Once, at the end of the staff meeting I was holding, I casually mentioned that I noticed that 40% of all sick leave were taken on Fridays and Mondays.
Immediately, 2 people jumped out and said it was an outrage, and that we should do something about it. That something like this shouldn't be happening.
Think about it for a second. Why would that have affected it? It wouldn't have known about it. It doesn't set its time against anything else. Even if it does, it'll just grab the new time.
From what I understand, the code is so intertwined and convolutated that an outsider finds it difficult to get in.
If only they'll tear things apart, split it out into the individual components and have it all work separately (modules). Wasn't that the original promise? Some Sun VP actually said OO.o was going to be so componentized that you can include just the specific module you need in your browser, app, whatever.
Compare and contrast with other large scale development efforts like the kernel, kde, etc. Things are designed to integrate well, but are separate. This makes it easy to pick up a piece and work on it (obviously, if you pick up the virtual memory piece, that's still a lot of effort).
In other words, the code part of it still looks like what Staroffice looked like on the desktop - yucky, spaghetti, all encompassing.
No, don't you know that a website doesn't work if it doesn't have the magical www in front of it? So, it should be www.allyourbaseArebelongtous.MyFairPoint.net
(yes, I had someone tell me that as I was trying to get a site up... *sigh*)
English is in fact the most widely spoken language, and it is a second language to the largest number of people.
It's quite a few years since I've looked at the CIA factbook, but, iirc, English is #3.
ObJoke: What do you call someone who speaks 3 languages? Trilingual What do you call someone who speaks 2 languages? Bilingual What do you call someone who speaks 1 language? American
I will grant you that Microsoft has made some steps in the right direction, but just like a slap to the face is better than a stick in the eye, they haven't done enough.
1) Defaults (which is what most of the world uses) are insecure. 2) Difficult to secure properly. 3) Sandboxing is even more difficult, and causes issues with the standards that Microsoft propagated previously. 4) All the "old" stuff is still supported and actively distributed (ActiveX components are still being written and pushed out even today).
Until they push out a version of IE that is:
1) standards compliant 2) comes with a serious security model that passes an objective external review 3) does not support any of the previous insecure crap
my stance is still that IE sucks.
That they are not serious about this can be seen in the commentary by a recent (a few months back)/. article about the programmer who moved from.NET to MacOSX -.NET is supposed to be the new way of securely doing things. So, WHY THE FUCK DOES IT SUPPORT INSECURE WIN32 CRAP?
How many times should Microsoft be given a free pass before they are held accountable?
Is one specific error indicative of an improved software industry? Unlike you, I don't happen to think it's indicative of anything at all.
I'm of the opinion that all programmers should subscribe to comp.risks. Why don't you go read a few of their recent digests, then come back with the same opinion? It's very easy to get to, just google for Risks.
2) As long as Microsoft continues to stress non-standard compliance, and continue to support ActiveX and crap like that, things like protected mode and so on are just bandaids in the name of security.
3) Until someone comes up and shows me status quo has changed, I shall continue to assume that it has not. I think even last year or this year, some one did a study of commercial vs open source code, and came up with x bugs per y lines of code. That hasn't changed much compared to when the book was written.
Because I continue to work with programmers, and I see the products being delivered. Yes, part of the problem is management, and part of it is project management, but a whole bunch of it is shitty design and shitty code. Improvements does not mean a pretty interface, but actual delivery of a competent, well working product. The recent Nasa orbiter issue with metric vs imperial measurements only cost $130M. Is this your example of an improved software industry?
Dude - you are using ActiveX in IE *TODAY* It's a fucking design flaw. Does it matter if the article is 10 years or 20 years old?
Which part of "IT'S A FUCKING DESIGN FLAW" do you not understand?
Mark Minasi wrote a book on this: http://www.softwareconspiracy.com/ In the book, he gets on the record quotes from Microsoft/Sun/Oracle development VPs on why they put out shitty/insecure software. The answer - because the customers buy it anyway. It's people like you who hand wave shitty stuff away that's stopping the software industry from improving.
See, this is why I hate debating with morons who can't see beyond the end of their fingers.
DOES IT FUCKING MATTER THAT THE ARTICLE IS OLD? ActiveX is still in use today, in IE. MOST of the issues can't be fixed, because it is a FUCKING DESIGN FLAW. Which part of that do you not understand?
Additionally, who the hell says Firefox's development roots are less secure than IE? Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
Next, let the security history speak for itself eh? At one point, there was a guy who was tracking all the known open vulnerabilities in IE, and there were some that were open for over 5 years. So you can take your "IE is more secure" bullshit and shove it.
No sitation, I was only going by the historical background of both browsers. Firefox has its roots in Mozilla, which was...less than stellar back in the days. Of course, everything changed and that background is fairly irrelevent now.
Oh please. Do you know why the original Mozilla took so long to be released? Because large swaths of the code had to be re-written, and the security model was redesigned. I'm not saying it is perfect, but I am saying that they put a lot of thought into it.
And I have a serious dislike for people who can't tell the difference between software engineering and slapping code together and compiling until it works - and worse dislike for people who forgive that behavior.
So, forgive me if the security geek in me feels a little fucking pissed off. Nobody is saying all the software has to be perfect. But what I'm fucking pissed off about is that they INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT AND CALLED IT SECURITY AND CRAMMED IT DOWN OUR COLLECTIVE THROATS and the damned IT media just rolls over while crying BOHICA.
First of all - Firefox was designed with security in mind.
IE was not. That alone is enough to drive me off IE. Go to the Risks digest and read what Bob Atkinson wrote about Authenticode - he basically says that a broken screen saver has higher priority than security issues - and authenticode is the security technology behind ActiveX. And Atkinson is the fucking author of authenticode.
And what you want - that technology already exists. A company called GreenBorder made it. Guess what - google bought it. Hopefully, the big G will release it soon.
Gee, you hire idiot savants or what? Much of the things you bitch about in the other post about manually tracking tracking numbers, etc, can all be automated. About the only thing that needs to happen is to slap it into an envelope and send it off. And if your company is cheap enough to use ground for shipping, then you certainly can't afford to upgrade the network so that you can send DR files over it.
In case you forgot, the OP's issue *is* the network, and he wants some magic pixie dust to get more bandwidth. Ain't gonna happen. He can either:
1) upgrade network 2) redesign network 3) suck it up and keep moaning and bitching about network 4) use something else, such as a DVD.
Your "hey, lets keep using the network" is keeping him at option 3, and, seriously, I don't want to hear him moaning and bitching.
Slashdot Mirror
Once, at the end of the staff meeting I was holding, I casually mentioned that I noticed that 40% of all sick leave were taken on Fridays and Mondays.
Immediately, 2 people jumped out and said it was an outrage, and that we should do something about it. That something like this shouldn't be happening.
*sigh*
That's pretty impressive lateral thinking! :)
And by god, I hope I never will.
That's because you haven't squirted its last breath yet.
Think about it for a second. Why would that have affected it? It wouldn't have known about it. It doesn't set its time against anything else. Even if it does, it'll just grab the new time.
That's because you don't have a window view, right!!? :)
This sort of made the joke obvious.
No. The ironic reading is not the only interpretation. You're blinded by hindsight.
You're just a moron. First, you didn't get the joke. Then you get all defensive over it. You're just blinded by your need to feel superior.
Insensitive clod.
Actually, that would be you. Why kibbitz on this exchange that did not involve you just to sneer?
It's a public exchange. This is 1st degree luserdom to tell someone else they can't join in on a public debate.
From what I understand, the code is so intertwined and convolutated that an outsider finds it difficult to get in.
If only they'll tear things apart, split it out into the individual components and have it all work separately (modules). Wasn't that the original promise? Some Sun VP actually said OO.o was going to be so componentized that you can include just the specific module you need in your browser, app, whatever.
Compare and contrast with other large scale development efforts like the kernel, kde, etc. Things are designed to integrate well, but are separate. This makes it easy to pick up a piece and work on it (obviously, if you pick up the virtual memory piece, that's still a lot of effort).
In other words, the code part of it still looks like what Staroffice looked like on the desktop - yucky, spaghetti, all encompassing.
*whoosh*
No, don't you know that a website doesn't work if it doesn't have the magical www in front of it? So, it should be www.allyourbaseArebelongtous.MyFairPoint.net
(yes, I had someone tell me that as I was trying to get a site up... *sigh*)
English is in fact the most widely spoken language, and it is a second language to the largest number of people.
It's quite a few years since I've looked at the CIA factbook, but, iirc, English is #3.
ObJoke:
What do you call someone who speaks 3 languages? Trilingual
What do you call someone who speaks 2 languages? Bilingual
What do you call someone who speaks 1 language? American
--someone who speaks 3 of the top 10 languages.
Silly slashdotter. As pointed out by another article a couple of weeks back, God is a delusion.
Interesting. I'll need to go find out more, it appears. Thanks for the info.
I will grant you that Microsoft has made some steps in the right direction, but just like a slap to the face is better than a stick in the eye, they haven't done enough.
1) Defaults (which is what most of the world uses) are insecure.
2) Difficult to secure properly.
3) Sandboxing is even more difficult, and causes issues with the standards that Microsoft propagated previously.
4) All the "old" stuff is still supported and actively distributed (ActiveX components are still being written and pushed out even today).
Until they push out a version of IE that is:
1) standards compliant
2) comes with a serious security model that passes an objective external review
3) does not support any of the previous insecure crap
my stance is still that IE sucks.
That they are not serious about this can be seen in the commentary by a recent (a few months back) /. article about the programmer who moved from .NET to MacOSX - .NET is supposed to be the new way of securely doing things. So, WHY THE FUCK DOES IT SUPPORT INSECURE WIN32 CRAP?
How many times should Microsoft be given a free pass before they are held accountable?
Is one specific error indicative of an improved software industry? Unlike you, I don't happen to think it's indicative of anything at all.
I'm of the opinion that all programmers should subscribe to comp.risks. Why don't you go read a few of their recent digests, then come back with the same opinion? It's very easy to get to, just google for Risks.
So, are you claiming:
1) ActiveX is secure, or
2) IE doesn't use ActiveX?
Or what exactly are you claiming when you say IE is secure?
And just because your script kiddie stuff quit working doesn't mean IE is secure, tyvm.
1) Generic You, not specific you.
2) As long as Microsoft continues to stress non-standard compliance, and continue to support ActiveX and crap like that, things like protected mode and so on are just bandaids in the name of security.
3) Until someone comes up and shows me status quo has changed, I shall continue to assume that it has not. I think even last year or this year, some one did a study of commercial vs open source code, and came up with x bugs per y lines of code. That hasn't changed much compared to when the book was written.
Because I continue to work with programmers, and I see the products being delivered. Yes, part of the problem is management, and part of it is project management, but a whole bunch of it is shitty design and shitty code. Improvements does not mean a pretty interface, but actual delivery of a competent, well working product. The recent Nasa orbiter issue with metric vs imperial measurements only cost $130M. Is this your example of an improved software industry?
Dude - you are using ActiveX in IE *TODAY* It's a fucking design flaw. Does it matter if the article is 10 years or 20 years old?
Which part of "IT'S A FUCKING DESIGN FLAW" do you not understand?
Mark Minasi wrote a book on this: http://www.softwareconspiracy.com/ In the book, he gets on the record quotes from Microsoft/Sun/Oracle development VPs on why they put out shitty/insecure software. The answer - because the customers buy it anyway. It's people like you who hand wave shitty stuff away that's stopping the software industry from improving.
See, this is why I hate debating with morons who can't see beyond the end of their fingers.
DOES IT FUCKING MATTER THAT THE ARTICLE IS OLD? ActiveX is still in use today, in IE. MOST of the issues can't be fixed, because it is a FUCKING DESIGN FLAW. Which part of that do you not understand?
Additionally, who the hell says Firefox's development roots are less secure than IE? Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
Next, let the security history speak for itself eh? At one point, there was a guy who was tracking all the known open vulnerabilities in IE, and there were some that were open for over 5 years. So you can take your "IE is more secure" bullshit and shove it.
No sitation, I was only going by the historical background of both browsers. Firefox has its roots in Mozilla, which was...less than stellar back in the days. Of course, everything changed and that background is fairly irrelevent now.
Oh please. Do you know why the original Mozilla took so long to be released? Because large swaths of the code had to be re-written, and the security model was redesigned. I'm not saying it is perfect, but I am saying that they put a lot of thought into it.
And I have a serious dislike for people who can't tell the difference between software engineering and slapping code together and compiling until it works - and worse dislike for people who forgive that behavior.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/php/risks/search.php?query=authenticode basically has the fucking author of Authenticode saying that security is so unimportant that even a broken screen saver has a higher priority at Microsoft.
So, forgive me if the security geek in me feels a little fucking pissed off. Nobody is saying all the software has to be perfect. But what I'm fucking pissed off about is that they INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT AND CALLED IT SECURITY AND CRAMMED IT DOWN OUR COLLECTIVE THROATS and the damned IT media just rolls over while crying BOHICA.
First of all - Firefox was designed with security in mind.
IE was not. That alone is enough to drive me off IE. Go to the Risks digest and read what Bob Atkinson wrote about Authenticode - he basically says that a broken screen saver has higher priority than security issues - and authenticode is the security technology behind ActiveX. And Atkinson is the fucking author of authenticode.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/php/risks/search.php?query=authenticode
And what you want - that technology already exists. A company called GreenBorder made it. Guess what - google bought it. Hopefully, the big G will release it soon.
Gee, you hire idiot savants or what? Much of the things you bitch about in the other post about manually tracking tracking numbers, etc, can all be automated. About the only thing that needs to happen is to slap it into an envelope and send it off. And if your company is cheap enough to use ground for shipping, then you certainly can't afford to upgrade the network so that you can send DR files over it.
In case you forgot, the OP's issue *is* the network, and he wants some magic pixie dust to get more bandwidth. Ain't gonna happen. He can either:
1) upgrade network
2) redesign network
3) suck it up and keep moaning and bitching about network
4) use something else, such as a DVD.
Your "hey, lets keep using the network" is keeping him at option 3, and, seriously, I don't want to hear him moaning and bitching.
That is to say - the encrypted media can be verified prior to shipping, perhaps even with the aid of a script.
Psst - I dunno if you know, but people can sniff your network traffic! Really, fer real! Mum's the word, OK!
This is DR, folks, it ain't that hard.