Just because everything can be programmed in *insert language here*, that doesn't mean that it has or even should be. The fact that an OS (or any other specific program for that matter) hasn't been written in a certain language says nothing to if it can or can not to done.
Yes, it would have been easier for me to simply mod you down (since I do have the points to do so today), but I thought a little exposition and explanation would provide more value to the/. community in the long run.
I'm a little surprised that Microsoft is giving in here. I know they're somewhat cautious of letting too many "under the hood" details out the door due to the high cost of supporting hacks into calls/code that isn't guaranteed to exist in future releases. It seems like the "look but don't touch" license will only increase the temptation for developers to plug into these hackish solutions, since there will be no support for source modification to incorporate a real solution.
Computer Science should not be teaching these things. Although OS use and maintenance may be useful skills for a CS major to have, I don't believe they have any relation to the science of computing. CS majors should be trained in the underlying concepts of OS design, not how to configure/maintain (or even really how to use) any specific OS. That's why we invented MIS majors -- not just so people flunking CS would have another major to fallback on.
I would suggest a somewhat different approach. Unless it is a fee only financial advisor, stay away! Although there may be exceptions, by and large "financial advisor" is just a cover up term for "glorified sales man." Sure, they'll take down lots of information about your wants and needs, but they use that information to target their sales pitches -- not their advice.
Some good warning signs that are popular today include:
Advising you to buy a mutual fund that invests in mutual funds
Insisting that you need more insurance despite solid numerical data to the contrary
Advising you to put your short term money in anything that pays below what you can get from a good on-line savings/mm account (currently ~3.5%).
I've personally run into all of these and more. (Hence, I fired my so called "advisor" and got a refund of my initial investment). Be very careful of these guys. They just need to get you to buy one investment. Just one! Then, even if you leave they'll have made a profit on the commission. Don't buy anything from a financial planner unless you're 125% certain that they're acting solely in your best interest. Instead, try picking up a few good books at your local library. A little learning can go a long way.
I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "worst case." RSA, for example, is MUCH MUCH MUCH slower than DES. In fact, I was under the impression that DES was one of the fastest mainstream encryption algorithms. hmmm....
Interesting link. Too bad it doesn't solve the problem.
DES, first and foremost, is not secure in the incarnation described above. Jim Bidzos, president of RSA Data Security, Inc. observed in 1999 that
It has been widely known that... the government's DES standard, offer[s] only marginal protection against a committed adversary
Not to mention that DES alone is insufficient to handle complex problems such as key exchange and replay attacks.
For a fun history lesson, you might enjoy reading Cracking DES (that is, if you can find it). It's worth noting that this book was first published in 1998. That's about it for the Dead Encryption Standard.
TCP streams are not encrypted by default because, contrary to your claims, the potential performance degradation caused by mass ad-hoc encryption is far from negligible. Not everyone is running the latest-and-greatest hardware. My Grandma (who will come back later in this rant) is still using a P333. Do we really want to lock out traffic from people who don't care if you can read their email or listen to their VoIP conversations?
Speaking of VoIP, I'm pretty sure this was well covered several weeks ago here.
As for required hardware encryption, are you freaking kidding? First, certain classes of cryptography are better suited to certain problem domains (key exchange comes to mind). Second, think of the fallout if/when a major flaw is found in this "required encryption." A software vender can push updates with a fair amount of ease, but hardware updates are a bit trickier. (Maybe not for the Slashdot crowd, but surely for my Grandma).
I got my start by drawing shapes in Logo. It was easy to learn basic programming logic without forcing the use of advanced language features. I suppose you could do the same thing in C, but the visual feedback of Logo was more fun. Eventually, I wrote a simple black jack program (drew cards, bets, etc.) all in Logo.
DO NOT USE JAVA! I instructed an intro non-major programming course in Java for college students. It was horrible! IMHO, any language that requires OO is too complicated for beginners.
I'm surprised that the article neglected to mention Novel's GroupWise. Most of your leading anti-Microsoft shops tend to be very pro Novel, and GroupWise is still very much alive and kicking (with version 7 just released yesterday). It supports e-mail, instant messaging, appointments, Microsoft Outlook, and it even comes with a license of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server.
I'm all for spammers getting what's coming to them and such, but why is Microsoft suing spammers? Now IANAL, but this seems like the sort of thing that would be better served by a class action suit of some sort. After all, what are the people who were actually inconvenienced getting out of this suit? More money for Microsoft?!?!? How is that helping?
So, exactly where is the news in the article? I was hoping to see something new and/or interesting. I could have written this article myself... years ago.
You've got to be kidding me! This is news?!!? Try -1 flaimbait instead.
Consider the following quote:
In a nutshell, it's not so much as that the software is secure; it's simply that no one is interested in spending sleepless nights writing a virus that won't give them the satisfaction they get from causing havoc. Considering the fact that everyone who knows how to write two bits of code dreams of hitting windows with a virus, the guys at the "Redmond Giant" are doing a spectacular job.
So the only reason that there are no linux virii in the wild is there's no motivation to write one? Riiight. It's not even possible that it's related to the fact that Windows didn't have any real protection scheme in their consumer line until Windows XP. Nah! It couldn't be that.
Oh, and just for the record, I can write slightly more than two bits of code (At least, I think I can. What exactly is a bit of code anyway?), and I have no dreams of hitting Windows with YADV (yet-another-dumbass-virus). Of course, there's no way an intellectual like this would ever use a universal qualifier when it was inappropriate to do so.
I will now go back to flogging myself for wasting time responding to this nonsensee.
If only I had the mod points to save this poor post! Sadly, a proper mod of "funny" would do nothing to help this poor beat up poster. Wouldn't it be nice if a mod of "funny" could erase bad karma from a given post even if it had no other effect on total karma?
As one who has graded many undergraduate programming assignments I can tell you that professors very seldom actually read, let alone provide feedback on, comments. Comments on assignments tend to be scored as, "Are they there? If yes, good! If not, -10 pts for being a dumb ass."
Summary: Though the next generation of coders may be more diligent about including comments (at least initially -- though I'm not sure I'm even convinced on this point), there is nothing that leads me to believe the content and appropriateness of their comments will be any better than what we see today.
Re:One has to wonder...
on
VoIP Security
·
· Score: 1
Simply throwing encryption at a security problem is often NOT the best answer. Although IPSec helps with the security side of the problem, it exaserbates other VoIP issues: latency and throughput.
From the VOIPSEC list:
IPSEC overhead with VoIP is a real concern, given a typical 20 byte audio
codec payload and 12+8+20 byte headers of RTP+UDP+IP (before we talk about
IPSEC overhead). Even with CRTP inside of IPSEC (compressing 40 bytes down
to 2-4 bytes depending on UDP checksums), still have serious IPSEC overhead
with abysmal VoIP throughput.
Since when have good old fashioned telephone systems been secure? I can't count the number of times I've picked up a neighbor's conversation from their cordless phone. Although I'll agree that the scope of the attack may be broader with VOIP (after all, my neighbors phone only puts out enough power to be picked up within a certain proximity), I think an expectation of privacy on any current phone system is a flawed assumption at best.
The real damage from the "lock-out" was done years ago. Of course you find Linux to be "less intuitive." That's probably all you've ever known. If your native language is Swahilli you're probably going to think that Latin is "less intuitive" (and vise versa). In reality, they're just different.
Untrue! Check out: http://www.aimfight.com/whatisaimfight.html where you'll find: "Your score is the sum of the current number of people online who have you listed as a buddy, out to three degrees."
The/. crew is really taking the humor out of this board. Why be funny when, at best, it'll have no effect on your karma? At worst, humorless mods will kick your arse down to karma hell!
Slashdot Mirror
Just because everything can be programmed in *insert language here*, that doesn't mean that it has or even should be. The fact that an OS (or any other specific program for that matter) hasn't been written in a certain language says nothing to if it can or can not to done.
Yes, it would have been easier for me to simply mod you down (since I do have the points to do so today), but I thought a little exposition and explanation would provide more value to the /. community in the long run.
I'm a little surprised that Microsoft is giving in here. I know they're somewhat cautious of letting too many "under the hood" details out the door due to the high cost of supporting hacks into calls/code that isn't guaranteed to exist in future releases. It seems like the "look but don't touch" license will only increase the temptation for developers to plug into these hackish solutions, since there will be no support for source modification to incorporate a real solution.
Computer Science should not be teaching these things. Although OS use and maintenance may be useful skills for a CS major to have, I don't believe they have any relation to the science of computing. CS majors should be trained in the underlying concepts of OS design, not how to configure/maintain (or even really how to use) any specific OS. That's why we invented MIS majors -- not just so people flunking CS would have another major to fallback on.
I would suggest a somewhat different approach. Unless it is a fee only financial advisor, stay away! Although there may be exceptions, by and large "financial advisor" is just a cover up term for "glorified sales man." Sure, they'll take down lots of information about your wants and needs, but they use that information to target their sales pitches -- not their advice.
Some good warning signs that are popular today include:
I've personally run into all of these and more. (Hence, I fired my so called "advisor" and got a refund of my initial investment). Be very careful of these guys. They just need to get you to buy one investment. Just one! Then, even if you leave they'll have made a profit on the commission. Don't buy anything from a financial planner unless you're 125% certain that they're acting solely in your best interest. Instead, try picking up a few good books at your local library. A little learning can go a long way.
I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "worst case." RSA, for example, is MUCH MUCH MUCH slower than DES. In fact, I was under the impression that DES was one of the fastest mainstream encryption algorithms. hmmm....
DES, first and foremost, is not secure in the incarnation described above. Jim Bidzos, president of RSA Data Security, Inc. observed in 1999 that
Not to mention that DES alone is insufficient to handle complex problems such as key exchange and replay attacks.For a fun history lesson, you might enjoy reading Cracking DES (that is, if you can find it). It's worth noting that this book was first published in 1998. That's about it for the Dead Encryption Standard.
Speaking of VoIP, I'm pretty sure this was well covered several weeks ago here.
As for required hardware encryption, are you freaking kidding? First, certain classes of cryptography are better suited to certain problem domains (key exchange comes to mind). Second, think of the fallout if/when a major flaw is found in this "required encryption." A software vender can push updates with a fair amount of ease, but hardware updates are a bit trickier. (Maybe not for the Slashdot crowd, but surely for my Grandma).
I got my start by drawing shapes in Logo. It was easy to learn basic programming logic without forcing the use of advanced language features. I suppose you could do the same thing in C, but the visual feedback of Logo was more fun. Eventually, I wrote a simple black jack program (drew cards, bets, etc.) all in Logo.
DO NOT USE JAVA! I instructed an intro non-major programming course in Java for college students. It was horrible! IMHO, any language that requires OO is too complicated for beginners.
I'm surprised that the article neglected to mention Novel's GroupWise. Most of your leading anti-Microsoft shops tend to be very pro Novel, and GroupWise is still very much alive and kicking (with version 7 just released yesterday). It supports e-mail, instant messaging, appointments, Microsoft Outlook, and it even comes with a license of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server.
I'm all for spammers getting what's coming to them and such, but why is Microsoft suing spammers? Now IANAL, but this seems like the sort of thing that would be better served by a class action suit of some sort. After all, what are the people who were actually inconvenienced getting out of this suit? More money for Microsoft?!?!? How is that helping?
So, exactly where is the news in the article? I was hoping to see something new and/or interesting. I could have written this article myself... years ago.
Oh, and just for the record, I can write slightly more than two bits of code (At least, I think I can. What exactly is a bit of code anyway?), and I have no dreams of hitting Windows with YADV (yet-another-dumbass-virus). Of course, there's no way an intellectual like this would ever use a universal qualifier when it was inappropriate to do so.
I will now go back to flogging myself for wasting time responding to this nonsensee.
If only I had the mod points to save this poor post! Sadly, a proper mod of "funny" would do nothing to help this poor beat up poster. Wouldn't it be nice if a mod of "funny" could erase bad karma from a given post even if it had no other effect on total karma?
Oops! There I go again. Please mod -1 redundant.
From a senior OS student in his shell programming assignment: /*Drunk. Fix later.*/
As one who has graded many undergraduate programming assignments I can tell you that professors very seldom actually read, let alone provide feedback on, comments. Comments on assignments tend to be scored as, "Are they there? If yes, good! If not, -10 pts for being a dumb ass."
Summary: Though the next generation of coders may be more diligent about including comments (at least initially -- though I'm not sure I'm even convinced on this point), there is nothing that leads me to believe the content and appropriateness of their comments will be any better than what we see today.
Since when have good old fashioned telephone systems been secure? I can't count the number of times I've picked up a neighbor's conversation from their cordless phone. Although I'll agree that the scope of the attack may be broader with VOIP (after all, my neighbors phone only puts out enough power to be picked up within a certain proximity), I think an expectation of privacy on any current phone system is a flawed assumption at best.
The real damage from the "lock-out" was done years ago. Of course you find Linux to be "less intuitive." That's probably all you've ever known. If your native language is Swahilli you're probably going to think that Latin is "less intuitive" (and vise versa). In reality, they're just different.
Untrue! Check out: http://www.aimfight.com/whatisaimfight.html where you'll find: "Your score is the sum of the current number of people online who have you listed as a buddy, out to three degrees."
I couldn't agree more!
/. crew is really taking the humor out of this board. Why be funny when, at best, it'll have no effect on your karma? At worst, humorless mods will kick your arse down to karma hell!
The
(\me prepares to sink into the abyss yet again)
Ok, so for some of us it's a way of life instead of a fad.
(May the karma gods have mercy on my soul)
How could they forget cute little Foamy the squirrel. He's like Strong Bad on cafeine!
What's all the fuss about? What has the Democratic National Convention done to you lately?