So he's smart - maybe
Yeah, you are right. He's been in academia for 30 years, but he's a total tard. He's obviously an unqualified hack. No business being at NASA. He's the Mike Brown of NASA.
What a tool you are.
His boss, Bush, has degrees from Yale, Harvard biz school
Gentlemen's degrees and grades. He did the minimum. And MBA is worthless and you know it. What we are talking about are engineering degrees, inventive work, and peer reconigition. Can't fake that moron. Not for 30 years.
you might hate Bush, but you do worship other idols.
Yeah, competetance.
exploration administrator
Assistant. This was a "lateral" move, given to him by Dan Goldin for dispariging the ISS program. Punishment.
NASA's chief engineer
Forced out. During this time he selected, funded, and protected the Pathfinder program. $230M for NASA's greatest technical and PR success in two decades. Fought against the shuttle. Fought to keep the next gen shuttle project alive. Fought against the ISS.
Total lies. He's been academia since Bush has been in office. He has opposed the most poignant failures of NASA at the time, hurting his own career on two occassions. In this interview he acknowledges things that are already in the public domain - ie, that the shuttle he fought against is a bad program. Big surprise.
You continue to make up lies about the guy. You have provided not one shred of any evidence to backup your hate for the man.
You called him a hack. He is not a hack. He is qualified beyond any doubt. Don't like his policies? Fine. Bring them up, and I'll look over your points. But you have failed to that, because you are a hate filled liar who doesn't like the man simply becaues he's connected in some way with Bush.
You are a liar and a loser.
If you spend a few minutes poking around my comment history and on other sites (dkos?) you'll find that my opinion on Bush is pretty clear.
1. In 1993, during the design of ISS he wrote a highly public and highly critical letter about how ISS was designed and executed. There were three options presented - A, B, and C. Griffin complained that the review process was designed to emphasize A and C, which HAPPENED to be more friendly towards pork and big NASA spending than the technical merits of space exploration. The selection of many scientists - B- was ignorned and the selection of politicans - A - was the final decision.
2. After the Challenger explosion Griffin wrote that the shuttle fleet should be grounded, and that manned space flight was both two dangerous and two expensive. He stated that a continued expensive shuttle program was bound to end in more disaster and that the goals of science could be met without manned flight while a more robust, cost effective, and reliable vehicle was developed.
3. During his tenure in the Exploration and Engineering fields he spearheaded efforts to increase the amount of science able to be done by probes and satellites, dedicated small research grants to universities - instead of private business - to develop and refine "multi-camera" devices, like the ones used routinely today in all space flights and programs.
4. He selected approved the Mars Pathfinder for initial funding, and protected it against two rounds of funding cuts. His initial foresight by budgeting just $10M over 3 years lead to the best bang for its buck NASA has had in many, many years. $230M for the entire program which more than tripled the quantity of data we had on file about mars, space exploration, and autononmous robotic exploration.
You are a liar. And a retard.
He was on the "good side" of the SDI program - working on anti-missle and space programs that actually WORK. As exploration assistant head he pushed for MORE resuable vehicles, MORE space leadership, and MORE advanced science, not the 1970's rehashed shuttle.
In the SDI program he personally worked on an anti-missle technology that is in use today in the Aegis cruiser line. He's a scientist you fucking bozo.
You are an idiot.
He is by far the MOST QUALIFIED NASA administrator in the history of the agency.
Calling him a hack is a fucking joke.
Name two things he done that are hackish. Name one aeronautical or science organization that opposes. Name two Democratic senators who opposed him.
Give us anything of substance.
I hate Bush, but I hate MORONS LIKE YOU more than anyone.
You just now made up the bit about him re-engineering NASA into SDI. You goddamn LIAR.
LIES. LIAR. LYING FABRICATOR. You are blinded by anti-Bush rage.
I don't like him because he's been part of that mismanagement.
Bold face lie. You don't have to like his decisions, but that doesn't make them "mismanagement". He has proven to be an excellent administrator merits of his decisons aside. He has not been a status quo monkey, and has been pro-active in reforming NASA.
I don't like him because he's not taking any responsibility for the problems he's enabled.
Bold faced lie. He hasn't enabled these long term 30 year problems. What an utter lie you just concocted. His work at NASA before went to academia shows without any trace of a doubt he was working towards better science, better exploration technique, and to increase America's leadership in the space field. His academic and private work has also been second-to-none, including his endorsement by the Mars Society and virtually every forward thinking space consortium out there. Why not go try to find some substantive criticism of his space policy. Go ahead. We are waiting.
I don't like him because he doesn't actually have any vision for the future that will keep American leadership in space exploration/science/development.
Well here is the real reason. You are an idiot. The NASA administrator does not set space policy.
You don't like him because he came from Bush. That's it. The only reason. The NASA administrator implements space policy set by the Administration and Congress. If you don't like the implementation, talk to him. If you don't like the policy, talk to Bush.
defense we always hear about these Bush hacks
Here is your standard lie. Look up what hack is. This guy is no hack. You are a liar. Lying about the most qualified director NASA has ever had because you don't like Bush or his policies is mentally crippled. And it makes you a liar. ..cronies..
The fact is you've offerend no substantive criticism of the man, except he was appointed by Bush. You've lied by calling him a hack, and lied by associating him with decisions that he actively opposed. The charge of crony applied to his man is beyond laughable.
The facts are obvious: you know nothing about him, his management, or the work he has done. You just hate him because he stems from Bush. And now you are going about smearing him.
He's been a part of those bad decisions he's criticized. He doesn't have a way out.
That's an out and out LIE. He hasn't worked at NASA since.
So fuck you, Bush worshipper
That's an out and out LIE. You are a LIAR.
You called him a HACK. Which is an out and out LIE.
He is qualified in the field for which he is responsible, by definition he is not a HACK.
Because you certainly don't have any actual argument. Stupid cunt.
My argument is that you certainly haven't read the article, or no anything about the actual topic at hand.
And then you LIE about it because you are a LIAR.
You are a liar and a loser. You criticize Griffin without any grasp of the facts, and in doing so lie and distort his significant record.
Griffin was distinguished head of the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Before that he worked at NASA and previously did important work for SDI which led the development of the Delta anti-missle system. When he was appointed to head NASA he had just been elected to be president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, a group of scholarly aeronautics engineers.
He is also shockingly well educated:
BS Engineering from University of Maryland College Park
Masters in Aerospace Engineering from Catholic University
Masters in Electrical Engineering from University of Southern California Masters in Applied Physics from Johns Hopkins
Masters in Civil Engineering from George Washington University
MBA from Loyola College, MD
BS Physics Johns Hopkins
He was working on his BS in Computer Science from Johns Hopkins when he left for NASA. He plans to return at then of his term.
He co-wrote what many believe to be the definitive textbook on space vehicle design used in virtually every graduate aeronautical program.
In general, you are an asshole. Griffin is not a hack. He is a shockingly well qualified man. His views expressed here are refined, excellently thought out, and very reasonable. Disagree? Fine. Say why and be prepared to be ripped apart.
Assholes like you are the reason qualified people avoid politics and positions of responsbility. You labeled him a hack without even knowing anything about his impressive qualifications.
Here is a dirty little secret about 95-99% of web hosts. Any time they say 'unmetered' or 'unlimited', they are totally lying. It's just not true. Actually, a huge percentage of web hosts will cancel your account if you even come close to meeting your quotas - they dramtically oversell their bandwith, disk space, and CPU power.
I dealt with a bigish webhost a few months back that totally was devious. They automatically cancelled any acccounts that came within 75% of the plan limits if, after two appeals, the user did not upgrade to a "more suitable" package.
Totally, totally unethical. But common.
Before you ever get attached to a web host, max out your account for a month. If they offer "5GB of disk space", make a 5GB random text file and upload it. See what happens. If they offer 100GB of transfer, try it out.
I am willing to guarantee that you get shut down on probably 9 out of 10 times.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 0
Code Access Security.
You should readup about what MS has done with it's CAS system in.NET.
It's actually pretty neat, and pretty flexible, and rather secure.
It goes like this:
You write code. Your code - whether manually or done by the compiler - generates a list of resources it must access - a list of API basically.
When the code is downloaded onto your machine and executed, it is executed in a sandbox. The list of access is compared against what is available, and if discrepancies exist, the APIs that are not allowed return failure messages when called - the action is blocked.
It's a good idea. So let's say you run a.NET app from a webpage. The.NET runtime is set to be very strict - no access to the registry, no access to the filesystem, no access to printers, etc.
If the developer wants to access your filesystem, he/she can only do so by asking the.NET runtime to let the user select a file or directory, and then the runtime passes a handle back to the program. The program can only access the file through that reference. Once closed, it's gone until the user is asked to select another file.
The bottom line is, as implemenetd today, the.NET runtime provides an excellent base of security and sandboxing that has never been provided by Microsoft.
As for spoofing a login screen, the same can be said of flash, right?
What environment are you talking about? ASP.NET is no "1000mb" environment. At very least you can run it just dandy on a 100mb Linux install with Mono and Apache.
The actualy ASP.NET of a Windows webserver is, what, 25mb, if that?
I write PHP for about 20% of my living, and I can tell you, it's not joy doing the same shit in various forms all the time under PHP. I like it because it's simple, but the first thing most serious serious PHP developer do is implement some base classes that handle things that I take for granted.
Most people who bitch about ASP.NET either (1) have never used it, or (2) have only used it a failed attempt to treat it like every other web "scripting" language, when that's not what it is.
Huh?
No. We did not provoke North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Thats the point. You say we provoked it, I say no.
Believe it or not, the US does not cause all the problems of the world.
North Korea has been a failed experiment since day one. That's the cause of the problem now. If not for the economic sanctions they'd be much farther along development of nuclear weapons then they are now. We'd be at year 15 or 20 of a nuclear North Korea instead of a year 2.
I am not suggesting they are going to do anything towards the US, I am just saying, it's not likely that they are just going to get a missle that can hit Alaska and stop refining it.
How much longer can we be so provocative without provoking someone to the ultimate action?
This is just absurd, and shows you have no grasp of the reality of the North Korean nuclear situation.
I appreciate your sentiment, that the US is being provocative to the NK. But it's just not the reality.
The reality is that NK begged us - begged us - for economic assistance, and promised that they just wanted to feed and shelter and provide heat for their people. And Clinton and his Congress inked a massively insane pact that gave them money, oil, food, and pre-fissle material. Days - literally a week after completing the deal they resumed the nuclear program they had just promised to end.
NK has a bad track record. Expecting that they are just going to stop developing their nuclear technology is insanity.
I am not suggesting anything. I am not advocating for action, or an attack, or anything. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am only suggesting that you can't look at North Korea or the situation with the nuclear presense without examining the nature of the problem.
The build-up in North Korea isn't the result of the US's "hostile drunk" posture. If you think that you are showing how massively out of touch you are.
North Korea and it's elite rulers are doing anything in thier power to avoid the decades long failure of their government. They are so desperately poor that more people starve to death in North Korea than in most of Africa. They have such a dearth of resources that even the most basic of projects cannot be completed. Without the assistance of their sworn enemies in the South there would be virtually no hard cash flow into the North.
The communist system has failed in the North, completely and utterly. And they are staving that off. Nuclear technology is a ploy - an asset they can barter with.
What if there would have been no sanctions, and N Korea would be as prosperous as the USSR, or China (their closest relatives in vision). That would not make them a superpower: They are just to small.
No, but they'd be at least half as prosperous as South Korea. They have more natural resources, so maybe a bit more. The GDP of South Korea is $1 Trillion. The GDP of North Korea is $29 Billion. Imagine what they'd develop with 20 times more hard currency.
I am not suggesting that North Korea is going to nuke anyone. I never suggested that.
Money is irrelevant if you can barter something. That's not entirely the whole story.
You can barter if you have somet of value to barter. The missle program was previously improved on Soviet technology.
But there is much more to it. There are the scientists, the materials, the logistics. North Korea is barely able to sustain any level of development. Just getting parts and basic materials are damn near impossible for them. They'd be far, far ahead of Pakistan with the case resources.
I've been following your thread on North Korea, and well, I had to jump in.
I think you are massively uninformed about North Korea.
1. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear weapons for at least three decades. They started in the 1970's, some say as early as 1969.
2. The only reason North Korea hasn't obtained and built advanced delivery systems and more powerful warheads is because the US's "monster" is totally contained. The economic strangehold placed on North Korea has strained hard cash resources to the point where they can't even keep embassies open. They are among the poorest nations on earth, and whatever resources they have go towards military and nuclear research. This is not new.
3. North Korea would be far, far, far ahead of Pakistan if given the resourecs. Look at the economic powerhouse that is South Korea. Without the sanctions and anti-communist stance of the US and Europe since the end of the Korean War the North would be in a much better position. Imagine if they had even 50% of the economic resources of South Korea. It'd be catastrophic.
4. Whatever you think of Clinton, he bungled the handling of the nuclear position in North Korea. His the 1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact was insane. Just absurdly insane. They started work back on the program days after the ink was dry.
5. It is possible to be afraid of Pakistan and North Korea simulatenously.
6. You make it seem like North Korea is just going stop. Developing a missle that could hit just the outer most parts of the US isn't going to be the end of the day.
Signing a peace agreement with North Korea can do no good. I think you need to rethink what it would do. Ending the state of war will allow money to flow into North Korea. Right now they have natural resources that are untapped. Bringing in foreign equipnment and capital would cause a huge economic boon for the country and fill the governments pockets with cold hard cash, something it has very little of. This is country with natural gas and oil reserves but has to beg the US and others for heating fuel. That was part of the 1994 agreement.
The goal of the leaders of North Korea is to stay in power, and to live the good life. That means the people suffer, and literall a dozen or two live high. Meanwhile every penny they can grab goes towards testng missles, building and testing new equipment that we or Europeans invented in the 40's, 50's or 60's, and trying to reverse engineer things we've using for just as long.
Sorry, but I just can't believe you are on sound footing with your analysis of North Korea.
The ONLY thing the web does is connect.
No, not really.
It places pressure in some bizarre form to communicate when previously nothing would have been said.
That's not necessarily bad. It just often leads to people who have no idea making mostly anonymous but uninformed comments, and then becoming prematurely dogmatic about it.
Jeez, one thing I notice is that the Internet has caused everyone - including children/young people - to think that just because they have an uninformed or slightly informed opinion on something they ought to (1) argue it blindly (2) shout about it indefinately and (3) brow-beat those who disagree.
Livejournal et all are just bastions of uninformed, or slightly informed opinion. There was a time in discourse - political or otherwise - when it was acceptable to say "I have no opinion on the matter".
Now it seems like if you haven't got a deeply rooted opinion on a topic within 5 minutes of it happening you are doing a grave disservice to the world. There was a time when I had a blog (well, before it was called that) and I ended it after a few years beacuse I was tired of people e-mailing me demanding to know what I wasn't "covering" a specific topic.
In the Oracle world that'd be considered very large, bordering on "huge".
But what's more the problem in my case was the number of inserts. 400 inserts a second sustained is a pretty significant write rate regardless of your platform, would you not agree?
In most of the other cases, it meant no more than proof that they could pass a test that a nine-year-old girl could and did.
Just because a nine-year old did it doesn't mean it's easy or useless.
When you are dealing with a large pool of applicants, setting anything as a baseline - even if easy - is often a reasonable starting point.
Finally, just an FYI, passing one test does not make you an MSCE - most certifications require at least 4.
8k+ tables? 3 TB+? How big does a "huge" SQL server DB go?
2500 tables, 1.5TB, about 400 inserts a second at peak, 10K queries a second at peak.
That's pretty much closing on the max for a well designed SQL installation.
On a different contract I dealt with a 2TB data warehousing application that really pushed the limits of what SQL2K can handle. About 10 tables, one of them had about 500M rows. Not very write intensive, maybe 1-2 inserts per second, but very heavy on the reading.
The people who usually bitch about certifications are the ones who have met a person who is an MSCE and is an idiot. They think: "this guy doesn't even know X, how can he be an MSCE? That MSCE thing is a joke!"
Usually people have this attitude because they have no idea what a certain certificationa actually certifies. Really, before you bitch, find out what tests the person had to pass. Chances are you imputing more value to the certification than is deserved!
I used to get a lot of crap from a certain subset of "know it alls" when they learned that I am MCDBA certified (Microsoft Certified Database Administrator). They just assumed based on the name that it says I can write a few SQL queries and create a few tables. A really common bitch I heard was "it's not anything I don't know from writing my own CMS with PHP and MYSQL". A very typical, but wrong, view.
The certification tells my boss that I have a specific subset of database administration knowledge. The implication is that the non-certified employees "could just learn it if they need it", which is probably true to a degree. The point is, for the specific job, it required performance tuning a huge database running against a clustered SQL Server backend. "Learning on the job" was not acceptable risk for management.
Many doctors and pharmacies are trending towards avoiding them altogether because of the requirements, even at the expense of legitimate pain management for patients who would have a much better quality of life.
The entire field of Pain Management is becoming scarce thanks to the DEA and lawsuits. Trying to get Schedule II drugs requires more paperwork than it's worth to just about all but the most dedicated doctors. You basically have to get prior approval to prescribe and dispense the substances.
Slashdot Mirror
So he's smart - maybe Yeah, you are right. He's been in academia for 30 years, but he's a total tard. He's obviously an unqualified hack. No business being at NASA. He's the Mike Brown of NASA. What a tool you are. His boss, Bush, has degrees from Yale, Harvard biz school Gentlemen's degrees and grades. He did the minimum. And MBA is worthless and you know it. What we are talking about are engineering degrees, inventive work, and peer reconigition. Can't fake that moron. Not for 30 years. you might hate Bush, but you do worship other idols. Yeah, competetance.
exploration administrator Assistant. This was a "lateral" move, given to him by Dan Goldin for dispariging the ISS program. Punishment. NASA's chief engineer Forced out. During this time he selected, funded, and protected the Pathfinder program. $230M for NASA's greatest technical and PR success in two decades. Fought against the shuttle. Fought to keep the next gen shuttle project alive. Fought against the ISS. Total lies. He's been academia since Bush has been in office. He has opposed the most poignant failures of NASA at the time, hurting his own career on two occassions. In this interview he acknowledges things that are already in the public domain - ie, that the shuttle he fought against is a bad program. Big surprise. You continue to make up lies about the guy. You have provided not one shred of any evidence to backup your hate for the man. You called him a hack. He is not a hack. He is qualified beyond any doubt. Don't like his policies? Fine. Bring them up, and I'll look over your points. But you have failed to that, because you are a hate filled liar who doesn't like the man simply becaues he's connected in some way with Bush. You are a liar and a loser. If you spend a few minutes poking around my comment history and on other sites (dkos?) you'll find that my opinion on Bush is pretty clear.
1. In 1993, during the design of ISS he wrote a highly public and highly critical letter about how ISS was designed and executed. There were three options presented - A, B, and C. Griffin complained that the review process was designed to emphasize A and C, which HAPPENED to be more friendly towards pork and big NASA spending than the technical merits of space exploration. The selection of many scientists - B- was ignorned and the selection of politicans - A - was the final decision.
2. After the Challenger explosion Griffin wrote that the shuttle fleet should be grounded, and that manned space flight was both two dangerous and two expensive. He stated that a continued expensive shuttle program was bound to end in more disaster and that the goals of science could be met without manned flight while a more robust, cost effective, and reliable vehicle was developed.
3. During his tenure in the Exploration and Engineering fields he spearheaded efforts to increase the amount of science able to be done by probes and satellites, dedicated small research grants to universities - instead of private business - to develop and refine "multi-camera" devices, like the ones used routinely today in all space flights and programs.
4. He selected approved the Mars Pathfinder for initial funding, and protected it against two rounds of funding cuts. His initial foresight by budgeting just $10M over 3 years lead to the best bang for its buck NASA has had in many, many years. $230M for the entire program which more than tripled the quantity of data we had on file about mars, space exploration, and autononmous robotic exploration.
You are a liar. And a retard. He was on the "good side" of the SDI program - working on anti-missle and space programs that actually WORK. As exploration assistant head he pushed for MORE resuable vehicles, MORE space leadership, and MORE advanced science, not the 1970's rehashed shuttle. In the SDI program he personally worked on an anti-missle technology that is in use today in the Aegis cruiser line. He's a scientist you fucking bozo. You are an idiot. He is by far the MOST QUALIFIED NASA administrator in the history of the agency. Calling him a hack is a fucking joke. Name two things he done that are hackish. Name one aeronautical or science organization that opposes. Name two Democratic senators who opposed him. Give us anything of substance. I hate Bush, but I hate MORONS LIKE YOU more than anyone. You just now made up the bit about him re-engineering NASA into SDI. You goddamn LIAR. LIES. LIAR. LYING FABRICATOR. You are blinded by anti-Bush rage.
I don't like him because he's been part of that mismanagement. Bold face lie. You don't have to like his decisions, but that doesn't make them "mismanagement". He has proven to be an excellent administrator merits of his decisons aside. He has not been a status quo monkey, and has been pro-active in reforming NASA.
..cronies..
I don't like him because he's not taking any responsibility for the problems he's enabled.
Bold faced lie. He hasn't enabled these long term 30 year problems. What an utter lie you just concocted. His work at NASA before went to academia shows without any trace of a doubt he was working towards better science, better exploration technique, and to increase America's leadership in the space field. His academic and private work has also been second-to-none, including his endorsement by the Mars Society and virtually every forward thinking space consortium out there. Why not go try to find some substantive criticism of his space policy. Go ahead. We are waiting.
I don't like him because he doesn't actually have any vision for the future that will keep American leadership in space exploration/science/development.
Well here is the real reason. You are an idiot. The NASA administrator does not set space policy.
You don't like him because he came from Bush. That's it. The only reason. The NASA administrator implements space policy set by the Administration and Congress. If you don't like the implementation, talk to him. If you don't like the policy, talk to Bush.
defense we always hear about these Bush hacks Here is your standard lie. Look up what hack is. This guy is no hack. You are a liar. Lying about the most qualified director NASA has ever had because you don't like Bush or his policies is mentally crippled. And it makes you a liar.
The fact is you've offerend no substantive criticism of the man, except he was appointed by Bush. You've lied by calling him a hack, and lied by associating him with decisions that he actively opposed. The charge of crony applied to his man is beyond laughable. The facts are obvious: you know nothing about him, his management, or the work he has done. You just hate him because he stems from Bush. And now you are going about smearing him.
He's been a part of those bad decisions he's criticized. He doesn't have a way out. That's an out and out LIE. He hasn't worked at NASA since. So fuck you, Bush worshipper That's an out and out LIE. You are a LIAR. You called him a HACK. Which is an out and out LIE. He is qualified in the field for which he is responsible, by definition he is not a HACK. Because you certainly don't have any actual argument. Stupid cunt.
My argument is that you certainly haven't read the article, or no anything about the actual topic at hand. And then you LIE about it because you are a LIAR.
You are a liar and a loser. You criticize Griffin without any grasp of the facts, and in doing so lie and distort his significant record. Griffin was distinguished head of the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Before that he worked at NASA and previously did important work for SDI which led the development of the Delta anti-missle system. When he was appointed to head NASA he had just been elected to be president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, a group of scholarly aeronautics engineers. He is also shockingly well educated: BS Engineering from University of Maryland College Park Masters in Aerospace Engineering from Catholic University Masters in Electrical Engineering from University of Southern California Masters in Applied Physics from Johns Hopkins Masters in Civil Engineering from George Washington University MBA from Loyola College, MD BS Physics Johns Hopkins He was working on his BS in Computer Science from Johns Hopkins when he left for NASA. He plans to return at then of his term. He co-wrote what many believe to be the definitive textbook on space vehicle design used in virtually every graduate aeronautical program. In general, you are an asshole. Griffin is not a hack. He is a shockingly well qualified man. His views expressed here are refined, excellently thought out, and very reasonable. Disagree? Fine. Say why and be prepared to be ripped apart. Assholes like you are the reason qualified people avoid politics and positions of responsbility. You labeled him a hack without even knowing anything about his impressive qualifications.
Here is a dirty little secret about 95-99% of web hosts. Any time they say 'unmetered' or 'unlimited', they are totally lying. It's just not true. Actually, a huge percentage of web hosts will cancel your account if you even come close to meeting your quotas - they dramtically oversell their bandwith, disk space, and CPU power.
I dealt with a bigish webhost a few months back that totally was devious. They automatically cancelled any acccounts that came within 75% of the plan limits if, after two appeals, the user did not upgrade to a "more suitable" package.
Totally, totally unethical. But common.
Before you ever get attached to a web host, max out your account for a month. If they offer "5GB of disk space", make a 5GB random text file and upload it. See what happens. If they offer 100GB of transfer, try it out.
I am willing to guarantee that you get shut down on probably 9 out of 10 times.
Code Access Security.
.NET.
.NET app from a webpage. The .NET runtime is set to be very strict - no access to the registry, no access to the filesystem, no access to printers, etc.
.NET runtime to let the user select a file or directory, and then the runtime passes a handle back to the program. The program can only access the file through that reference. Once closed, it's gone until the user is asked to select another file.
.NET runtime provides an excellent base of security and sandboxing that has never been provided by Microsoft.
You should readup about what MS has done with it's CAS system in
It's actually pretty neat, and pretty flexible, and rather secure.
It goes like this:
You write code. Your code - whether manually or done by the compiler - generates a list of resources it must access - a list of API basically.
When the code is downloaded onto your machine and executed, it is executed in a sandbox. The list of access is compared against what is available, and if discrepancies exist, the APIs that are not allowed return failure messages when called - the action is blocked.
It's a good idea. So let's say you run a
If the developer wants to access your filesystem, he/she can only do so by asking the
The bottom line is, as implemenetd today, the
As for spoofing a login screen, the same can be said of flash, right?
What environment are you talking about? ASP.NET is no "1000mb" environment. At very least you can run it just dandy on a 100mb Linux install with Mono and Apache.
The actualy ASP.NET of a Windows webserver is, what, 25mb, if that?
I write PHP for about 20% of my living, and I can tell you, it's not joy doing the same shit in various forms all the time under PHP. I like it because it's simple, but the first thing most serious serious PHP developer do is implement some base classes that handle things that I take for granted.
Most people who bitch about ASP.NET either (1) have never used it, or (2) have only used it a failed attempt to treat it like every other web "scripting" language, when that's not what it is.
"extreme programming"
Thanks, but no.
Huh? No. We did not provoke North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Thats the point. You say we provoked it, I say no. Believe it or not, the US does not cause all the problems of the world. North Korea has been a failed experiment since day one. That's the cause of the problem now. If not for the economic sanctions they'd be much farther along development of nuclear weapons then they are now. We'd be at year 15 or 20 of a nuclear North Korea instead of a year 2.
I am not suggesting they are going to do anything towards the US, I am just saying, it's not likely that they are just going to get a missle that can hit Alaska and stop refining it. How much longer can we be so provocative without provoking someone to the ultimate action? This is just absurd, and shows you have no grasp of the reality of the North Korean nuclear situation. I appreciate your sentiment, that the US is being provocative to the NK. But it's just not the reality. The reality is that NK begged us - begged us - for economic assistance, and promised that they just wanted to feed and shelter and provide heat for their people. And Clinton and his Congress inked a massively insane pact that gave them money, oil, food, and pre-fissle material. Days - literally a week after completing the deal they resumed the nuclear program they had just promised to end. NK has a bad track record. Expecting that they are just going to stop developing their nuclear technology is insanity. I am not suggesting anything. I am not advocating for action, or an attack, or anything. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am only suggesting that you can't look at North Korea or the situation with the nuclear presense without examining the nature of the problem. The build-up in North Korea isn't the result of the US's "hostile drunk" posture. If you think that you are showing how massively out of touch you are. North Korea and it's elite rulers are doing anything in thier power to avoid the decades long failure of their government. They are so desperately poor that more people starve to death in North Korea than in most of Africa. They have such a dearth of resources that even the most basic of projects cannot be completed. Without the assistance of their sworn enemies in the South there would be virtually no hard cash flow into the North. The communist system has failed in the North, completely and utterly. And they are staving that off. Nuclear technology is a ploy - an asset they can barter with.
What if there would have been no sanctions, and N Korea would be as prosperous as the USSR, or China (their closest relatives in vision). That would not make them a superpower: They are just to small. No, but they'd be at least half as prosperous as South Korea. They have more natural resources, so maybe a bit more. The GDP of South Korea is $1 Trillion. The GDP of North Korea is $29 Billion. Imagine what they'd develop with 20 times more hard currency. I am not suggesting that North Korea is going to nuke anyone. I never suggested that.
Money is irrelevant if you can barter something.
That's not entirely the whole story.
You can barter if you have somet of value to barter. The missle program was previously improved on Soviet technology.
But there is much more to it. There are the scientists, the materials, the logistics. North Korea is barely able to sustain any level of development. Just getting parts and basic materials are damn near impossible for them. They'd be far, far ahead of Pakistan with the case resources.
I've been following your thread on North Korea, and well, I had to jump in.
I think you are massively uninformed about North Korea.
1. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear weapons for at least three decades. They started in the 1970's, some say as early as 1969.
2. The only reason North Korea hasn't obtained and built advanced delivery systems and more powerful warheads is because the US's "monster" is totally contained. The economic strangehold placed on North Korea has strained hard cash resources to the point where they can't even keep embassies open. They are among the poorest nations on earth, and whatever resources they have go towards military and nuclear research. This is not new.
3. North Korea would be far, far, far ahead of Pakistan if given the resourecs. Look at the economic powerhouse that is South Korea. Without the sanctions and anti-communist stance of the US and Europe since the end of the Korean War the North would be in a much better position. Imagine if they had even 50% of the economic resources of South Korea. It'd be catastrophic.
4. Whatever you think of Clinton, he bungled the handling of the nuclear position in North Korea. His the 1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact was insane. Just absurdly insane. They started work back on the program days after the ink was dry.
5. It is possible to be afraid of Pakistan and North Korea simulatenously.
6. You make it seem like North Korea is just going stop. Developing a missle that could hit just the outer most parts of the US isn't going to be the end of the day.
Signing a peace agreement with North Korea can do no good. I think you need to rethink what it would do. Ending the state of war will allow money to flow into North Korea. Right now they have natural resources that are untapped. Bringing in foreign equipnment and capital would cause a huge economic boon for the country and fill the governments pockets with cold hard cash, something it has very little of. This is country with natural gas and oil reserves but has to beg the US and others for heating fuel. That was part of the 1994 agreement.
The goal of the leaders of North Korea is to stay in power, and to live the good life. That means the people suffer, and literall a dozen or two live high. Meanwhile every penny they can grab goes towards testng missles, building and testing new equipment that we or Europeans invented in the 40's, 50's or 60's, and trying to reverse engineer things we've using for just as long.
Sorry, but I just can't believe you are on sound footing with your analysis of North Korea.
The ONLY thing the web does is connect. No, not really. It places pressure in some bizarre form to communicate when previously nothing would have been said. That's not necessarily bad. It just often leads to people who have no idea making mostly anonymous but uninformed comments, and then becoming prematurely dogmatic about it.
Jeez, one thing I notice is that the Internet has caused everyone - including children/young people - to think that just because they have an uninformed or slightly informed opinion on something they ought to (1) argue it blindly (2) shout about it indefinately and (3) brow-beat those who disagree. Livejournal et all are just bastions of uninformed, or slightly informed opinion. There was a time in discourse - political or otherwise - when it was acceptable to say "I have no opinion on the matter". Now it seems like if you haven't got a deeply rooted opinion on a topic within 5 minutes of it happening you are doing a grave disservice to the world. There was a time when I had a blog (well, before it was called that) and I ended it after a few years beacuse I was tired of people e-mailing me demanding to know what I wasn't "covering" a specific topic.
In the Oracle world that'd be considered very large, bordering on "huge". But what's more the problem in my case was the number of inserts. 400 inserts a second sustained is a pretty significant write rate regardless of your platform, would you not agree?
In most of the other cases, it meant no more than proof that they could pass a test that a nine-year-old girl could and did. Just because a nine-year old did it doesn't mean it's easy or useless. When you are dealing with a large pool of applicants, setting anything as a baseline - even if easy - is often a reasonable starting point. Finally, just an FYI, passing one test does not make you an MSCE - most certifications require at least 4.
8k+ tables? 3 TB+? How big does a "huge" SQL server DB go?
2500 tables, 1.5TB, about 400 inserts a second at peak, 10K queries a second at peak. That's pretty much closing on the max for a well designed SQL installation. On a different contract I dealt with a 2TB data warehousing application that really pushed the limits of what SQL2K can handle. About 10 tables, one of them had about 500M rows. Not very write intensive, maybe 1-2 inserts per second, but very heavy on the reading.
The people who usually bitch about certifications are the ones who have met a person who is an MSCE and is an idiot. They think: "this guy doesn't even know X, how can he be an MSCE? That MSCE thing is a joke!" Usually people have this attitude because they have no idea what a certain certificationa actually certifies. Really, before you bitch, find out what tests the person had to pass. Chances are you imputing more value to the certification than is deserved! I used to get a lot of crap from a certain subset of "know it alls" when they learned that I am MCDBA certified (Microsoft Certified Database Administrator). They just assumed based on the name that it says I can write a few SQL queries and create a few tables. A really common bitch I heard was "it's not anything I don't know from writing my own CMS with PHP and MYSQL". A very typical, but wrong, view. The certification tells my boss that I have a specific subset of database administration knowledge. The implication is that the non-certified employees "could just learn it if they need it", which is probably true to a degree. The point is, for the specific job, it required performance tuning a huge database running against a clustered SQL Server backend. "Learning on the job" was not acceptable risk for management.
I think the point is that none of the passwords on the sticky note are actually in use.
Cocaine et all are Schedule I drugs.
You really nailed about Schedule III drugs.
Many doctors and pharmacies are trending towards avoiding them altogether because of the requirements, even at the expense of legitimate pain management for patients who would have a much better quality of life.
The entire field of Pain Management is becoming scarce thanks to the DEA and lawsuits. Trying to get Schedule II drugs requires more paperwork than it's worth to just about all but the most dedicated doctors. You basically have to get prior approval to prescribe and dispense the substances.