any other defective part. So there's no fair use claim for those things, that might be what you were thinking of.
I think what you meant to say is that uploading an MP3 when you don't own the copyright is clearly illegal, while downloading an MP3 you own is legally an unknown.
An online streaming music service (My.mp3.com) was shut down because it provided copyrighted music - even though the service checked to make sure you were licensed by requiring you to register the personal CD. So you can listen to you music online, anywhere, and not have to search for the CD. So they had to shut down, but the idea of downloading music you own was not tested in that case - only the right of the company to upload (which was determined to be nonexistent).
MAFIAA cases are based on uploading. Even their specious "making available" claim was based on the uploader being the copy provider, ignoring downloads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com
That article was from 2001, both sides learned a lot since then. I'm not sure half the stuff I mentioned was even needed in 2001 except for the most esoteric of applications.
Then for posterity, I'll just leave this here. Been waiting for it.
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571972
I was not aware of Roland until just before his death, and mostly just by the 'onoitsroland' tags. Slashdot's virtual service for him came to the conclusion "yeah he wasn't so bad, his submissions were blogwhoring but otherwise interesting, if quirky".
I doubt roland would have posted "Advanced users don't know about Fiddler or WireShark or localhost proxy."
It's a nice operating system, with serious hardware requirements, it just needs a web browser.
You're thirsty? Along with lots of other people? And only a sub-$99 e-reader will help? You need water and vitamins, or at least a salt tablet or two.