yes, you are working in an "at will" work contract in most states, so by definition they can fie you for whatever reason they want.
Nonsense. I can think of many different reasons they can't fire you. Race, religion, sex?
I'm not just being pedantic either. I realize these are all inherent qualities that nobody gets to choose (er, well, mostly), but where is the line in our personal lives over which an employer has "gone too far" when that decision is made to terminate?
As the discriminatory cases show, there is such a line, and it's not just a matter of "whatever reason they want."
Look at how long it took for intelligent life to arise on this planet, on this solar system, in this galaxy. Who's to say that it necessarily took any less time elsewhere in the universe?
Less time elsewhere? That is meaningless statement. There is no such thing as a simultaneous event. It is not as if some "time" has passed since the events we are "presently" witnessing from a distance, as that implies that time is an absolute, and it isn't.
Time and space are desperately interwoven, and any attempt
to separate them violates causality and is a logical fallacy.
Fiduciary responsibility does not, in a practical sense, mandate immoral behavior. Dressing it up as some sort of moral obligation is the worst sort of cynicism. It's a call to inaction - "These huge powerful companies HAVE to act this way - no sense in trying to make it turn out any differently." What a bleak world that would be to live in.
Welcome to the 21st century. Bow before your master.
That's an oversimplification. Sometimes the right way is the quick fix and not the Right Way. If having something fast is more important than having something correct, the right way is the quick fix.
It's a simplification, granted, but not an oversimplificiation. You are implying context where there is none. First, if the "quick fix" is the Right Way, then you can short-circuit the rest of the logic. Second, I never stated that the "quick fix" should be absolutely verbotten. Often, you need both a short-term solution and a long-term one.
A common management oversight is to implement the short term version and "manage" (pun intended) to put the long-term one off until the end-of-time.
To extend your analogy: If it needs doing next tuesday to be worth anything, one does whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal. If you take it no further than this, what reprocussions will this have twelve months down the line when "version two" is needed, again by next tuesday? This is the more common scenario than simply getting it out by tuesday and never having to worry about it again. That is the point that incompetent management so easily forgets. Myopia is a destructive force.
My worst employers have been those who were not only technically incompetent but incapable of realizing their limitations.
The best? Those with enough technical skills, background or knowledge to realize that (a) things are not always as they appear and (b) doing things the Right Way has long-term benefits that overshadow the "quick fix." Translation: you don't have to know how to do everything or how everything works as long as you know that your knowledge is limited and someone else more technically minded probably should be listened to.
The ISC DHCP software also supports dynamic DNS. Nothing special here.
Indeed, however, the cryptography (GSS-TSIG) utilized by MS clients to authorize dynamic updates is not yet implemented in bind9.
You can do dynamic DNS between win2k and bind, you just can't do it securely.
The actual cryptography portion (RFC3645) is open, however simply being able to manipulate the correct ciphers is insufficient. Microsoft has, and I am sure this will come as a great shock, chosen to interweave, in a technically relatively undocumented fashion, the ddns update functionality with their kerberos implementation as part of "Active Directory."
While an implementation for bind has supposedly been brewing for a couple of years now, there are considerable issues with doing so. Not the least of which, I am sure, is the distaste of having to deal with the often "unusual" operating methods Microsoft employs in their various networking components.
I am assuming that this is what the original poster was referring to.;)
On to my beleif without proof: I beleive that the big bang never happened... that time and space have always been and will always be continuous. It hit me that the universe can't expand inside of nothing... if nothing existed when the universe was infinitesmally small, not even nothingness itself, how can the universe expand into that? it doesn't exist.
The issue here is that you are attempting to rationalize your belief with faulty logic and a poorly envisioned model of space-time, which I will get to in a minute. A true belief (ie "faith") needs neither logic nor rationalization.
The logic faults are due to the fact that you have constructed a model in your mind to help you visualize the big bang theory and einstein space-time. This model is faulty, however it's probably because you picked up the concept of the universe expanding like a "balloon" from mass media.
In this model, you are considering the universe to be analagous to the air that gets blown into a balloon causing it to expand over time. At the beginning (big bang), the balloon is uninflated. Later, it becomes larger as time passes and the universe expands (more air gets blown into the balloon). How can this be, if the balloon has nothing to expand in to?
This model is not about the contents of the balloon, but rather the surface, which represents space-time as curved two dimensions instead of the four we know exist. The important feature of this model is not the creation of all energy/matter at one point-source, but rather that the very fabric of space-time began to expand from one initial point. There is nothing for the balloon to expand in to because the surface of the balloon is the container itself. Essentially, under this theory, everything is now bigger than it used to be.;)
I guess the key to best visualizing and using this model is understanding that it is not a visual model, but rather a loose mathematical one. You cannot visualize space-time expansion in any meaningful way because your ability to visualize is based on limited sensory experience of three dimensions and one linear time dimension.
Now, my particular belief is about gravity. I believe that we (science) have made some sort of fundamental mistake attempting to understand gravity. I can't disprove quantum theory, and I can't disprove general relativity, but something just doesn't "feel" right about the various gravitional theories and string theory seems to be a mathematical cop-out that can never be proven or disproven.;)
2. Front-end proxying/caching. Not just static content either, take dynamic content that need not be updated often and put it on the front-end in a fashion that does not require over-weight httpds (i.e. no mod_perl). Use session affinity tricks on the front end (such as mod_rewrite with cookies).
squid for caching as necessary.
3. Back-end heavy servers should have a maximum amount of memory, and obviously lower maxclients.
4. NetApp storage on the back-end, scaled as needed.
Why do you need to even state "loop over the elements of the array"? If I can read the language, details like iteration and looping are quite obvious.
To me, there's nothing more annoying than code filled with obvious comments. Don't tell me what the code is doing, the code does that by itself. Instead, the art of commenting should be about why the code is doing what it does and how it does it.
Elevators CAN fall, if enough damage is incurred. Something on the order of a 767 fusilage slamming into a building at 500 knots might do the trick.
Fortunately, that never happens!
A byte is 8 bits, it's a standard of measure we use today (megabytes, kilobytes). A 32-bit processor uses 32 bit words, or 4 bytes to a word, etc..
Nope, sorry. A byte is a component larger than a bit and smaller than a word. A byte is often 9 bits on 36 bit systems, 6 or 7 bits on some older archs and a bit-field of 1-36 bits on a IBM 7030. You're thinking of an octet.
...but if I'm going to kill people, I don't stick to the same method each time; I choose whatever method is the simplest, safest and least likely to leave anything around for someone to catch me.
Sure, that makes reasonable sense. You forget, however, that the hardest killers to catch (those who kill strangers) aren't motivated by reason, but rather by a psychosexual urge for gratification. This means they tend to kill in whatever way best gratifies them, and that makes them profilable.
I imagine this doesn't apply to "hackers." God, at least I hope not.;)
Indeed? I could have sworn that every gun I own (except for the caplock replica) has at least one safety. Though, frankly, the only truly effective safety device possible to install is a well-trained shooter.
"... since the first man to set foot on the Moon was actually one of the very few civilians in the program..."
Neil Armstrong? Civilian? Umm, he was Navy. Called to active duty in 1949, flew 78 combat missions in Korea off the USS Essex in an F9F-2 Panther. Awarded the Air Medal and two Gold Stars.
It's interesting that you mention birds, because the way a bird flies is very different from how a man-made vehicle flies. They both have wings and a tail but I challenge you to fly an airplane under all of the following constraints:
Remove the vertical stabilizer
Use the wings to produce thrust
Zero-length takeoff run and landing rollout
The classis delta wing has no vertical stabilizer. It can't be flown manually (at least without tremendous skill, effort and concentration on the part of the pilot; however with advent of computer aided flight control, stability is no longer an issue. Vertical stabilization is performed by using a "split" aileron (one half on top, one half on the bottom) and dynamically opening/closing the aileron(s) on each wing as necessary (think of a "V" shape). This is amazingly similar to what birds do with their feathers on the rear edges of a wing.
Aircraft DO use wings to produce thrust, the only difference is that the wings aren't the actual power plants. Lift comes mostly from the downward push of air off the rear edge of the wing, exactly like a bird. Note that the commonly told myth of an aircraft's lift being produced by the Bernoulli Principle is nonsense. While the physical principle obviously exists (and is provable), the force generated by pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing is relatively minor compared to actual lift required to keep the aircraft in flight.
Large birds (geese, etc) do require a "rollout" (sans wheels) in order to gain enough airspeed for takeoff. Even larger birds such as eagles simply don't have enough thrust to take off from a flat surface and must glide from a vertical drop (cliff edge or the like).
If you want a country where companies have no right to refuse you service, I suggest you look outside the US. If Bellsouth/Verizon doesn't like what you're doing, then they should terminate your connection. It's their circuit. If they knowingly allow you to use their equipment and services in the commission of crimes, they can be held liable. If you think they've terminated your service unfairly, complain to the city, which is responsible for its utilities, or change to VoIP or get a cellphone. But the fact that companies have the right to stop providing their services to customers is hardly dystopian.
No? What happens if the company in question doesn't like the fact that you're arab? Or doesn't like your sexual orientation, or even the perception of your sexual orientation? It's just a private business choice, so they have the right to deny you service, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
yes, you are working in an "at will" work contract in most states, so by definition they can fie you for whatever reason they want.
Nonsense. I can think of many different reasons they can't fire you. Race, religion, sex?
I'm not just being pedantic either. I realize these are all inherent qualities that nobody gets to choose (er, well, mostly), but where is the line in our personal lives over which an employer has "gone too far" when that decision is made to terminate?
As the discriminatory cases show, there is such a line, and it's not just a matter of "whatever reason they want."
Look at how long it took for intelligent life to arise on this planet, on this solar system, in this galaxy. Who's to say that it necessarily took any less time elsewhere in the universe?
Less time elsewhere? That is meaningless statement. There is no such thing as a simultaneous event. It is not as if some "time" has passed since the events we are "presently" witnessing from a distance, as that implies that time is an absolute, and it isn't.
Time and space are desperately interwoven, and any attempt to separate them violates causality and is a logical fallacy.
Fiduciary responsibility does not, in a practical sense, mandate immoral behavior. Dressing it up as some sort of moral obligation is the worst sort of cynicism. It's a call to inaction - "These huge powerful companies HAVE to act this way - no sense in trying to make it turn out any differently." What a bleak world that would be to live in.
Welcome to the 21st century. Bow before your master.
As was my reply. Double sheesh.
That's an oversimplification. Sometimes the right way is the quick fix and not the Right Way. If having something fast is more important than having something correct, the right way is the quick fix.
It's a simplification, granted, but not an oversimplificiation. You are implying context where there is none. First, if the "quick fix" is the Right Way, then you can short-circuit the rest of the logic. Second, I never stated that the "quick fix" should be absolutely verbotten. Often, you need both a short-term solution and a long-term one.
A common management oversight is to implement the short term version and "manage" (pun intended) to put the long-term one off until the end-of-time.
To extend your analogy: If it needs doing next tuesday to be worth anything, one does whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal. If you take it no further than this, what reprocussions will this have twelve months down the line when "version two" is needed, again by next tuesday? This is the more common scenario than simply getting it out by tuesday and never having to worry about it again. That is the point that incompetent management so easily forgets. Myopia is a destructive force.
Amen to that.
My worst employers have been those who were not only technically incompetent but incapable of realizing their limitations.
The best? Those with enough technical skills, background or knowledge to realize that (a) things are not always as they appear and (b) doing things the Right Way has long-term benefits that overshadow the "quick fix." Translation: you don't have to know how to do everything or how everything works as long as you know that your knowledge is limited and someone else more technically minded probably should be listened to.
What's the Greek for chocolate milk?
;)
Etymology-wise? Nothing. The Cocoa tree is a New World plant.
(Obviously there is a modern greek word for chocolate)
The ISC DHCP software also supports dynamic DNS. Nothing special here.
;)
Indeed, however, the cryptography (GSS-TSIG) utilized by MS clients to authorize dynamic updates is not yet implemented in bind9. You can do dynamic DNS between win2k and bind, you just can't do it securely.
The actual cryptography portion (RFC3645) is open, however simply being able to manipulate the correct ciphers is insufficient. Microsoft has, and I am sure this will come as a great shock, chosen to interweave, in a technically relatively undocumented fashion, the ddns update functionality with their kerberos implementation as part of "Active Directory."
While an implementation for bind has supposedly been brewing for a couple of years now, there are considerable issues with doing so. Not the least of which, I am sure, is the distaste of having to deal with the often "unusual" operating methods Microsoft employs in their various networking components.
I am assuming that this is what the original poster was referring to.
On to my beleif without proof: I beleive that the big bang never happened... that time and space have always been and will always be continuous. It hit me that the universe can't expand inside of nothing... if nothing existed when the universe was infinitesmally small, not even nothingness itself, how can the universe expand into that? it doesn't exist.
;)
;)
The issue here is that you are attempting to rationalize your belief with faulty logic and a poorly envisioned model of space-time, which I will get to in a minute. A true belief (ie "faith") needs neither logic nor rationalization.
The logic faults are due to the fact that you have constructed a model in your mind to help you visualize the big bang theory and einstein space-time. This model is faulty, however it's probably because you picked up the concept of the universe expanding like a "balloon" from mass media.
In this model, you are considering the universe to be analagous to the air that gets blown into a balloon causing it to expand over time. At the beginning (big bang), the balloon is uninflated. Later, it becomes larger as time passes and the universe expands (more air gets blown into the balloon). How can this be, if the balloon has nothing to expand in to?
This model is not about the contents of the balloon, but rather the surface, which represents space-time as curved two dimensions instead of the four we know exist. The important feature of this model is not the creation of all energy/matter at one point-source, but rather that the very fabric of space-time began to expand from one initial point. There is nothing for the balloon to expand in to because the surface of the balloon is the container itself. Essentially, under this theory, everything is now bigger than it used to be.
I guess the key to best visualizing and using this model is understanding that it is not a visual model, but rather a loose mathematical one. You cannot visualize space-time expansion in any meaningful way because your ability to visualize is based on limited sensory experience of three dimensions and one linear time dimension.
Now, my particular belief is about gravity. I believe that we (science) have made some sort of fundamental mistake attempting to understand gravity. I can't disprove quantum theory, and I can't disprove general relativity, but something just doesn't "feel" right about the various gravitional theories and string theory seems to be a mathematical cop-out that can never be proven or disproven.
It becomes "survival of the fittest" in a closed biosystem with limited resources and inter/intra-species competition for said resources.
More like bastardizing the word "stealing" when you really mean copyright violation.
1. Foundry ServerIrons at the front-end layer.
2. Front-end proxying/caching. Not just static content either, take dynamic content that need not be updated often and put it on the front-end in a fashion that does not require over-weight httpds (i.e. no mod_perl). Use session affinity tricks on the front end (such as mod_rewrite with cookies). squid for caching as necessary.
3. Back-end heavy servers should have a maximum amount of memory, and obviously lower maxclients.
4. NetApp storage on the back-end, scaled as needed.
5. http://www.backhand.org/mod_log_spread/
6. Well designed network topology and aggressive switch partitioning: hint, use vlans and minimize trunking.
This is exactly why FTP uses UDP for its data transfer. So use FTP.
Right! Well, except for the fact that FTP uses TCP port 20 for data (or control port-1).
You're talking about deviations from the norm. An assertion regarding general principles of code commenting is just that .. a generality.
There are always exceptions, and I agree with you, they should be documented appropriately.
Why do you need to even state "loop over the elements of the array"? If I can read the language, details like iteration and looping are quite obvious.
To me, there's nothing more annoying than code filled with obvious comments. Don't tell me what the code is doing, the code does that by itself. Instead, the art of commenting should be about why the code is doing what it does and how it does it.
Elevators CAN fall, if enough damage is incurred. Something on the order of a 767 fusilage slamming into a building at 500 knots might do the trick.
Fortunately, that never happens!
A byte is 8 bits, it's a standard of measure we use today (megabytes, kilobytes). A 32-bit processor uses 32 bit words, or 4 bytes to a word, etc..
Nope, sorry. A byte is a component larger than a bit and smaller than a word. A byte is often 9 bits on 36 bit systems, 6 or 7 bits on some older archs and a bit-field of 1-36 bits on a IBM 7030. You're thinking of an octet.
...but if I'm going to kill people, I don't stick to the same method each time; I choose whatever method is the simplest, safest and least likely to leave anything around for someone to catch me.
;)
Sure, that makes reasonable sense. You forget, however, that the hardest killers to catch (those who kill strangers) aren't motivated by reason, but rather by a psychosexual urge for gratification. This means they tend to kill in whatever way best gratifies them, and that makes them profilable.
I imagine this doesn't apply to "hackers." God, at least I hope not.
Indeed? I could have sworn that every gun I own (except for the caplock replica) has at least one safety. Though, frankly, the only truly effective safety device possible to install is a well-trained shooter.
Oh what, you don't like glocks? bah...
"... since the first man to set foot on the Moon was actually one of the very few civilians in the program ..."
Neil Armstrong? Civilian? Umm, he was Navy. Called to active duty in 1949, flew 78 combat missions in Korea off the USS Essex in an F9F-2 Panther. Awarded the Air Medal and two Gold Stars.
Hopefully the WHO would have the cure.
Nice troll, you're sure to get a few bites on the worm.
The classis delta wing has no vertical stabilizer. It can't be flown manually (at least without tremendous skill, effort and concentration on the part of the pilot; however with advent of computer aided flight control, stability is no longer an issue. Vertical stabilization is performed by using a "split" aileron (one half on top, one half on the bottom) and dynamically opening/closing the aileron(s) on each wing as necessary (think of a "V" shape). This is amazingly similar to what birds do with their feathers on the rear edges of a wing.
Aircraft DO use wings to produce thrust, the only difference is that the wings aren't the actual power plants. Lift comes mostly from the downward push of air off the rear edge of the wing, exactly like a bird. Note that the commonly told myth of an aircraft's lift being produced by the Bernoulli Principle is nonsense. While the physical principle obviously exists (and is provable), the force generated by pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing is relatively minor compared to actual lift required to keep the aircraft in flight.
Large birds (geese, etc) do require a "rollout" (sans wheels) in order to gain enough airspeed for takeoff. Even larger birds such as eagles simply don't have enough thrust to take off from a flat surface and must glide from a vertical drop (cliff edge or the like).
Birds are more like aircraft than you think.
"Rarely do that?" Are you somehow completely unaware of southern (mostly) US business practices prior to the 60s?
Does the phrase "whites only" ring a bell?
If you want a country where companies have no right to refuse you service, I suggest you look outside the US. If Bellsouth/Verizon doesn't like what you're doing, then they should terminate your connection. It's their circuit. If they knowingly allow you to use their equipment and services in the commission of crimes, they can be held liable. If you think they've terminated your service unfairly, complain to the city, which is responsible for its utilities, or change to VoIP or get a cellphone. But the fact that companies have the right to stop providing their services to customers is hardly dystopian.
No? What happens if the company in question doesn't like the fact that you're arab? Or doesn't like your sexual orientation, or even the perception of your sexual orientation? It's just a private business choice, so they have the right to deny you service, eh?