Is this an SDK for developers using your own invented language, with compiler etc.?
What other language or environment is it most like? Those are the developers who will feel most comfortable developing with it, so you should model the documentation on standard docs for that language.
General advice -- people learn new things best by doing them. Make sure your docs have a very quick intro to give developers the lay of the land and get them interested, then jump right into getting the full-source, good functionality demos running. The sooner I can create something actually useful to me (probably by modifying your sample app, not coding something from scratch), the sooner I'm hooked.
Then to *keep* me hooked, you'll need a very thorough, easy-to-use reference -- both language elements and error codes/messages. It should have a good index, but also be organized well into good , fairly fine-grained categories (so that I can find what I need when I want to do X even though I don't know the function, etc.).
I can fathom a reason for this sort of clause: any code you write while on the job might be considered derived from code you have previously written. (I know I've re-written code from what I've worked on at home when I knew it was the best way to do something.) This sort of clause would protect them if you ever tried to claim ownership of the code because it was similar to code you had ownership of.
Ugh, you could be right. Of course that's insane, but this falls into my observation that they try to overreach on every level so as to close any possible loopholes. Regardless of how unpleasant it may be for the employee....
Would that even be a loophole, though? I'm pretty sure if I used personal old code on a new company project, that very act gives them the code (I'm pasting their copyright notice at the top of the file!)... and if I didn't have the rights to do that, *I'm* the one breaking the law when I merge that code into company work. And I'm the one responsible for cleaning up the mess (which could mean paying legal fees, and paying for replacement code to be written), because I was the one acting illegally.
To use a simpler example -- if I steal someone else's code (open source or otherwise) for a company project without my company's knowledge, what happens when I get found out? (NOTE: the SCO case (and others) is about situations where supposedly code was stolen WITH the company's knowledge and approval... different situation).
I'm using logic more than legal knowledge here... anyone know more about this?
The standard boilerplate IP agreement at almost all companies includes some pretty draconian clauses. There are probably a few companies out there that are fighting the trend, but the standard policy is to ask for more than you think you can actually get. Much of this stuff is unenforceable, and some of it they will alter for you if you are valuable enough to them (i.e., interns need not apply here).
But I've seen requirements in non-compete agreements that prevent you from working in the same industry for a year (or more) after you've stopped working for them, and most IP agreements demand that you help them register patents for ideas you had, on or off company time, using company resources or not, any time you were working for them -- even ideas that are unrelated to the industry.
So I wouldn't suggest running every time you see an unreasonable agreement... more suggestions in a post below.
For the record, most people just sign these things without thinking about them much, and ignore them later. That's fine 99.99% of the time... but in some cases (especially if you leave the company to start a competitor, or play a major role in one...) it *can* come back to bite you, so it's worth a little thought.
Situations vary, but most grad students can't afford to toss away a few hundred bucks on an internship that they may not even get.
When I was a student I was borrowing money from my brother to buy parts to fix my bicycle, so I could get around. I definitely would not have sprung for a lawyer in this situation.
I've read through (and fought for changes in) a number of NCA's and IP agreements, and while the standard agreement is pretty invasive and draconian, I've never seen a claim over the work you've done *before* you were under their employ. It's nuts, because it seems to me that YOU would be violating agreements with any previous employers if you neglected to list that work as an exclusion. I think even class assignments are technically owned by your school, so you would have to exclude them or be violating their copyrights.
It's a lawyer thing, though... they tend to make contracts much more broad than is enforceable (or reasonable) because a) the signer may not realize it's unenforceable, b) if a few parts are unenforceable, the rest is still valid, so c) it's a kind of preemptive attack on exploitable loopholes they might forget otherwise. Unfortunately, we regular people are the ones who have to deal with it.... I say, you should take the same approach. Reach.
You're an internship applicant, so you very likely don't have much leeway to ask for changes, BUT you should definitely take advantage of the exclusion list they give you. It's possible they won't even look at what you put in that list. SO... use the language from the agreement -- and everything they ask for, use the same language to add it to the exclusion list. Your four items might be "all inventions before entering the employ of XXX, all ideas concieved before entering the employ of XXX, all discoveries made before entering the employ of XXX, and all creative works made before entering the employ of XXX".
If they ask you about it, laugh and say "Well, I'm not a lawyer -- I have no idea how much of that stuff is owned by who. I can't possibly sign away the rights for all the work I've done in the past. I don't even *remember* everything I've worked on! Don't worry, I do understand that you own everything I do while working here."
The other approach (which actually might be the smartest) would be to list the main projects you've worked on, do the internship, and don't worry about it. After all, they probably don't even track where their interns GO after they leave, unless you were suddenly a major competitor. If your prior work is fairly private, also, how would they know? You could probably launch a business based on some of the work that you signed away, and they would never do a thing about it. There's no way to be sure, though.... Personally, I'd lean towards excluding it all, and possibly lowering your chances of getting the internship.
Note: they almost certainly ask for the rights to your work even in your own time, even if you aren't using their resources. Just agree to that one, and stick to it (if you have a great idea while you're there, don't work on it, and don't tell a soul until you're out!). You'd need more clout to get out of that one.
Hey, have you heard about Placebo Domingo, Placido's younger brother? He looks just like his brother and gets great press, but he actually can't sing worth a damn.
Heh heh. Hoo, tough crowd tonight...
What do you think about while you brush?
on
Donald Knuth On NPR
·
· Score: 1
Most people don't think about much while they're brushing their teeth. Well, if we all had a little more power idling under the hood, we'd probably be coming up with equations and suchlike while we brushed, too.
Think of it this way -- Knuth is in the habit of breaking down problems into easily understandable parts, describing them with equations where possible, and optimizing the process of the solution. Are you saying he should turn off his brain while he brushes his teeth, just so he doesn't seem "odd" to the rest of us?
First of all, declaring bankruptcy isn't a nice thing. It only handles unsecured debts (your car, house, etc are still going to be repossessed). Your credit is screwed for 7-10 years, for instance, so you won't be starting up another business with a loan anytime soon, or possibly even renting the apartment you want, or sometimes even getting the job you want.
The worse the penalties are for *failing* when you launch a startup, the fewer people will take the risk (meaning less competition with the big guys, less cool new products, etc.) -- that's why it's bad to make it worse when someone has to bail out.
Of course, if bankruptcy is *too* easy, that's bad for business also, because big, rich banks are not the only creditors. If you had another startup developing your massive web portal, for instance, when you go broke and don't pay them for all that work you may well bring them down with you. This was one of many reasons the startup I worked for went belly up in 2002....
I do think that people who have to actively convince others that they're intelligent are trying to cover up the fact that they may only be a half step above the rest--if that--but it seems almost as probable that a genius with a short temper would run around insisting the same.
Well, there are all kinds... I think the real genius with the short temper would be well aware that he has a short temper, and be very careful to avoid situations where his temper will handicap him (like the one you're describing). If he doesn't understand himself well enough to work around his shortcomings, he's likely denying himself a lot of success.
Maybe you need a better example, but in your situation it sounds like you are getting nowhere, getting frustrated, and still hitting your head against the wall. I recognize the feeling, but the clever move at this point is to dodge the argument. He's practically brain-damaged; it shouldn't be hard to re-route the conversation. Just shrug and move on to something else.
I don't want to pretend I'm perfect at this myself -- for some reason when I'm hungry I always find myself wrapped up in silly arguments (if I were really smart, I'd always recognize what was happening...). But the point is, it's important to bite your tongue sometimes, even when you're "right", even sometimes about something important -- if in the end you doing more harm than good (angering people and actually harming your cause, or just wasting your time). Think about it -- what are you actually accomplishing in proving your point? And "winning", of course, doesn't count -- there has to be an actual benefit to someone that outweighs the work you're putting into it (and the frustration both of you are experiencing).
The Methuselah Foundation has in a very short time built up a strong base of support, relying largely on donations from individuals, most of them middle class, most of them outside academia.
I'm actually not surprised that they've managed to rustle up this kind of cash from private donations so quickly. Think about it -- you've been working all your life to make a comfortable living, but now you're feeling old and are starting to think about: 1) your mortality 2) what to do with your money before you go
Introducing the perfect solution.... Not only is it a nice "I'm helping humanity" sort of cause, but you also stand a chance of pushing that deadline out a bit.
I'm not a mac user. I have too many tools and so on that are Windows-only, and my main userbase is Windows users.
I bought one for my wife, though, because she's a "normal" computer user, and I was constantly cleaning out spyware, viruses, etc. when she was sharing my PC.
She's been using the Mac for 2-3 years now and I haven't had to do a single thing except help her with application-file associations, once.
I'm not pretending this wouldn't change (to some degree at least) if Mac OS X became the #1 targetted system... but the fact remains that it *isn't*, and the greater safety is real. Open your eyes. I don't panic at every single Windows hole either -- but when the exploits are showing up in my email on a daily basic, I notice.
I would have thought you couldn't do this, but I used to work for a web dev company, and some clients would actually ask to see resumes of the developers who would be working their project. I was a senior developer and/or tech lead so I had to keep my resume updated -- for clients to see.
There are obviously complications for them providing this info (because schedules are often quite fluid), but once you've narrowed down your choices, sort out a rough schedule and ask for the resumes of the lead developer/architect for your project, and the probable developers. They won't be able to guarantee you the general dev team (because of last minute shuffling when other projects run over, etc.), but they should be able to tell you who the lead will be.
A thought -- you might want to get a quick process rundown from them first to figure out who the "important" developer(s) will be -- what they call the "lead architect" might just be a senior guy who glances at the spec and says "Yup -- PHP, MySql, copy the basic layout from that site we did in March", then passes it off... then there's probably a team lead or something like that (and *that's* who you want to know more about).
I googled for stats on open relays running on windows vs. linux vs. mac, etc. but couldn't find anything.
Obviously I've never tried to set up a hidden open relay on a Mac, so I don't know what would be involved. It would need to accept incoming connections (perhaps the built-in firewall stops that?), though you could use a custom configuration where it just checks an IRC channel or webpage for messages to send and delivery addresses, etc..
I don't know enough about Macs to say exactly what's possible and what's not... but I don't think it's happening now, anyway.
it leaves a hole open to execute code on your own account. That's fine, if you're OK with that - and if that's all it allows, then that would be all there is to it. Problem is there is currently an exploit...
You're missing the more important point -- that avoiding the problem is pretty darned easy. In fact, since this hasn't been reported in the wild, it's probably impossible to get exploited even if you wanted to. Some of this is due to the smaller user base of OSX, plus with this particular version of the JVM. But a lot of it is because the Mac user would have to actively browse to a malicious site to be affected.
So combined with that open hole which STILL isn't patched - it's as scary as complete 0wnz0rship, because that's what it allowed.
I'd say it's not as scary, because you have to account for the actual chances of it happening. Someone technically *could* break into my house and "0wnz0r" my computers with a 20 lb sledge, but I worry much more about worms or possible vulns in my router/firewall.
Even if you backed up all of your personal files daily, losing a full day's worth of work is still a Very Bad Thing that should be avoided at all costs.
Of course, it's much worse if your OS *and* your personal data are hosed, which was the point.
But my main point is that avoiding this attack vector doesn't take "all costs" -- there aren't any reports of this attack in the wild, and you'd have to actively visit a malicious site, before applying the patch, to be affected.
That's why it's nothing to shout about -- it's actively affecting (as far as we know) nobody, as opposed to buggy spyware installations that are going on constantly which are affecting quite a lot of people.
This is an serious bug and an important security update, and I'm not blowing that off... but I gotta live up to my username and point out the other side of the coin.
So what happened is one version of the JVM, on OSX, has an exploitable flaw that still leaves it less dangerous than... well, Active-X, unflawed.
It's not as serious a problem as it looks, also. They can't install a rootkit or anything like that, just because of the way OSX is designed. Say you have a Mac, and browsed to a site hosting a malicious applet (it's not a virus, so you'd have to *go* there to be in danger, and the website creator is obviously easier to trace than a virus writer). That applet could overwrite your documents, and wreak a lot of havoc, but you're not going to get owned. The Mac will prompt you for a password before it lets any software touch the core software (even its own security update!).
So -- yes, get the fix if you've got a mac, but it's not "scary".
The HOSTS file from that site is 210K, and they suggest shutting down your "DNS Client" service on win2k to avoid slowdowns because of the size of the file. They say "the above "Service" is not needed".
I don't get it. It's not a "service", it's a service. I can't say for sure that it's "needed", but I know stopping it hosed a VPN connection I had up.
Is anyone using this huge HOSTS file? Personally, I do redirect a few domains to 127.0.0.1 in case I accidentally click an "ad" link that looks real... but it won't do a darned thing for popups (I don't care much that it would prevent the image from loading.. I'd still get the window).
What a strange review -- first they give us a nice photo comparing the new screen in an iPod to the standard LCD... but the standard iPod example is turned off. There's nothing on the screen we can compare with.
Okay, maybe they're really keen on the new tech and are trying to skew things its way.
But no, further down they discuss the eBook reader example. "This ebook looked great, and really shows off the power of the digital paper. Alas, I had to keep pressing the contrast button to refresh the image. Perhaps the technology is not as far along as the company suggested."
Huh? Anything you can achieve by pressing a button is easily achievable through software, isn't it? This is just a minor flaw in the implementation of this particular prototype... and says nothing useful about the actual screen.
Anyway, I'm sure more thoughtful reviews will be coming along soon -- this looks like pretty solid and exciting tech to me. It may not be suitable for many screens (i.e., it takes *more* power than a standard LCD if the pixels are all changing frequently... so you wouldn't watch a movie on it), but it'd be perfect for putting little status monitor screens on all kinds of things, plus for the applications they prototyped.
I totally agree that GPS could be a godsend for helping enforce restraining orders. Instead of you calling the police after the lurking ex-boyfriend heaves a brick through your window and runs off laughing (or worse, no one calling the police, as he runs in with a baseball bat), the police are already on their way from the moment he parks in the alley and hides in your bushes. Currently restraining orders are *very* difficult to enforce, especially because violations are frequent and often difficult to prove.
But like any reduction of privacy, what are the possible abuses? Who is doing the tracking, and who has access to the information? If it's automated, and locked-down, and no one can check a location unless a buzzer goes off because parole or the restraining order was violated, cool.
There's a big benefit here either way, but if we can avoid sticky situations we should... i.e., suppose the felon is *not* violating any rules, but his ex is a secretary for the PD, and tracks his every move constantly to figure out who he's dating now (let's give her a call...), where he's working now (let's call them too and see if we can get him fired).
There are probably other risks; in this case I think the benefits outweigh them... but it's important to check this stuff.
Most of this argument is based on the "fact" that all of his stories are accepted. How, exactly, would anyone know? Any user's rejected stories are not displayed to other users.
Try it out. Submit a story, get it rejected, then logout and check your own user page. You won't see anything.
What nonsense. I'm not even getting why the author seem to think valid, totally aboveboard means to bring traffic to your site (i.e., busting your ass to snag interesting stories first, for your blog &/.) is somehow reprehensible.
let's just say time is certainly being wasted. you're better than me (it takes intelligence to repeat someone else's thoughts) so let's move on, shall we?
Ah, but most people can figure out how to take a screenshot
Totally true, but that's not my point. Firefox users can also use the "Media" tab in their "View Page Info" dialog to save the image -- this doesn't require technical expertise of any kind.
It *does* require a bit of effort beyond the basic right-click-save-as, though. And it requires a realization that "someone doesn't want me downloading this image"... so if your photo shows up on my website, I can't just claim ignorance about copyright law (and my host has more of a reason to drop me like a hot potato, which is what you want).
A watermark on the image (like adding "do not copy" text to the bottom) achieves the same effect -- I'd have to knowingly crop it out -- though watermarks can be irritating; they mar the image, after all, to varying degrees. If someone's thinking of purchasing a print, they might be turned off if your watermark is jolting, wrecks the color scheme, cuts across some important part of the photo, etc..
Using JavaScript to disable all right-clicks is also irritating, since people use right-clicks for much more than just saving images. My suggestion is to set the actual photo as a table cell background, and fill the cell with a transparent GIF. Users who are just viewing the image won't even be able to tell you did this, and users who right-click-save will get the transparent GIF. You should also put copyright reminders below the images, in a small font (if you are loud about it people will feel like they're being accused of a crime they haven't committed).
Slashdot Mirror
Tough one to answer without more info....
Is this an SDK for developers using your own invented language, with compiler etc.?
What other language or environment is it most like? Those are the developers who will feel most comfortable developing with it, so you should model the documentation on standard docs for that language.
General advice -- people learn new things best by doing them. Make sure your docs have a very quick intro to give developers the lay of the land and get them interested, then jump right into getting the full-source, good functionality demos running. The sooner I can create something actually useful to me (probably by modifying your sample app, not coding something from scratch), the sooner I'm hooked.
Then to *keep* me hooked, you'll need a very thorough, easy-to-use reference -- both language elements and error codes/messages. It should have a good index, but also be organized well into good , fairly fine-grained categories (so that I can find what I need when I want to do X even though I don't know the function, etc.).
I can fathom a reason for this sort of clause: any code you write while on the job might be considered derived from code you have previously written. (I know I've re-written code from what I've worked on at home when I knew it was the best way to do something.) This sort of clause would protect them if you ever tried to claim ownership of the code because it was similar to code you had ownership of.
Ugh, you could be right. Of course that's insane, but this falls into my observation that they try to overreach on every level so as to close any possible loopholes. Regardless of how unpleasant it may be for the employee....
Would that even be a loophole, though? I'm pretty sure if I used personal old code on a new company project, that very act gives them the code (I'm pasting their copyright notice at the top of the file!)... and if I didn't have the rights to do that, *I'm* the one breaking the law when I merge that code into company work. And I'm the one responsible for cleaning up the mess (which could mean paying legal fees, and paying for replacement code to be written), because I was the one acting illegally.
To use a simpler example -- if I steal someone else's code (open source or otherwise) for a company project without my company's knowledge, what happens when I get found out? (NOTE: the SCO case (and others) is about situations where supposedly code was stolen WITH the company's knowledge and approval... different situation).
I'm using logic more than legal knowledge here... anyone know more about this?
The standard boilerplate IP agreement at almost all companies includes some pretty draconian clauses. There are probably a few companies out there that are fighting the trend, but the standard policy is to ask for more than you think you can actually get. Much of this stuff is unenforceable, and some of it they will alter for you if you are valuable enough to them (i.e., interns need not apply here).
But I've seen requirements in non-compete agreements that prevent you from working in the same industry for a year (or more) after you've stopped working for them, and most IP agreements demand that you help them register patents for ideas you had, on or off company time, using company resources or not, any time you were working for them -- even ideas that are unrelated to the industry.
So I wouldn't suggest running every time you see an unreasonable agreement... more suggestions in a post below.
For the record, most people just sign these things without thinking about them much, and ignore them later. That's fine 99.99% of the time... but in some cases (especially if you leave the company to start a competitor, or play a major role in one...) it *can* come back to bite you, so it's worth a little thought.
Situations vary, but most grad students can't afford to toss away a few hundred bucks on an internship that they may not even get.
When I was a student I was borrowing money from my brother to buy parts to fix my bicycle, so I could get around. I definitely would not have sprung for a lawyer in this situation.
I've read through (and fought for changes in) a number of NCA's and IP agreements, and while the standard agreement is pretty invasive and draconian, I've never seen a claim over the work you've done *before* you were under their employ. It's nuts, because it seems to me that YOU would be violating agreements with any previous employers if you neglected to list that work as an exclusion. I think even class assignments are technically owned by your school, so you would have to exclude them or be violating their copyrights.
It's a lawyer thing, though... they tend to make contracts much more broad than is enforceable (or reasonable) because a) the signer may not realize it's unenforceable, b) if a few parts are unenforceable, the rest is still valid, so c) it's a kind of preemptive attack on exploitable loopholes they might forget otherwise. Unfortunately, we regular people are the ones who have to deal with it.... I say, you should take the same approach. Reach.
You're an internship applicant, so you very likely don't have much leeway to ask for changes, BUT you should definitely take advantage of the exclusion list they give you. It's possible they won't even look at what you put in that list. SO... use the language from the agreement -- and everything they ask for, use the same language to add it to the exclusion list. Your four items might be "all inventions before entering the employ of XXX, all ideas concieved before entering the employ of XXX, all discoveries made before entering the employ of XXX, and all creative works made before entering the employ of XXX".
If they ask you about it, laugh and say "Well, I'm not a lawyer -- I have no idea how much of that stuff is owned by who. I can't possibly sign away the rights for all the work I've done in the past. I don't even *remember* everything I've worked on! Don't worry, I do understand that you own everything I do while working here."
The other approach (which actually might be the smartest) would be to list the main projects you've worked on, do the internship, and don't worry about it. After all, they probably don't even track where their interns GO after they leave, unless you were suddenly a major competitor. If your prior work is fairly private, also, how would they know? You could probably launch a business based on some of the work that you signed away, and they would never do a thing about it. There's no way to be sure, though.... Personally, I'd lean towards excluding it all, and possibly lowering your chances of getting the internship.
Note: they almost certainly ask for the rights to your work even in your own time, even if you aren't using their resources. Just agree to that one, and stick to it (if you have a great idea while you're there, don't work on it, and don't tell a soul until you're out!). You'd need more clout to get out of that one.
Hey, have you heard about Placebo Domingo, Placido's younger brother? He looks just like his brother and gets great press, but he actually can't sing worth a damn.
Heh heh. Hoo, tough crowd tonight...
Most people don't think about much while they're brushing their teeth. Well, if we all had a little more power idling under the hood, we'd probably be coming up with equations and suchlike while we brushed, too.
Think of it this way -- Knuth is in the habit of breaking down problems into easily understandable parts, describing them with equations where possible, and optimizing the process of the solution. Are you saying he should turn off his brain while he brushes his teeth, just so he doesn't seem "odd" to the rest of us?
First of all, declaring bankruptcy isn't a nice thing. It only handles unsecured debts (your car, house, etc are still going to be repossessed). Your credit is screwed for 7-10 years, for instance, so you won't be starting up another business with a loan anytime soon, or possibly even renting the apartment you want, or sometimes even getting the job you want.
The worse the penalties are for *failing* when you launch a startup, the fewer people will take the risk (meaning less competition with the big guys, less cool new products, etc.) -- that's why it's bad to make it worse when someone has to bail out.
Of course, if bankruptcy is *too* easy, that's bad for business also, because big, rich banks are not the only creditors. If you had another startup developing your massive web portal, for instance, when you go broke and don't pay them for all that work you may well bring them down with you. This was one of many reasons the startup I worked for went belly up in 2002....
I do think that people who have to actively convince others that they're intelligent are trying to cover up the fact that they may only be a half step above the rest--if that--but it seems almost as probable that a genius with a short temper would run around insisting the same.
Well, there are all kinds... I think the real genius with the short temper would be well aware that he has a short temper, and be very careful to avoid situations where his temper will handicap him (like the one you're describing). If he doesn't understand himself well enough to work around his shortcomings, he's likely denying himself a lot of success.
Maybe you need a better example, but in your situation it sounds like you are getting nowhere, getting frustrated, and still hitting your head against the wall. I recognize the feeling, but the clever move at this point is to dodge the argument. He's practically brain-damaged; it shouldn't be hard to re-route the conversation. Just shrug and move on to something else.
I don't want to pretend I'm perfect at this myself -- for some reason when I'm hungry I always find myself wrapped up in silly arguments (if I were really smart, I'd always recognize what was happening...). But the point is, it's important to bite your tongue sometimes, even when you're "right", even sometimes about something important -- if in the end you doing more harm than good (angering people and actually harming your cause, or just wasting your time). Think about it -- what are you actually accomplishing in proving your point? And "winning", of course, doesn't count -- there has to be an actual benefit to someone that outweighs the work you're putting into it (and the frustration both of you are experiencing).
1) your mortality
2) what to do with your money before you go
Introducing the perfect solution.... Not only is it a nice "I'm helping humanity" sort of cause, but you also stand a chance of pushing that deadline out a bit.
You had a virus! Ahh!
And worms! And... ew... trojans! Mixed in my head!
I'm all better now though. And there's, ah, no need to mention this to the wife, right?
I'm not a mac user. I have too many tools and so on that are Windows-only, and my main userbase is Windows users.
I bought one for my wife, though, because she's a "normal" computer user, and I was constantly cleaning out spyware, viruses, etc. when she was sharing my PC.
She's been using the Mac for 2-3 years now and I haven't had to do a single thing except help her with application-file associations, once.
I'm not pretending this wouldn't change (to some degree at least) if Mac OS X became the #1 targetted system... but the fact remains that it *isn't*, and the greater safety is real. Open your eyes. I don't panic at every single Windows hole either -- but when the exploits are showing up in my email on a daily basic, I notice.
I would have thought you couldn't do this, but I used to work for a web dev company, and some clients would actually ask to see resumes of the developers who would be working their project. I was a senior developer and/or tech lead so I had to keep my resume updated -- for clients to see.
There are obviously complications for them providing this info (because schedules are often quite fluid), but once you've narrowed down your choices, sort out a rough schedule and ask for the resumes of the lead developer/architect for your project, and the probable developers. They won't be able to guarantee you the general dev team (because of last minute shuffling when other projects run over, etc.), but they should be able to tell you who the lead will be.
A thought -- you might want to get a quick process rundown from them first to figure out who the "important" developer(s) will be -- what they call the "lead architect" might just be a senior guy who glances at the spec and says "Yup -- PHP, MySql, copy the basic layout from that site we did in March", then passes it off... then there's probably a team lead or something like that (and *that's* who you want to know more about).
I googled for stats on open relays running on windows vs. linux vs. mac, etc. but couldn't find anything.
Obviously I've never tried to set up a hidden open relay on a Mac, so I don't know what would be involved. It would need to accept incoming connections (perhaps the built-in firewall stops that?), though you could use a custom configuration where it just checks an IRC channel or webpage for messages to send and delivery addresses, etc..
I don't know enough about Macs to say exactly what's possible and what's not... but I don't think it's happening now, anyway.
it leaves a hole open to execute code on your own account. That's fine, if you're OK with that - and if that's all it allows, then that would be all there is to it. Problem is there is currently an exploit...
You're missing the more important point -- that avoiding the problem is pretty darned easy. In fact, since this hasn't been reported in the wild, it's probably impossible to get exploited even if you wanted to. Some of this is due to the smaller user base of OSX, plus with this particular version of the JVM. But a lot of it is because the Mac user would have to actively browse to a malicious site to be affected.
So combined with that open hole which STILL isn't patched - it's as scary as complete 0wnz0rship, because that's what it allowed.
I'd say it's not as scary, because you have to account for the actual chances of it happening. Someone technically *could* break into my house and "0wnz0r" my computers with a 20 lb sledge, but I worry much more about worms or possible vulns in my router/firewall.
Even if you backed up all of your personal files daily, losing a full day's worth of work is still a Very Bad Thing that should be avoided at all costs.
Of course, it's much worse if your OS *and* your personal data are hosed, which was the point.
But my main point is that avoiding this attack vector doesn't take "all costs" -- there aren't any reports of this attack in the wild, and you'd have to actively visit a malicious site, before applying the patch, to be affected.
That's why it's nothing to shout about -- it's actively affecting (as far as we know) nobody, as opposed to buggy spyware installations that are going on constantly which are affecting quite a lot of people.
Yes, worm (somehow I had virus/worm/trojan mixed in my head last night).
This is an serious bug and an important security update, and I'm not blowing that off... but I gotta live up to my username and point out the other side of the coin.
So what happened is one version of the JVM, on OSX, has an exploitable flaw that still leaves it less dangerous than... well, Active-X, unflawed.
It's not as serious a problem as it looks, also. They can't install a rootkit or anything like that, just because of the way OSX is designed. Say you have a Mac, and browsed to a site hosting a malicious applet (it's not a virus, so you'd have to *go* there to be in danger, and the website creator is obviously easier to trace than a virus writer). That applet could overwrite your documents, and wreak a lot of havoc, but you're not going to get owned. The Mac will prompt you for a password before it lets any software touch the core software (even its own security update!).
So -- yes, get the fix if you've got a mac, but it's not "scary".
The HOSTS file from that site is 210K, and they suggest shutting down your "DNS Client" service on win2k to avoid slowdowns because of the size of the file. They say "the above "Service" is not needed".
I don't get it. It's not a "service", it's a service. I can't say for sure that it's "needed", but I know stopping it hosed a VPN connection I had up.
Is anyone using this huge HOSTS file? Personally, I do redirect a few domains to 127.0.0.1 in case I accidentally click an "ad" link that looks real... but it won't do a darned thing for popups (I don't care much that it would prevent the image from loading.. I'd still get the window).
What a strange review -- first they give us a nice photo comparing the new screen in an iPod to the standard LCD... but the standard iPod example is turned off. There's nothing on the screen we can compare with.
Okay, maybe they're really keen on the new tech and are trying to skew things its way.
But no, further down they discuss the eBook reader example. "This ebook looked great, and really shows off the power of the digital paper. Alas, I had to keep pressing the contrast button to refresh the image. Perhaps the technology is not as far along as the company suggested."
Huh? Anything you can achieve by pressing a button is easily achievable through software, isn't it? This is just a minor flaw in the implementation of this particular prototype... and says nothing useful about the actual screen.
Anyway, I'm sure more thoughtful reviews will be coming along soon -- this looks like pretty solid and exciting tech to me. It may not be suitable for many screens (i.e., it takes *more* power than a standard LCD if the pixels are all changing frequently... so you wouldn't watch a movie on it), but it'd be perfect for putting little status monitor screens on all kinds of things, plus for the applications they prototyped.
I totally agree that GPS could be a godsend for helping enforce restraining orders. Instead of you calling the police after the lurking ex-boyfriend heaves a brick through your window and runs off laughing (or worse, no one calling the police, as he runs in with a baseball bat), the police are already on their way from the moment he parks in the alley and hides in your bushes. Currently restraining orders are *very* difficult to enforce, especially because violations are frequent and often difficult to prove.
But like any reduction of privacy, what are the possible abuses? Who is doing the tracking, and who has access to the information? If it's automated, and locked-down, and no one can check a location unless a buzzer goes off because parole or the restraining order was violated, cool.
There's a big benefit here either way, but if we can avoid sticky situations we should... i.e., suppose the felon is *not* violating any rules, but his ex is a secretary for the PD, and tracks his every move constantly to figure out who he's dating now (let's give her a call...), where he's working now (let's call them too and see if we can get him fired).
There are probably other risks; in this case I think the benefits outweigh them... but it's important to check this stuff.
Actually, any user's rejected stories are not displayed to other users.
Try it out. Logout and check your own user page. Fancy that, all of *your* stories are accepted, too!
This is such a slick troll...
Most of this argument is based on the "fact" that all of his stories are accepted. How, exactly, would anyone know? Any user's rejected stories are not displayed to other users.
/.) is somehow reprehensible.
Try it out. Submit a story, get it rejected, then logout and check your own user page. You won't see anything.
What nonsense. I'm not even getting why the author seem to think valid, totally aboveboard means to bring traffic to your site (i.e., busting your ass to snag interesting stories first, for your blog &
let's just say time is certainly being wasted. you're better than me (it takes intelligence to repeat someone else's thoughts) so let's move on, shall we?
Hmmm. Yes, move on.
Ah, but most people can figure out how to take a screenshot
Totally true, but that's not my point. Firefox users can also use the "Media" tab in their "View Page Info" dialog to save the image -- this doesn't require technical expertise of any kind.
It *does* require a bit of effort beyond the basic right-click-save-as, though. And it requires a realization that "someone doesn't want me downloading this image"... so if your photo shows up on my website, I can't just claim ignorance about copyright law (and my host has more of a reason to drop me like a hot potato, which is what you want).
A watermark on the image (like adding "do not copy" text to the bottom) achieves the same effect -- I'd have to knowingly crop it out -- though watermarks can be irritating; they mar the image, after all, to varying degrees. If someone's thinking of purchasing a print, they might be turned off if your watermark is jolting, wrecks the color scheme, cuts across some important part of the photo, etc..
Using JavaScript to disable all right-clicks is also irritating, since people use right-clicks for much more than just saving images. My suggestion is to set the actual photo as a table cell background, and fill the cell with a transparent GIF. Users who are just viewing the image won't even be able to tell you did this, and users who right-click-save will get the transparent GIF. You should also put copyright reminders below the images, in a small font (if you are loud about it people will feel like they're being accused of a crime they haven't committed).