To be honest, if your loop structure is that deep then you'd be better off refactoring the code into a function that performs the inner loop or loops. This is quite likely to make the code easier to read anyway. I've never written code with a triple-nested loop and found myself needing to break out of the inner loop, straight into to the outer loop. Perhaps I haven't lived:)
I guess it's a personal thing. I personally don't like goto, because it can go anywhere. Other people like it for exactly the same reason. So it goes.
Personally I think its a length thing. If the loops are very short, if all the nesting is simultaneously visible on screen, no scrolling necessary, then it might be OK. It all depends on the complexity of the code too, the logic would also need to be something readily understandable, the partial bailout something natural, not just some optimization trick.
Have I done so, in C/C++ not sure, in assembly probably.:-)
Tough one. I have to be honest, I've never used a goto in my code since I stopped writing BASIC, but I've sometimes missed this ability. Still, a language-level keyword like "breakall;" would be better than goto. Except insofar as it doesn't exist, and "goto" does...
The problem is break one and break all are not the only cases. Perhaps you only want to break some but not all levels of nesting.
I don't get it either but it's not "stupid" per say since it will get you (if you use the standard 2048-bits size) a password with a length of 372 that is infeasible to crack.
Except when a site truncates the password to 8 characters.
As I said, a niche. I've been there too. Doing the firmware to initialize standard components (various cpu tables, ram refresh, timers, i/o, etc) on powerup and offering a hook for proprietary software to take over. Yeah, they don't care about the hardware initialization, however if involved in the proprietary app specific stuff they start to care beyond something exceptionally generic like remote logging.
More importantly you seem to be referring to what I already described. Bringing your own software to the job and being allowed bug fixes and minor enhancements. Once we get into app and business specific stuff the rules usually change.
Not for me. All new code, paid for by my customer, is owned by me. The customer gets a license to use it for their business, and I get to use the same code for the next customer. In return for this, they get free access to code I've made for previous customers.
Only a few client's would find those terms acceptable, many would move on to the next consultant.
If you found a niche or a few customers who do accept that then congratulations. You won a lottery of sorts.
that company owns the software they paid you to write unless there is contractual language saying otherwise.
It's fairly common for a contractor to have exactly such a contract, otherwise you're making things really hard for yourself when you get hired for a different job, and you need the same piece of code to solve a problem.
When a contractor gets such terms they take a massive cut in pay. Getting rights to the software involves some tradeoff.
I think people are confused. What typically goes into contracts is that contractors get to keep software they *brought* to the job, not new code written for the customer. For example I own software under a proprietary license. I will use that software in client's project. The client gets a license to use that software. I get to keep bug fixes and minor enhancements. Major enhancements for this particular job/client, now we are getting into that gray area and a price cut might be needed to retain ownership.
I don't code that much these days, but the question is familiar. Why do you still code? Yet no one asks an architect, surgeon or lawyer that question.
Only some people go into software development because they have an inherent interest. Others go into it as a career path.
The former are usually the better developers. The former usually don't ask that question because they already know the answer, the work interests you. Admittedly some of the former have also moved on to management out of necessity.
The owner was not deprived of the trade secrets. The owner still has all the information. It's just not secret anymore.
Its not that simple. The legal and property protections offered by a trade secret, a legally recognized type of intellectual property, is lost. The owner deprived of its benefits.
Let's say I buy a Ford F series truck. It's "America's best selling car". Now lets say a Toyota model gains the title. Was an "America's best selling car" stolen from me?
That is a title not a trade secret. Again a trade secret is a legally defined type of intellectual property that offers the owner specific legal rights and privileges. For example something in the process that Ford uses to manufacture those trucks. A Ford employee could not take that process to Toyota.
Stealing? So he REMOVED it from them with intent to deny them the use of it? Surely you mean copying? "Unlawful use of secret scientific material." wow, America is full of comedy laws.
It may actually be stealing in the sense of depriving someone too. The code supposedly included trade secrets. Trade secrets are no longer valid once disclosed. The disclosure does not have to be intentional, my understanding is that accidental, negligent, etc disclosure counts too. So if the trade secrets were lost through the source code being copied then the owner was deprived of their trade secrets and theft would have occurred.
"secret scientific material" is probably a pseudonym for trade secrets. Sorry, but if so then the charge is quite reasonable. Trade secrets are intellectual property just like copyrights.
You're right about restricted access, but you're misinterpreting the sentence. He's talking about a backdoor created *for* the good guys. As in, they wanted to have it, so it was put in. Not as in it's ours so only we can use it.
My point is about an intentionally manufactured backdoor, specifically how can it be engineered so that it is restricted to only the good guys?
That's kinda just restating what he was saying . ..
Perhaps I should have included Lieu's next sentence: "That's just stupid. Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have,"
"Creating a technological backdoor just for good guys is technologically stupid," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer science graduate.
How is "a technological backdoor" restricted to just the good guys? I don't think we need to go to the Orwellian level to demonstrate how misguided such a notion is. The fact that bad guys will likely gain access as well should be sufficient.
I don't know where you picked you stats, but recently Tesla just announced otherwise.
Actually I watched the recent excitement regarding Tesla on CNBC earlier this month, but googling shows:
"April 5 (UPI) -- Tesla Motors announced it broke a company record for the first quarter of 2015...
The record was broken through a 55 percent sales increase for the same period from the previous year." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Wo...
Tesla recently sold a record number of cars, exceeding expectations.
It doesn't matter if demand in China is lower than expected when demand in the US and Europe is unfulfilled. Units that might have been originally planned for China get redesignated for US or Europe during production.
corporatism (which is the politically correct modern name for fascism)
The idea that fascism is synonymous with corporatism is wrong. Its a false meme often repeated by some on the left for political purposes, a technique of manipulating the ignorant. Much like some on the right toss around the word "communistic".
In reality fascism is a form of syndicalism, where workers are formed into syndicates to counter the power of owners. Fascism is actually quite socialistic in this respect. Fascism does not fit neatly into the political spectrum, it is a weird combination of ideas from the left and right.
More importantly under fascism both the corporation (owners) and the workers are subservient to the state. The state created a somewhat level playing field for the two to negotiate on but they damn well better put aside any labor squabble if its going to interfere with state requirements.
The iPod Nano has had an FM radio for a while. So the performance with respect to battery, signal reception, etc should be known. I don't have one myself so I can't comment.
"Lost" can mean (1) you don't know where something is OR (2) you no longer possess something. In the second case you may no longer possess something but still know where it is. For example you lost something to a friend in a bet.
This second case is also somewhat of a nautical term. The Captain of a ship and its Chief Engineering can be standing on the bridge of the ship and the Chief Engineer may report the ship to be "lost", meaning uncontrollable sinking.
Also when a ship is sunk you only have the position of where it slipped below the surface, you don't necessarily know how it traveled on the way to the bottom. More importantly prior to GPS ship position weren't necessarily that accurate. Wrecks are often considered lost until someone has eyes (real or synthetic, ex side scan sonar) on them. Which is what seems to be happening here.
Scuttled naval vessels sometimes become artificial reefs that greatly support the food chain for local fisheries. This can have a positive economic effect. A long term one at that.
As for live fire testing. Laboratory testing and mockups are one thing, but how a missile performs against an actual ship is something else. What is the cost of an anti-ship weapon system that turns out to be ineffective against modern ships? Sadly real ships are a necessity for such testing.
Compaq had to reverse engineer the PC BIOS using engineers who had never looked at the BIOS. These engineers wrote a spec that a separate set of engineers then had to implement.
That's not how it worked. The first team absolutely looked at the BIOS to create that spec. Its the second team that implemented the spec that had never seen the BIOS.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you have an in-house legal department.
It is if they are already busy with more important issues and cases. Its only not a burden if they currently have some free time.
To be honest, if your loop structure is that deep then you'd be better off refactoring the code into a function that performs the inner loop or loops. This is quite likely to make the code easier to read anyway. I've never written code with a triple-nested loop and found myself needing to break out of the inner loop, straight into to the outer loop. Perhaps I haven't lived :)
I guess it's a personal thing. I personally don't like goto, because it can go anywhere. Other people like it for exactly the same reason. So it goes.
Personally I think its a length thing. If the loops are very short, if all the nesting is simultaneously visible on screen, no scrolling necessary, then it might be OK. It all depends on the complexity of the code too, the logic would also need to be something readily understandable, the partial bailout something natural, not just some optimization trick.
:-)
Have I done so, in C/C++ not sure, in assembly probably.
* Cleanly breaking out of multiple nested loops
Tough one. I have to be honest, I've never used a goto in my code since I stopped writing BASIC, but I've sometimes missed this ability. Still, a language-level keyword like "breakall;" would be better than goto. Except insofar as it doesn't exist, and "goto" does...
The problem is break one and break all are not the only cases. Perhaps you only want to break some but not all levels of nesting.
When has a GOTO ever been correct?
In assembly language. :-)
Why would an automated system need to attempt more than one login with the "password" from the manager? Its not like it has to worry about typos.
I don't get it either but it's not "stupid" per say since it will get you (if you use the standard 2048-bits size) a password with a length of 372 that is infeasible to crack.
Except when a site truncates the password to 8 characters.
My passwords are on a post-it note stuck to my monitor. Let's see them crack THAT!
Reflection off your glasses picked up by your monitor's camera. :-)
As I said, a niche. I've been there too. Doing the firmware to initialize standard components (various cpu tables, ram refresh, timers, i/o, etc) on powerup and offering a hook for proprietary software to take over. Yeah, they don't care about the hardware initialization, however if involved in the proprietary app specific stuff they start to care beyond something exceptionally generic like remote logging.
More importantly you seem to be referring to what I already described. Bringing your own software to the job and being allowed bug fixes and minor enhancements. Once we get into app and business specific stuff the rules usually change.
Not for me. All new code, paid for by my customer, is owned by me. The customer gets a license to use it for their business, and I get to use the same code for the next customer. In return for this, they get free access to code I've made for previous customers.
Only a few client's would find those terms acceptable, many would move on to the next consultant.
If you found a niche or a few customers who do accept that then congratulations. You won a lottery of sorts.
that company owns the software they paid you to write unless there is contractual language saying otherwise.
It's fairly common for a contractor to have exactly such a contract, otherwise you're making things really hard for yourself when you get hired for a different job, and you need the same piece of code to solve a problem.
When a contractor gets such terms they take a massive cut in pay. Getting rights to the software involves some tradeoff.
I think people are confused. What typically goes into contracts is that contractors get to keep software they *brought* to the job, not new code written for the customer. For example I own software under a proprietary license. I will use that software in client's project. The client gets a license to use that software. I get to keep bug fixes and minor enhancements. Major enhancements for this particular job/client, now we are getting into that gray area and a price cut might be needed to retain ownership.
I don't code that much these days, but the question is familiar. Why do you still code? Yet no one asks an architect, surgeon or lawyer that question.
Only some people go into software development because they have an inherent interest. Others go into it as a career path.
The former are usually the better developers. The former usually don't ask that question because they already know the answer, the work interests you. Admittedly some of the former have also moved on to management out of necessity.
The owner was not deprived of the trade secrets. The owner still has all the information. It's just not secret anymore.
Its not that simple. The legal and property protections offered by a trade secret, a legally recognized type of intellectual property, is lost. The owner deprived of its benefits.
Let's say I buy a Ford F series truck. It's "America's best selling car". Now lets say a Toyota model gains the title. Was an "America's best selling car" stolen from me?
That is a title not a trade secret. Again a trade secret is a legally defined type of intellectual property that offers the owner specific legal rights and privileges. For example something in the process that Ford uses to manufacture those trucks. A Ford employee could not take that process to Toyota.
Stealing? So he REMOVED it from them with intent to deny them the use of it? Surely you mean copying? "Unlawful use of secret scientific material." wow, America is full of comedy laws.
It may actually be stealing in the sense of depriving someone too. The code supposedly included trade secrets. Trade secrets are no longer valid once disclosed. The disclosure does not have to be intentional, my understanding is that accidental, negligent, etc disclosure counts too. So if the trade secrets were lost through the source code being copied then the owner was deprived of their trade secrets and theft would have occurred.
"secret scientific material" is probably a pseudonym for trade secrets. Sorry, but if so then the charge is quite reasonable. Trade secrets are intellectual property just like copyrights.
You're right about restricted access, but you're misinterpreting the sentence. He's talking about a backdoor created *for* the good guys. As in, they wanted to have it, so it was put in. Not as in it's ours so only we can use it.
My point is about an intentionally manufactured backdoor, specifically how can it be engineered so that it is restricted to only the good guys?
That's kinda just restating what he was saying . . .
Perhaps I should have included Lieu's next sentence: "That's just stupid. Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have,"
"Creating a technological backdoor just for good guys is technologically stupid," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer science graduate.
How is "a technological backdoor" restricted to just the good guys? I don't think we need to go to the Orwellian level to demonstrate how misguided such a notion is. The fact that bad guys will likely gain access as well should be sufficient.
I don't know where you picked you stats, but recently Tesla just announced otherwise.
Actually I watched the recent excitement regarding Tesla on CNBC earlier this month, but googling shows: ...
The record was broken through a 55 percent sales increase for the same period from the previous year."
"April 5 (UPI) -- Tesla Motors announced it broke a company record for the first quarter of 2015
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Wo...
Then what "-ism" would you suggest to describe what the current situation is in the US?
Maybe reality is more complex that any -ism? More complex than the politicians and their adherents would have us believe?
Tesla recently sold a record number of cars, exceeding expectations.
It doesn't matter if demand in China is lower than expected when demand in the US and Europe is unfulfilled. Units that might have been originally planned for China get redesignated for US or Europe during production.
corporatism (which is the politically correct modern name for fascism)
The idea that fascism is synonymous with corporatism is wrong. Its a false meme often repeated by some on the left for political purposes, a technique of manipulating the ignorant. Much like some on the right toss around the word "communistic".
In reality fascism is a form of syndicalism, where workers are formed into syndicates to counter the power of owners. Fascism is actually quite socialistic in this respect. Fascism does not fit neatly into the political spectrum, it is a weird combination of ideas from the left and right.
More importantly under fascism both the corporation (owners) and the workers are subservient to the state. The state created a somewhat level playing field for the two to negotiate on but they damn well better put aside any labor squabble if its going to interfere with state requirements.
The iPod Nano has had an FM radio for a while. So the performance with respect to battery, signal reception, etc should be known. I don't have one myself so I can't comment.
"Lost" can mean (1) you don't know where something is OR (2) you no longer possess something. In the second case you may no longer possess something but still know where it is. For example you lost something to a friend in a bet.
This second case is also somewhat of a nautical term. The Captain of a ship and its Chief Engineering can be standing on the bridge of the ship and the Chief Engineer may report the ship to be "lost", meaning uncontrollable sinking.
Also when a ship is sunk you only have the position of where it slipped below the surface, you don't necessarily know how it traveled on the way to the bottom. More importantly prior to GPS ship position weren't necessarily that accurate. Wrecks are often considered lost until someone has eyes (real or synthetic, ex side scan sonar) on them. Which is what seems to be happening here.
Things are more complicated than that ...
Scuttled naval vessels sometimes become artificial reefs that greatly support the food chain for local fisheries. This can have a positive economic effect. A long term one at that.
As for live fire testing. Laboratory testing and mockups are one thing, but how a missile performs against an actual ship is something else. What is the cost of an anti-ship weapon system that turns out to be ineffective against modern ships? Sadly real ships are a necessity for such testing.
A similar cleanup happens today before naval vessels are scuttled.
Compaq had to reverse engineer the PC BIOS using engineers who had never looked at the BIOS. These engineers wrote a spec that a separate set of engineers then had to implement.
That's not how it worked. The first team absolutely looked at the BIOS to create that spec. Its the second team that implemented the spec that had never seen the BIOS.