Where's the stress relief when the damn thing Blue Screens?
Easy. You just pull out a drawer, throw down your entire desk in there in rage (including non-empty coffee mugs and cola cans), kick the drawer shut hard and go to lunch.
(The nice green little postcard you fill in on entry to the US)
Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? (YES) (NO)
Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide? (YES) (NO)
(and so on and so forth, with "Are you seeking entry to overthrow the government?" especially notable)
Actually, my favorite is not the questions themselves, but two remarks at the bottom.
"WARNING: If you answered YES to any of these questions, you may not be permitted to enter the United States." (Like, why don't they add an eighth question, "Did you lie on any of the above questions?".)
and better yet, at the bottom there is a note saying "If you find a way to make this process less cumbersome, write to The Paperwork Reduction Project..." with a two-mile-long address. Yeah, duh! I'm sure terrorists will declare themselves as terrorists at the border. What did people smoke when they invented this, anyway?:-)
1) The court concluded that Suing Spammer had not shown that the defendant had contacted SPEWS, and
2) The court concluded that the Suing Spammer had not shown that reporting Spammer to SPEWS would have entitled Spammer to damages.
Now, for bonus points and to complete the in-session asskick of Suing Spammer,
3) The court notes that Suing Spammer has been sending unsolicited bulk e-mail, and so blacklisting Spammer on SPEWS was appropriate by whomever did it.
What a complete kickass! I just love it when people actually have common sense!
IIRC (can't find the exact article now), according to MilTech magazine, China has implemented, or is implementing, a similar scheme for military use. However, it is based on civilian TV broadcasts!
All these TV transmissions make up a radio pattern in the air, and by using arrays of passive receivers that analyze the radio waves at their particular spot, you can easily spot any large object moving through the air, interfering with the radio patterns. Thus, "stealth" aircraft will have a tough time as it is no longer necessary to return a radar signature to be spotted on radar -- you just have to be a large, blunt object in the enemy airspace.
So what enables this is basically lots and lots of processing power to continuously analyze the radio field patterns.
This is different because occasionally, a Chevy worker will drive a Ford to work; and a McDonalds worker will eat Burger King food. Neither activity is restricted by their job.
Nor is it restricted by BitKeeper. What they say is that Burger King won't feed McD staff its burgers for _free_, and the Chevy worker won't get a brand new Ford for _free_.
However, they're free to buy them if they want, like the rest of the world does. They always have been free to buy them. Nothing special here.
Do you know how many police stations can afford an UltraSparc for this specific purpose? Pretty none (possibly excluding Beverly Hills, CA). Do you know how many already have Windows boxen? Pretty much every one of them.
Who cares if they can't feed it all the 10 gigs of crime data. This gets them the basic technology in the first place, helping law enforcement with equipment that is available to them. If they can't get 99% probability but have to settle for 95% due to machine constraints, I'd say that still is a pretty good step ahead.
I'd go for ordinary imprisonment. Sure, this and lots of other crimes merit worse, but unfortunately our "justice" system is actually a "conviction" system, and doesn't appear to be batting too high an average on hanging the right guy.
That, plus if I were a weak loner who had committed crimes generally thought of as cowardly, there is NOTHING I would fear more than going to a U.S. Federal Prison. That would be considerably worse than death...
Actually, you can accomplish what you used to accomplish in C++-style multiple inheritance by inheriting/implementing multiple interfaces instead.
Interfaces were not a part of C++, so you were forced to use multiple inheritance if you wanted to combine the properties-capabilities of two objects. Not so anymore.
Yes, waterfall-style planning (actually, it's "Vattenfall"-style planning, as in the company "Vattenfall", but that's another story) has been abandoned for being too inflexible. When new requirements pop up, that kind of planning requires you to rewind to the requirements phase, which is Bad and not very much in line with how reality works.
However, your arguing is equally out of touch with reality, but from the other side. Have you ever written a spec? Have you ever made a design? I have, on some projects, and I have not, on others. I have been a professional designer-coder for 18 years, and I've seen projects without management crash and burn. I think the best way to sum it up is the old military adage;
"No battle is ever won according to plan, but no battle was ever won without a plan, either."
Let's begin from the top. Code is emotional. You don't throw away code. You rewrite it, you re-encapsulate it, you tweak it. But you never throw away perfectly working code. It's your baby, damnit, and you're proud of it.
So what if it doesn't solve the right problem? Well, that's what you find out after you've coded for some two weeks and start to see how things fit together. You're now stuck with two weeks' worth of coding that WILL make it into your final product, relevant or not.
OR... you could plan for two days and discover that already. And you could make classes that fit better together from the start.
It's true that you get started quicker if you don't plan ahead. It's pretty much like orienteering and running away in some direction (hey, it's about running, right?) without looking at the map and planning your route first.
Wrong. Coding is not about programming. It is about solving a specific problem. Unless you understand the problem before you start coding, you are going to solve a different one.
The statement "you'll be much smarter after just [one] week of codewriting" smells of elitism and being so out of touch that I don't know where to begin. Yes, you will know more about your product. You know why? Because YOU THINK ABOUT THE DESIGN as you code!
Only you're producing code that you wrote before you knew which problem you're solving. Back to square 1.
Re:RIAA sues radio stations for piracy
on
Napster: The Movie
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure you can post another story with the same link, and still get the karma.:-)
You're right, geeks care more about features. And we all know, that to make the really big money, you need to capture the geek crowd, right?
Wrong.
The mass market for mobile telephony lies with the teenagers. Not only that, but fashion-aware teenagers. (For a significant part, this even means "females".)
Sorry to be so blunt, but your market segment is not significant when writing the requirements for a mass-market mobile product.
I wrote an HTTP Capture utility yesterday (basically just a socket accept that dumps the socket traffic to a file). The EXE came off at 6k, and I felt pretty good about that.
Then I realized it depends on the.Net Framework which is another 30 megs.:-)
MANY more machines. And this effect, the effect of being drowned in messages grammatical errors and/or spelling errors, should appropriately be called "Slashdotting".
Looks and sounds like "Yankee inginuity" of a century ago, when the US ignored European patents. The US kept it up until it had enough "intelectual property" of its own.
This was an interesting meme I have not heard before. Do you have a source reference? If this holds up to scrutiny, it can be very useful in the coming years of legal debate.
While you're right in part about the importance to secure a system, you miss out completely on the importance on defense in depth.
The worst flaw of them all about any security, not just information security, is depending on any one process or action or filter to take care of all attacks. It Won't Work. It Will Fail and when it does, you're hosed. The more defenses in depth you have deployed, the better off you are.
Let me illustrate some of the key design criteria for a modern-day tank (as in main battle tank) to illustrate:
1) Avoid detection.
2) If detected, avoid getting hit.
3) If hit, avoid penetration.
4) If penetrated, minimize damage to equipment and crew.
See what I mean? You have to consider what happens if your defenses fail, and where you would be the most vulnerable, and take additional steps there. Because, you know what? Your defenses will fail. But the more of them you have, the less damage an attacker will be able to do by bringing one down.
(One software company I used to work for would take this to extremes and code X-Files style; "Always assume that the entire world around you has been compromised, that your code is the last piece of code standing! Every data you get, even from within the system, is from somebody who's feeding you bogus or random data, or even lying on purpose to make you fail." But the resulting software had defense in depth.)
Remember, when mobile phones first came along, "mobile" meant "not fixed to the wall". You could not move while talking. There was no handover. If you went out of reach of your base station, you would lose the call.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeff Foxworthy: "If the UFO Hotline limits you to one call per day, you might be a redneck."
Where's the stress relief when the damn thing Blue Screens?
Easy. You just pull out a drawer, throw down your entire desk in there in rage (including non-empty coffee mugs and cola cans), kick the drawer shut hard and go to lunch.
(The nice green little postcard you fill in on entry to the US)
:-)
Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? (YES) (NO)
Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide? (YES) (NO)
(and so on and so forth, with "Are you seeking entry to overthrow the government?" especially notable)
Actually, my favorite is not the questions themselves, but two remarks at the bottom.
"WARNING: If you answered YES to any of these questions, you may not be permitted to enter the United States." (Like, why don't they add an eighth question, "Did you lie on any of the above questions?".)
and better yet, at the bottom there is a note saying "If you find a way to make this process less cumbersome, write to The Paperwork Reduction Project..." with a two-mile-long address. Yeah, duh! I'm sure terrorists will declare themselves as terrorists at the border. What did people smoke when they invented this, anyway?
Or anywhere else in China for that matter.
*severe beating* :-)
1) The court concluded that Suing Spammer had not shown that the defendant had contacted SPEWS, and
2) The court concluded that the Suing Spammer had not shown that reporting Spammer to SPEWS would have entitled Spammer to damages.
Now, for bonus points and to complete the in-session asskick of Suing Spammer,
3) The court notes that Suing Spammer has been sending unsolicited bulk e-mail, and so blacklisting Spammer on SPEWS was appropriate by whomever did it.
What a complete kickass! I just love it when people actually have common sense!
IIRC (can't find the exact article now), according to MilTech magazine, China has implemented, or is implementing, a similar scheme for military use. However, it is based on civilian TV broadcasts!
All these TV transmissions make up a radio pattern in the air, and by using arrays of passive receivers that analyze the radio waves at their particular spot, you can easily spot any large object moving through the air, interfering with the radio patterns. Thus, "stealth" aircraft will have a tough time as it is no longer necessary to return a radar signature to be spotted on radar -- you just have to be a large, blunt object in the enemy airspace.
So what enables this is basically lots and lots of processing power to continuously analyze the radio field patterns.
He is, but he doesn't get the plastic Chevy with his Happy Meal.
This is different because occasionally, a Chevy worker will drive a Ford to work; and a McDonalds worker will eat Burger King food. Neither activity is restricted by their job.
Nor is it restricted by BitKeeper. What they say is that Burger King won't feed McD staff its burgers for _free_, and the Chevy worker won't get a brand new Ford for _free_.
However, they're free to buy them if they want, like the rest of the world does. They always have been free to buy them. Nothing special here.
Do you know how many police stations can afford an UltraSparc for this specific purpose? Pretty none (possibly excluding Beverly Hills, CA). Do you know how many already have Windows boxen? Pretty much every one of them.
Who cares if they can't feed it all the 10 gigs of crime data. This gets them the basic technology in the first place, helping law enforcement with equipment that is available to them. If they can't get 99% probability but have to settle for 95% due to machine constraints, I'd say that still is a pretty good step ahead.
He deserves to die in ways more horrible than humans can imagine.
No, worse. He deserves to live a full life among people who are all fully aware of what he has done, and treat him accordingly.
I'd go for ordinary imprisonment. Sure, this and lots of other crimes merit worse, but unfortunately our "justice" system is actually a "conviction" system, and doesn't appear to be batting too high an average on hanging the right guy.
That, plus if I were a weak loner who had committed crimes generally thought of as cowardly, there is NOTHING I would fear more than going to a U.S. Federal Prison. That would be considerably worse than death...
So, your argument that the U.S. is poised to overtake Europe and Japan with CDMA is based on...
the existence of 1 (one) GSM phone in the US,
a phone which was jointly developed by a European and a Japanese company,
which theoretically would allows US high school kids to do what Japanese high school kids take for so natural it's just part of life?
Now, being realistic, this argument doesn't really support the original claim, does it?
Yeah, imagine the options!
"Ok, sir, I hear you're ordering our 2-million-dollar FibreChannel storage server. Would you like that in red, mint green, or silver, sir?"
Actually, you can accomplish what you used to accomplish in C++-style multiple inheritance by inheriting/implementing multiple interfaces instead.
Interfaces were not a part of C++, so you were forced to use multiple inheritance if you wanted to combine the properties-capabilities of two objects. Not so anymore.
Yes, waterfall-style planning (actually, it's "Vattenfall"-style planning, as in the company "Vattenfall", but that's another story) has been abandoned for being too inflexible. When new requirements pop up, that kind of planning requires you to rewind to the requirements phase, which is Bad and not very much in line with how reality works.
However, your arguing is equally out of touch with reality, but from the other side. Have you ever written a spec? Have you ever made a design? I have, on some projects, and I have not, on others. I have been a professional designer-coder for 18 years, and I've seen projects without management crash and burn. I think the best way to sum it up is the old military adage;
"No battle is ever won according to plan, but no battle was ever won without a plan, either."
Let's begin from the top. Code is emotional. You don't throw away code. You rewrite it, you re-encapsulate it, you tweak it. But you never throw away perfectly working code. It's your baby, damnit, and you're proud of it.
So what if it doesn't solve the right problem? Well, that's what you find out after you've coded for some two weeks and start to see how things fit together. You're now stuck with two weeks' worth of coding that WILL make it into your final product, relevant or not.
OR... you could plan for two days and discover that already. And you could make classes that fit better together from the start.
It's true that you get started quicker if you don't plan ahead. It's pretty much like orienteering and running away in some direction (hey, it's about running, right?) without looking at the map and planning your route first.
Wrong. Coding is not about programming. It is about solving a specific problem. Unless you understand the problem before you start coding, you are going to solve a different one.
The statement "you'll be much smarter after just [one] week of codewriting" smells of elitism and being so out of touch that I don't know where to begin. Yes, you will know more about your product. You know why? Because YOU THINK ABOUT THE DESIGN as you code!
Only you're producing code that you wrote before you knew which problem you're solving. Back to square 1.
I'm sure you can post another story with the same link, and still get the karma. :-)
Or at least download the telecine, and then download the DVD rip when it comes out.
While on the topic of music and P2P, I hope nobody missed this Onion jewel?
_ stations.html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3836/riaa_sues_radio
You're right, geeks care more about features. And we all know, that to make the really big money, you need to capture the geek crowd, right?
Wrong.
The mass market for mobile telephony lies with the teenagers. Not only that, but fashion-aware teenagers. (For a significant part, this even means "females".)
Sorry to be so blunt, but your market segment is not significant when writing the requirements for a mass-market mobile product.
I wrote an HTTP Capture utility yesterday (basically just a socket accept that dumps the socket traffic to a file). The EXE came off at 6k, and I felt pretty good about that.
.Net Framework which is another 30 megs. :-)
Then I realized it depends on the
MANY more machines. And this effect, the effect of being drowned in messages grammatical errors and/or spelling errors, should appropriately be called "Slashdotting".
Looks and sounds like "Yankee inginuity" of a century ago, when the US ignored European patents. The US kept it up until it had enough "intelectual property" of its own.
This was an interesting meme I have not heard before. Do you have a source reference? If this holds up to scrutiny, it can be very useful in the coming years of legal debate.
While you're right in part about the importance to secure a system, you miss out completely on the importance on defense in depth.
The worst flaw of them all about any security, not just information security, is depending on any one process or action or filter to take care of all attacks. It Won't Work. It Will Fail and when it does, you're hosed. The more defenses in depth you have deployed, the better off you are.
Let me illustrate some of the key design criteria for a modern-day tank (as in main battle tank) to illustrate:
1) Avoid detection.
2) If detected, avoid getting hit.
3) If hit, avoid penetration.
4) If penetrated, minimize damage to equipment and crew.
See what I mean? You have to consider what happens if your defenses fail, and where you would be the most vulnerable, and take additional steps there. Because, you know what? Your defenses will fail. But the more of them you have, the less damage an attacker will be able to do by bringing one down.
(One software company I used to work for would take this to extremes and code X-Files style; "Always assume that the entire world around you has been compromised, that your code is the last piece of code standing! Every data you get, even from within the system, is from somebody who's feeding you bogus or random data, or even lying on purpose to make you fail." But the resulting software had defense in depth.)
Remember, when mobile phones first came along, "mobile" meant "not fixed to the wall". You could not move while talking. There was no handover. If you went out of reach of your base station, you would lose the call.
Still, this was a huge first step, as is Wi-Fi.