Okay fair enough, however this would of still worked if( gold_max 2^32 ){/* DO STUFF */ } else {/* DO OTHER STUFF */ }. It really is a very simple check.
I completely disagree, unless you have a reason to support numbers less then 0 you should always go with unsigned. Also depending on the language unsigned int's are safer and have standardized behaviour imposed, for instance in C an unsigned int must behave in a very predictable manor well a signed int doesn't have the same restrictions.
well I can see the logic for IPV4 when it came out, I mean at the time 4 billion IP's was unthinkable. But as for lazy programming, I completely agree.
Why are they using a signed int for the gold amount? If the lowest gold amount is 0 then you should use an unsigned int which would double the possible value. Although in either case a simple if statement could of prevented this entire issue.
Actually I read once that teenagers are better "profiled" to perform during the mid day and hence they should really be sleeping much later at night and into the early morning, class for teenagers should be starting at noon not 9am. Well I'm not going to argue a good night sleep is important, it is very important, we need to be setting class times that revolve more around the natural clock of the body and not what works best for the adults. If science can show that 12 - 7pm works better for teenagers then I think we should move class times to work in that area. It would also be worth figuring out when the best natural class time is children, I have a problem when we base sleep patterns for the teachers rather then the students.
I don't have some Linux high horse, just given the illogical cost of Windows and the no real need for it over Linux in the company I worked for it made sense.
I don't entirely disagree, it's just that if you don't secure your communication then anyone who wants to can read it. Regardless of how the packet is encapsulated you just need to be a NIC in "monitoring" and you'll see all the data.
Well anyone can sit on a network and sniff data without being the intended destination, just by sitting in the middle they can get a copy of the data. If the letter could be read with out being opened that it's okay, I'm not suggesting the mail should get opened and read. Securing your message is like putting it not only in code but in the envelope. Not securing your data is like sending with without an envelope, anyone can see the letter just be looking at it.
Well you can open either one but if you can't read it then you need seek a warrant to get me to decode the information for you. If you cared about the sensitivity of the information you would of secured it in the place so I actually do support that concept. If you leave the information open and readable with out effort then fine, but if you take the time to encode the information then it's not open game.
If you can sniff the network and easily read what I sent then fine. If I secure my emails so they don't appear in plain text then I think you do. If you secure your communication then you should require a warrant, because otherwise anyone could read what I send and I should have no expectation of privacy with my communications.
For me it's the odd nuggets you can find in them that is worth more then hours of searching on the net. For instance in one of my circuits I was designing I had to calculate a drop on a transistor, except that the drop you calculate is always wrong for the application. If I didn't keep my one textbook about transistor design networks and didn't happen to have this one circuit in it, I would of been lost, spending hours trying to hunt down the issue, not the mention the math would of told me I was right.
I once rented an online book from some company for a statistic's course. Much like this company I had to download an e-reader which was released by the company itself to read my DRM enabled book. The problem was the e-reader app was horrible and only worked on Windows and Mac. Now I can accept the fact a Linux version wasn't available and I'm okay with that but even with in Windows large portions of the book just wouldn't render correctly, I was left with incomplete formulas and totally unreadable paragraphs. Not to mention if my date wasn't set PERFECTLY I couldn't even open the stupid reader in the first place.
If this company can pull it off and manage to release ebooks that have good readers attached, that render perfectly and are supported on Window, Mac and possible Linux then I'm totally on board with it. Other wise it really is more of a hassle then buying the book in the first place.
As much as I complained about buying books when I was in school, I usually use them for reference now. I find myself opening old Micro-controller books to get over a weird glitch or I open the calculus book to figure out a small issue. So well I did hate textbooks initially, I'm rather glad I kept most them now, 8 years later.
I would prefer to just falsely believe my freedoms are in tact. I know it's completely illogical to assume such a thing but physiologically it makes me feel better.
I agree with you for the most part, but what about students at a school? The sad fact is that most school networking / IT staff really don't understand security and the schools are to cheap to hire anyone with the proper papers to build in the security needed. Well most / some people will look for the "lock" in the corner or will make sure the address says "https" not "http", many people wont. Most have no reservation about wiping out the credit card and making a purchase.
I know in actual fact that the US and Canada aren't much better for tracking communications but at least the governments don't come right out and say it. How can you deny people the right to free speech? When you can go to jail simply by speaking your mind or taking liberty to view a document / picture then we have a problem.
The internet is an open resource and it should stay that way, just because you can find offensive content doesn't mean it should be blocked. What offends you won't always offend me and vice verse, if you don't like what you see then stop viewing it, but to have an entire country force censorship and monitoring on there people is just sad.
They probably just want to use a scare tactic, make the US think they have the firepower and wait till they back down out of fear. It's like a bully at school who threatens to beat you up every day after school but never actually does it, your scared until you figure out he's a bigger pussy then you are.
People don't realize what they send in packets. When i was in school we use to have networking class where we had to examine packets for information. During one class we left a sniffer running on the school network just capturing packets, after a few hours we had a list of credit cards from students and profs, we have login names and passwords, we had the distribution of Linux, Mac and Windows computer on the network and more. Now we threw the information away and deleted the file but what was sad was that we were able to grab so much information with little effort.
We then sat at a Starbucks down the road and did the same thing, we managed to capture several credit card numbers and other sensitive information, again we got rid of the information but it goes to show you that your not even close to as secure as you think. It takes one guy with a netbook to sniff a network and in a few hours or days he can have enough information to wreck you. I wonder why people aren't being made aware of this, we told our profs what we did and one prof, Jack, just laughed. He said, "That's awesome and well done, as long as the information is destroyed I'm not mad."
So next time you think it's okay to just type that credit card number in or your SIN (social insurance number ) in, just think who could be sitting there wanting it.
No we didn't, we assumed because most of the staff has PhD's and Master's degrees they could figure it out easily, nothing could of been more wrong. It's almost as if the higher the degree the less flexible.
Fair enough, I can only speak about the last company I worked for. I know the upgrade cost was massive, because we volume licensed everything. We tried to move everyone to Linux and had people freaking out about it.
Think about having to buy a copy of Windows for each workstation and a copy of Windows server for the servers and then getting all new devices which are compatible and etc.. etc.. etc.. Upgrading from closed, non free software to closed non free software is massively expensive in both dollar value and in human resource cost. When you crunch the numbers, upgrading hardly makes sense.
This is why a lot of public institutions are going with free software and open source. The savings alone from moving to Microsoft Office to Libre Office is substantial. If you add in the cost that can be saved moving from Windows desktop to Linux desktops and Windows server to Linux you can quickly see the appeal. The problem with this kind of move is that most computer users don't want to learn a new system and most IT staff don't understand the non windows based solution well enough to support them.
So instead of spending millions and millions on upgrade costs or moving to a new platform that will cause havoc, most companies will just stay locked into old outdated software.
You can rework software and keep the code base. For instance do you think the Linux kernel has it's source code entirely ripped out and recoded? Or do you think the GNU userland has the code base entirely ripped out and reworked? If you started with quality code then when you want to do a massive code revision you can keep most if not all of the base code. I couldn't imagine restarting my three firmware's when I want to add a feature or move from version 3.0 to 4.0. I might inject a good portion of new code but I'm always able to revert back easily. If a bug gets logged in the current version of my genre detectors code I don't just look in the last revision, I go back and see if it exist in version 1.0 and move forward, if it's in version 1.0 then I write the patch to be compatible from 1.0 up to 3.8 ( the current version ). Just because I make an upgrade doesn't mean people using my code should have to upgrade, they should be able to get support no matter what version they run.
How ever if you don't program this way that's fine, I do, so I can comment that it works. A good example for not keeping the code base is Microsoft and Blackberry, who both have done a massive entire rewrite including base code. Does this mean they should only support the newest code? They might say yes but I disagree.
Even if I wanted to do an entire rewrite of a firmware for some odd reason I still wouldn't drop support for the older versions, because frankly a bug is a bug and it shouldn't exist no matter how far back I go. Now if your running 0.12 of my detector robot's firmware then I don't care, that would be an Alpha release, it's to old and it's not a full version release, so I wont go out of my way to fix a bug.
If you really want to see all my code project I can gladly get you access to the GIT repo that hosts them, it will take some time as the GIT repo is at the school where I graduated from. In either case I just don't agree with dropping support for old software.
Slashdot Mirror
Go and Go! are very different language, which one was it programmed in?
GO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)
GO!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_(programming_language)
Fair enough! I didn't really consider the under flow case.
Okay fair enough, however this would of still worked /* DO STUFF */ } else { /* DO OTHER STUFF */ }. It really is a very simple check.
if( gold_max 2^32 ){
I completely disagree, unless you have a reason to support numbers less then 0 you should always go with unsigned. Also depending on the language unsigned int's are safer and have standardized behaviour imposed, for instance in C an unsigned int must behave in a very predictable manor well a signed int doesn't have the same restrictions.
well I can see the logic for IPV4 when it came out, I mean at the time 4 billion IP's was unthinkable. But as for lazy programming, I completely agree.
Why are they using a signed int for the gold amount? If the lowest gold amount is 0 then you should use an unsigned int which would double the possible value. Although in either case a simple if statement could of prevented this entire issue.
Actually I read once that teenagers are better "profiled" to perform during the mid day and hence they should really be sleeping much later at night and into the early morning, class for teenagers should be starting at noon not 9am. Well I'm not going to argue a good night sleep is important, it is very important, we need to be setting class times that revolve more around the natural clock of the body and not what works best for the adults. If science can show that 12 - 7pm works better for teenagers then I think we should move class times to work in that area. It would also be worth figuring out when the best natural class time is children, I have a problem when we base sleep patterns for the teachers rather then the students.
This link from the BBC talks about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7932950.stm
So I think the solution, at least for teenagers is to move the class time back so they can best perform when biologically they're ready to.
I don't have some Linux high horse, just given the illogical cost of Windows and the no real need for it over Linux in the company I worked for it made sense.
I don't have a 5th amendment right in Canada, so no worries.
I'm having no trouble understanding that, however I also don't have a forth amendment in Canada.
I don't entirely disagree, it's just that if you don't secure your communication then anyone who wants to can read it. Regardless of how the packet is encapsulated you just need to be a NIC in "monitoring" and you'll see all the data.
Well anyone can sit on a network and sniff data without being the intended destination, just by sitting in the middle they can get a copy of the data. If the letter could be read with out being opened that it's okay, I'm not suggesting the mail should get opened and read. Securing your message is like putting it not only in code but in the envelope. Not securing your data is like sending with without an envelope, anyone can see the letter just be looking at it.
Well you can open either one but if you can't read it then you need seek a warrant to get me to decode the information for you. If you cared about the sensitivity of the information you would of secured it in the place so I actually do support that concept. If you leave the information open and readable with out effort then fine, but if you take the time to encode the information then it's not open game.
If you can sniff the network and easily read what I sent then fine. If I secure my emails so they don't appear in plain text then I think you do. If you secure your communication then you should require a warrant, because otherwise anyone could read what I send and I should have no expectation of privacy with my communications.
For me it's the odd nuggets you can find in them that is worth more then hours of searching on the net. For instance in one of my circuits I was designing I had to calculate a drop on a transistor, except that the drop you calculate is always wrong for the application. If I didn't keep my one textbook about transistor design networks and didn't happen to have this one circuit in it, I would of been lost, spending hours trying to hunt down the issue, not the mention the math would of told me I was right.
I once rented an online book from some company for a statistic's course. Much like this company I had to download an e-reader which was released by the company itself to read my DRM enabled book. The problem was the e-reader app was horrible and only worked on Windows and Mac. Now I can accept the fact a Linux version wasn't available and I'm okay with that but even with in Windows large portions of the book just wouldn't render correctly, I was left with incomplete formulas and totally unreadable paragraphs. Not to mention if my date wasn't set PERFECTLY I couldn't even open the stupid reader in the first place.
If this company can pull it off and manage to release ebooks that have good readers attached, that render perfectly and are supported on Window, Mac and possible Linux then I'm totally on board with it. Other wise it really is more of a hassle then buying the book in the first place.
As much as I complained about buying books when I was in school, I usually use them for reference now. I find myself opening old Micro-controller books to get over a weird glitch or I open the calculus book to figure out a small issue. So well I did hate textbooks initially, I'm rather glad I kept most them now, 8 years later.
I would prefer to just falsely believe my freedoms are in tact. I know it's completely illogical to assume such a thing but physiologically it makes me feel better.
I agree with you for the most part, but what about students at a school? The sad fact is that most school networking / IT staff really don't understand security and the schools are to cheap to hire anyone with the proper papers to build in the security needed. Well most / some people will look for the "lock" in the corner or will make sure the address says "https" not "http", many people wont. Most have no reservation about wiping out the credit card and making a purchase.
I know in actual fact that the US and Canada aren't much better for tracking communications but at least the governments don't come right out and say it. How can you deny people the right to free speech? When you can go to jail simply by speaking your mind or taking liberty to view a document / picture then we have a problem.
The internet is an open resource and it should stay that way, just because you can find offensive content doesn't mean it should be blocked. What offends you won't always offend me and vice verse, if you don't like what you see then stop viewing it, but to have an entire country force censorship and monitoring on there people is just sad.
They probably just want to use a scare tactic, make the US think they have the firepower and wait till they back down out of fear. It's like a bully at school who threatens to beat you up every day after school but never actually does it, your scared until you figure out he's a bigger pussy then you are.
People don't realize what they send in packets. When i was in school we use to have networking class where we had to examine packets for information. During one class we left a sniffer running on the school network just capturing packets, after a few hours we had a list of credit cards from students and profs, we have login names and passwords, we had the distribution of Linux, Mac and Windows computer on the network and more. Now we threw the information away and deleted the file but what was sad was that we were able to grab so much information with little effort.
We then sat at a Starbucks down the road and did the same thing, we managed to capture several credit card numbers and other sensitive information, again we got rid of the information but it goes to show you that your not even close to as secure as you think. It takes one guy with a netbook to sniff a network and in a few hours or days he can have enough information to wreck you. I wonder why people aren't being made aware of this, we told our profs what we did and one prof, Jack, just laughed. He said, "That's awesome and well done, as long as the information is destroyed I'm not mad."
So next time you think it's okay to just type that credit card number in or your SIN (social insurance number ) in, just think who could be sitting there wanting it.
No we didn't, we assumed because most of the staff has PhD's and Master's degrees they could figure it out easily, nothing could of been more wrong. It's almost as if the higher the degree the less flexible.
Fair enough, I can only speak about the last company I worked for. I know the upgrade cost was massive, because we volume licensed everything. We tried to move everyone to Linux and had people freaking out about it.
Think about having to buy a copy of Windows for each workstation and a copy of Windows server for the servers and then getting all new devices which are compatible and etc.. etc.. etc.. Upgrading from closed, non free software to closed non free software is massively expensive in both dollar value and in human resource cost. When you crunch the numbers, upgrading hardly makes sense.
This is why a lot of public institutions are going with free software and open source. The savings alone from moving to Microsoft Office to Libre Office is substantial. If you add in the cost that can be saved moving from Windows desktop to Linux desktops and Windows server to Linux you can quickly see the appeal. The problem with this kind of move is that most computer users don't want to learn a new system and most IT staff don't understand the non windows based solution well enough to support them.
So instead of spending millions and millions on upgrade costs or moving to a new platform that will cause havoc, most companies will just stay locked into old outdated software.
You can rework software and keep the code base. For instance do you think the Linux kernel has it's source code entirely ripped out and recoded? Or do you think the GNU userland has the code base entirely ripped out and reworked? If you started with quality code then when you want to do a massive code revision you can keep most if not all of the base code. I couldn't imagine restarting my three firmware's when I want to add a feature or move from version 3.0 to 4.0. I might inject a good portion of new code but I'm always able to revert back easily. If a bug gets logged in the current version of my genre detectors code I don't just look in the last revision, I go back and see if it exist in version 1.0 and move forward, if it's in version 1.0 then I write the patch to be compatible from 1.0 up to 3.8 ( the current version ). Just because I make an upgrade doesn't mean people using my code should have to upgrade, they should be able to get support no matter what version they run.
How ever if you don't program this way that's fine, I do, so I can comment that it works. A good example for not keeping the code base is Microsoft and Blackberry, who both have done a massive entire rewrite including base code. Does this mean they should only support the newest code? They might say yes but I disagree.
Even if I wanted to do an entire rewrite of a firmware for some odd reason I still wouldn't drop support for the older versions, because frankly a bug is a bug and it shouldn't exist no matter how far back I go. Now if your running 0.12 of my detector robot's firmware then I don't care, that would be an Alpha release, it's to old and it's not a full version release, so I wont go out of my way to fix a bug.
If you really want to see all my code project I can gladly get you access to the GIT repo that hosts them, it will take some time as the GIT repo is at the school where I graduated from. In either case I just don't agree with dropping support for old software.