I wonder how feasible it would be to send a space ship into orbit around the Sun such that it is directly in the path of light directed at earth. At that range a relatively small screen of reflective foil could block a considerable area on earth and could be used to regulate temperature by deflecting or concentrating light in different places. The ship would be powered by using the screen as a sail to catch solar radiation and position itself appropriately. It could also be used to cool oceans in the path of Hurricanes thereby decreasing their power.
I think he ought to be imprisoned for life, but in a neutral country, so that he cannot be a figurehead for any Iraqi dissidents. Furthermore, I think that Historical Truth is more important than Justice, so all the trials on all the charges must be completed.
I agree. He deserves to die, but I would be very satisfied with this solution. My post was addressing the OP's sympathy for Hussein. Although, despite the Kangaroo court, I'm not certain that is entriely up to us (non-Iraqis). I think Iraqi's would prefer that he be put to death because it will bring closure to a horrible era. In the long term I think it sets a bad example.
The man has already been stripped of his wealth and power, and imprisoned. Will killing him bring back the 148 dead Shiites?
This isn't about 148 dead Shiites. As if that isn't enough. That's just all they needed to convict him. This guy's government ruled his people with brutal disregard for human rights. People were raped and tortured before they systematically dissapeared. And you feel "really, really sorry" for him? I know as well as anyone that we don't get the truth but this guy deserves to die 148 times over. I cannot believe this didn't get modded down.
Apple never made CPUs, hard drives, or video cards. They are in the plastic injection molding business. They make fancy looking aluminum boxes with plastic trim, hip logos and pulsing lights. They take the best hardware they can find from other vendors and put it in pretty encosures. And it's worked very well.
Obviously the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon were at one time related but the Neanderthal died out and Cro-Magnon become homosapiens (oog oog uugh!). At one point there must have been a split. The question is, was the split driven due to geography or social reasons (e.g. one group left/kicked out the other for being bastards).
Note that this guy is very smart and very cockey. This isn't Scott Peterson making anchor weights in his garage. The standard interview isn't going to do the trick with this guy. If he did do it I bet he thought of a special way to get rid of the body. And now we have OJ going to LUG meetings. Same deal even if he didn't do it.
If this requires inserting a kernel module, a kernel module has as much privledge as the kernel itself so why would anyone bother with "exploiting" some kind of flaw. This seems like opening a door with a key and then kicking it down from the inside.
What does Kerberos get you over and above LDAP+SASL?
SASL just allows you to negotiate an authentication mechanism and confidentiality / integrity options. LDAP uses SASL to negotiate either Kerberos, digest, NTLM, plain, etc. There are many possible mechanims. So SASL by itself gives you nothing. If you're negtiating Kerberos then you're ok. But if you have Kerberos then there's no point in using LDAP+Kerberos as an authentication service since you can use Kerberos directly (e.g. mod_kerb_auth module for Apache uses GSSAPI w/ Kerberos for web clients).
This tutorial should have some major security warnings plastered all over and I see nothing to that effect so here's a suppliment.
First, LDAP is NOT an authentication service. I cringe a little whenever someone mentions using "LDAP authentication" for anything other than LDAP clients. Some of these tools use LDAP as a make-shift "pass-through" style authentication service. This is like passing credentials to an SSH server to authenticate web clients (only SSH would be more secure since it enforces confidentiality and integrity).
Second, if you are going to use LDAP like this, make sure the bind is being conducted over SSL. Using SASL would be even better but that's a little harder for a long lived service account and somewhat pointless if you already have Kerberos setup. With a plain bind you're sending passwords in clear text. Do not ever do that or someone will eventually come to your cube asking funny questions.
Finally, using LDAP as an authentication service does not provide Single Sign-On (SSO). You basically have to store some kind of token in the user's HTTP session which means someone could get your session ID and impersonate you (e.g. inadvertantly send a link with a session ID in it).
In general I don't recommend using LDAP as a make-shift authentication service as it is very easy for it to be insecure. Use Kerberos through and through people. It's the correct way to do things, it scales well and it's portable across both UNIX and Microsoft.
Much of the information is stored in binary and enclosed in xml tags. This information is not straightforward to be written
This is totally false. There are no mystery blobs. Images, EPS, tables, footnotes, scripts, everything that can be expored reasonably is represented as one would expect. Try exporting a complex document from MS Word to XML format first before posting false statements and misleading people.
Why use a non-standard format when there is already a ISO-standarized one
First, what good is an ISO standard that no one uses yet? Second it would be an academic exercise to standardize the Word XML format. My original point was that Word is already installed on millions of desktops so user's can choose which office software they want to use. That was the whole point of my post.
So that should be a load of money (for MS) which makes no-sense
I'm not suggesting anyone use MS Word. I'm just suggesting that we should use the MS Word XML schema.
Software can't legislate good taste, and a lack of good taste is the problem.
Good design is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of correctly modelling the concept of the task the program performs. Don't model the physical world. Don't model procedures. Model programming interfaces after *concepts*. If you get that right the code will be reusable for tasks yet to be conceived. That is what makes a design good.
Note that software can't model concepts. That's a paradox. If it could you would have AI (in which case you wouldn't muck around with having it write widget libraries).
Microsoft Word's XML schema is very straight forward so to save users a lot of grief, why not just use that format? Non-Microsoft office software should not have any problem reading and writing it. You might want to change the namespace for trademark purity and if you have some obscure embedded OLE control, it will of course be ignored (but not stripped). Has this solution been proposed?
Is anyone really going to use this for anything but making "Lost Dog" signs? In a corporate environment or even if you're just a small business there's simply no replacement for Microsoft Word. Can your word processor do the following things:
Does it have a concept of "styles" where you can select a style or select content and apply a style to it? Can you insert footnotes that are automatically numbered properly? If you delete one, are they re-numbered properly? Can you have header and footer text? Can you designate text as a TOC item and rebuilt the TOC at will? Can you enter alternate text for a TOC element that should appear only in the TOC and not have to change the text it's linked to? Can you apply a table style easily without tweeking individual attributes of the table? Can you copy and paste a table from a spreadsheet into the document? Can you script the document such that information is retrieved from a database?
In fact, to get me to stop using Word I think the replacement would have to provide more than the above Word features (e.g. apply an XSLT template). Note, Word 2003+ reads and writes XML pretty well now (and it's not just base64 encoded chunks of binary ole specific stuff). I wish, oh I wish, there was a replacement for Microsoft Word. But it just ain't so.
During the Cold War it was proposed that a live chicken placed inside of nuclear bomb would be sufficient to keep things from freezing up. In the case of a computer I would suspect the ambient heat of the electronics would be adequate to keep things at a reasonable tempurature provided the compartment and insulation was good enough.
Well, as predicted, with the public IPO of Google many claimed board meetings and shareholder interests would open doors for the suit gangs to take over business operations. So it's official. Google's now Evil. The next step will be for the suits to take over technical direction. Then you can expect a long and painful decline in stock price (e.g. Sun Microsystems).
I use strcpy. If you know for a fact that the string is terminated then it's overkill to use anything else. For example the below is perfectly legit:
char buf[6];
strcpy(buf, "hello");
In fact, to truly protect yourself from invalid input you frequently need to write a state machine style input parser. It's the parser that ensures all strings are properly terminated which would mean all downstream copies could be performed safely with strcpy.
It's far more important to understand *why* strcpy should not be used. Then you'll know when you *can* use it.
I think that there is a contingent of web programmers that are bored and upset that PHP is still the premier method for scripting websites. They want something new and fresh to work with. I can appreciate that. When you use the same language for a long time, it starts to look "old". This is exacerbated when they inherit sloppy code and are forced to decipher and fix some other dummy's spaghetti. So they declare the language "dead" in hope of creating enough spin and FUD that something new will take over. Something new that will create work and give them more job opportunities. The same something new that they invested a lot of time into learning.
To the PHP bashers - you might succeed in selling something new but after the next guy inherits your spaghetti code they will start bashing *you*.
Don't be fooled people. Every language has it's corners. I spend 90% of my time doing C but I just spent a month doing a standard LAMP site and I just don't see what these guys are hee'n and haw'n about. PHP is just as useful today as it was on 1998 so I'm willing to bet it will be around for a long time still. Don't be influenced by some bored guy saying "it sucks" and "I hate it". That's just not intelligent criticism. Try different things and make up your own mind.
PHP has a huge install base and has served us very well for many years. Let's not forget that. The PHP bashers pushing Python and Ruby should be ashamed of themselves. Post some useful information about how Python or Ruby solves a problem you think PHP has. And no cryptic one liners thank you. Get a spine and post some useful comments.
Is it just Firefox on Linux or does that code formatting look bad for anyone else? The code is double spaced. What happened to simple pre style? I would think with all the programmers on./ that more people would care about how code formatting looks.
Also, regarding sprintf, if your query has 5 parameters using sprintf is a lot easier and it's probably more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Duh, good point.
I wonder how feasible it would be to send a space ship into orbit around the Sun such that it is directly in the path of light directed at earth. At that range a relatively small screen of reflective foil could block a considerable area on earth and could be used to regulate temperature by deflecting or concentrating light in different places. The ship would be powered by using the screen as a sail to catch solar radiation and position itself appropriately. It could also be used to cool oceans in the path of Hurricanes thereby decreasing their power.
Let's hope just that it doesn't get Yahoo into a jam - otherwise that VP could be toast.
Actually with jam I think that would make him a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Now we can include Java in the Linux kernel! :->
I think he ought to be imprisoned for life, but in a neutral country, so that he cannot be a figurehead for any Iraqi dissidents. Furthermore, I think that Historical Truth is more important than Justice, so all the trials on all the charges must be completed.
I agree. He deserves to die, but I would be very satisfied with this solution. My post was addressing the OP's sympathy for Hussein. Although, despite the Kangaroo court, I'm not certain that is entriely up to us (non-Iraqis). I think Iraqi's would prefer that he be put to death because it will bring closure to a horrible era. In the long term I think it sets a bad example.
Who knows, no doubt he will appeal.
The man has already been stripped of his wealth and power, and imprisoned. Will killing him bring back the 148 dead Shiites?
This isn't about 148 dead Shiites. As if that isn't enough. That's just all they needed to convict him. This guy's government ruled his people with brutal disregard for human rights. People were raped and tortured before they systematically dissapeared. And you feel "really, really sorry" for him? I know as well as anyone that we don't get the truth but this guy deserves to die 148 times over. I cannot believe this didn't get modded down.
The sooner we let it go, the sooner we get a bigger better space telescope. Hubble's low hanging fruit has been harvested. Time to upgrade.
Apple never made CPUs, hard drives, or video cards. They are in the plastic injection molding business. They make fancy looking aluminum boxes with plastic trim, hip logos and pulsing lights. They take the best hardware they can find from other vendors and put it in pretty encosures. And it's worked very well.
Obviously the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon were at one time related but the Neanderthal died out and Cro-Magnon become homosapiens (oog oog uugh!). At one point there must have been a split. The question is, was the split driven due to geography or social reasons (e.g. one group left/kicked out the other for being bastards).
Note that this guy is very smart and very cockey. This isn't Scott Peterson making anchor weights in his garage. The standard interview isn't going to do the trick with this guy. If he did do it I bet he thought of a special way to get rid of the body. And now we have OJ going to LUG meetings. Same deal even if he didn't do it.
If this requires inserting a kernel module, a kernel module has as much privledge as the kernel itself so why would anyone bother with "exploiting" some kind of flaw. This seems like opening a door with a key and then kicking it down from the inside.
What does Kerberos get you over and above LDAP+SASL?
SASL just allows you to negotiate an authentication mechanism and confidentiality / integrity options. LDAP uses SASL to negotiate either Kerberos, digest, NTLM, plain, etc. There are many possible mechanims. So SASL by itself gives you nothing. If you're negtiating Kerberos then you're ok. But if you have Kerberos then there's no point in using LDAP+Kerberos as an authentication service since you can use Kerberos directly (e.g. mod_kerb_auth module for Apache uses GSSAPI w/ Kerberos for web clients).
From now on, we'll get nothin' but ads for Tums, Beano, and Kleenex.
This tutorial should have some major security warnings plastered all over and I see nothing to that effect so here's a suppliment.
First, LDAP is NOT an authentication service. I cringe a little whenever someone mentions using "LDAP authentication" for anything other than LDAP clients. Some of these tools use LDAP as a make-shift "pass-through" style authentication service. This is like passing credentials to an SSH server to authenticate web clients (only SSH would be more secure since it enforces confidentiality and integrity).
Second, if you are going to use LDAP like this, make sure the bind is being conducted over SSL. Using SASL would be even better but that's a little harder for a long lived service account and somewhat pointless if you already have Kerberos setup. With a plain bind you're sending passwords in clear text. Do not ever do that or someone will eventually come to your cube asking funny questions.
Finally, using LDAP as an authentication service does not provide Single Sign-On (SSO). You basically have to store some kind of token in the user's HTTP session which means someone could get your session ID and impersonate you (e.g. inadvertantly send a link with a session ID in it).
In general I don't recommend using LDAP as a make-shift authentication service as it is very easy for it to be insecure. Use Kerberos through and through people. It's the correct way to do things, it scales well and it's portable across both UNIX and Microsoft.
that same claim can't be made again by another company -- unless they take it up with the company that won the first claim
That's patently false.
Much of the information is stored in binary and enclosed in xml tags. This information is not straightforward to be written
This is totally false. There are no mystery blobs. Images, EPS, tables, footnotes, scripts, everything that can be expored reasonably is represented as one would expect. Try exporting a complex document from MS Word to XML format first before posting false statements and misleading people.
Why use a non-standard format when there is already a ISO-standarized one
First, what good is an ISO standard that no one uses yet? Second it would be an academic exercise to standardize the Word XML format. My original point was that Word is already installed on millions of desktops so user's can choose which office software they want to use. That was the whole point of my post.
So that should be a load of money (for MS) which makes no-sense
I'm not suggesting anyone use MS Word. I'm just suggesting that we should use the MS Word XML schema.
Software can't legislate good taste, and a lack of good taste is the problem.
Good design is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of correctly modelling the concept of the task the program performs. Don't model the physical world. Don't model procedures. Model programming interfaces after *concepts*. If you get that right the code will be reusable for tasks yet to be conceived. That is what makes a design good.
Note that software can't model concepts. That's a paradox. If it could you would have AI (in which case you wouldn't muck around with having it write widget libraries).
Microsoft Word's XML schema is very straight forward so to save users a lot of grief, why not just use that format? Non-Microsoft office software should not have any problem reading and writing it. You might want to change the namespace for trademark purity and if you have some obscure embedded OLE control, it will of course be ignored (but not stripped). Has this solution been proposed?
Is anyone really going to use this for anything but making "Lost Dog" signs? In a corporate environment or even if you're just a small business there's simply no replacement for Microsoft Word. Can your word processor do the following things:
Does it have a concept of "styles" where you can select a style or select content and apply a style to it?
Can you insert footnotes that are automatically numbered properly? If you delete one, are they re-numbered properly?
Can you have header and footer text?
Can you designate text as a TOC item and rebuilt the TOC at will? Can you enter alternate text for a TOC element that should appear only in the TOC and not have to change the text it's linked to?
Can you apply a table style easily without tweeking individual attributes of the table?
Can you copy and paste a table from a spreadsheet into the document?
Can you script the document such that information is retrieved from a database?
In fact, to get me to stop using Word I think the replacement would have to provide more than the above Word features (e.g. apply an XSLT template). Note, Word 2003+ reads and writes XML pretty well now (and it's not just base64 encoded chunks of binary ole specific stuff). I wish, oh I wish, there was a replacement for Microsoft Word. But it just ain't so.
During the Cold War it was proposed that a live chicken placed inside of nuclear bomb would be sufficient to keep things from freezing up. In the case of a computer I would suspect the ambient heat of the electronics would be adequate to keep things at a reasonable tempurature provided the compartment and insulation was good enough.
Well, as predicted, with the public IPO of Google many claimed board meetings and shareholder interests would open doors for the suit gangs to take over business operations. So it's official. Google's now Evil. The next step will be for the suits to take over technical direction. Then you can expect a long and painful decline in stock price (e.g. Sun Microsystems).
I think he is being sarcastic guys. Strlen(input) is an overrun in itself.
I use strcpy. If you know for a fact that the string is terminated then it's overkill to use anything else. For example the below is perfectly legit:
char buf[6];
strcpy(buf, "hello");
In fact, to truly protect yourself from invalid input you frequently need to write a state machine style input parser. It's the parser that ensures all strings are properly terminated which would mean all downstream copies could be performed safely with strcpy.
It's far more important to understand *why* strcpy should not be used. Then you'll know when you *can* use it.
I think that there is a contingent of web programmers that are bored and upset that PHP is still the premier method for scripting websites. They want something new and fresh to work with. I can appreciate that. When you use the same language for a long time, it starts to look "old". This is exacerbated when they inherit sloppy code and are forced to decipher and fix some other dummy's spaghetti. So they declare the language "dead" in hope of creating enough spin and FUD that something new will take over. Something new that will create work and give them more job opportunities. The same something new that they invested a lot of time into learning.
To the PHP bashers - you might succeed in selling something new but after the next guy inherits your spaghetti code they will start bashing *you*.
Don't be fooled people. Every language has it's corners. I spend 90% of my time doing C but I just spent a month doing a standard LAMP site and I just don't see what these guys are hee'n and haw'n about. PHP is just as useful today as it was on 1998 so I'm willing to bet it will be around for a long time still. Don't be influenced by some bored guy saying "it sucks" and "I hate it". That's just not intelligent criticism. Try different things and make up your own mind.
PHP has a huge install base and has served us very well for many years. Let's not forget that. The PHP bashers pushing Python and Ruby should be ashamed of themselves. Post some useful information about how Python or Ruby solves a problem you think PHP has. And no cryptic one liners thank you. Get a spine and post some useful comments.
Is it just Firefox on Linux or does that code formatting look bad for anyone else? The code is double spaced. What happened to simple pre style? I would think with all the programmers on ./ that more people would care about how code formatting looks.
Also, regarding sprintf, if your query has 5 parameters using sprintf is a lot easier and it's probably more efficient.