Yes, he's right in his own context -- single programmer.
In a multi-programmer environment, robustness is king. That's robustness as in maintainability. That comes from readability (comments and style) and, yes, from unit tests, too.
Maintainability trumps performance to a large degree. With a large body of code, it's pretty much guaranteed that some J Random Hacker will have to dig into it to fix a bug or add a feature. The chances that Mr Hacker will break something are greatly reduced by an existing body of unit tests. Plus, JR probably sleeps better, too! --jzap
When the First Nations people watch the sun go down, that light is travelling over airspace owned by others. Should FN pay royalties to the owners of adjacent lands just to watch the sunset? --jzap
They put a 1x1 image in the HTML e-mail with a (long) unique number in the SRC URL. The unique number identifies the sent message. When your e-mail client tries to fetch the image, they send the header right away (type=image/jpeg), but they trickle the data to you at one byte per second. This keeps the connection open for as long as you view the message. When you stop viewing the message, the connection closes, and their timer stops.
I'd show you what a dump of an 118-byte-long version of their JPEG image looks like, but the Slashdot Lameness Filter didn't like all those "junk" characters! However, you can view the dump here:
http://jzap.com/img/ReadItBug.jpeg.txt
In Mozilla, look under
Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy & Security -> Images
Click the box that says "Do not load remote images
in Mail & Newsgroup messages"
It's more important that a law be passed mandating the use of transparent materials for the walls of all homes. Opaque walls obviously can only impede the efforts of law enforcement to execute secret-surveillance search warrants issued by the courts. Since we cannot tolerate the possibility that such warrants may be frustrated, opaque walls have to go.
This should not be a problem, since only the guilty would want to hide things from the government. I mean, it's not as if a runaway
special prosecutor with a sympathetic judge is a realistic possibility under OUR system of party politics, right?
The problem is that sometimes, for people who need to do seriously high-performance I/O, you want to be able to know the drive's geometry and reference sectors at specific cylinder/head locations, to optimize sequential access and minimize seeks.
Yeah.
Some OS'es (did?) sweep the head in and out, and prioritize disk accesses according to their proximity to the current cylinder in the current sweep direction.
But it's been a while since the number of sectors per track was constant for all cylinders.
Wasting all that extra room on the outer cyls finally became too much to take.
Do current protocols provide for reading the disk's sectors-per-cylinder table, so that an OS can do this kind of scheduling right? --jzap
In almost all sports, a certain amount of cheating is part of a winning strategy.
At the organized level (ie. NBA), you have referees. They have the rulebook, and when someone cheats, they call a foul.
Not exactly when, but maybe about half of when. If the average penalty for cheating doesn't wipe out the advantage gained from it, then you do it. After all, your first loyalty must be to your team.
In specific cases, this can be a no-brainer. If you're covering a receiver downfield and he's about to catch a pass for a touchdown, you tackle him. The penalty for pass interference sure beats giving up six points.
So, is that cheating? If you disguise it so the ref might not call it and you get away without a penalty, is that cheating? Or is that just a lucky break?
In ice hockey, this is most evident. Penalties are called only if the infraction exceeds a certain severity. Well, certain is perhaps a poorly chosen word, 'cuz it varies wildly from game to game, ref to ref, and even minute to minute. As a player, you test this threshold until you see how bad you have to be before you get called. Hence the adage: If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'
My solution to on-line game cheating? Simple -- if you get caught, you have to give back all your prize money.
The systems compromised by stacheldrat seem to be running Solaris 2.x. Entry was gained by exploiting buffer-overrun bugs in RPC services statd, cmsd, and ttdbservd. Damn Solairs crap:-)
It occurred to me to fire up a tcpdump job in the background to record packet headers sent to the (in)appropriate ports, just in case. Gotta do a bit more reading first, though. --jzap
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, he's right in his own context -- single programmer.
In a multi-programmer environment, robustness is king. That's robustness as in maintainability. That comes from readability (comments and style) and, yes, from unit tests, too.
Maintainability trumps performance to a large degree. With a large body of code, it's pretty much guaranteed that some J Random Hacker will have to dig into it to fix a bug or add a feature. The chances that Mr Hacker will break something are greatly reduced by an existing body of unit tests. Plus, JR probably sleeps better, too! --jzap
When the First Nations people watch the sun go down, that light is travelling over airspace owned by others. Should FN pay royalties to the owners of adjacent lands just to watch the sunset? --jzap
So what you're saying: size doesn't matter?
What will this evening bring me this morning? . . .
Elgan calls on manufacturers to . . . allow users to turn them off.
Ever heard of black electrical tape?
Just put a bit of it over whatever lights annoy you.
Valium and whisky might also help!
Or the Rene Magritte variant:
/* This is not a comment. */
I'd show you what a dump of an 118-byte-long version of their JPEG image looks like, but the Slashdot Lameness Filter didn't like all those "junk" characters! However, you can view the dump here: http://jzap.com/img/ReadItBug.jpeg.txt
In Mozilla, look under Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy & Security -> Images
Click the box that says "Do not load remote images in Mail & Newsgroup messages"
The "free" account is limited to 5 messages. The paid-for accounts are limited to 500 or 750 messages a month. Hardly worth it for a spammer.
It's more important that a law be passed mandating the use of transparent materials for the walls of all homes. Opaque walls obviously can only impede the efforts of law enforcement to execute secret-surveillance search warrants issued by the courts. Since we cannot tolerate the possibility that such warrants may be frustrated, opaque walls have to go.
This should not be a problem, since only the guilty would want to hide things from the government. I mean, it's not as if a runaway
special prosecutor with a sympathetic judge is a realistic possibility under OUR system of party politics, right?
The problem is that sometimes, for people who need to do seriously high-performance I/O, you want to be able to know the drive's geometry and reference sectors at specific cylinder/head locations, to optimize sequential access and minimize seeks.
Yeah. Some OS'es (did?) sweep the head in and out, and prioritize disk accesses according to their proximity to the current cylinder in the current sweep direction.
But it's been a while since the number of sectors per track was constant for all cylinders. Wasting all that extra room on the outer cyls finally became too much to take.
Do current protocols provide for reading the disk's sectors-per-cylinder table, so that an OS can do this kind of scheduling right? --jzap
In almost all sports, a certain amount of cheating is part of a winning strategy.
At the organized level (ie. NBA), you have referees. They have the rulebook, and when someone cheats, they call a foul.
Not exactly when, but maybe about half of when. If the average penalty for cheating doesn't wipe out the advantage gained from it, then you do it. After all, your first loyalty must be to your team.
In specific cases, this can be a no-brainer. If you're covering a receiver downfield and he's about to catch a pass for a touchdown, you tackle him. The penalty for pass interference sure beats giving up six points.
So, is that cheating? If you disguise it so the ref might not call it and you get away without a penalty, is that cheating? Or is that just a lucky break?
In ice hockey, this is most evident. Penalties are called only if the infraction exceeds a certain severity. Well, certain is perhaps a poorly chosen word, 'cuz it varies wildly from game to game, ref to ref, and even minute to minute. As a player, you test this threshold until you see how bad you have to be before you get called. Hence the adage: If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'
My solution to on-line game cheating? Simple -- if you get caught, you have to give back all your prize money.
--jzap
My favorite place to start looking for this info is
d raht.analysis a nalysis l ysis
:-)
http://www.cert.org/
From there, you'll find general DDoS info at
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-01.html
which will refer you to
http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/stachel
http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/trinoo.
http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/tfn.ana
The systems compromised by stacheldrat seem to be running Solaris 2.x. Entry was gained by exploiting buffer-overrun bugs in RPC services statd, cmsd, and ttdbservd. Damn Solairs crap
It occurred to me to fire up a tcpdump job in the background to record packet headers sent to the (in)appropriate ports, just in case. Gotta do a bit more reading first, though. --jzap
John LastMinute Zapisek <jzap@jzap.com>