Um, no. It is a fundamental rule of science to not take unobservable events and entities as truth. Religion is, at best, an unsupported hypothesis, with VERY long odds against it. And odds are getting slimmer by the day as science explains the world in greater detail, and uncovers the facts that directly contradict religious doctrines.
There's no way to be "christian" and be "logical" at the same time. Christianity (and most other religions) by definition requires you to suspend logic and believe in the outdated mythology written by unwashed, barely literate savages approximately 1900 years ago (50 years _after_ the death of Christ), and since then creatively rewritten a few times to suit head honchos of the various sects. You believe in something you, again by definition, can't observe or confirm the existence of. That pretty much destroys your claim at possessing "logic".
A lot of people left for Windows because Sinofsky is currently considered heir to the throne once Ballmer is shown the door. So they want to align themselves to the next CEO.
The guy is nothing but a bunch of hot air. He did almost nothing for Office, he came in after Raikes left in 2008, and it was Raikes who ran Office division so successfully. A monkey with half a brain could continue running this monopoly. They needed someone who knows what to do with the company. Elop certainly does not.
Maybe. Or maybe you will discover, like I did, that something is "wrong" if this feature is disabled. I didn't like it at first either. It seemed too jarring.
>> you're just committing to not being able to unit test a component in isolation
Horseshit. You can supply mocks to your component just fine, provided that it's properly designed. I don't see how dependency injection frees you from creating mocks for external dependencies.
Do not make things super-modular and generic unless they 100% have to be. In 99.9% of the projects no one, including yourself, will use your stupid dependency injection, and logging / access control can be done just fine without AOP. Don't layer patterns where there's no need. Aim for the simplest possible design that will work. Don't overemphasize extensibility and flexibility, unless you KNOW you will need it, follow the YAGNI principle (you ain't gonna need it).
>> That doesn't cover valid input which triggers a bug
It does. That would be what I call "malicious input". It's perfectly possible to write programs that reject it or otherwise error out without doing any harm.
My point is, there's nothing _fundamentally_ impossible about writing secure software. It can be done. It's just very hard and the cost/benefit ratio is not quite there to support it.
If you're good and your expectations are realistic, your age doesn't matter in most high tech companies, and the ones where it does - you don't want to work for them anyway. There's a severe shortage of good people. That said, when looking for a job older folks need to have realistic expectations as far as where they'll end up. At some point, "number of years in the industry" becomes a pointless bit of trivia. You shouldn't expect 150K in base salary just because you're over 40 and have a vague recollection of programming for VAX. You have to have a reputation to back it up, as well as the chops, or adjust your expectations accordingly. What I see is that older folks (I'm in my mid-30's myself) often expect to be put into very senior roles or managerial positions, and frankly, there are often more qualified candidates with more realistic expectations.
Software that accepts external inputs is secure if it rejects invalid or malicious input. That's all there is to it. And it's perfectly possible to write a program that does just that. It doesn't even have to be 100% bug-free.
I see no reason why software can't be 100% secure. I just think it's unrealistic to expect this from commercial software written by people who don't really care.
This just in: according to the results of this research, Alzheimers is given by God as punishment for sins, such as molesting young boys, blowing millions (billions) of dollars on enormous houses of worship, and inciting hatred towards Muslims and sometimes even other Christian denominations.
If memory serves, Russia sells S-300 to Iran. Anything Israel can fly, Iran can shoot down. To shut down anything the US can fly, they'd need the "Russian Army" (i.e. non-export) version of S-400 Triumf, which again to the best of my knowledge Russia doesn't sell to anyone, and when they do start selling it, it will be a "reduced" version compared to what they run themselves. So any attack on Iran in the next few years would have to be done by high-end US stealth aircraft, and I don't think Obama is insane enough to enter yet another war in this economic climate.
Then nothing was really lost with his departure. All Microsoft PMs do is sit in the meetings, "manage schedule", "report status", and take credit for devs' work. What's even more insane is that in some teams PM/Dev ratio is 1:1. So that remaining dev (assuming he was, in fact, a dev) has just become twice as productive, due to the decrease in the number of meetings on his calendar.
Microsoft is just like any other company. They want to sell product, and if customer is stupid enough to buy something that doesn't fit their needs, that's fine by Microsoft. Heck, a lot of other software products are sold exactly the same way and for a lot more money. Why should Microsoft or its partners leave the money on the table.:-)
Guess what, people just need something to conveniently share documents first and foremost. And all your other "ASP.NET based CMS products" suck at that.
>> you plan to use the "out of box" Sharepoint >> installation, with little or no customization work
And that's not counting the sales of SQL and Windows Server CALs that you will need to run it properly. If you study this market carefully (I did) you will see that Sharepoint is the only semi-decent product, and, e.g. Alfresco (which positions itself as the strongest competitor to Sharepoint) is a half-baked, broken piece of crap, with or without the yearly support contract.
Let's consider 100TB in 172 minute thing they also did. 52 nodes, 16 spindles per node is 832 spindles total and 120GB of data per spindle. 120GB of data can be read in 20 minutes and transfered in another 15 to the target spindles (assuming uniform distribution of keys). You can then break it down into 2GB chunks locally (again by key) as you reduce. Then you spend another hour and a half reading individual chunks, sorting them in memory, concatenating and writing.
Of course this only works well if the keys are uniformly distributed (which they often are) and if data is already on the spindles (which it often isn't).
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no. It is a fundamental rule of science to not take unobservable events and entities as truth. Religion is, at best, an unsupported hypothesis, with VERY long odds against it. And odds are getting slimmer by the day as science explains the world in greater detail, and uncovers the facts that directly contradict religious doctrines.
There's no way to be "christian" and be "logical" at the same time. Christianity (and most other religions) by definition requires you to suspend logic and believe in the outdated mythology written by unwashed, barely literate savages approximately 1900 years ago (50 years _after_ the death of Christ), and since then creatively rewritten a few times to suit head honchos of the various sects. You believe in something you, again by definition, can't observe or confirm the existence of. That pretty much destroys your claim at possessing "logic".
Read this in an interview with Jobs. They basically made an iPad prototype and Jobs said, "let's make a phone out of this". So they did.
A lot of people left for Windows because Sinofsky is currently considered heir to the throne once Ballmer is shown the door. So they want to align themselves to the next CEO.
The guy is nothing but a bunch of hot air. He did almost nothing for Office, he came in after Raikes left in 2008, and it was Raikes who ran Office division so successfully. A monkey with half a brain could continue running this monopoly. They needed someone who knows what to do with the company. Elop certainly does not.
Maybe. Or maybe you will discover, like I did, that something is "wrong" if this feature is disabled. I didn't like it at first either. It seemed too jarring.
Give it some time. You won't want to disable it if you stick with it for a few days.
I'm afraid my wife wouldn't understand if I told her that we're to split our bills (including mortgage) from here on out. :-)
>> you're just committing to not being able to unit test a component in isolation
Horseshit. You can supply mocks to your component just fine, provided that it's properly designed. I don't see how dependency injection frees you from creating mocks for external dependencies.
Except #3 is not always true. A lot of us have to take enormous stress to earn our six figure salaries (to pay for security of the loved ones).
Do not make things super-modular and generic unless they 100% have to be. In 99.9% of the projects no one, including yourself, will use your stupid dependency injection, and logging / access control can be done just fine without AOP. Don't layer patterns where there's no need. Aim for the simplest possible design that will work. Don't overemphasize extensibility and flexibility, unless you KNOW you will need it, follow the YAGNI principle (you ain't gonna need it).
>> That doesn't cover valid input which triggers a bug
It does. That would be what I call "malicious input". It's perfectly possible to write programs that reject it or otherwise error out without doing any harm.
My point is, there's nothing _fundamentally_ impossible about writing secure software. It can be done. It's just very hard and the cost/benefit ratio is not quite there to support it.
If you're good and your expectations are realistic, your age doesn't matter in most high tech companies, and the ones where it does - you don't want to work for them anyway. There's a severe shortage of good people. That said, when looking for a job older folks need to have realistic expectations as far as where they'll end up. At some point, "number of years in the industry" becomes a pointless bit of trivia. You shouldn't expect 150K in base salary just because you're over 40 and have a vague recollection of programming for VAX. You have to have a reputation to back it up, as well as the chops, or adjust your expectations accordingly. What I see is that older folks (I'm in my mid-30's myself) often expect to be put into very senior roles or managerial positions, and frankly, there are often more qualified candidates with more realistic expectations.
Software that accepts external inputs is secure if it rejects invalid or malicious input. That's all there is to it. And it's perfectly possible to write a program that does just that. It doesn't even have to be 100% bug-free.
I see no reason why software can't be 100% secure. I just think it's unrealistic to expect this from commercial software written by people who don't really care.
This just in: according to the results of this research, Alzheimers is given by God as punishment for sins, such as molesting young boys, blowing millions (billions) of dollars on enormous houses of worship, and inciting hatred towards Muslims and sometimes even other Christian denominations.
If memory serves, Russia sells S-300 to Iran. Anything Israel can fly, Iran can shoot down. To shut down anything the US can fly, they'd need the "Russian Army" (i.e. non-export) version of S-400 Triumf, which again to the best of my knowledge Russia doesn't sell to anyone, and when they do start selling it, it will be a "reduced" version compared to what they run themselves. So any attack on Iran in the next few years would have to be done by high-end US stealth aircraft, and I don't think Obama is insane enough to enter yet another war in this economic climate.
Then nothing was really lost with his departure. All Microsoft PMs do is sit in the meetings, "manage schedule", "report status", and take credit for devs' work. What's even more insane is that in some teams PM/Dev ratio is 1:1. So that remaining dev (assuming he was, in fact, a dev) has just become twice as productive, due to the decrease in the number of meetings on his calendar.
If you buy this car, you're full of shit.
Microsoft is just like any other company. They want to sell product, and if customer is stupid enough to buy something that doesn't fit their needs, that's fine by Microsoft. Heck, a lot of other software products are sold exactly the same way and for a lot more money. Why should Microsoft or its partners leave the money on the table. :-)
Guess what, people just need something to conveniently share documents first and foremost. And all your other "ASP.NET based CMS products" suck at that.
>> you plan to use the "out of box" Sharepoint
>> installation, with little or no customization work
Which his how it is deployed in 95% of the cases.
Except Sharepoint actually makes money. And not just a few bucks, but $1B in yearly revenue (I know, it's not profit, but it's profitable).
http://www.ameinfo.com/152875.html
And that's not counting the sales of SQL and Windows Server CALs that you will need to run it properly. If you study this market carefully (I did) you will see that Sharepoint is the only semi-decent product, and, e.g. Alfresco (which positions itself as the strongest competitor to Sharepoint) is a half-baked, broken piece of crap, with or without the yearly support contract.
Apple does not use Adobe Reader for PDF. I thought everyone knew this by now. Apparently not.
Now they just need to attach this to Ballmer's head to deblur the company vision a little.
Let's consider 100TB in 172 minute thing they also did. 52 nodes, 16 spindles per node is 832 spindles total and 120GB of data per spindle. 120GB of data can be read in 20 minutes and transfered in another 15 to the target spindles (assuming uniform distribution of keys). You can then break it down into 2GB chunks locally (again by key) as you reduce. Then you spend another hour and a half reading individual chunks, sorting them in memory, concatenating and writing.
Of course this only works well if the keys are uniformly distributed (which they often are) and if data is already on the spindles (which it often isn't).