If a bank robber gets into the vault, what the hell does it matter that the restrooms are still secure?
It's a big difference. The apache machine will not become an owned slave doing DDOS attacks, or start port scanning the rest of your DMZ, and if you are carefull you won't even get your site defaced. About all the attackers can do is shut your web server down.
Example configuration is a Windows 2000 box with dual Xeons and 2GB of RAM
I wrote and administer a J2EE application that supports online rebate offers for a very large company. We have over 350,000 registered users and typically 500 simultaneous sessions on a dual 1 GHz PIII Linux box with MS SQL Server on a similar dual CPU W2K box for the database.
Whatever you are doing with your application (probably misapplication of EJB) is wrong.
Saying Apache doesn't count, but IIS does is not comparing correctly. One reason MS appears to have so many more bugs is that their OS includes a lot more components that are thought of as part of the OS.
Actually it is comparing correctly because of the way the different systems are architected.
Apache is usually run in userland with limited privledges on a Unix machine while IIS.sys is a kernel mode device driver on a Windows machine. There result is a compromise in IIS presents a system wide security issue while a similar security issue in Apache only represents a user level security issue.
This sort of thing is very common in comparing Windows vs Unix/Linux security. The Windows code runs with admin level access or as part of the kernel, while the Linux application runs with much more restricted access.
A trade name for a class of halogenated alkanes. Other trade names for these materials are Freon and Genetron. It is one of the classes of materials that has been proven to attack the ozone layer, with persistance in the atmosphere measured it decades. Manufacture of many types of Halon was banned by the Montreal protocol in 1987. Further legal restrictions were subject of the later Kyoto protocol.
The particular Halons used in fire extinguishment applications are 1301 and 1211. As of Jan 1 2003 refilling existing halon systems is banned in most of the world, and dismantling of all Halon fire extinguishing systems (including safe disposal of their contents) is required by Dec 31 2003.
Halon works by displacing the natural atmosphere in a room, reducing the concentration of oxygen to levels below that which will support combustion. Since the human body metabolizes sugars to sustain life by a controlled form of combustion, human metabolism will cease under the same conditions.
Halon, when exposed to fire or similar high temperature conditions will decompose into a variety of toxic gases that will generally cause traumas such as pulmanory edema.
It is illegal to install new Halon systems except in certain 'Critical' applications, mostly in aircraft fire supression systems.
For home applications involving electrical systems a good ABC fire extinguisher containing a dry chemical like monoammonium phosphate available at your local hardware store is the best choice. Use of fire resistant materials, elimination of clutter and especially adherance to electrical codes in your server room are also recommended to prevent fires in the first place.
Your most important fire control steps are prevention.
how to reconcile that you keep posting this BS in light of being previously corrected on it?
And exactly what would have happened to Stacker if they did not have a software patent? Microsoft would have driven them out of business without Stacker having any redress whatsoever.
The fact is that patents protect small companies just as well as they do large companies. The idea that only industrial giants benefit from patent rights is baloney.
Basically I don't like the idea of business process patents. The patent system was devised in order to promote the advancement of technologies; this seems to be a poor fit to the fundamental idea and is bound to damage the patent system by dragging it into inappropriate applications.
On the other hand I could see a big advantage to the concept of a business process patent - the end of the management fad. If companies patent their processes we won't have pointy-haired bosses coming back from hunting trips with their peers full of jackass ideas based on copying what the other company is doing (neglecting that the other company is totally different). I think that maybe the world would be a much better place if this turns out to be the result of the business process patent. And this isn't as far-fetched as you might think - several years ago I heard a senior manager actually state that business processes spread so rapidly precisely because of the fact that they cannot be patented (which was true at the time).
Rapid desemination of GOOD ideas is a good thing. The question is how many of these business processes are actually good ideas and can stand the test of time in the marketplace before they are proven and deserve wide adoption?
And I want them to be able to compete with larger firms like IBM, HP, and Microsoft (each holds a lot of patents and licenses to deal in other patents).
How do you reconclie this theory in light of how Microsoft drove Stacker out of business?
If someone had patented the process of Flint Knapping, we, as a species, would never have made it INTO the Stone Age.
Interersting theory, but I don't buy it. Patents have publication requirements and a limited lifetime. After 20 years any old caveman could have gone down to the patent office and looked up the best method of Flint Knapping, saving him the time and money to develop his own technique. Betcha this would have accelerated the adoption of stone tools.
I haven't seen anyone mention (forgive me, I haven't read all 522 responses) the features of Java in the upcoming major release as revealed by Sun are essentially in lock-step with C#.
I don't think that's right. Sure, there are some features like enums that are probably influenced by.Net, but in reality the major new features in Java 1.5 are probably generics, which are not in.Net yet and have been discussed a 'future' feature for Java long before the existance of.Net, and metadata which I don't think is a.Net feature at all.
As far as IDE's go, I like Eclipse just fine - It has some nice refactoring tools that are completely missing from VS.Net.
This study makes a lot of sense to me - that the defect rate is tied to the maturity of the code base. I have long felt that Microsoft's business model where they redo the operating system in order to churn their user base and induce cash flow will always result in more defects and security problems than a model where software change is driven on a solely technical basis.
I think the next step for these folks would be to take a project that has a long history, say perhaps Apache 1.x and show defect rates over the life of the project.
Nope SCO laywers proved that they did infact own the patents.
Nope. SCO came up with an amendment to the contract showing they owned copyrights. They have not presented any evidence that they own any patents. SCO has not stated publically anywhere that Novell is incorrect in their claim that Novell owns the patents.
http://www.planetanalog.com/pressreleases/prnews wi re/80620the
specifically states that SCO has a right to protect the IP and has full power to do so
It doesn't matter what any contract says - if you don't own the patent you have no standing in a court of law to claim infringement. Period.
Did we ever vote on such decryption laws? No, we didn't.
In all of human history there have never been any direct democracies with more than a few thousand citizens participating - it is the rarest form of government known, with only the Greek city states and some New England towns implementing it, and only on a local basis. And in the case of the Greek city states citizenship was quite restricted. History has shown there is no practical way to implement a demand to vote on everything on anything but the smallest, most restrictive scale.
The fact of the matter is that society did decide on a representative form of government, and gets along with it as the best available alternative. I hate to break this news to you, but that means you don't get to vote directly on everything.
Greedy politicians were bribed into passing those laws by special interest groups (like the MPAA, RIAA, and broadcasting industry).
I don't like the DCMA or the current copyright term either, and the fact of the matter is that the support for these laws is by no means universal in congress, and it not clear that they will survive. I would suggest that if you haven't already you should write your elected representatives and express your displeasure with these laws. As far as witchcraft and sodomy, I certainly see no mass lobbying effort on the part of corporate America or the RIAA, MPAA etc in particular to make these activities illegal.
As far as the laws on decryption of certain broadcasts that are the immediate subject of discussion, it seems to me that these laws serve perfectly legitimate purposes, and I think it a fair assesment that when congress passed these laws they were actually implementing what most of their constituants would want.
Yeah, it's illegal to offer to sell such things. It is also illegal to build bombs in your basement whether or not they actually harm anyone. Ditto posession of burgalry tools. You are totally and completely off base regarding the legal principles here.
Anything else is a draconian imposal of the will of the rich onto the poor.
So if I go into a store and shoplift something, get caught and then get sent to jail, this is the draconian imposition of the will of the rich onto the poor? No, it is not. This is clearly codification of the basic Judeo-Christian tradition of 'thou shalt not steal' into legal statute.
As an aside, no-one should be allowed to own radio-waves going through the air, or any kind of wave going through the air (or space).
Nice idealistic absolutist statement. Like all such things statements there are serious practical problems with it.
The issue here is that there is a great deal of practical benefit to be able to transmit information by radio with some degree of security. Satellite broadcasting, private cellphone calls, wi-fi networking all benefit greatly by restrictions on decryption of the radio transmissions by the receiver. Society has (in my opinion rightly) deemed that the value of these services and the commerce in them that enriches both the provider and enduser exceeds the small loss of freedom to do what you will with these radio waves. It is a perfectly valid trade-off. If you don't like it, fine. But be prepared to do jail time if you put your opinions into action.
Actually, I am the one attempting to take many cultural factors into account. You are the one attempting to state which is best based solely on per capita income.
I haven't seen any measurements from you that take 'cultural factors' into account. In fact you haven't come up with any facts or measurements at all to back up your claims. All you do is make vague, unsubstantiated claims that we aren't getting anything for our hard work when actual economic numbers say the opposite.
And if you think income and purchasing power are the main things that matter, vs education, health care, quality of life, etc, you have much bigger issues.
And exactly how the hell do you come up with a measurement of 'quality of life'? The fact is that there is no such thing. You are off on some sort of fantasy if your think that you can compare quality of life across countries with different cultures in an objective fashion.
The fact is that the American worker gets plenty of return for his hard work - the best per capita income in the world, and a lower tax rate so he can keep more of it. All those wonderful services do is drive up the tax rates. With that income he can buy whatever services he wants - the fact is that American graduate a higher percentage of there citizens from college than any other country on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Your best resources are the experienced programmers in your department. They know what works.
fiber is so yesterday. Use a maser.
If a bank robber gets into the vault, what the hell does it matter that the restrooms are still secure?
It's a big difference. The apache machine will not become an owned slave doing DDOS attacks, or start port scanning the rest of your DMZ, and if you are carefull you won't even get your site defaced. About all the attackers can do is shut your web server down.
newcomers are really, really cheap!
LOL. Newcomers are the most expensive programmers there are because they draw a salary, but don't write usable code.
Example configuration is a Windows 2000 box with dual Xeons and 2GB of RAM
I wrote and administer a J2EE application that supports online rebate offers for a very large company. We have over 350,000 registered users and typically 500 simultaneous sessions on a dual 1 GHz PIII Linux box with MS SQL Server on a similar dual CPU W2K box for the database.
Whatever you are doing with your application (probably misapplication of EJB) is wrong.
Saying Apache doesn't count, but IIS does is not comparing correctly. One reason MS appears to have so many more bugs is that their OS includes a lot more components that are thought of as part of the OS.
Actually it is comparing correctly because of the way the different systems are architected.
Apache is usually run in userland with limited privledges on a Unix machine while IIS.sys is a kernel mode device driver on a Windows machine. There result is a compromise in IIS presents a system wide security issue while a similar security issue in Apache only represents a user level security issue.
This sort of thing is very common in comparing Windows vs Unix/Linux security. The Windows code runs with admin level access or as part of the kernel, while the Linux application runs with much more restricted access.
Now imagine that you needed a lot of bandwidth, like 20tb/second.
At 20tb/sec you are talking the equivalent of 13 million T1 lines. That will cost you MUCH more than $315 million per year.
I love it.
Halon is -
A trade name for a class of halogenated alkanes. Other trade names for these materials are Freon and Genetron. It is one of the classes of materials that has been proven to attack the ozone layer, with persistance in the atmosphere measured it decades. Manufacture of many types of Halon was banned by the Montreal protocol in 1987. Further legal restrictions were subject of the later Kyoto protocol.
The particular Halons used in fire extinguishment applications are 1301 and 1211. As of Jan 1 2003 refilling existing halon systems is banned in most of the world, and dismantling of all Halon fire extinguishing systems (including safe disposal of their contents) is required by Dec 31 2003.
Halon works by displacing the natural atmosphere in a room, reducing the concentration of oxygen to levels below that which will support combustion. Since the human body metabolizes sugars to sustain life by a controlled form of combustion, human metabolism will cease under the same conditions.
Halon, when exposed to fire or similar high temperature conditions will decompose into a variety of toxic gases that will generally cause traumas such as pulmanory edema.
It is illegal to install new Halon systems except in certain 'Critical' applications, mostly in aircraft fire supression systems.
For home applications involving electrical systems a good ABC fire extinguisher containing a dry chemical like monoammonium phosphate available at your local hardware store is the best choice. Use of fire resistant materials, elimination of clutter and especially adherance to electrical codes in your server room are also recommended to prevent fires in the first place.
Your most important fire control steps are prevention.
how to reconcile that you keep posting this BS in light of being previously corrected on it?
And exactly what would have happened to Stacker if they did not have a software patent? Microsoft would have driven them out of business without Stacker having any redress whatsoever.
The fact is that patents protect small companies just as well as they do large companies. The idea that only industrial giants benefit from patent rights is baloney.
Basically I don't like the idea of business process patents. The patent system was devised in order to promote the advancement of technologies; this seems to be a poor fit to the fundamental idea and is bound to damage the patent system by dragging it into inappropriate applications.
On the other hand I could see a big advantage to the concept of a business process patent - the end of the management fad. If companies patent their processes we won't have pointy-haired bosses coming back from hunting trips with their peers full of jackass ideas based on copying what the other company is doing (neglecting that the other company is totally different). I think that maybe the world would be a much better place if this turns out to be the result of the business process patent. And this isn't as far-fetched as you might think - several years ago I heard a senior manager actually state that business processes spread so rapidly precisely because of the fact that they cannot be patented (which was true at the time).
Rapid desemination of GOOD ideas is a good thing. The question is how many of these business processes are actually good ideas and can stand the test of time in the marketplace before they are proven and deserve wide adoption?
And I want them to be able to compete with larger firms like IBM, HP, and Microsoft (each holds a lot of patents and licenses to deal in other patents).
How do you reconclie this theory in light of how Microsoft drove Stacker out of business?
If someone had patented the process of Flint Knapping, we, as a species, would never have made it INTO the Stone Age.
Interersting theory, but I don't buy it. Patents have publication requirements and a limited lifetime. After 20 years any old caveman could have gone down to the patent office and looked up the best method of Flint Knapping, saving him the time and money to develop his own technique. Betcha this would have accelerated the adoption of stone tools.
I haven't seen anyone mention (forgive me, I haven't read all 522 responses) the features of Java in the upcoming major release as revealed by Sun are essentially in lock-step with C#.
.Net, but in reality the major new features in Java 1.5 are probably generics, which are not in .Net yet and have been discussed a 'future' feature for Java long before the existance of .Net, and metadata which I don't think is a .Net feature at all.
I don't think that's right. Sure, there are some features like enums that are probably influenced by
As far as IDE's go, I like Eclipse just fine - It has some nice refactoring tools that are completely missing from VS.Net.
$100 million per year in revenue from a country the size and technological sophistication of Japan is pathetically weak.
This study makes a lot of sense to me - that the defect rate is tied to the maturity of the code base. I have long felt that Microsoft's business model where they redo the operating system in order to churn their user base and induce cash flow will always result in more defects and security problems than a model where software change is driven on a solely technical basis.
I think the next step for these folks would be to take a project that has a long history, say perhaps Apache 1.x and show defect rates over the life of the project.
It's here today and it's called XBox
Nope SCO laywers proved that they did infact own the patents.
s wi re/80620the
Nope. SCO came up with an amendment to the contract showing they owned copyrights. They have not presented any evidence that they own any patents. SCO has not stated publically anywhere that Novell is incorrect in their claim that Novell owns the patents.
http://www.planetanalog.com/pressreleases/prnew
specifically states that SCO has a right to protect the IP and has full power to do so
It doesn't matter what any contract says - if you don't own the patent you have no standing in a court of law to claim infringement. Period.
Patents are intended to protect inventions
The problem with your proof is that the premise is wrong. Patents protect implementations, not inventions, discoveries, etc.
LZW per se is not patentable. LZW using a computer to compress images is.
Development is not what patent law hinders. It's use.
Try SCO.
From what I recall SCO doesn't own any UNIX patents - they are still property of Novell.
Hmmm.... so the Maple Leaf State has a rocket program, eh?
Not too impressed with the performance though. Robert Goddard hit 1.7 miles in 1937 with his amateur rocket.
Did we ever vote on such decryption laws? No, we didn't.
In all of human history there have never been any direct democracies with more than a few thousand citizens participating - it is the rarest form of government known, with only the Greek city states and some New England towns implementing it, and only on a local basis. And in the case of the Greek city states citizenship was quite restricted. History has shown there is no practical way to implement a demand to vote on everything on anything but the smallest, most restrictive scale.
The fact of the matter is that society did decide on a representative form of government, and gets along with it as the best available alternative. I hate to break this news to you, but that means you don't get to vote directly on everything.
Greedy politicians were bribed into passing those laws by special interest groups (like the MPAA, RIAA, and broadcasting industry).
I don't like the DCMA or the current copyright term either, and the fact of the matter is that the support for these laws is by no means universal in congress, and it not clear that they will survive. I would suggest that if you haven't already you should write your elected representatives and express your displeasure with these laws. As far as witchcraft and sodomy, I certainly see no mass lobbying effort on the part of corporate America or the RIAA, MPAA etc in particular to make these activities illegal.
As far as the laws on decryption of certain broadcasts that are the immediate subject of discussion, it seems to me that these laws serve perfectly legitimate purposes, and I think it a fair assesment that when congress passed these laws they were actually implementing what most of their constituants would want.
So what, this device was illegal?
Yeah, it's illegal to offer to sell such things. It is also illegal to build bombs in your basement whether or not they actually harm anyone. Ditto posession of burgalry tools. You are totally and completely off base regarding the legal principles here.
Anything else is a draconian imposal of the will of the rich onto the poor.
So if I go into a store and shoplift something, get caught and then get sent to jail, this is the draconian imposition of the will of the rich onto the poor? No, it is not. This is clearly codification of the basic Judeo-Christian tradition of 'thou shalt not steal' into legal statute.
As an aside, no-one should be allowed to own radio-waves going through the air, or any kind of wave going through the air (or space).
Nice idealistic absolutist statement. Like all such things statements there are serious practical problems with it.
The issue here is that there is a great deal of practical benefit to be able to transmit information by radio with some degree of security.
Satellite broadcasting, private cellphone calls, wi-fi networking all benefit greatly by restrictions on decryption of the radio transmissions by the receiver. Society has (in my opinion rightly) deemed that the value of these services and the commerce in them that enriches both the provider and enduser exceeds the small loss of freedom to do what you will with these radio waves. It is a perfectly valid trade-off. If you don't like it, fine. But be prepared to do jail time if you put your opinions into action.
Actually, I am the one attempting to take many cultural factors into account. You are the one attempting to state which is best based solely on per capita income.
I haven't seen any measurements from you that take 'cultural factors' into account. In fact you haven't come up with any facts or measurements at all to back up your claims. All you do is make vague, unsubstantiated claims that we aren't getting anything for our hard work when actual economic numbers say the opposite.
And if you think income and purchasing power are the main things that matter, vs education, health care, quality of life, etc, you have much bigger issues.
And exactly how the hell do you come up with a measurement of 'quality of life'? The fact is that there is no such thing. You are off on some sort of fantasy if your think that you can compare quality of life across countries with different cultures in an objective fashion.
The fact is that the American worker gets plenty of return for his hard work - the best per capita income in the world, and a lower tax rate so he can keep more of it. All those wonderful services do is drive up the tax rates. With that income he can buy whatever services he wants - the fact is that American graduate a higher percentage of there citizens from college than any other country on earth.