But there are no Linux viruses. It must be the very name MSNTV that caused the virus. I know this for a fact, after all, I read Slashdot and I am L33t.
I often find CodeGuru and Codeproject useful for sample code, expecially for Windows development.
However, I usually just end up searching with Google to find the information. Links turn up so often to Codeproject and CodeGuru, that I often go there first now.
Finally, if you're getting into.NET development, the Windows Forms FAQ is a useful resource.
Of course, never look at the sun, even when partially blocked by the moon. To look safely, poke a pin hole in a piece of paper, and let the sunlight come through that paper and focus the image on a second piece of paper.
I've also had luck looking through a floppy disk, but I wouldn't recommend it. You can use welding glass, though.
I've got proof of intelligent extrasolar being
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
Whenever I remove my tinfoil hat, the cacophony is deafening. Amongst the several societies communicating with me is one that wants to mine our planet for salt, and one that would just like the recipe for Krispy Kreme donuts.
This article made me laugh as I thought of the fact that one of the main reasons the allies in WW II were able to decript and read Enigma traffic was that the Nazis were convinced that it was unbreakable. Germany is learning a lesson from history and going with a reviewable protocol and implementation, it would seem. Then again, human factors played an important role in breaking Enigma, and I would figure similar poor use of even modern cryptography could lead folks of an intellect similar to those who broke enigma to break selected PGP, GnuPP traffic.
That also makes me wanna quote Vizzini from the Princess Bride: "Inconceivable". I wonder if the German high command ever had that thought.
Man Encryption -> Nazis -> Princess Bride. I didn't get enough sleep.
I recently ran across MWave Direct while searching for goods via Bizrate. MWave seems to have very competitive prices and reasonable shipping (I purchased a 21" monitor and a SCSI Card). I've paid less to them with shipping than I could find online or at local hardware retailers.
Bookpool is invariably the cheapest source for Computer books (I recently bought Effective STL by Scott Myers for 20% off list, and Modern C++ Design by Andrei Alexandrescu, also for 20% off list.
You might also check out MyCheapBook.com for effective price comparison (although it doesn't examine bookpool).
I'm a developer with about 8 years of professional experience. I can say that, in those 8 years I've been involved in 4 or 5 BIG projects. Of those, one was estimated accurately. It happened one stormy night.....
We (the engineering team) did not give an estimate for code completion until after a significant amount of design was complete, and we knew where the high risk areas of the project were (FYI, this was a major revision to a shipping product, 1.0 to 2.0 kind of thing).
We broke down the work to be done into as many discreet tasks as possible, and found all the risky and dependant tasks and carefully reviewed each one, including proof of concept coding (which we got management approval to throw away).
We then estimated the development tasks (including more detailed subsystem design and all development tasks, along with testing and documentation). These estimates were done by the developer(s)/testee(s)/doc folks who would be doing the work.
We then aggressively kept track of our progress, and attacked any slippage immediately. We had testing in place from the first month (including nightly build and smoke tests, etc). We did not have many meetings for meetings sake, but everyone had ownership in the schedule, everyone re-factored as needed (ala XP), everyone concentrated on beating down risk, and we had a team that worked well together.
All in all, I think this 12 month project was successful for several reasons: 1) We treated it as a very complex thing, which it was. 2) We attacked risk immediately. 3) We kept an eye on the schedule, and 4) We got lucky. 5) Marketing requirement changes were few, and the schedule impact was examined before acceptance/rejection.
Luck is not to be discounted. We managed to identify all of the really risky parts and not get surprised by any odd things (considering we were writing for new technology).
Overall, I'd say that parts of the software process can be estimated accurately. It is important to distinguish design from development work. That is, don't try to schedule the wandering, brain draining, R&D-esque part of development, it's too spasmodic. But, make sure to give it enough time, because if the design bits leak over, you're in trouble. And, this will happen, so spot it and account for it immediately.
I find this amendment and the analysis by the New York Times really interesting (If you skipped the NYT article, read it, it makes sense of the language in the amendment). It seems, in my reading (note that I am not a lawyer) that this amendment is formalizing a power that has been granted to U.S. Attorneys for a long time, namely that the tracing of addressing information is subject to a lower standard than an invasive search.
Now, expiration of these powers aside, if my assumptions are correct, much of this boils down to what the expectation of privacy is when you communicate via the 'net. In my opinion, it's very low. That's why I use encryption for private communications (e-commerce, private emails).
I go back to the post card analogy, especially with respect to email. Email is sent in clear text and through a potentially variable path in attempts to deliver it. I wouldn't send packets containing private data without protection. Encryption is the envelope, so to speak.
Now, the issuance of new legislation without built in checks and expirations is concerning, but the body of SA 1562, sec 832 doesn't really strike me as heinous. I fear the slippery slope, of course. Perhaps the better argument is that this information is subject to stronger requirements of proof before a warrant is issued (anyone know what case law is the basis for lower standards of proof for this "Tap and Trace" kind of warrant).
Laws that may affect my ability to keep private that which I want to keep private are more concerning, IMHO.
This sort of thing will definitely define what I'm going to be thinking about all day. Gotta decide whether to write to my elected officials about this one (Of course, both of the senators from my state (AZ) are sponsors of this). I'm going to have to get a postage meter to keep track of all this snail mail I'm sending to Washington).
Once again, Ben said it best:
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Public Interest (on NPR) had Sir Martin Rees, author of "Just Six Numbers : The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe", on the show today, and he mentioned that this research actually confirms a bit of the inflationary theory of the universe that for the last few years appeared to be not showing up in current measurements. I'd listen to this archive of the show to here his comments.
Slashdot Mirror
But there are no Linux viruses. It must be the very name MSNTV that caused the virus. I know this for a fact, after all, I read Slashdot and I am L33t.
Note: </Sarcasm> for the humor impaired.
This can't be true. Microsoft just spent a whole month focusing on security. There must be some mistake.
I often find CodeGuru and Codeproject useful for sample code, expecially for Windows development.
.NET development, the Windows Forms FAQ is a useful resource.
However, I usually just end up searching with Google to find the information. Links turn up so often to Codeproject and CodeGuru, that I often go there first now.
Finally, if you're getting into
The results are easy to refute on there face, just consider ... ooooohhhh, an XBox.
You should focus the light that comes through the hole in the paper, of course.
I'm an idiot.
Of course, never look at the sun, even when partially blocked by the moon. To look safely, poke a pin hole in a piece of paper, and let the sunlight come through that paper and focus the image on a second piece of paper.
I've also had luck looking through a floppy disk, but I wouldn't recommend it. You can use welding glass, though.
Whenever I remove my tinfoil hat, the cacophony is deafening. Amongst the several societies communicating with me is one that wants to mine our planet for salt, and one that would just like the recipe for Krispy Kreme donuts.
So, obviously, this book is garbage.
This article made me laugh as I thought of the fact that one of the main reasons the allies in WW II were able to decript and read Enigma traffic was that the Nazis were convinced that it was unbreakable. Germany is learning a lesson from history and going with a reviewable protocol and implementation, it would seem. Then again, human factors played an important role in breaking Enigma, and I would figure similar poor use of even modern cryptography could lead folks of an intellect similar to those who broke enigma to break selected PGP, GnuPP traffic.
That also makes me wanna quote Vizzini from the Princess Bride: "Inconceivable". I wonder if the German high command ever had that thought.
Man Encryption -> Nazis -> Princess Bride. I didn't get enough sleep.
YMMV
Bookpool is invariably the cheapest source for Computer books (I recently bought Effective STL by Scott Myers for 20% off list, and Modern C++ Design by Andrei Alexandrescu, also for 20% off list.
You might also check out MyCheapBook.com for effective price comparison (although it doesn't examine bookpool).
... I was a member of Team OS/2!!! Where is that URL to get postings deleted?
A list of laptops and <A HREF="http://www.transmeta.com/everywhere/product<nobr>s<wbr></wbr></nobr> /notebooks.html">ultra-light notebooks</A>
Behind you! The Dark Matter! It's sneaking up on you, can't you see it! Run! Run!!
I'm a developer with about 8 years of professional experience. I can say that, in those 8 years I've been involved in 4 or 5 BIG projects. Of those, one was estimated accurately. It happened one stormy night .....
We (the engineering team) did not give an estimate for code completion until after a significant amount of design was complete, and we knew where the high risk areas of the project were (FYI, this was a major revision to a shipping product, 1.0 to 2.0 kind of thing).
We broke down the work to be done into as many discreet tasks as possible, and found all the risky and dependant tasks and carefully reviewed each one, including proof of concept coding (which we got management approval to throw away).
We then estimated the development tasks (including more detailed subsystem design and all development tasks, along with testing and documentation). These estimates were done by the developer(s)/testee(s)/doc folks who would be doing the work.
We then aggressively kept track of our progress, and attacked any slippage immediately. We had testing in place from the first month (including nightly build and smoke tests, etc). We did not have many meetings for meetings sake, but everyone had ownership in the schedule, everyone re-factored as needed (ala XP), everyone concentrated on beating down risk, and we had a team that worked well together.
All in all, I think this 12 month project was successful for several reasons: 1) We treated it as a very complex thing, which it was. 2) We attacked risk immediately. 3) We kept an eye on the schedule, and 4) We got lucky. 5) Marketing requirement changes were few, and the schedule impact was examined before acceptance/rejection.
Luck is not to be discounted. We managed to identify all of the really risky parts and not get surprised by any odd things (considering we were writing for new technology).
Overall, I'd say that parts of the software process can be estimated accurately. It is important to distinguish design from development work. That is, don't try to schedule the wandering, brain draining, R&D-esque part of development, it's too spasmodic. But, make sure to give it enough time, because if the design bits leak over, you're in trouble. And, this will happen, so spot it and account for it immediately.
I find this amendment and the analysis by the New York Times really interesting (If you skipped the NYT article, read it, it makes sense of the language in the amendment). It seems, in my reading (note that I am not a lawyer) that this amendment is formalizing a power that has been granted to U.S. Attorneys for a long time, namely that the tracing of addressing information is subject to a lower standard than an invasive search.
Now, expiration of these powers aside, if my assumptions are correct, much of this boils down to what the expectation of privacy is when you communicate via the 'net. In my opinion, it's very low. That's why I use encryption for private communications (e-commerce, private emails).
I go back to the post card analogy, especially with respect to email. Email is sent in clear text and through a potentially variable path in attempts to deliver it. I wouldn't send packets containing private data without protection. Encryption is the envelope, so to speak.
Now, the issuance of new legislation without built in checks and expirations is concerning, but the body of SA 1562, sec 832 doesn't really strike me as heinous. I fear the slippery slope, of course. Perhaps the better argument is that this information is subject to stronger requirements of proof before a warrant is issued (anyone know what case law is the basis for lower standards of proof for this "Tap and Trace" kind of warrant).
Laws that may affect my ability to keep private that which I want to keep private are more concerning, IMHO.
This sort of thing will definitely define what I'm going to be thinking about all day. Gotta decide whether to write to my elected officials about this one (Of course, both of the senators from my state (AZ) are sponsors of this). I'm going to have to get a postage meter to keep track of all this snail mail I'm sending to Washington).
Once again, Ben said it best:
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Public Interest (on NPR) had Sir Martin Rees, author of "Just Six Numbers : The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe", on the show today, and he mentioned that this research actually confirms a bit of the inflationary theory of the universe that for the last few years appeared to be not showing up in current measurements. I'd listen to this archive of the show to here his comments.