Ok, thats vaguely true. However, if thats what they were trying to say, they probably ought to have considered saying it, rather than making it look like some clever aside.
How exactly would parsing a form "over SSL" be harder than parsing it not over SSL?
Are you trying to claim the SSL adds encryption to the form? It doesn't. SSL is transport layer, you're talking application layer.
If you mean snooping it, then I challenge you to show a non-brute force implementation of breaking SSL, so its not "a little more difficult", its exceptionally more.
That really depends on the applications you're running. As an example, at the shop I'm at the applications we run are all custom in house apps, and there's no tuning to perform on them. We have gotten some pretty significant performance out of tuning things like bdflush and some other paramters.
I agree though that for some applications its not really worthwhile to spend much time tuning the kernel when the bulk of your performance can be picked up in the application.
I've picked up some pretty immense performance gains by tuning the query cache in MySQL for example, as well as tweaking the max children on our apache servers.
There's very little aside from the kernel to tune on a linux box, and its almost entirely vendor neutral. Thats one of the really nice aspects of linux, that you can tune a SuSe box virtually identically to a RedHat box. This is in direct contrast to the proprietary world were a Sun box has utterly different tools from an AIX box.
There's even a generally recognized named for this. In The Pragmatic Programmer this is called "Confessional Debugging". You are quite right about both its usefulness, and the standard usage pattern.
In the office in which I work, people often come up and state explicitly that they need to do some confessional debugging, and it almost always works. Sometimes it requires a question or two from the listener, but thats usually the most the confessor needs.
I'd be curious to even see how many are parents. Let alone parents with children of an age to be called "children". Its been my experience that most folks who use the "think of the children" rallying cry are generally not actually parents. They are in no position to judge anything on a parenting basis, since they have no experience parenting.
Being not a parent myself I recuse myself from such hypocrisy, and instead cry "think of the retards". I mean, honestly, aren't children just retards who might grow out of it?
I do find it kind of amusing though to see so many crying out for use of the V-Chip, when so many of them must've been in the crowd who decried it as censorship without understanding what they were saying.
I fully support the concept of the FCC enforcing standards, but they're really going about it the wrong way. They should be making content producers be more clear in terms of advertising exactly what sort of content a show has (the current rating system is absurdly vague). I realize that any such system is going to be subjective, and not everyone will agree, but thats fine. As long as we've got a set of criteria that we can all agree on the basic definitions of, and we make them pretty explicit, and then hold the content producers feet to the fire to live up to the rating system, then we remove all need for further government interference. At that point we can very honestly say we've gone to the furthest reasonable extent to say we've classified content to allow parents to censor their childrens viewing, and they can just suck it up and deal. Hell, we can even mandate that cable boxes and televisions ship with the most restrictive content filters all enabled by default. Those of us who want the content can turn it on, those who don't are already opted out. At some point though there must be a sanity barrier which we just refuse to let the damn government cross. The current system doesn't have any reasonable one, because we're so wishy-washy on what is and isn't "indecent".
Besides, if the rating system was explicit about the amount of T&A, I'd have a much easier time deciding what to watch. Thats why I miss Drive in Theater, cuz Joe Bob gave me all the essentials: Explosions, Breasts and Midgets.
Don't bother trying to track them down. Mediaweek already did, and found that amongst "standard" complaints (which they categorize as everything except the Janet Jackson Superbowl kerfufle) 99.8% came from the Parents Television Council. In the case of the Superbowl issue 99.9% were from that group.
See SFGate article. I can't seem to find the mediaweek story, but their website isn't loading for me so that might be why.
To be nitpicky, the odds makers at a horse race really do give you a fair indication of which horse is likely to win. While the odds are adjusted by volume, so that popular horses don't cost the house as much, they do still reflect a lot more than peoples gut feelings.
The odds are largely influenced by things like how well a horse performs on a given track surface, race length, with a specific jockey, and so on and so forth. All the factors that historically have been shown to influence the outcome of a horse race.
If you think about it, the same system works with actors, except you have to make it all subjective to your own taste in movies. It works better with people who've done more movies, but you can usually use it with a high degree of accuracy.
No, hedging your bet is an entirely different process, in which you make multiple bets to get the best spread of the odds. For example, in craps you hedge by betting across a spread of possible outcomes, and if you do it right you can tilt the odds fairly dramatically from strongly against to marginally in favor.
What I'm talking about is more like picking the favorite in a horse race. Just because the horse is an odds on favorite, doesn't mean they will win. Instead it means they're more likely to.
Of course they will. But anybody who argues they haven't watched movies purely because of the reputation of the creators is either a liar or so unaware of their own motivations they shouldn't be listened to.
The reason big name stars can draw in big crowds is they have a proven track record of providing something consistently. I won't say its quality, as in this arena thats far too subjective a term. I like knowing what I'm in for with a Spielberg flick, or a Lucas flick, or a Tarantino flick. It's a lot easier to justify $10/head at the theater when I have some idea what I'm in for.
People should learn to accept that using a computer requires some basic form of clue. If people are not willing to acquire such clue, they should watch TV instead so that they won't harm anybody with the viruses, spam and DDoS attacks perpetrated through their zombified computers.
This is exactly the attitude being railed against. Instead of demanding users come to the table with a predetermined skill set, good developers maximize the obviousness of their interface, write quality docs, and try to protect the user from stupid mistakes to the largest degree possible. This is the pervasive attitude in virtually all other forms of engineering. Software engineers have been allowed to get away with bad interfaces, unreliable functionality, and huge learning curves for far too long.
Just because I'm a unix sysadmin shouldn't mean I need to apply a large portion of my skill set to getting my web browser to work.
Apparently my humor was a little too subtle for you. I'm well aware search engines existed virtually as long as the web. In fact, if you read the description of the 1998 edition of the Internet Yellow Pages I linked to, it includes links to *gasp* search engines!
Having seen the episode in question, the first of the many quotes, which cites Claudia Schiffer (I distinctly remember Dennis's accent on her name), is the correct one.
I even remember the idiosyncratic pause of his before the word fuck. He seemed really incapable of swearing comfortably on television, except during filmed stand-up.
Bah, compile times of several minutes are very manageable. Where compile time really comes into play is when a project goes from taking an 1:15:00 to 45:00. Thats a noticeable productivity gain.
A lot of that speedup can be gained with tools like distcc, faster processors, and faster IO. Simply buying a faster PC for our Windows developer, he went from a P3 500 to a P4 3.2Ghz, trimmed 60% or so out of his compile times. Granted it went from around 10 minutes down to around 4, but he tends to recompile his stuff a lot, so thats still a meaningful gain for him.
No, what it means is that if you're doing anything that is compiler sensitive, you should test before you deploy. Some people are seeing gains with GCC4, other people are seeing the same, and some are seeing losses. Each group needs to make a decision about a compiler for their situation.
The GCC folks released this with it being well documented that it wasn't going to blow the doors off for everyone in every situation, but instead that this was a major step forward for internals, which should allow them to make some major steps forward that are externally visible soon.
And before a million people flame me for being racist... my skin isn't white.
So? This isn't some magical protection from being labeled as what you might be. Hell, if you found yourself obligated to disclaim in that fashion, then I'm forced to ask what it might be that you're hiding.
Oh it sure worked for us too. Since we knew they knew, we were honestly quite lewd in response. The girls never seemed to mind, and everyone knew it was one big farce. Hell, we did the same thing. Our two highest producing sales people were both smokin' hot ladies. Rumor always had it that the top producer was willing to go just a little bit further in her pursuit of a deal. Interestingly, she was also rumored to be willing to go that far with staff to make sure her accounts were well taken care of. Sadly I never found out.
Not very far. Most of the time they won't go anywhere just to get that sale. They are usually just salaried, whereas the male sales staff that comes in to "close the deal" gets the comission. And yes, they're well aware that they're just eye candy. They usually hope against hope that come closing day their male partner is sick and they get to close a few on their on and move up the ladder.
I worked in air freight for several years, and they do the same thing. All the airlines had their cold call reps, with their 36-24-36D figures and buttons that refused to stay done up. We usually got two visits out of them until contract renewal came up the next year.
Beyond even vanilla RHN is the option for Satellite and Proxy servers, which can really be a boon for medium to large enterprise networks. We're doing a Satellite deployment here, which allows us to do one click provisioning of servers with known package profiles, including our own in house developed packages. It means that instead of relying on people passing command lines around within the organisation to do production upgrades (since each project within our engineering dept packages slightly differently), now it will all go through one interface. When we build out a DR site in a different data center, we'll probably put an RHN proxy server there to help ease bandwidth usage across a WAN link for updating servers. It'll allow us to continue to manage everything centrally, but only have to push updates across the WAN once. Redhat support is also not insignificant. When I have wonky issues with boxes, now I have someplace I can call and get support from people who can actually fix bugs and get me updated packages. Moreover I have SLA commitments on those updates.
Ahh yes, the single example disproving the rule. Right. Doesn't work with hardware bub. I've got a couple dozen in a single room and one port on every single one is unusable. Plug a T1 into it for any length of time and start seeing errors.
If I didn't say it before, I should say I think they have promise. They definitely can be a force in the industry if they can solve some quality control issues. There are some definite issues with documentation, especially at a very low level, however thats natural of young open source projects.
I just don't like seeing articles such as the one linked espousing this as the way to be truly disruptive without acknolwedging the limitations of the solution proposed.
I work for a moderate sized telephony services provider, and I can attest that getting above the single T1 "toy" deployment written about here gets really, really hard. The Digium cards are crap, there's very little documentation, and if you try and run multiple carriers then have fun.
In a few years this stuff might be pretty decent, and for small office deployments its great, but other than that it is ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, thats vaguely true. However, if thats what they were trying to say, they probably ought to have considered saying it, rather than making it look like some clever aside.
How exactly would parsing a form "over SSL" be harder than parsing it not over SSL? Are you trying to claim the SSL adds encryption to the form? It doesn't. SSL is transport layer, you're talking application layer. If you mean snooping it, then I challenge you to show a non-brute force implementation of breaking SSL, so its not "a little more difficult", its exceptionally more.
How is this insightful? Some asshat can't find the lists of launch date games, posts about it and gets moderated well? Good lord.
That really depends on the applications you're running. As an example, at the shop I'm at the applications we run are all custom in house apps, and there's no tuning to perform on them. We have gotten some pretty significant performance out of tuning things like bdflush and some other paramters. I agree though that for some applications its not really worthwhile to spend much time tuning the kernel when the bulk of your performance can be picked up in the application. I've picked up some pretty immense performance gains by tuning the query cache in MySQL for example, as well as tweaking the max children on our apache servers.
There's very little aside from the kernel to tune on a linux box, and its almost entirely vendor neutral. Thats one of the really nice aspects of linux, that you can tune a SuSe box virtually identically to a RedHat box. This is in direct contrast to the proprietary world were a Sun box has utterly different tools from an AIX box.
In the office in which I work, people often come up and state explicitly that they need to do some confessional debugging, and it almost always works. Sometimes it requires a question or two from the listener, but thats usually the most the confessor needs.
Not everyone is a breast man.
I'd be curious to even see how many are parents. Let alone parents with children of an age to be called "children". Its been my experience that most folks who use the "think of the children" rallying cry are generally not actually parents. They are in no position to judge anything on a parenting basis, since they have no experience parenting. Being not a parent myself I recuse myself from such hypocrisy, and instead cry "think of the retards". I mean, honestly, aren't children just retards who might grow out of it? I do find it kind of amusing though to see so many crying out for use of the V-Chip, when so many of them must've been in the crowd who decried it as censorship without understanding what they were saying. I fully support the concept of the FCC enforcing standards, but they're really going about it the wrong way. They should be making content producers be more clear in terms of advertising exactly what sort of content a show has (the current rating system is absurdly vague). I realize that any such system is going to be subjective, and not everyone will agree, but thats fine. As long as we've got a set of criteria that we can all agree on the basic definitions of, and we make them pretty explicit, and then hold the content producers feet to the fire to live up to the rating system, then we remove all need for further government interference. At that point we can very honestly say we've gone to the furthest reasonable extent to say we've classified content to allow parents to censor their childrens viewing, and they can just suck it up and deal. Hell, we can even mandate that cable boxes and televisions ship with the most restrictive content filters all enabled by default. Those of us who want the content can turn it on, those who don't are already opted out. At some point though there must be a sanity barrier which we just refuse to let the damn government cross. The current system doesn't have any reasonable one, because we're so wishy-washy on what is and isn't "indecent". Besides, if the rating system was explicit about the amount of T&A, I'd have a much easier time deciding what to watch. Thats why I miss Drive in Theater, cuz Joe Bob gave me all the essentials: Explosions, Breasts and Midgets.
See SFGate article. I can't seem to find the mediaweek story, but their website isn't loading for me so that might be why.
Thats because you don't consider sex art. Poor you.
The odds are largely influenced by things like how well a horse performs on a given track surface, race length, with a specific jockey, and so on and so forth. All the factors that historically have been shown to influence the outcome of a horse race.
If you think about it, the same system works with actors, except you have to make it all subjective to your own taste in movies. It works better with people who've done more movies, but you can usually use it with a high degree of accuracy.
What I'm talking about is more like picking the favorite in a horse race. Just because the horse is an odds on favorite, doesn't mean they will win. Instead it means they're more likely to.
The reason big name stars can draw in big crowds is they have a proven track record of providing something consistently. I won't say its quality, as in this arena thats far too subjective a term. I like knowing what I'm in for with a Spielberg flick, or a Lucas flick, or a Tarantino flick. It's a lot easier to justify $10/head at the theater when I have some idea what I'm in for.
Just because I'm a unix sysadmin shouldn't mean I need to apply a large portion of my skill set to getting my web browser to work.
Apparently my humor was a little too subtle for you. I'm well aware search engines existed virtually as long as the web. In fact, if you read the description of the 1998 edition of the Internet Yellow Pages I linked to, it includes links to *gasp* search engines!
Before we had google we had the Internet Yellow Pages. Every reasonable starting URL was listed, along with Gopher servers and so on.
I even remember the idiosyncratic pause of his before the word fuck. He seemed really incapable of swearing comfortably on television, except during filmed stand-up.
A lot of that speedup can be gained with tools like distcc, faster processors, and faster IO. Simply buying a faster PC for our Windows developer, he went from a P3 500 to a P4 3.2Ghz, trimmed 60% or so out of his compile times. Granted it went from around 10 minutes down to around 4, but he tends to recompile his stuff a lot, so thats still a meaningful gain for him.
The GCC folks released this with it being well documented that it wasn't going to blow the doors off for everyone in every situation, but instead that this was a major step forward for internals, which should allow them to make some major steps forward that are externally visible soon.
Oh it sure worked for us too. Since we knew they knew, we were honestly quite lewd in response. The girls never seemed to mind, and everyone knew it was one big farce. Hell, we did the same thing. Our two highest producing sales people were both smokin' hot ladies. Rumor always had it that the top producer was willing to go just a little bit further in her pursuit of a deal.
Interestingly, she was also rumored to be willing to go that far with staff to make sure her accounts were well taken care of. Sadly I never found out.
I worked in air freight for several years, and they do the same thing. All the airlines had their cold call reps, with their 36-24-36D figures and buttons that refused to stay done up. We usually got two visits out of them until contract renewal came up the next year.
Beyond even vanilla RHN is the option for Satellite and Proxy servers, which can really be a boon for medium to large enterprise networks.
We're doing a Satellite deployment here, which allows us to do one click provisioning of servers with known package profiles, including our own in house developed packages. It means that instead of relying on people passing command lines around within the organisation to do production upgrades (since each project within our engineering dept packages slightly differently), now it will all go through one interface.
When we build out a DR site in a different data center, we'll probably put an RHN proxy server there to help ease bandwidth usage across a WAN link for updating servers. It'll allow us to continue to manage everything centrally, but only have to push updates across the WAN once.
Redhat support is also not insignificant. When I have wonky issues with boxes, now I have someplace I can call and get support from people who can actually fix bugs and get me updated packages. Moreover I have SLA commitments on those updates.
Ahh yes, the single example disproving the rule. Right. Doesn't work with hardware bub. I've got a couple dozen in a single room and one port on every single one is unusable. Plug a T1 into it for any length of time and start seeing errors. If I didn't say it before, I should say I think they have promise. They definitely can be a force in the industry if they can solve some quality control issues. There are some definite issues with documentation, especially at a very low level, however thats natural of young open source projects. I just don't like seeing articles such as the one linked espousing this as the way to be truly disruptive without acknolwedging the limitations of the solution proposed.
I work for a moderate sized telephony services provider, and I can attest that getting above the single T1 "toy" deployment written about here gets really, really hard. The Digium cards are crap, there's very little documentation, and if you try and run multiple carriers then have fun. In a few years this stuff might be pretty decent, and for small office deployments its great, but other than that it is ass.