>Sure you need to paranoid to the extreme to establish a CA for use on your home network
Not really. Just A) Know how to do it (Not a problem, I've coded and set up real CAs in my job) B) Be happy to not pay outrageous fees for certs from a commercial CA. C) Have a use case where it makes sense.
Use Python - it teaches better habits than a lot of alternatives.
The habit I like most in code is actually being visible, closely followed by retaining invisible things that matter when copy-pasted from an interweb.
I can see my python code, along with all the very visible indents. Copy and pasting seems to work fine. I take it that you don't know how to configure you editor.
>I'm old enough to remember a time where tech conferences were actually useful, when actual techies were present that actually knew about the tech.
We still have them. You just have to be one of the techies. Once the marketdroids take over, it's expensive and dead. Tech conferences run by techies for techies are cheap and fantastically productive. Crypto conferences provide a pretty rich vein and in the US, the IEEE puts on a lots of events with particular focus. If you can get on the academic retreats and 'summer schools' you have hit paydirt, but you often need to be invited - so write some papers and get them published. The #1 way to get in is to write a paper and get it accepted in a peer reviewed conference.
It's nice when the only trade stand, out in the corridor, is from an academic publisher pushing low volume math books that are particular to the topic of the conference.
I don't have a dog in this fight - I was reporting the nature of the discussions on the crypto mailing lists I'm on rather than telling people what language to use.
In the case of Rust, it addresses security problems that are the domain of internet facing software. When writing complex internet facing software, human's haven't got the brains to write secure code. Rust improves the situation by enforcing things that humans get wrong.
For this reason, security people love it. They understand how they can write software with deterministic behavior in Rust where they know they cannot in C or many other compiled languages.
Other people want different problems solved and look at Rust and think "Well that looks a bit inconvenient" and dismiss it, and continue to write browsers and servers and daemons and MTAs and other internet facing things full of security exploits.
UL is concerned with fire. The name 'Underwriter's Laboratories' is the clue that it is an organisation set up to save the insurers money by limiting fire risk. The FCC is concerned about spectrum allocations and equipment trespassing on those allocations, so they are concerned with emissions.
In the EU for instance, the CE requirements are ultimately coming from the government instead of the insurance industry or spectrum troll and so they concern themselves with more than just fire and emissions.
There is no requirement to be immune to external RF.
That depends on the device. Telecoms certainly has susceptibility requirements baked into the regulation, because I designed telecoms gear to those specs. I imagine other safety critical like airplanes and medical equipment things have susceptibility requirements too.
In the USA no one care about your TV. In other places around the world where logic is a little more prevalent, emissions and susceptibility requirements sometimes go together because otherwise how do you know what level to set the emissions at if you don't know what emission level things are susceptible to?
I could, but why? With a text editor I am unencumbered with formatting details. I use make to build the documents so it only regenerate graphs if the data changes.
Wrong to say backups are a solution, you could the malware nicely backed up too.
Not if you do it in a way that is safe from ransomware.
1) Make your backup system safe from ransomware by limiting the software run on it and have only skilled IT people operate it. 2) Give the backup system the privilege to pull the backup data from the machines being backed up and to push the restore data. 3) Don't give the machines being backed up the privilege to push data to the backup system to ransomware can't corrupt the backups. 4) Restore every night so you know the restore will work. Have the backup system push a clean image and the applications to each PC and check the consistency of the databases and restore them if they are corrupted. 5) ???? 6) Profit!
I'm writing a book. It's full of equations and references and numbered entries. Word is a nightmare with numbering and equations and references and a nightmare with documents with hundreds of pages. Latex is a lot easier after a week of learning. You just type in equations using a simple text syntax, references with things like \label{name} and \ref{name}, section headings with \section{name} and so on. You can also use a normal text editor (I use VIM and BBedit mostly) instead of one of those annoying pointy clicky interfaces.
I tried Scrivener, but it was not good with equations. I haven't tried Docear. I used to like Framemaker, which we used for editing IEEE 802 specs, but it seems to have gone off the rails recently.
Also my publisher can take documents written in Latex, so it's a fine solution for me.
>actually it occurs to me that I have precisely no clue how to change the font in Latex because I have never felt the need to change the font.
I'm writing a technical book in Latex. I started in word and quickly gave up and decided to relearn Latex which I had used when in college. After a couple of chapters, a bunch of bibtex entries and a whole bunch of equations, I was back to full speed and unencumbered by the horrible numbering and formatting in word.
The publisher is going to drop it into Adobe InDesign, where the fonts can be easily changed. However the equations are going to have to be converted using latexit.
If manufacturers do their job, consumers should never see the leading edge. If the HDD study says there's no leading edge then that's good enough for me.
For modern silicon, electromigration has much less distance to travel than in 40 year old TTL chips. E.G. for a 10 year old chip, the distance to travel is a lot less that 1/4 of the distance to travel in a 40 year old chip that is 4X as old. You won't see the leading edge because manufacturing test is effective.
In other news, in 2062 they will have time travel, otherwise how could you possibly know that just-released 8TB drive would last 45 years?
Is aggregate usage even a meaningful metric?
It tells you the MTBF for right now, but it's not useful to predict MTTF unless you know the shape of the bathtub curve. It takes a few years to build that curve.
I use VIM most places. But I've used bbedit on macs for years. If I'm in terminal on the mac I might use vim out of muscle memory, or if I need to do some real regexing, but bbedit is good for in the way notepad++ is good when mouses are the tool of choice.
In my job we sell tens of millions of each product. We warrant for X years (E.G. 8-10 would be typical for something with a natural replacement cycle of 4-5 years), so we then design the things such that the curve is at a low point at time X. Component aging is heavily modeled and measured so we don't mess up. It would indeed get very expensive if there were lots of early failures. You find bad batches through testing.
Slashdot Mirror
>Sure you need to paranoid to the extreme to establish a CA for use on your home network
Not really. Just
A) Know how to do it (Not a problem, I've coded and set up real CAs in my job)
B) Be happy to not pay outrageous fees for certs from a commercial CA.
C) Have a use case where it makes sense.
I don't remember being coy while posting.
The habit I like most in code is actually being visible, closely followed by retaining invisible things that matter when copy-pasted from an interweb.
I can see my python code, along with all the very visible indents.
Copy and pasting seems to work fine. I take it that you don't know how to configure you editor.
>I'm old enough to remember a time where tech conferences were actually useful, when actual techies were present that actually knew about the tech.
We still have them. You just have to be one of the techies. Once the marketdroids take over, it's expensive and dead. Tech conferences run by techies for techies are cheap and fantastically productive. Crypto conferences provide a pretty rich vein and in the US, the IEEE puts on a lots of events with particular focus. If you can get on the academic retreats and 'summer schools' you have hit paydirt, but you often need to be invited - so write some papers and get them published. The #1 way to get in is to write a paper and get it accepted in a peer reviewed conference.
It's nice when the only trade stand, out in the corridor, is from an academic publisher pushing low volume math books that are particular to the topic of the conference.
Are you saying that instead we should make people smarter? Or that we should write less software?
I strongly recommend writing less software.
I don't have a dog in this fight - I was reporting the nature of the discussions on the crypto mailing lists I'm on rather than telling people what language to use.
What's with all these other languages lately?
In the case of Rust, it addresses security problems that are the domain of internet facing software. When writing complex internet facing software, human's haven't got the brains to write secure code. Rust improves the situation by enforcing things that humans get wrong.
For this reason, security people love it. They understand how they can write software with deterministic behavior in Rust where they know they cannot in C or many other compiled languages.
Other people want different problems solved and look at Rust and think "Well that looks a bit inconvenient" and dismiss it, and continue to write browsers and servers and daemons and MTAs and other internet facing things full of security exploits.
UL is concerned with safety.
UL is concerned with fire. The name 'Underwriter's Laboratories' is the clue that it is an organisation set up to save the insurers money by limiting fire risk.
The FCC is concerned about spectrum allocations and equipment trespassing on those allocations, so they are concerned with emissions.
In the EU for instance, the CE requirements are ultimately coming from the government instead of the insurance industry or spectrum troll and so they concern themselves with more than just fire and emissions.
There is no requirement to be immune to external RF.
That depends on the device. Telecoms certainly has susceptibility requirements baked into the regulation, because I designed telecoms gear to those specs.
I imagine other safety critical like airplanes and medical equipment things have susceptibility requirements too.
In the USA no one care about your TV. In other places around the world where logic is a little more prevalent, emissions and susceptibility requirements sometimes go together because otherwise how do you know what level to set the emissions at if you don't know what emission level things are susceptible to?
The clean image should help with that.
I could, but why? With a text editor I am unencumbered with formatting details. I use make to build the documents so it only regenerate graphs if the data changes.
Wrong to say backups are a solution, you could the malware nicely backed up too.
Not if you do it in a way that is safe from ransomware.
1) Make your backup system safe from ransomware by limiting the software run on it and have only skilled IT people operate it.
2) Give the backup system the privilege to pull the backup data from the machines being backed up and to push the restore data.
3) Don't give the machines being backed up the privilege to push data to the backup system to ransomware can't corrupt the backups.
4) Restore every night so you know the restore will work. Have the backup system push a clean image and the applications to each PC and check the consistency of the databases and restore them if they are corrupted.
5) ????
6) Profit!
> Intel doesn't know how to build small chips
Intel has been building small chips for a while.
I'm writing a book. It's full of equations and references and numbered entries. Word is a nightmare with numbering and equations and references and a nightmare with documents with hundreds of pages. Latex is a lot easier after a week of learning. You just type in equations using a simple text syntax, references with things like \label{name} and \ref{name}, section headings with \section{name} and so on. You can also use a normal text editor (I use VIM and BBedit mostly) instead of one of those annoying pointy clicky interfaces.
I tried Scrivener, but it was not good with equations. I haven't tried Docear. I used to like Framemaker, which we used for editing IEEE 802 specs, but it seems to have gone off the rails recently.
Also my publisher can take documents written in Latex, so it's a fine solution for me.
>actually it occurs to me that I have precisely no clue how to change the font in Latex because I have never felt the need to change the font.
I'm writing a technical book in Latex. I started in word and quickly gave up and decided to relearn Latex which I had used when in college. After a couple of chapters, a bunch of bibtex entries and a whole bunch of equations, I was back to full speed and unencumbered by the horrible numbering and formatting in word.
The publisher is going to drop it into Adobe InDesign, where the fonts can be easily changed. However the equations are going to have to be converted using latexit.
Not if you're copying a 17Mb file at the time time (but I'm not sure I want to start a holy war over that...)
In 1997 with 1024 times less RAM than we have today.
http://www.everymac.com/system...
If manufacturers do their job, consumers should never see the leading edge. If the HDD study says there's no leading edge then that's good enough for me.
For modern silicon, electromigration has much less distance to travel than in 40 year old TTL chips. E.G. for a 10 year old chip, the distance to travel is a lot less that 1/4 of the distance to travel in a 40 year old chip that is 4X as old. You won't see the leading edge because manufacturing test is effective.
In other news, in 2062 they will have time travel, otherwise how could you possibly know that just-released 8TB drive would last 45 years?
Is aggregate usage even a meaningful metric?
It tells you the MTBF for right now, but it's not useful to predict MTTF unless you know the shape of the bathtub curve. It takes a few years to build that curve.
Is that a standard tub or a "garden" tub?
Neither. It's a rub-a-dub-dub-tub.
bbedit? Vim is the One True Way to edit text...
I use VIM most places. But I've used bbedit on macs for years. If I'm in terminal on the mac I might use vim out of muscle memory, or if I need to do some real regexing, but bbedit is good for in the way notepad++ is good when mouses are the tool of choice.
Cool story Grandbro.
Get off my lawn!
Editing Latex on a mac in bbedit is pretty snappy.
In my job we sell tens of millions of each product. We warrant for X years (E.G. 8-10 would be typical for something with a natural replacement cycle of 4-5 years), so we then design the things such that the curve is at a low point at time X. Component aging is heavily modeled and measured so we don't mess up. It would indeed get very expensive if there were lots of early failures. You find bad batches through testing.
>have all found that the "bathtub curve" is a myth
I don't believe that. I can believe the length of the bathtub curve is much longer than the useful life of the disk drive.
It's real in board products, cars and silicon.
I didn't like using Word for large documents.
I invested time and learned to use Latex. It has addressed my problems.
Using an alternative office clone that doesn't also solve the problems of wysiwyg editors is not appealing.
One you see the error rate start to rise, it can be effective to fit to the expected curve shape, but not always. Crystal balls are unreliable.