And what the open source community did? it duplicated an even older operating system, i.e. Unix.
And that operating system has been hardened. It was also designed as a multi-user operating system, unlike Windows, which still has the "single user" mentality. Unix and its derivatives were meant for multiple people to be logged on at the same time. It even deals well with the same person being logged on multiple times from different locations. Try doing that with your Windows box. If you are logged on at the desktop then try to log in with a remote desktop, your desktop session gets logged out.
Operating system progress depends on programming language progress. Unfortunately, no one has come up with a safe alternative of the C programming language.
That's because the C programming language does what it does really well. It is a small language that can be easily extended and is not too much of a step above assembler. That is what makes it ideal for writing operating systems, device drivers, and such.
CPU designers have minimal security built in CPUs. Process-level security is not adequate, what it is needed is a security model within a process. As it is right now, code within a process can access anything in the memory managed by the process.
Well, if you want to go with a pure Intel architecture, you can always implement all four rings... don't expect a whole lot in performance, though. Besides, a CPU in and of itself doesn't need the security. It's the programs that run on it that must enforce what can and cannot be done.
Don't think that Unix is any safer than Windows in this case. This bug is analogous to the Unix worm 20 years ago.
Except that bug was patched 20 years ago... unlike several Windows bugs that have been around for years and still haven't been patched.
It appears Democrats at least have an open mind to the possibility of being wrong.
Appearances may be deceiving. How often have you heard a Democrat admit s/he was wrong? (Yeah, I know... find a Republican who's done it too... and Jimmy Swaggart's admission on TV doesn't count.)
That along with some comments and a clear writing style to include readable indentation levels, consistency of style, reasonably descriptive variable names, data structure fields, or object member names...
And as much as you might try to write a "beautiful algorithm," some of the best ones are simpler, have less feature creep, and can be used along with other simplistic ones that will achieve the same results.
And similary, my current mail program can show 200 chars on a single line, so why leave more then half the window empty, just because you want to wrap lines on an arbitrary position which have not really been a limit since we started using graphics display. But this is part of the "plain text" mode. If you're going to use plain text and have it convert these HTML emails into plain text, you'll end up with these ultra-long lines that force horizontal scroll bars at the bottom when you include the text of the email as part of the reply. It does not auto-wrap the line... and if it does, it fails to put the little marker in front of it to indicate that it's text quoted from the original message.
Why oh why oh why does message composition for new accounts default to HTML instead of plain text?
HTML email is evil; it's what makes phishing possible.
Who do I have to blow to get plain text mail made the default?
Most people wouldn't know the difference, and if someone really cared, they could enable it.
Not only that, but can someone please introduce people to hard carriage returns instead of these virtual ones? Ultra-long lines are not fun in these HTML-type emails... and LookOut and AOL are two of the primary culprits in proliferating this failure to actually wrap the lines somewhere around 80 characters.
Except that the LG phones (and several others) have proprietary connectors, require special versions of USB cables, etc. Why can't they all just use a mini-USB connector? It would make the phones much easier to manage and you wouldn't have to go buy a new cable every time you got a new phone.
The only valid point against OOXML is that it contains unclear and/or unimplementable aspects, thus denying others from the ability to create supporting implementations. However, if this is the case, and MS is unwilling to create OOXML implementations for non-MS/Apple platforms, how successful do you really expect the standard to be? Which in and of itself is a reason ISO should've rejected it in the first place, based on their own requirements... that a proposed open standard have a fully working implementation. No such thing exists for OOXML.
The UKUUG taking legal action over the corruption in the vote doesn't make them look like whiners. It makes them look like learned elders who are about to take a stick to a bunch of delinquents.
No, it looks like they are whining over a decision that didn't go their way.
No, it makes them look like they've looked at the ISO procedures, requirements, etc, and said, "Hey, this is completely out-of-the-ordinary!"
No, it just says to onlookers that Microsoft's standard is so advanced that even the best and brightest of the computing world can't implement the difficult parts of it. OMFG, do you even believe what you're posting? Anything that's too advanced for anyone to implement has no business being in a standard. A standard should be explaining the interactions, not obfuscating them. If the standard cannot be implemented, IT IS NOT A STANDARD.
You've got that wrong. What we need to throw out is the self-serving, power-hungry idiots who currently occupy ANY elected office. It doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. These people are more interested in remaining in power, telling us what to think and do, and increasing their power base however they can. They create "safe" seats in their respective legislative bodies so that they never have to truly compete for reelection. What do we end up with? Exactly what we have now... a huge mess.
A true conservative, in the same style as Barry Goldwater, would find all of this governmental involvement abhorrent and would love to see the size of government shrink and people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions again.
Considering that one interpretation of the MS Windows EULA basically says that while you own the computer, you don't really own the computer... All you need is some creative lawyer to use that interpretation to say, "Well, you don't really own the box. It's just on loan to you from Microsoft. This device allows Microsoft to examine their property."
The author did right to leave. He wasn't going to get anywhere as long as the CIO and the development management weren't going to cooperate.
However, after this fiasco, I would've considered writing up a new policy and trying to get it through the CIO... one that says, "No training or documentation? No upgrade." There is no other way to deal with this situation, unless you want to escalate above the CIO... but if you do that, you need to have documentation in order to show that the other people and those you skipped around are incompetents and are the cause of the problem. Even if you do have all of your ducks in order, be ready to look for a new job as well.
I've been lucky enough to not have had these kinds of situations... but then again, I've also been on-call when my software upgrades have gone in AND had a good working relationship with the operations staff. When the few problems happened, they were able to call and get a quick and friendly resolution to the problem without all the name-calling. Almost like we had a system in place........
This was obviously threatening to Microsoft. It would be difficult on technical grounds to map between Microsoft's internal formats and a true open standard such as ODF. If Microsoft's products can't read and write in true open standard formats, then government bodies have no choice but to use a non-Microsoft product to comply with the open-standards requirement, which means lost sales for Microsoft. I would tend to agree with this. Sun may be providing a free plug-in for MS Office to read ODF, but that does not guarantee Microsoft its sales of the Office suite. What *should* guarantee their sales is a quality product that people want to use because it works really well, is available for multiple platforms for the businesses that need different types of systems, and so forth. If Microsoft were to natively include ODF support AND provide good value for the money you spend on the Office Suite, you wouldn't be hearing about this at all.
By forcing thru their proprietary format as a "standard", Microsoft can now truthfully state that their file formats satisfy the legal requirement for government documents to be stored in open-standard formats. Open? <FormatLikeWord95>NOT</FormatLikeWord95> But sadly, quite true.
Exactly. Five out of 27 does not constitute a majority, nor should it translate to a vote of "yes," when the others have voted "no."
With all of the irregularities, several of which have been documented with one (so far) having an official complaint lodged by the national chairman, one would HOPE that ISO would consider the vote "suspect" and do an investigation.
With reports regarding a protest by the chairman from Norway's committee regarding irregularities as well as other reported ones where 20% of the committee voted "yes" and 80% voted "no," how exactly does this translate to a national "yes" vote?
Not for nothing, but back in its heyday at AOL, you supposedly had some of the best, brightest, and most innovative developers... yet a lot of them were NOT email savvy at all. People would just download and open attachments from random, unknown people without performing a virus scan or anything like that.
Just because you have some brilliant techies doesn't mean they are all security conscious as well.
Before anyone says, I'm talking about ASP.net, not just.net.
Like I tell everyone any time someone asks if I work with ASP... "An asp is a deadly snake that should be avoided at all costs. Look what it did for Cleopatra."
Yes yes, I get it that you think Mexico's doing things the right way. I still call you an idiot for advocating we try to turn US of A into another Mexico.
And yet with your do-nothing policy, that's EXACTLY what would happen... the US would turn into another Mexico.
Apparently you are... because all I'm talking about is stopping the influx of and then eventually returning the illegal aliens home versus what happens in other countries and how good they have it here... especially the ones from which many (not all) of the illegals come.
Overall, I do think immigration, especially illegal immigration benefit the economy but even if it didn't, or actually harmed it - like it does in other country with high welfare - that wouldn't justify stopping immigration. The state alone is responsible for the harm done through taxation. The fact that immigration can make this harm more intense does not mean the immigrants are morally responsible for the harm and thus it is illegitimate to oppose them on this ground.
Woah... wait a moment. So you're saying we should be lax with illegal immigrants, while our neighbor to the south, Mexico, will put you in jail for a couple of years just for your first offense of being illegally in their country? Yes. They put you in jail for two years, then deport you. If you do it again, you go to jail for 10 or more years. Oh, and you should look into the kind of paperwork necessary to get any kind of job there, too. We have it really easy here.
As the child of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who bothered to obey the laws, learn English, and not expect a handout, I find it wholly offensive that anyone should propose that we do not deal with stopping people from sneaking across the borders and illegally taking up residence here. First things first, however... it has to stop with sealing the borders... stop the influx before dealing with who's here.
For more conspiracy fodder, are the Clintons really stupid enough to have a hand in this?
Let's just say that if they are involved, there are several layers between Billary and the actual actions that there's plenty of room for "plausible deniability."
Rather like the way the only thing the Feds could ever get Al Capone on was Tax Evasion... instead of all the stuff he really did.
but wouldn't there be just as much motivation (if not more) to hack ATM machines as there is to hack e-voting machines? Something smells fishy.
Not really... at least not from a business standpoint. By "overlooking" the hackable points on an e-voting machine, there is the hypothetical situation where Diebold could possibly attempt to swing a close election in specific key districts just ever so slightly to whichever party pays them more at that time... yet be able to say to both parties, "Keep your mouths shut, or everyone will know both of you tried to bribe us."
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
What is more likely happening is that they wanted the contract for the machines... and since we tend to have "government by the lowest bidder," that rather ensured that they would get the contracts to make the "certified" voting machines.
The airline industry is one of the few that can tell you how many people will be passing through its doors during a given time frame. Why is it such rocket science to have the airlines coordinate with the local office of the TSA in order to get a sufficient number of screeners in place for those times when there will be more people flying? And it's not like they'll come in that morning and suddenly discover, "Oh crap! We've got 3500 more people going through today at 2pm than we originally thought!" The airlines all want you to book seven or more days in advance, which is what happens most of the time anyway.
Use the knowledge you already have. It's not that tricky.
Slashdot Mirror
And that operating system has been hardened. It was also designed as a multi-user operating system, unlike Windows, which still has the "single user" mentality. Unix and its derivatives were meant for multiple people to be logged on at the same time. It even deals well with the same person being logged on multiple times from different locations. Try doing that with your Windows box. If you are logged on at the desktop then try to log in with a remote desktop, your desktop session gets logged out.
Operating system progress depends on programming language progress. Unfortunately, no one has come up with a safe alternative of the C programming language.
That's because the C programming language does what it does really well. It is a small language that can be easily extended and is not too much of a step above assembler. That is what makes it ideal for writing operating systems, device drivers, and such.
CPU designers have minimal security built in CPUs. Process-level security is not adequate, what it is needed is a security model within a process. As it is right now, code within a process can access anything in the memory managed by the process.
Well, if you want to go with a pure Intel architecture, you can always implement all four rings... don't expect a whole lot in performance, though. Besides, a CPU in and of itself doesn't need the security. It's the programs that run on it that must enforce what can and cannot be done.
Don't think that Unix is any safer than Windows in this case. This bug is analogous to the Unix worm 20 years ago.
Except that bug was patched 20 years ago... unlike several Windows bugs that have been around for years and still haven't been patched.
It appears Democrats at least have an open mind to the possibility of being wrong.
Appearances may be deceiving. How often have you heard a Democrat admit s/he was wrong? (Yeah, I know... find a Republican who's done it too... and Jimmy Swaggart's admission on TV doesn't count.)
Then how much would you pay for Ubuntu, which causes even fewer headaches than Windows XP as long as GNU/Linux supports your hardware?
Why, nothing of course.Keep it simple, stupid.
That along with some comments and a clear writing style to include readable indentation levels, consistency of style, reasonably descriptive variable names, data structure fields, or object member names...
And as much as you might try to write a "beautiful algorithm," some of the best ones are simpler, have less feature creep, and can be used along with other simplistic ones that will achieve the same results.
HTML email is evil; it's what makes phishing possible.
Who do I have to blow to get plain text mail made the default?
Most people wouldn't know the difference, and if someone really cared, they could enable it.
Not only that, but can someone please introduce people to hard carriage returns instead of these virtual ones? Ultra-long lines are not fun in these HTML-type emails... and LookOut and AOL are two of the primary culprits in proliferating this failure to actually wrap the lines somewhere around 80 characters.
No, it makes them look like they've looked at the ISO procedures, requirements, etc, and said, "Hey, this is completely out-of-the-ordinary!" No, it just says to onlookers that Microsoft's standard is so advanced that even the best and brightest of the computing world can't implement the difficult parts of it. OMFG, do you even believe what you're posting? Anything that's too advanced for anyone to implement has no business being in a standard. A standard should be explaining the interactions, not obfuscating them. If the standard cannot be implemented, IT IS NOT A STANDARD .A true conservative, in the same style as Barry Goldwater, would find all of this governmental involvement abhorrent and would love to see the size of government shrink and people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions again.
Considering that one interpretation of the MS Windows EULA basically says that while you own the computer, you don't really own the computer... All you need is some creative lawyer to use that interpretation to say, "Well, you don't really own the box. It's just on loan to you from Microsoft. This device allows Microsoft to examine their property."
I've been lucky enough to not have had these kinds of situations... but then again, I've also been on-call when my software upgrades have gone in AND had a good working relationship with the operations staff. When the few problems happened, they were able to call and get a quick and friendly resolution to the problem without all the name-calling. Almost like we had a system in place........
It's really:
Left- do what you can to pay lip service to social freedoms while telling people how to think
- provide as much wealth redistribution as you possibly can
- restrict economic freedoms as much as possible
RightWith all of the irregularities, several of which have been documented with one (so far) having an official complaint lodged by the national chairman, one would HOPE that ISO would consider the vote "suspect" and do an investigation.
We can dream, right?
With reports regarding a protest by the chairman from Norway's committee regarding irregularities as well as other reported ones where 20% of the committee voted "yes" and 80% voted "no," how exactly does this translate to a national "yes" vote?
Just because you have some brilliant techies doesn't mean they are all security conscious as well.
Grow up.
As the child of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who bothered to obey the laws, learn English, and not expect a handout, I find it wholly offensive that anyone should propose that we do not deal with stopping people from sneaking across the borders and illegally taking up residence here. First things first, however... it has to stop with sealing the borders... stop the influx before dealing with who's here.
Rather like the way the only thing the Feds could ever get Al Capone on was Tax Evasion... instead of all the stuff he really did.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
What is more likely happening is that they wanted the contract for the machines... and since we tend to have "government by the lowest bidder," that rather ensured that they would get the contracts to make the "certified" voting machines.
Use the knowledge you already have. It's not that tricky.