You can't reliably control the actions of everyone. You can control your own. Therefore, you take the action of encrypting your data, irregardless of what anyone else does. It's as simple as that.
I bought that book when I was a kid, too. It was one of the best I ever got. I have to agree: books like this one were extremely important to my career in software development. You can't find many like them any more.
What we need is a book with a bunch of C programs and a cd witha a djgpp, cygwin, or mingw setup to install the minimum software necessary for simple text-mode program development in a DOS/Windows environment.
Kind of like bringing Ahl's book to the modern age. Maybe someone could license his material, convert it into C, and publish it.
Jennifer Trosper, Mission Manager for the Mars Exploration Rover project...
"The rover remains in excellent shape for trundling over to the nearby crater," Trosper said. "The spacecraft continues to amaze me. There's nothing to make me think that this vehicle isn't going to last a long time," she concluded.
Glen Flood, a spokesman for the SERVE project, said that while the input from the four-member panel is "welcome," it represents only a minority view. Six other members of the original 10-member panel assigned to study SERVE haven't raised any security objections, he said.
"This group is really only a small faction of the peer review group," Flood said.
What a profoundly ignorant statement. It doesn't matter how many are saying something, it's what they say that is important.
What he really meant was, "we bought off the other six."
I am not sure everyone understood what I meant. My intent was to echo a chord I felt in the message of the original comment: One does not take pride in work that one feels is used inappropriately.
I was not arguing good vs. bad so much as pointing out that even if your work is mis-used in your opinion, it is still valuable.
As for my own opinion, I dislike Microsoft's attitude of "embrace, extend, extinguish" because they embrace your work, extend it, then extinguish it. No one likes to see their work "extinguished", and this is what I felt the original poster was referring to.
I know that Jobs is no angel, but I am not aware of Apple using the same tactics. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken.
This kind of license is why OS X can and does exist. Apple took the efforts of individuals like yourself and added their own effort and contributions to create a wonderful product. Granted, you have to pay them for their effort, but it is commonly agreed that OS X is worth paying for.
As you mentioned, Microsoft uses this code, too. The difference is that the motivation behind Microsoft's additions is based upon power and greed in a feverish attempt to maintain their monopoly.
If you work on BSD code, you could possibly be a contributor to OS X. Certainly there is a sense of pride in this.
However, as in Microsoft's case, your contributions can also be twisted in dark and selfish ways without your knowledge or control. In this case, one is not proud, but deeply saddened by the misappropriation of which you spoke.
Why are we having this system pushed on us instead of the no.2 pencil and ovals? That system is electronic, it's verfiable, it's an established technology.
I believe you've answered your own question. Removing the ability to verify results without invalidating the authority of said results is a necessary step in the manipulation of the process.
Considering that it is your knowledge they are testing and not your imagination...I'd say yes. You might be able to argue 1+1=3 in a philosophy class, but forget it on the SAT.
I did the same thing on my university's primary web server. Fortunately, AIX had a limit of 200 processes per user so it didn't affect overall performance. I had to repeatedly try 'rm' (it would fail because I was at the process limit) until it caught a free process slot.
However, I discovered the following line in a C program on a Sun workstation (circa 1992) will crash it completely:
for (;;) printf("\007");
You cannot hit 'ctrl-C' to stop the program. I had to disconnect the keyboard (which contained the speaker) to make it stop beeping. I then quietly left the lab (which was empty, fortunately).
It boggles my mind to think that we can measure temperature that exactly from 279,000,000,000,000 miles away
What do you mean wrong distance? This is correct: 2.79 * 10^14 -- you only have three significant digits unless you specify the 47.5 light-year term with more precision.
Keep in mind that if you are truly cross platform and your communications are pure binary, then endian-ness will be an issue. I had to deal with this once when passing messages from a MIPS SGI to an x86 PC.
It can be a real pain when the underlying communication protocol blindly assumes endian-ness is the same on every machine. I prefer text-based protocols because they alleviate that problem.
Of course, YMMV. If you are fortunate enough to work for an enlightened employer, then I am happy for you.
I wouldn't go so far as to say open-source projects don't count. There are a significant number of people paid to work on open-source projects. What I meant to imply was if no one is paying you for your work, then a company has no assurances you were held accountable for your assigned tasks. It might be true, but it has little merit unless you have someone to vouch for you.
Don't take my word for it though. Ask a knowledgable recruiter or a consulting firm. That's where I got my information.
I'm 29 and I have 20 years of programming experience, but my employer will only recognize the last four (read: in my salary) because that's the only time for which I was paid by someone to develop software.
Even though I know much more, I don't claim any experience that wasn't part of a paid position. I have been told on many occasions experience is valuable only if someone was willing to pay you for it.
The proper time to bring up your non-work experience is in a face-to-face or phone interview where you can discuss the matter and explain how your additional knowledge can make you a greater value than someone without it.
Of course, this is where torture comes in, but I'd rather have the choice of being tortured or even dying... Biometrics take away that choice.
Biometrics will not take away that choice. They will force it upon you.
Very soon, you will be required to have either your fingerprints (right hand) or retinal scan (forehead) "on file" or in the form of a smartcard in order to make financial transactions of any sort. Common sense leads one to this conclusion: my state requires a fingerprint for a driver's license, and my local supermarket has a "discount club" promotion that requires one's fingerprints. Because electronic transactions are more economical, cash will gradually become inconvenient and impractical. Even today, how often does the average person use a check or credit card instead of cash? It will be a simple and seamless transition.
Right now, if you refuse to submit biometrics, you will be unable to get a passport or maybe a driver's license in some states. The torture will come to those that rightly resist the future laws requiring it and cannot buy food, clothing, or a place to live as a result. That is why it is written: whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
Even if you doubt this scenario, remember it. It will come to pass.
Do you know how many programs out there ask "Are you sure" before you close the program? And yet a computer let someone make these kinds of mistakes? It's unbelievable.
Based on what my observations, it seems that AT&T is very poor in densely populated areas (due to their initial technology selection of TDMA vs. CDMA or GSM). In fact, there was a class-action lawsuit against them in Dallas for overselling capacity. I live in a small city, and AT&T is better here than other providers. Sprint, Cingular, and T-mobile all had worse performance when I last shopped for a phone several years ago, but they may have improved since them. If I were moving to a large city, I'd drop AT&T in a heartbeat, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't reliably control the actions of everyone. You can control your own. Therefore, you take the action of encrypting your data, irregardless of what anyone else does.
It's as simple as that.
I bought that book when I was a kid, too. It was one of the best I ever got. I have to agree: books like this one were extremely important to my career in software development. You can't find many like them any more.
What we need is a book with a bunch of C programs and a cd witha a djgpp, cygwin, or mingw setup to install the minimum software necessary for simple text-mode program development in a DOS/Windows environment.
Kind of like bringing Ahl's book to the modern age. Maybe someone could license his material, convert it into C, and publish it.
Jennifer Trosper, Mission Manager for the Mars Exploration Rover project ...
"The rover remains in excellent shape for trundling over to the nearby crater," Trosper said. "The spacecraft continues to amaze me. There's nothing to make me think that this vehicle isn't going to last a long time," she concluded.
Oops.
Glen Flood, a spokesman for the SERVE project, said that while the input from the four-member panel is "welcome," it represents only a minority view. Six other members of the original 10-member panel assigned to study SERVE haven't raised any security objections, he said.
"This group is really only a small faction of the peer review group," Flood said.
What a profoundly ignorant statement. It doesn't matter how many are saying something, it's what they say that is important.
What he really meant was, "we bought off the other six."
Every mountain was once a molehill.
I am not sure everyone understood what I meant. My intent was to echo a chord I felt in the message of the original comment: One does not take pride in work that one feels is used inappropriately.
I was not arguing good vs. bad so much as pointing out that even if your work is mis-used in your opinion, it is still valuable.
As for my own opinion, I dislike Microsoft's attitude of "embrace, extend, extinguish" because they embrace your work, extend it, then extinguish it. No one likes to see their work "extinguished", and this is what I felt the original poster was referring to.
I know that Jobs is no angel, but I am not aware of Apple using the same tactics. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken.
As you mentioned, Microsoft uses this code, too. The difference is that the motivation behind Microsoft's additions is based upon power and greed in a feverish attempt to maintain their monopoly.
If you work on BSD code, you could possibly be a contributor to OS X. Certainly there is a sense of pride in this.
However, as in Microsoft's case, your contributions can also be twisted in dark and selfish ways without your knowledge or control. In this case, one is not proud, but deeply saddened by the misappropriation of which you spoke.
I believe you've answered your own question. Removing the ability to verify results without invalidating the authority of said results is a necessary step in the manipulation of the process.
Considering that it is your knowledge they are testing and not your imagination...I'd say yes.
You might be able to argue 1+1=3 in a philosophy class, but forget it on the SAT.
I just got a LiteOn LVD-2002 because it plays DivX/MPEG 4. And then something better comes out.
*sigh*
I did the same thing on my university's primary web server. Fortunately, AIX had a limit of 200 processes per user so it didn't affect overall performance. I had to repeatedly try 'rm' (it would fail because I was at the process limit) until it caught a free process slot.
However, I discovered the following line in a C program on a Sun workstation (circa 1992) will crash it completely:
for (;;) printf("\007");
You cannot hit 'ctrl-C' to stop the program. I had to disconnect the keyboard (which contained the speaker) to make it stop beeping. I then quietly left the lab (which was empty, fortunately).
It boggles my mind to think that we can measure temperature that exactly from 279,000,000,000,000 miles away
What do you mean wrong distance? This is correct: 2.79 * 10^14 -- you only have three significant digits unless you specify the 47.5 light-year term with more precision.
Keep in mind that if you are truly cross platform and your communications are pure binary, then endian-ness will be an issue. I had to deal with this once when passing messages from a MIPS SGI to an x86 PC.
It can be a real pain when the underlying communication protocol blindly assumes endian-ness is the same on every machine. I prefer text-based protocols because they alleviate that problem.
You dropped it on concrete while running and you didn't hear it skip? How long is the cord on your headphones?
Shhh! It's like movies -- you're not supposed to think of that. :)
Of course, YMMV. If you are fortunate enough to work for an enlightened employer, then I am happy for you.
I wouldn't go so far as to say open-source projects don't count. There are a significant number of people paid to work on open-source projects. What I meant to imply was if no one is paying you for your work, then a company has no assurances you were held accountable for your assigned tasks. It might be true, but it has little merit unless you have someone to vouch for you.
Don't take my word for it though. Ask a knowledgable recruiter or a consulting firm. That's where I got my information.
I'm 29 and I have 20 years of programming experience, but my employer will only recognize the last four (read: in my salary) because that's the only time for which I was paid by someone to develop software.
Even though I know much more, I don't claim any experience that wasn't part of a paid position. I have been told on many occasions experience is valuable only if someone was willing to pay you for it.
The proper time to bring up your non-work experience is in a face-to-face or phone interview where you can discuss the matter and explain how your additional knowledge can make you a greater value than someone without it.
... an attempt to fire the probe's engines failed because it was short on fuel.
They just need to look for the star
Biometrics will not take away that choice. They will force it upon you.
Very soon, you will be required to have either your fingerprints (right hand) or retinal scan (forehead) "on file" or in the form of a smartcard in order to make financial transactions of any sort. Common sense leads one to this conclusion: my state requires a fingerprint for a driver's license, and my local supermarket has a "discount club" promotion that requires one's fingerprints. Because electronic transactions are more economical, cash will gradually become inconvenient and impractical. Even today, how often does the average person use a check or credit card instead of cash? It will be a simple and seamless transition.
Right now, if you refuse to submit biometrics, you will be unable to get a passport or maybe a driver's license in some states. The torture will come to those that rightly resist the future laws requiring it and cannot buy food, clothing, or a place to live as a result. That is why it is written: whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
Even if you doubt this scenario, remember it. It will come to pass.
Do you know how many programs out there ask "Are you sure" before you close the program? And yet a computer let someone make these kinds of mistakes? It's unbelievable.
Based on what my observations, it seems that AT&T is very poor in densely populated areas (due to their initial technology selection of TDMA vs. CDMA or GSM). In fact, there was a class-action lawsuit against them in Dallas for overselling capacity. I live in a small city, and AT&T is better here than other providers. Sprint, Cingular, and T-mobile all had worse performance when I last shopped for a phone several years ago, but they may have improved since them. If I were moving to a large city, I'd drop AT&T in a heartbeat, though.
Do you consider yourself a person? That leads to an interesting logical dilemma.
That's exactly what Array2k is.
You are aware of the incident where BofA's ATMs nationwide were shutdown due to that SQL worm, aren't you? If I used BofA, I'd be afraid.
Perhaps someone should inform Mr. Krawchuck. His page reads:
(C) Copyright 2002 Bj Krawchuk.
Unless, of course, it is the same person.