No - by this definition a cheek-scraping is "human". All the chromosomes are in there, and yet we are heartless enough to conduct brutal experiments, experiments that KILL these cells, in high school biology laps all across the world.
Of course, this leads quickly into the "potential" for human life debate, which gets pretty tangly pretty soon. Even more so as cloning develops -- in another decade maybe those cheek cells may be just as much "potential" humans as a normal fertilized egg (many of which spontaneously abort, by the way, and would not develop into a human no matter what you did).
The other important point here that seems to get left out is that we aren't just debating one life here. It's not just "at what point does this fetus get rights" -- the fetus isn't out on its own, driving around in a little fetusmobile. It's totally dependant on another, unquestionable human and rights-endowed being, the mother. Can we legitmately force her to sacrifice her own health, risk her own life, etc. for the fetus?
Even if the fetus were a little curled-up totally-aware *adult* inside her, can we force her to let it exist parasitically in her? I know most twins would give up a kidney to save their twin... but are they legally compelled to do it?
I mean, girls' souls are a different color than boys' -- so God can't have handed the thing a soul until that's settled.
This also brings up the point that many theolgians have seriously, seriously discussed -- that a fetus must not be granted a soul until it's PAST the point where it may split into twins... because then each twin would only have HALF a soul.
Heady stuff, I know.
"But who are you, so wise in the ways of science?"
America with syphilis tests on blacks in the 30's.
Unfortunately, it's worse than you're saying. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment started in the 30's, but it wasn't stopped until -- god help us -- 1972.
For those who aren't familiar with this, the U.S. Public Health Service told about 400 poor black men with syphilis that they were being treated for "bad blood", then didn't treat them at all (and let them die of the complications of the disease) so as to study these fatal side effects through autopsies. By the end of the experiment about half of the men had died of the disease, plus many of their wives were infected, and some of their children were born with congenital syphilis.
They ran various experiments, including the fun and pleasant sort like spinal taps, all claiming to the men that this was part of treatment.
alas, i digress. i apologize. virology is rooted in micro-evolution. tiny minute changes in an organisms makeup. virology has as much to do with evolutionary biology (Darwin evolution) as your personal check book has to do with the stock market. small vs. unbelievably complex.
I know, coward, I'm wasting my time on you... but it just takes a second to point out that virology is talking about minute changes in organism that can occur in the space of A FEW DAYS. These have about as much to do with the large changes that occur gradually over millenia as balancing your checkbook has to do with... well, something bigger than the stock market, anyway.
Memento mori. Remember you must die. But also remember that not everything dies with you. Mountains turn to sand if you wait long enough. If you've lived on a mountain, this is almost impossible to imagine, but it happens nonetheless. Goo turns to you, if you wait long enough. Amazing, for sure, but there's no avoiding it if you can just wrap your brain around it. Nothing else makes sense.
Please, don't trust me -- go find out for yourself. The nice thing about science is that you don't have to trust anybody. Certainly not what some people who died thousands of years ago supposedly said... you can check the evidence for yourself. It's OVERWHELMING.
Are you just trolling to waste my time? Do you just not understand how this works?
Of course top level domains are based to a degree on "popularity" -- meaning how many websites there are that would put themselves into the given category. Are there a lot of webmasters who would put their sites into a "red" or "day" category? Um.. not so much. And there *is* a k12 sub-domain within the.us TLD, by state -- for example http://www.k12.wa.us/ in Washington (other states as well), so that's covered.
There *are* a lot of restaurant websites, and it could make a lot of sense to give them their own TLD, to help clear out the.com mess. A TLD for religious sites might make sense; I'm not sure. Probably not ".GOD" though; even among the monotheistic faiths many don't call the deity "God".
Do you see how this works? It's not rocket science. It's not even science at all -- just a little simple common sense.
You probably also believe that if we allow gay marriage it's only a matter of time before we have people married to children, dogs, or in groups of 10. Am I right? And your logical ancestors argued against giving slaves their freedom because next we'd be giving horses their freedom and asking them to vote for president.
This is the "slippery slope" fallacy. Look it up and think about your logic.
You think that if we allow an "xxx" domain, next we'll have a "mur" domain for murder fetishists? Sure, if suddenly all of society as we know it disappears and is replaced by a completely different one in which murder is okay.
Whereas sex is a fairly accepted part of life. Kind of a requirement, actually. Laws on what's legal in pornography are NOT only in the direction of more permissiveness -- there have also been plenty of laws and legal actions to prevent unwilling participation, protecting the actors who get involved from abuse, etc..
I'd really like to see how you imagine necrophilia will somehow take off -- that's miles away from any kind of activity between consenting adults, and fairly universally condemned.
If you want to make this kind of argument you have to give evidence for each step -- you can't assume that one movement in a given direction will result in continued movement in that direction.
I'm no grizzled guru by any means, but damn, I know by now that though it *may* seem cheaper to upgrade all in one fell swoop, you're gonna get hosed every time. The bigger the system, the more likely, just because there's no way you can *test* the thing at that scale.
Software is *complicated*. Large-scale software rollouts are even *more* complicated, just because now you've involved hundreds or thousands of non-debuggable, unpredictable people into the equation. No matter how many meetings you have about it, no matter how many different people assure you that they will do "whatever it takes" to make sure it goes smoothly, keep in mind that they probably don't have "what it takes", which would often be some kind of deity-level power.
Let's look now at the "largest e-government projects ever undertaken", introduced "despite industry protests that Customs had not allowed them ample time for the changeover." It's not hard to guess how it's going to go.
Sometimes, you gotta go the slow way... replace the old system bit by bit, make sure you can flip the switch back every step of the way if something goes wrong. At the very least you have to plan it from the start so that you can roll out piecemeal, just in one site, or run the old/new in parallel, etc..
This method results in a more expensive *estimate* at the start of the project. But the actual *cost* in the end can be much, much lower.
A good way to deal with conflicting bosses is to make them agree.
There's a very important point in here. Your bosses are not constants, they're variables (well, that's one way to put it). If they're fighting each other through you, you need to get out of the friggin' way, or end up as collateral damage.
If your direct boss tells you to do X, and his boss tells you to do Y, right away you should point him to your direct boss. "I'll let you two sort this out and get back to me." Neither one is necessarily "right" or "wrong", in that different customers expect different things and will react differently to on-time crappy software vs. late excellent software... and there's sometimes a trade-off in writing lovely reusable code that's good in the long-term vs. hasty NON-reuseable code that gets the project out the door and money in the bank short-term.
There's also the trouble that some programmers who are told to "design for re-use" will bog the project down into eternity with bloated "handle-every-possible-case" code, while others will simply spend a little more time thinking and come up with an elegant solution that's *smaller* than the one-time-only hack job, and reap the benefits in the very next project. And alas, the average programmer without strict oversight falls mostly into the former camp. So it's no simple answer.
But these are business decisions that your boss and his boss need to sort out. You should just indicate that you understand that these issues exist, and suggest (in a friendly way) that they do their jobs.
Excellent point. Even if they *were* legally required to "maximize profits", that's a very vague requirement, and it's NOT AT ALL self-evident that being evil, fighting dirty and pissing off your customers is the best way to maximize profits.
Would Google have the brain-power they have now if not for the whole "do no evil" policy? Not likely. These are people who can choose to work anywhere, or choose to find a place in academia if they find the corporate world too repugnant. Google attracted them, it didn't "buy" them. It doesn't keep them on through intimidation and bribery, but through interesting projects and creative flexibility.
I'm with you that the UN as it exists should not be in control. I think this would be just as bad as having the US in control -- not as scary as you make it sound, since the United States (with complete veto power, remember!) could easily STOP China or whoever from doing something we don't like.
But I can imagine the UN setting up the kind of organization I was talking about, whereas I can't see the US govt doing it themselves.
It's about control. Control to force whatever domains the UN members want, control to reject things they want to censor, and control to subjugate users of the internet. Let me say that there is nothing more scary than having a country like China in the lineup of those who have control over the internet's most vital point.
You make a pretty good point here about why no country would want an entity they cannot trust in control. Now... why again should we require all countries to trust whatever American politicians happen to be in power?
I seem to be coming to this conversation pretty late, but I'm curious to hear what you think of my interpretation.
You are arguing that control of the root servers should not be touched, because the US is a reliable guardian, whereas a UN-based organization would be drowned in bureaucracy and be ineffective.
I can't tell if you think the current situation is the *best* situation. So far you've just been reacting to the news article. That's not a criticism, but I'd like to hear what you think the America *should* do with regards to root server control.
Personally, I can understand why the other nations of the world would be uncomfortable with the current situation. Sure, ICANN is nominally independant, but if the US govt in wartime decided to (for instance) take down or subvert an entire country's internet-based infrastructure, from what I understand they could (if the US *isn't* in control, what exactly is the EU arguing with the US about now?). It's easy to see why this is an untenable position for the rest of the world as economies and governments become increasingly reliant on internet communication.
Think about how nervous the US is about control of the world's oil resources being limited mostly to a handful of countries. Now imagine that this control over resources was NOT connected to the physical location of the oil, but to the fact that that's where the oil "started".
Remember too that this control is not vested in "America" including the actual technical people and scientists in the US. They might actually be a fairly reliable guardian, but the control ultimately is in the US govt. Even in a democracy, getting power in the government has much more to do with your money, your connections, your ambition, and how good you are at manipulating people than anything else... unfortunately, this doesn't correlate well with actual ability to run a country, or wisdom of any kind.
It seems to me (and this may be what we end up with) there should be a fully independant organization that isn't even *located* physically in any one country permanently, that would control the root servers scattered throughout the world, and would operate under a very strict charter. No one country should have total veto power, but the organization itself should be very limited in what it can do, and taking any action that is country-specific should be almost impossible. There should be strict requirements about the technical qualifications for all representatives. Its actions and its charter will need to be enforced; by the UN? I'm not sure what the options are here, but you get the point.
It can be pretty simple -- after all, there's very little it actually has to DO. The main point is about the things we DON'T want it to do.
Do you know how to use any kind of scripting language? Even a shell script would make this much easier.
Personally I'd probably store the files pre-zipped in a non-web accessible directory, then write a simple gateway application that limited access, and would feed the file to the client if they qualified for it. This could be backed with a database with actual client info (which you'd need to update when they made a purchase), or it could be as simple as a "passphrase" that you'd give them that is based on the date and the filename, and the script would decode it.
Next level down -- you could write a script that ran every night at 2am, and changed your directory names based on the current date (using a formula which you could duplicate on a calculator, to pass out valid one-day links to clients). (This script would be pretty easy -- if you don't know anyone who'd do this for you as a favor, your web host might help).
OR -- you could actually set up.htaccess-style password protection for your zipped files, with a different username-password for each file. You don't have to remember them -- just print out a reference copy and check the chart when you make a sale, or use a formula that you can calculate based on the filename. This would work pretty well. You could mix in the idea above -- and change the passwords automatically, daily. This would make your chart more complicated... but still chartable.
These are all "security through obscurity" methods -- but honestly as long as you put it together thoughtfully and you don't have a huge risk to worry about, that's okay.
At the very least, I'd advise you to learn the basics of Linux/UNIX command line navigation -- if you have all of your zipped files already on the server in a directory OUTSIDE of your web directory, it's quite trivial and very quick to use telnet to copy one zipped file from your archives to "jones.sit" in your web directory, then delete that later; e.g.,
[ssh to your host]
cp archives/people/jumpingman.sit webroot/jones.sit then the next day:
rm webroot/jones.sit
Other nice commands to know: ls, cd, and cwd (show directory listing, change directory, and show current working directory).
From what you said, you can probably fit all of your zipped images on the server, right?
Hey, I'm with you. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a distinct group of "bad guys", the f'ing terrorists, and once we found them and killed them off there wouldn't be any more?
And wouldn't it be nice if Americans, the good guys, were a rational group of people who realized that even if terrorists blew up a plane once a month, flying would still be safer than driving?
Alas, that is not the world we live in. In fact, terrorists and Americans and everyone else are all, in fact, people. All acting independantly based on faulty logic and strong emotions, and reacting to what everyone else is doing. People start planning and committing "terrorist" actions in response to other actions, because they are attacked or they just *think* their group is being attacked. If they get fired up by a very charismatic leader they may race ahead, fuelled by rage, or if the leader is sick today and not convincing they may start to have doubts.
Some people will be angry enough to plan and commit terrorist acts one day, but not the next day. Or they might have already changed their minds but cannot see how to get out of it now.
People may feel more confident about flying even if the security measures are useless, but LOOK useful. Or because of the words of someone on TV who doesn't know either way, people may suddenly feel that flying is too dangerous, and the economy will be affected, possibly seriously. Notice how the actual security of the planes is irrelevant here, unless a successful attack actually happens.
This is specifically about *airport* security. It's about keeping the planes safe. A terrorist seeking to blow up an airliner would have a tough time if he acquired his supplies at his destination.
Of course, this brings up the point that even if we *did* manage to make planes super-safe, it remains simply impossible to protect all of the other soft targets all over the country. There are so many legitimate uses of explosive materials and the ingredients thereof that they can't all be secured, and any place that people are in large numbers is a potential target (including any school, stadium, office building, church, theater, etc.)... BUT Americans are nervous about planes after 9/11, so even though seeing the same attack again is unlikely, it makes constituents feel safer if we pump lots of money into airport security.
It's a shame that this is how we go about "waging the war on terrorism", but that's how the world works.
Good luck to explosives manufacturers - there go your chances of ever flying again!
Nonsense. It's not like they'll tackle you if you set off the machine -- you just can't go through the new super-fast check, so you get shunted into the line with the explosive-check wipe tab thingies and/or manual bag search... just like we *all* have to go through currently in most airports.
It's all about speeding things up for most people -- yes, there are some who won't benefit, but they likely won't be worse off.
Yes, it's vulnerable to false positives -- for example, some construction workers are going to have to go through the slow way every time they fly.
That's okay, though -- the positive thing here is that the initial check can be made much much faster. Most luggage and most people can just be zipped through (they'll hardly need to stop walking!)... which leaves more resources available to help the inevitable false positives get processed in the old, slow way (with the little explosive-check tabs, or a search by hand) as efficiently as possible.
That's what matters, isn't it? Speeding the whole thing up, to make a reliable screening feasible.
If you end up in a position where you have to "prove" that you're in the right, you've already lost the game.
True, but that's not what it's for. The paper trail is essential because you can use it tactfully to avoid the problem.
There are very few situations where you should be telling anyone they're "wrong" in the first place -- just clear up confusion for the good of the company. You should be using the paper trail all along the way, bringing it in *before* you put someone in a position where they might lie (or "forget") to get out of something, make their own job easier, cover their ass, etc.. The very fact that you always get email confirmation changes the dynamic, first of all. You could even give them credit for an idea, even if you thought of it -- that helps stop them backing out later. The trick is you have to *avoid* the situation where they'll lie about it, because then they'll lose face if they have to suddenly reverse. It's often already already too late.
Even when they say something completely opposite, don't contradict them (and accusing them of lying is the last thing you want to do!). Instead, become confused. Then give them more than the benefit of the doubt -- maybe they did forget what had been decided 2 weeks ago. Bring in the paper trail as you ask them to help you sort out what should be done. If they persist, ask for help explaining to the powers that be (or subordinates) why "we" are changing this now -- for instance, what specifically has changed in the situation that merits the change in course.
Always stay polite and logical, never get mad or impatient (or sarcastic - that's the end if you let that creep in), and just become confused when they aren't making logical sense. Confirm that you are working for the same goals, etc. as needed (even if this may be less than evident...). OF COURSE you trust them in every way, but you have to understand these decisions because a change now may have a serious impact on your project, and/or you have to explain them to your subordinates, etc. etc. -- have this line worked out beforehand.
Even worse case, if you suppose they've already told the "new" decision to other higher-ups, the paper trail (in a private conversation) shows who screwed up, and you can immediately offering to help them fix it. Of course, you're implying that *they* have to fix it, because they screwed up, but you're right there to offer support and suggest ways to explain the reversal. "Oh, you already told Dan we do that? Damn -- well, don't worry about it, we can fix this. Of course there's no room in the project schedule, it's impossible -- maybe you can just say you were looking at an old schedule? We did have that big cushion in the schedule from last month before we..." Etc. You're on their side, but it's their problem, not yours. Don't budge, ignore pressure, just be patient and logical.
This isn't rocket science (though often anti-instinctual), but it's amazingly effective... and you can get what you need/want while often *gaining* respect, instead of making enemies.
Microsoft uses "AJAX" (what a ridiculous term) in their own sites. They invented XMLHttpRequest.
Right, and you might say their "mistake" in making the component is that its functionality is too generic, too easy duplicated in other browsers and platforms. So updates to their XMLHttpRequest should add features that are as much as possible Windows-only and/or IE-only (perhaps "helpful" direct ties to Internet Explorer GUI elements).
As long as they can keep Mozilla, etc., playing catch-up (and copying the MS implementation.. preferably without complete compatibility, so developers may accidentally end up with sites that are IE-only) they can get things moving back in the direction they want.
Again, this is the cynical view (but unfortunately that sometimes turns out to be pretty accurate; remember Java in IE?).
if you look at the endless list of cases when a vulnerability researcher reported a flaw to Microsoft only to have the issue swept under the rug for a half year, then the immediate full public disclosure is the only method which works when dealing with that kind of company.
"That kind of company", eh? I see.
What's wrong with notifying Microsoft about the flaw immediately, explaining that you will be making a full public release in 3 weeks? That gives them time to make a patch, release it, and hopefully a lot of actual users will be able to apply the patch before exploits are widespread.
Am I missing something? This seems so blazingly obvious. Maybe our goals are different?
One possible goal is to protect users, by encouraging Microsoft to publish a fix ASAP, preferably *before* black hats figure out the vulnerability and exploit it. When you notify MS secretly beforehand, they can either look irresponsible and uncaring (if they don't patch it before you announce it as promised) or they can work with you and do what they're supposed to, and you save lots of users lots of trouble.
Another possible goal is to harm Microsoft in any way possible, because they are evil. This include intentionally publishing exploits without giving MS any chance to issue a patch, thus ensuring maximum possible exposure and damage to users, who will presumably stop giving MS money once they have been harmed enough. The only better option for this goal would be to release the exploit secretly only to black hats (and NOT publically)... but of course that would make you a black hat yourself, as opposed to just a dirty gray.
1) Yes, XMLHTTPRequest is that thingy that powers AJAX.
2) AJAX is that thing that's making it possible to write responsive, platform-independant, server-based apps.
3) Responsive, platform-independant, server-based apps are those things that are threatening Microsoft's deathgrip on the desktop.
4) [Apply tinfoil hat if needed] So... perhaps Microsoft inserts a dangerous bug in their XMLHTTPRequest implementation, so that
5) Microsoft must deploy a security fix that CRIPPLES or limits AJAX...? And
6) Profit!!
Hmm.... the mystery unfolds. It's a little wacky, I'll admit, but keep your hats on until you see if anything breaks when the "fix" is deployed. This is fun!
To grasp reality without going insane, humans must anthropomorphize concepts that do not exist into...
That's not anthropomorphism, actually -- it's just gross overgeneralization. In the case of the "Google/Microsoft wants this", etc. I think that's metonomy, but again not anthropomorphism. Google is made up of human beings.
But whatever it's called (and if it's even worth talking about), I don't even think it would have been accurate to say "most people". I suspect that even saying "most slashdotters" would also be inaccurate. Maybe "most xbox fans", but I'm not sure....
Remember, this isn't the LAUNCH of the new console. It's a website update that Microsoft has been hyping. If you check the previous story, the submitter wrote that "Something big is about to happen" because there was latin text hidden in the image on the teaser website. Huh. What, did GOD insert that latin text into the advertisement? Or... was it Microsoft's marketing dept, and is this just another ad? This is still very much in the realm of manufacturered hype. Real buzz is what happens when a product is actually released in some way and real people get to try it out -- it doesn't come from marketing companies. Excitement? I don't get it.
I have a feeling that even most xbox fans don't get it either, if they're paying attention at all.
Wow, now I've wasted way too much time talking about this, huh?
The big secret that everyone's been curious about, the Xbox Origen puzzle...
Everyone - 1? I wasn't curious.
Sorry, that kind of lead-in always bugs me. The rest of "everyone", you may now return to your disappointed curiosity. And I'll go back to my non-xbox-enriched life.
By the way, you don't need to deal with a regular electrician that might not understand the details of a UPS -- there are companies out there that specialize in UPSs and backup power, etc.. My uncle Pete has a business that does exactly that, so I know they exist. [sorry for the shameless plug...]
Even if you're keen on doing it yourself and you have the electrical knowhow, you can get some good advice -- since you're looking to buy batteries for the thing, you've got their ear. Personally, I suspect they'll tell you what most other posters here have mentioned (that putting the whole room on the UPS isn't the greatest idea), but presumably they'll have suggestions for a good compromise.
Q. Does the Electrocharger(TM) act as a DC Generator, or an AC alternator?
A. Actually its neither and a little bit of both. The current generated by the ElectrochargerTM is an alternating DC current that is filtered to act more like a DC generator.
Somehow I don't think the issue here is "should we feed 4 animals to get ice cubes for our lemonade".
It's more like "should we feed 4 animals (or just set up a water wheel...) to make ice to preserve vaccines and save the lives of our children" or "should I use my 4 animals to make ice in the morning, so that I can haul fish into the city in the afternoon... instead of throwing it out because there's no market here and it will spoil".
If refrigeration simply isn't available because the standard requirements -- electricity, freon, propane, etc. -- aren't available, it might be worth quite a lot of effort in some situations.
Slashdot Mirror
No - by this definition a cheek-scraping is "human". All the chromosomes are in there, and yet we are heartless enough to conduct brutal experiments, experiments that KILL these cells, in high school biology laps all across the world.
Of course, this leads quickly into the "potential" for human life debate, which gets pretty tangly pretty soon. Even more so as cloning develops -- in another decade maybe those cheek cells may be just as much "potential" humans as a normal fertilized egg (many of which spontaneously abort, by the way, and would not develop into a human no matter what you did).
The other important point here that seems to get left out is that we aren't just debating one life here. It's not just "at what point does this fetus get rights" -- the fetus isn't out on its own, driving around in a little fetusmobile. It's totally dependant on another, unquestionable human and rights-endowed being, the mother. Can we legitmately force her to sacrifice her own health, risk her own life, etc. for the fetus?
Even if the fetus were a little curled-up totally-aware *adult* inside her, can we force her to let it exist parasitically in her? I know most twins would give up a kidney to save their twin... but are they legally compelled to do it?
I mean, girls' souls are a different color than boys' -- so God can't have handed the thing a soul until that's settled.
This also brings up the point that many theolgians have seriously, seriously discussed -- that a fetus must not be granted a soul until it's PAST the point where it may split into twins... because then each twin would only have HALF a soul.
Heady stuff, I know.
"But who are you, so wise in the ways of science?"
America with syphilis tests on blacks in the 30's.
Unfortunately, it's worse than you're saying. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment started in the 30's, but it wasn't stopped until -- god help us -- 1972.
For those who aren't familiar with this, the U.S. Public Health Service told about 400 poor black men with syphilis that they were being treated for "bad blood", then didn't treat them at all (and let them die of the complications of the disease) so as to study these fatal side effects through autopsies. By the end of the experiment about half of the men had died of the disease, plus many of their wives were infected, and some of their children were born with congenital syphilis.
They ran various experiments, including the fun and pleasant sort like spinal taps, all claiming to the men that this was part of treatment.
alas, i digress. i apologize. virology is rooted in micro-evolution. tiny minute changes in an organisms makeup. virology has as much to do with evolutionary biology (Darwin evolution) as your personal check book has to do with the stock market. small vs. unbelievably complex.
I know, coward, I'm wasting my time on you... but it just takes a second to point out that virology is talking about minute changes in organism that can occur in the space of A FEW DAYS. These have about as much to do with the large changes that occur gradually over millenia as balancing your checkbook has to do with... well, something bigger than the stock market, anyway.
Memento mori. Remember you must die. But also remember that not everything dies with you. Mountains turn to sand if you wait long enough. If you've lived on a mountain, this is almost impossible to imagine, but it happens nonetheless. Goo turns to you, if you wait long enough. Amazing, for sure, but there's no avoiding it if you can just wrap your brain around it. Nothing else makes sense.
Please, don't trust me -- go find out for yourself. The nice thing about science is that you don't have to trust anybody. Certainly not what some people who died thousands of years ago supposedly said... you can check the evidence for yourself. It's OVERWHELMING.
Are you just trolling to waste my time? Do you just not understand how this works?
.us TLD, by state -- for example http://www.k12.wa.us/ in Washington (other states as well), so that's covered.
.com mess. A TLD for religious sites might make sense; I'm not sure. Probably not ".GOD" though; even among the monotheistic faiths many don't call the deity "God".
Of course top level domains are based to a degree on "popularity" -- meaning how many websites there are that would put themselves into the given category. Are there a lot of webmasters who would put their sites into a "red" or "day" category? Um.. not so much. And there *is* a k12 sub-domain within the
There *are* a lot of restaurant websites, and it could make a lot of sense to give them their own TLD, to help clear out the
Do you see how this works? It's not rocket science. It's not even science at all -- just a little simple common sense.
You probably also believe that if we allow gay marriage it's only a matter of time before we have people married to children, dogs, or in groups of 10. Am I right? And your logical ancestors argued against giving slaves their freedom because next we'd be giving horses their freedom and asking them to vote for president.
This is the "slippery slope" fallacy. Look it up and think about your logic.
You think that if we allow an "xxx" domain, next we'll have a "mur" domain for murder fetishists? Sure, if suddenly all of society as we know it disappears and is replaced by a completely different one in which murder is okay.
Whereas sex is a fairly accepted part of life. Kind of a requirement, actually. Laws on what's legal in pornography are NOT only in the direction of more permissiveness -- there have also been plenty of laws and legal actions to prevent unwilling participation, protecting the actors who get involved from abuse, etc..
I'd really like to see how you imagine necrophilia will somehow take off -- that's miles away from any kind of activity between consenting adults, and fairly universally condemned.
If you want to make this kind of argument you have to give evidence for each step -- you can't assume that one movement in a given direction will result in continued movement in that direction.
I'm no grizzled guru by any means, but damn, I know by now that though it *may* seem cheaper to upgrade all in one fell swoop, you're gonna get hosed every time. The bigger the system, the more likely, just because there's no way you can *test* the thing at that scale.
Software is *complicated*. Large-scale software rollouts are even *more* complicated, just because now you've involved hundreds or thousands of non-debuggable, unpredictable people into the equation. No matter how many meetings you have about it, no matter how many different people assure you that they will do "whatever it takes" to make sure it goes smoothly, keep in mind that they probably don't have "what it takes", which would often be some kind of deity-level power.
Let's look now at the "largest e-government projects ever undertaken", introduced "despite industry protests that Customs had not allowed them ample time for the changeover." It's not hard to guess how it's going to go.
Sometimes, you gotta go the slow way... replace the old system bit by bit, make sure you can flip the switch back every step of the way if something goes wrong. At the very least you have to plan it from the start so that you can roll out piecemeal, just in one site, or run the old/new in parallel, etc..
This method results in a more expensive *estimate* at the start of the project. But the actual *cost* in the end can be much, much lower.
Just my 2c...
A good way to deal with conflicting bosses is to make them agree.
There's a very important point in here. Your bosses are not constants, they're variables (well, that's one way to put it). If they're fighting each other through you, you need to get out of the friggin' way, or end up as collateral damage.
If your direct boss tells you to do X, and his boss tells you to do Y, right away you should point him to your direct boss. "I'll let you two sort this out and get back to me." Neither one is necessarily "right" or "wrong", in that different customers expect different things and will react differently to on-time crappy software vs. late excellent software... and there's sometimes a trade-off in writing lovely reusable code that's good in the long-term vs. hasty NON-reuseable code that gets the project out the door and money in the bank short-term.
There's also the trouble that some programmers who are told to "design for re-use" will bog the project down into eternity with bloated "handle-every-possible-case" code, while others will simply spend a little more time thinking and come up with an elegant solution that's *smaller* than the one-time-only hack job, and reap the benefits in the very next project. And alas, the average programmer without strict oversight falls mostly into the former camp. So it's no simple answer.
But these are business decisions that your boss and his boss need to sort out. You should just indicate that you understand that these issues exist, and suggest (in a friendly way) that they do their jobs.
Excellent point. Even if they *were* legally required to "maximize profits", that's a very vague requirement, and it's NOT AT ALL self-evident that being evil, fighting dirty and pissing off your customers is the best way to maximize profits.
Would Google have the brain-power they have now if not for the whole "do no evil" policy? Not likely. These are people who can choose to work anywhere, or choose to find a place in academia if they find the corporate world too repugnant. Google attracted them, it didn't "buy" them. It doesn't keep them on through intimidation and bribery, but through interesting projects and creative flexibility.
I'm with you that the UN as it exists should not be in control. I think this would be just as bad as having the US in control -- not as scary as you make it sound, since the United States (with complete veto power, remember!) could easily STOP China or whoever from doing something we don't like.
But I can imagine the UN setting up the kind of organization I was talking about, whereas I can't see the US govt doing it themselves.
It's about control. Control to force whatever domains the UN members want, control to reject things they want to censor, and control to subjugate users of the internet. Let me say that there is nothing more scary than having a country like China in the lineup of those who have control over the internet's most vital point.
You make a pretty good point here about why no country would want an entity they cannot trust in control. Now... why again should we require all countries to trust whatever American politicians happen to be in power?
I seem to be coming to this conversation pretty late, but I'm curious to hear what you think of my interpretation.
You are arguing that control of the root servers should not be touched, because the US is a reliable guardian, whereas a UN-based organization would be drowned in bureaucracy and be ineffective.
I can't tell if you think the current situation is the *best* situation. So far you've just been reacting to the news article. That's not a criticism, but I'd like to hear what you think the America *should* do with regards to root server control.
Personally, I can understand why the other nations of the world would be uncomfortable with the current situation. Sure, ICANN is nominally independant, but if the US govt in wartime decided to (for instance) take down or subvert an entire country's internet-based infrastructure, from what I understand they could (if the US *isn't* in control, what exactly is the EU arguing with the US about now?). It's easy to see why this is an untenable position for the rest of the world as economies and governments become increasingly reliant on internet communication.
Think about how nervous the US is about control of the world's oil resources being limited mostly to a handful of countries. Now imagine that this control over resources was NOT connected to the physical location of the oil, but to the fact that that's where the oil "started".
Remember too that this control is not vested in "America" including the actual technical people and scientists in the US. They might actually be a fairly reliable guardian, but the control ultimately is in the US govt. Even in a democracy, getting power in the government has much more to do with your money, your connections, your ambition, and how good you are at manipulating people than anything else... unfortunately, this doesn't correlate well with actual ability to run a country, or wisdom of any kind.
It seems to me (and this may be what we end up with) there should be a fully independant organization that isn't even *located* physically in any one country permanently, that would control the root servers scattered throughout the world, and would operate under a very strict charter. No one country should have total veto power, but the organization itself should be very limited in what it can do, and taking any action that is country-specific should be almost impossible. There should be strict requirements about the technical qualifications for all representatives. Its actions and its charter will need to be enforced; by the UN? I'm not sure what the options are here, but you get the point.
It can be pretty simple -- after all, there's very little it actually has to DO. The main point is about the things we DON'T want it to do.
Thoughts?
Do you know how to use any kind of scripting language? Even a shell script would make this much easier.
.htaccess-style password protection for your zipped files, with a different username-password for each file. You don't have to remember them -- just print out a reference copy and check the chart when you make a sale, or use a formula that you can calculate based on the filename. This would work pretty well. You could mix in the idea above -- and change the passwords automatically, daily. This would make your chart more complicated... but still chartable.
Personally I'd probably store the files pre-zipped in a non-web accessible directory, then write a simple gateway application that limited access, and would feed the file to the client if they qualified for it. This could be backed with a database with actual client info (which you'd need to update when they made a purchase), or it could be as simple as a "passphrase" that you'd give them that is based on the date and the filename, and the script would decode it.
Next level down -- you could write a script that ran every night at 2am, and changed your directory names based on the current date (using a formula which you could duplicate on a calculator, to pass out valid one-day links to clients). (This script would be pretty easy -- if you don't know anyone who'd do this for you as a favor, your web host might help).
OR -- you could actually set up
These are all "security through obscurity" methods -- but honestly as long as you put it together thoughtfully and you don't have a huge risk to worry about, that's okay.
At the very least, I'd advise you to learn the basics of Linux/UNIX command line navigation -- if you have all of your zipped files already on the server in a directory OUTSIDE of your web directory, it's quite trivial and very quick to use telnet to copy one zipped file from your archives to "jones.sit" in your web directory, then delete that later; e.g.,
[ssh to your host]
cp archives/people/jumpingman.sit webroot/jones.sit
then the next day:
rm webroot/jones.sit
Other nice commands to know: ls, cd, and cwd (show directory listing, change directory, and show current working directory).
From what you said, you can probably fit all of your zipped images on the server, right?
Hey, I'm with you. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a distinct group of "bad guys", the f'ing terrorists, and once we found them and killed them off there wouldn't be any more?
And wouldn't it be nice if Americans, the good guys, were a rational group of people who realized that even if terrorists blew up a plane once a month, flying would still be safer than driving?
Alas, that is not the world we live in. In fact, terrorists and Americans and everyone else are all, in fact, people. All acting independantly based on faulty logic and strong emotions, and reacting to what everyone else is doing. People start planning and committing "terrorist" actions in response to other actions, because they are attacked or they just *think* their group is being attacked. If they get fired up by a very charismatic leader they may race ahead, fuelled by rage, or if the leader is sick today and not convincing they may start to have doubts.
Some people will be angry enough to plan and commit terrorist acts one day, but not the next day. Or they might have already changed their minds but cannot see how to get out of it now.
People may feel more confident about flying even if the security measures are useless, but LOOK useful. Or because of the words of someone on TV who doesn't know either way, people may suddenly feel that flying is too dangerous, and the economy will be affected, possibly seriously. Notice how the actual security of the planes is irrelevant here, unless a successful attack actually happens.
This is specifically about *airport* security. It's about keeping the planes safe. A terrorist seeking to blow up an airliner would have a tough time if he acquired his supplies at his destination.
Of course, this brings up the point that even if we *did* manage to make planes super-safe, it remains simply impossible to protect all of the other soft targets all over the country. There are so many legitimate uses of explosive materials and the ingredients thereof that they can't all be secured, and any place that people are in large numbers is a potential target (including any school, stadium, office building, church, theater, etc.)... BUT Americans are nervous about planes after 9/11, so even though seeing the same attack again is unlikely, it makes constituents feel safer if we pump lots of money into airport security.
It's a shame that this is how we go about "waging the war on terrorism", but that's how the world works.
Good luck to explosives manufacturers - there go your chances of ever flying again!
Nonsense. It's not like they'll tackle you if you set off the machine -- you just can't go through the new super-fast check, so you get shunted into the line with the explosive-check wipe tab thingies and/or manual bag search... just like we *all* have to go through currently in most airports.
It's all about speeding things up for most people -- yes, there are some who won't benefit, but they likely won't be worse off.
Yes, it's vulnerable to false positives -- for example, some construction workers are going to have to go through the slow way every time they fly.
That's okay, though -- the positive thing here is that the initial check can be made much much faster. Most luggage and most people can just be zipped through (they'll hardly need to stop walking!)... which leaves more resources available to help the inevitable false positives get processed in the old, slow way (with the little explosive-check tabs, or a search by hand) as efficiently as possible.
That's what matters, isn't it? Speeding the whole thing up, to make a reliable screening feasible.
If you end up in a position where you have to "prove" that you're in the right, you've already lost the game.
True, but that's not what it's for. The paper trail is essential because you can use it tactfully to avoid the problem.
There are very few situations where you should be telling anyone they're "wrong" in the first place -- just clear up confusion for the good of the company. You should be using the paper trail all along the way, bringing it in *before* you put someone in a position where they might lie (or "forget") to get out of something, make their own job easier, cover their ass, etc.. The very fact that you always get email confirmation changes the dynamic, first of all. You could even give them credit for an idea, even if you thought of it -- that helps stop them backing out later. The trick is you have to *avoid* the situation where they'll lie about it, because then they'll lose face if they have to suddenly reverse. It's often already already too late.
Even when they say something completely opposite, don't contradict them (and accusing them of lying is the last thing you want to do!). Instead, become confused. Then give them more than the benefit of the doubt -- maybe they did forget what had been decided 2 weeks ago. Bring in the paper trail as you ask them to help you sort out what should be done. If they persist, ask for help explaining to the powers that be (or subordinates) why "we" are changing this now -- for instance, what specifically has changed in the situation that merits the change in course.
Always stay polite and logical, never get mad or impatient (or sarcastic - that's the end if you let that creep in), and just become confused when they aren't making logical sense. Confirm that you are working for the same goals, etc. as needed (even if this may be less than evident...). OF COURSE you trust them in every way, but you have to understand these decisions because a change now may have a serious impact on your project, and/or you have to explain them to your subordinates, etc. etc. -- have this line worked out beforehand.
Even worse case, if you suppose they've already told the "new" decision to other higher-ups, the paper trail (in a private conversation) shows who screwed up, and you can immediately offering to help them fix it. Of course, you're implying that *they* have to fix it, because they screwed up, but you're right there to offer support and suggest ways to explain the reversal. "Oh, you already told Dan we do that? Damn -- well, don't worry about it, we can fix this. Of course there's no room in the project schedule, it's impossible -- maybe you can just say you were looking at an old schedule? We did have that big cushion in the schedule from last month before we..." Etc. You're on their side, but it's their problem, not yours. Don't budge, ignore pressure, just be patient and logical.
This isn't rocket science (though often anti-instinctual), but it's amazingly effective... and you can get what you need/want while often *gaining* respect, instead of making enemies.
Microsoft uses "AJAX" (what a ridiculous term) in their own sites. They invented XMLHttpRequest.
Right, and you might say their "mistake" in making the component is that its functionality is too generic, too easy duplicated in other browsers and platforms. So updates to their XMLHttpRequest should add features that are as much as possible Windows-only and/or IE-only (perhaps "helpful" direct ties to Internet Explorer GUI elements).
As long as they can keep Mozilla, etc., playing catch-up (and copying the MS implementation.. preferably without complete compatibility, so developers may accidentally end up with sites that are IE-only) they can get things moving back in the direction they want.
Again, this is the cynical view (but unfortunately that sometimes turns out to be pretty accurate; remember Java in IE?).
if you look at the endless list of cases when a vulnerability researcher reported a flaw to Microsoft only to have the issue swept under the rug for a half year, then the immediate full public disclosure is the only method which works when dealing with that kind of company.
"That kind of company", eh? I see.
What's wrong with notifying Microsoft about the flaw immediately, explaining that you will be making a full public release in 3 weeks? That gives them time to make a patch, release it, and hopefully a lot of actual users will be able to apply the patch before exploits are widespread.
Am I missing something? This seems so blazingly obvious. Maybe our goals are different?
One possible goal is to protect users, by encouraging Microsoft to publish a fix ASAP, preferably *before* black hats figure out the vulnerability and exploit it. When you notify MS secretly beforehand, they can either look irresponsible and uncaring (if they don't patch it before you announce it as promised) or they can work with you and do what they're supposed to, and you save lots of users lots of trouble.
Another possible goal is to harm Microsoft in any way possible, because they are evil. This include intentionally publishing exploits without giving MS any chance to issue a patch, thus ensuring maximum possible exposure and damage to users, who will presumably stop giving MS money once they have been harmed enough. The only better option for this goal would be to release the exploit secretly only to black hats (and NOT publically)... but of course that would make you a black hat yourself, as opposed to just a dirty gray.
1) Yes, XMLHTTPRequest is that thingy that powers AJAX.
2) AJAX is that thing that's making it possible to write responsive, platform-independant, server-based apps.
3) Responsive, platform-independant, server-based apps are those things that are threatening Microsoft's deathgrip on the desktop.
4) [Apply tinfoil hat if needed] So... perhaps Microsoft inserts a dangerous bug in their XMLHTTPRequest implementation, so that
5) Microsoft must deploy a security fix that CRIPPLES or limits AJAX...? And
6) Profit!!
Hmm.... the mystery unfolds. It's a little wacky, I'll admit, but keep your hats on until you see if anything breaks when the "fix" is deployed. This is fun!
To grasp reality without going insane, humans must anthropomorphize concepts that do not exist into...
That's not anthropomorphism, actually -- it's just gross overgeneralization. In the case of the "Google/Microsoft wants this", etc. I think that's metonomy, but again not anthropomorphism. Google is made up of human beings.
But whatever it's called (and if it's even worth talking about), I don't even think it would have been accurate to say "most people". I suspect that even saying "most slashdotters" would also be inaccurate. Maybe "most xbox fans", but I'm not sure....
Remember, this isn't the LAUNCH of the new console. It's a website update that Microsoft has been hyping. If you check the previous story, the submitter wrote that "Something big is about to happen" because there was latin text hidden in the image on the teaser website. Huh. What, did GOD insert that latin text into the advertisement? Or... was it Microsoft's marketing dept, and is this just another ad? This is still very much in the realm of manufacturered hype. Real buzz is what happens when a product is actually released in some way and real people get to try it out -- it doesn't come from marketing companies. Excitement? I don't get it.
I have a feeling that even most xbox fans don't get it either, if they're paying attention at all.
Wow, now I've wasted way too much time talking about this, huh?
The big secret that everyone's been curious about, the Xbox Origen puzzle...
Everyone - 1?
I wasn't curious.
Sorry, that kind of lead-in always bugs me. The rest of "everyone", you may now return to your disappointed curiosity. And I'll go back to my non-xbox-enriched life.
By the way, you don't need to deal with a regular electrician that might not understand the details of a UPS -- there are companies out there that specialize in UPSs and backup power, etc.. My uncle Pete has a business that does exactly that, so I know they exist. [sorry for the shameless plug...]
Even if you're keen on doing it yourself and you have the electrical knowhow, you can get some good advice -- since you're looking to buy batteries for the thing, you've got their ear. Personally, I suspect they'll tell you what most other posters here have mentioned (that putting the whole room on the UPS isn't the greatest idea), but presumably they'll have suggestions for a good compromise.
Somehow I don't think the issue here is "should we feed 4 animals to get ice cubes for our lemonade".
It's more like "should we feed 4 animals (or just set up a water wheel...) to make ice to preserve vaccines and save the lives of our children" or "should I use my 4 animals to make ice in the morning, so that I can haul fish into the city in the afternoon... instead of throwing it out because there's no market here and it will spoil".
If refrigeration simply isn't available because the standard requirements -- electricity, freon, propane, etc. -- aren't available, it might be worth quite a lot of effort in some situations.