Calling their function 'snprintf' before snprintf was adopted into the C standard would have been a mistake.
True.
What if the Standard specified it differently?
Why would that matter to them? After experiencing first hand how MS co-opts standards (Kerberos, anyone?) What makes you think that this would matter to the _at all_?
You wouldn't be saying it was alright if they made a 'mistake' by not stepping on the brake pedal and running someone over, or made a 'mistake' by not locking their firearm away
No, but if someone said "I didn't step on the brake", when actually they did, or they DID lock their firearm away, but said they didn't, that would be a 'mistake'.
Considering the only 'damage' was that they printed the wrong message, I think it DOES excuse it.
It's foolish to rely on obscurity, but there's no reason why it can't add an extra layer of protection.
If you can't rely on it, why are you wasting your time doing it in the first place?
Security through obscurity is never "protection" because you're not really doing anything - because people who believe it's useful do rely on it.
That being said, I disagree that this is obscurity - like a honeypot, nothing is being hidden; I see it more as a way to waste a potential hacker's time.. if they try a few that are bogus, they'll give up and go elsewhere.
There's no comparison between DVDs and CDs because (successful) movies have already made back the cost of production before they ever get to DVD.
OK, and how about the unsuccessful ones?
Last month I bought a DVD of "Route 666" (it's a Lori Petty thing - if you don't understand, don't ask) for $9.99 CDN.
This movie never made anything close to it's cost of production - how then, can I buy it for 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a new music recording?
Your argument sounds good until you analyize it.. in fact, pretty much any box-office bomb will sell for less than the popular titles - if the price of the DVD is an indication of how much a title made at the box office, why is this?
We used 2 prong AC connectors for speaker connectors back in the day at GA Tech.
Works great until some yahoo plugs your speakera into the wall AC jack.
Did anyone else here see the Andy Rooney segment on 60 minutes a couple of weeks ago? He was bitching about how all his connectors are different shapes and sizes... he said "if they're so smart, why can't they make one cable that works for everything."
All I could think of was "it's because they're so smart that they don't do this."
This is old news (last week?), not only is it old MIT can use this graphic because its being used for educational, or non-profit reasons -- read the article. MIT appoligzed, won't use it again, etc.
That's not the point. At all.
The point is that MIT used the work, and claimed it was their own (The work was credited to "H. Thomas" - presumably the daughter of Prof Ned Thomas.)
If they had given proper credit, this would be a non-issue. But now, one has to wonder exactly what they're taking to pass off as their own.
Re:Saving search terms for 36 years?
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 2
Brandt mentioned how all your search terms are saved in google's cookie for 36 years.... I looked at the cookie, and there's nothing indicating my search terms are in there.
There doesn't have to be; they could be using the cookie as an index in a server-side DB.
I primarily use Google Toolbar, and I reguarly do a Clear Search History. Is that good enough to wipe out the searches?
Probably not (IIRC, search history local only). If you're worried, the best thing to do is reject cookies, or prevent them from being stored on your local drive (if you use a browser that doesn't do this, a quick hack is to make your cookies file read-only, so they're not stored between browser sessions.)
Re:Here's my essay - here's my comment.
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't get it - you go on at great lengths about what google should do; about how bad Pagerank is, and how it should be fixed. But you don't say why you're not doing it yourself.
Google became what it is because it saw an unfilled niche, and filled it. They "built a better mousetrap", and the world did indeed beat a path to their door. There is nothing stopping you from doing the same. If you're half as smart as you seem to think you are, you should have no problem implementing a search engine, and becoming as successful as Google is now.
Google is NOT a public utility, nor is it any form of monopoly. It needs to be regulated just as much as YOUR site does.
Unlike so many other companies, Google got where it is today solely on the merits of it's technology. It didn't succeed by pumping millions of dollars into marketing, it didn't succeed by using underhanded business tactics to squash its' competitors. All it did was make the best product.
Contrary to your essay, I (and I think many/.'ers) think that Pagerank works, and works very well. If you believe otherwise, why don't you simply go ahead and prove it?
Re:Not complaints, actually calling for revision
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 2
Google does have a monopoly on search engines
No, it doesn't. How about Alta-vista? Lycos? Hell, go to dogpile.com, and do a search there, and see all of the search engines that are used. This is NOT a monopoly, in any sense of the word.
I think, he is trying to call a revision to Google to develop more 'pagerank' innovations
Well then, if he's so smart, why doesn't he write his own 'innovations'?... if they're as good as he (and apparently you) seem to think, he'll have no problem usurping Google as the #1 search engine on the internet.
But instead, he whines to some rag about how "unfairly" he's being treated.
Everybody just assumes that USA is slow or incompetent.
Only because that's what the evidence suggests.
This is the first time I've seen soembody bring up the point that the United States has a LOT of ground to cover.
True, but Canada has EVEN MORE ground to cover, and we don't have the same problems as you. As an example, take Morinville, Alberta. Population of 6400. They have access to both Cable AND ADSL. And at reasonable prices ($35-42CDN per month.)
And Morinville is not alone (I just use it as an example because I happen to know lots of people who live there.) As another poster pointed out, even Inuvik has broadband.
Most other countries are roughly the size of 1 (one) of our states.
Most, but not all, and there are bigger countries than you that don't have this problem.
I have trouble justifying the $60/month for a cable modem, and I'm online all the time.
Yikes! That's expensive..
I pay $45CDN for my cable (about $27 US).
I could get ADSL for $35CDN (if I bought the modem), but that would mean I'd have to deal with Telus's "help" desk... I deal with that at work, and no way in hell would I put myself through that if I don't have to.
If you jacked into your throat with a tube going to your belly with a large plastic sac, you can do the free refill thing, and resell the coke/pepsi and make profit!
Cut to Futurama (Roswell that end's well)
Army Surgeon: Stomach contents: one deviled egg. Zoidberg: *mmm?* (swallows egg) Army Surgeon: The _same_ deviled egg.
Perhaps he should think and formulate a well conceived, intelligent opinion before opening his mouth next time - is this guy the salon version of the first post trolls ?
Honest researchers change their minds when new data suggests that they should. They don't hold on to pet theories if the data contradicts those theories
Try taking something in context next time. (ie. quote the whole reference.)
He didn't say that changing one's mind is the sign of a poor researcher, but that repeatedly changing one's mind in a short period of time is. I'd find it hard to believe that an honest researcher can formulate a well conceived, intelligent opinion three times in four months; to suggest that this is simply the result of new data is naieve in the extreme - if he's discovering new data that fast, then his opinions can't possibly be thought out very well.
When developers try to make operating systems more user friendly by binding commonly used social security holes (alt-ctrl-del) to intutive items like log into computer, we sure know where everything is headed
OK, now here's something I don't understand, but you appear to, so I'll ask now..
How (exactly) does ctrl-alt-del make a computer MORE user friendly?
When you boot Win NT/2K/etc, you have to 'hit ctrl-alt-del' to log in - exactly what is being accomplished by doing that? Would it not be easier to simply present a login screen?
Exactly how does adding a step - which seems (to me, at least) to be a NOP - make the computer easier to use?
Actually, most of the answer to this was two paragraphs above this..
Many people end up writing code to deal with various aspects of data management that the database is supposed to take care of because they don't know that the database is supposed to take care of the data.
This is the answer to your question. They simply don't know the database is supposed to do it for them.
The problem is that the 'web application programmers' have no knowledge of what SQL is or what it's supposed to do; they understand "insert" and "select", and assume that this is the be-all and end-all, never questioning all of the other stuff that makes SQL as powerful as it is.
They started writing apps in Perl, keeping data in flat files - once the project reached a certain size, they decide to give "sql" a whirl.. and because they already have all of this program logic dedicated to managing the data, they keep it around, and use the DB as a large flat file; since this is what MySQL excels at (what it was designed for), they believe it to be 'the best', and never question that there might be a better way to do it.
I'm confused.. first you say that you have "real-world case" saying something, then you say that it's not worth anything. (You posted benchmark rhetoric, then you posted that benchmark rhetoric isn't worth anything.)
FWIW, I've used both, and for simple inserts/retrieves (which seems to be what you're using it for) MySQL is faster (which it should be, as that's what it was designed for).. but for real world DB use - complex retrieves, views, many multiple users - Postgres blows it away.
Slashdot Mirror
Calling their function 'snprintf' before snprintf was adopted into the C standard would have been a mistake.
True.
What if the Standard specified it differently?
Why would that matter to them? After experiencing first hand how MS co-opts standards (Kerberos, anyone?) What makes you think that this would matter to the _at all_?
now they're making Spam out of Banthas?
Maybe it's an attempt to reach the Jewish market? Bantha spam could be Kosher, couldn't it?
You wouldn't be saying it was alright if they made a 'mistake' by not stepping on the brake pedal and running someone over, or made a 'mistake' by not locking their firearm away
No, but if someone said "I didn't step on the brake", when actually they did, or they DID lock their firearm away, but said they didn't, that would be a 'mistake'.
Considering the only 'damage' was that they printed the wrong message, I think it DOES excuse it.
And now you probably know more about TAFKATAFKAP (as I like to call him), than you ever cared to.
Actually, I prefer Glenn McCoy's version:
"The artist who until recently was referred to as the artist formerly known as Prince"
(Sorry, I can't find the exact Duplex strip this appeared in, but it's in the archives somewhere.. 1998 or 1999, IIRC)
It's foolish to rely on obscurity, but there's no reason why it can't add an extra layer of protection.
If you can't rely on it, why are you wasting your time doing it in the first place?
Security through obscurity is never "protection" because you're not really doing anything - because people who believe it's useful do rely on it.
That being said, I disagree that this is obscurity - like a honeypot, nothing is being hidden; I see it more as a way to waste a potential hacker's time.. if they try a few that are bogus, they'll give up and go elsewhere.
Why can't geeks count above 2?
Actually, they can.
The previous poster must be a Gully Dwarf.
Something I learned from my DM: If a Gully Dwarf comes up to you and says there are two dragons around the corner, run!
If it's from Microsoft, no one will take the leap for a buggy 2.0 release.
Yeah, they'll all wait for Tron 97.
Marketer: Tron... Two Point Oh! It's like 'Tron Two', but like a computer! Dear God, am I a genius!
You think you're funny, but watch the credits when it comes out.. I'm sure you'll see something like the following:
Based on an idea by the Marketing Department of Disney Pictures, Inc.
You left out "Scarecrow and Mrs. King"
And the oft-forgotten "Bring 'em Back Alive" (which also starred his Tron co-star Cindy Morgan)
Oh, what about Kuffs? (The movie with Christian Slater.)
I think that's all I've seen him in.
There's no comparison between DVDs and CDs because (successful) movies have already made back the cost of production before they ever get to DVD.
OK, and how about the unsuccessful ones?
Last month I bought a DVD of "Route 666" (it's a Lori Petty thing - if you don't understand, don't ask) for $9.99 CDN.
This movie never made anything close to it's cost of production - how then, can I buy it for 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a new music recording?
Your argument sounds good until you analyize it.. in fact, pretty much any box-office bomb will sell for less than the popular titles - if the price of the DVD is an indication of how much a title made at the box office, why is this?
We used 2 prong AC connectors for speaker connectors back in the day at GA Tech.
Works great until some yahoo plugs your speakera into the wall AC jack.
Did anyone else here see the Andy Rooney segment on 60 minutes a couple of weeks ago? He was bitching about how all his connectors are different shapes and sizes... he said "if they're so smart, why can't they make one cable that works for everything."
All I could think of was "it's because they're so smart that they don't do this."
*sigh*
you're not supposed to put a rubber on the male connecter
:o)
Is that to prevent your computers from spreading viruses to each other?
This is old news (last week?), not only is it old MIT can use this graphic because its being used for educational, or non-profit reasons -- read the article. MIT appoligzed, won't use it again, etc.
That's not the point. At all.
The point is that MIT used the work, and claimed it was their own (The work was credited to "H. Thomas" - presumably the daughter of Prof Ned Thomas.)
If they had given proper credit, this would be a non-issue. But now, one has to wonder exactly what they're taking to pass off as their own.
Brandt mentioned how all your search terms are saved in google's cookie for 36 years. ... I looked at the cookie, and there's nothing indicating my search terms are in there.
There doesn't have to be; they could be using the cookie as an index in a server-side DB.
I primarily use Google Toolbar, and I reguarly do a Clear Search History. Is that good enough to wipe out the searches?
Probably not (IIRC, search history local only). If you're worried, the best thing to do is reject cookies, or prevent them from being stored on your local drive (if you use a browser that doesn't do this, a quick hack is to make your cookies file read-only, so they're not stored between browser sessions.)
I don't get it - you go on at great lengths about what google should do; about how bad Pagerank is, and how it should be fixed. But you don't say why you're not doing it yourself.
/.'ers) think that Pagerank works, and works very well. If you believe otherwise, why don't you simply go ahead and prove it?
Google became what it is because it saw an unfilled niche, and filled it. They "built a better mousetrap", and the world did indeed beat a path to their door. There is nothing stopping you from doing the same. If you're half as smart as you seem to think you are, you should have no problem implementing a search engine, and becoming as successful as Google is now.
Google is NOT a public utility, nor is it any form of monopoly. It needs to be regulated just as much as YOUR site does.
Unlike so many other companies, Google got where it is today solely on the merits of it's technology. It didn't succeed by pumping millions of dollars into marketing, it didn't succeed by using underhanded business tactics to squash its' competitors. All it did was make the best product.
Contrary to your essay, I (and I think many
Google does have a monopoly on search engines
... if they're as good as he (and apparently you) seem to think, he'll have no problem usurping Google as the #1 search engine on the internet.
No, it doesn't. How about Alta-vista? Lycos? Hell, go to dogpile.com, and do a search there, and see all of the search engines that are used. This is NOT a monopoly, in any sense of the word.
I think, he is trying to call a revision to Google to develop more 'pagerank' innovations
Well then, if he's so smart, why doesn't he write his own 'innovations'?
But instead, he whines to some rag about how "unfairly" he's being treated.
Everybody just assumes that USA is slow or incompetent.
Only because that's what the evidence suggests.
This is the first time I've seen soembody bring up the point that the United States has a LOT of ground to cover.
True, but Canada has EVEN MORE ground to cover, and we don't have the same problems as you. As an example, take Morinville, Alberta. Population of 6400. They have access to both Cable AND ADSL. And at reasonable prices ($35-42CDN per month.)
And Morinville is not alone (I just use it as an example because I happen to know lots of people who live there.) As another poster pointed out, even Inuvik has broadband.
Most other countries are roughly the size of 1 (one) of our states.
Most, but not all, and there are bigger countries than you that don't have this problem.
I have trouble justifying the $60/month for a cable modem, and I'm online all the time.
Yikes! That's expensive..
I pay $45CDN for my cable (about $27 US).
I could get ADSL for $35CDN (if I bought the modem), but that would mean I'd have to deal with Telus's "help" desk... I deal with that at work, and no way in hell would I put myself through that if I don't have to.
If you jacked into your throat with a tube going to your belly with a large plastic sac, you can do the free refill thing, and resell the coke/pepsi and make profit!
Cut to Futurama (Roswell that end's well)
Army Surgeon: Stomach contents: one deviled egg.
Zoidberg: *mmm?* (swallows egg)
Army Surgeon: The _same_ deviled egg.
Perhaps he should think and formulate a well
conceived, intelligent opinion before opening his mouth next time - is this guy the salon version of the first post trolls ?
Honest researchers change their minds when new data suggests that they should. They don't hold on to pet theories if the data contradicts those theories
Try taking something in context next time. (ie. quote the whole reference.)
He didn't say that changing one's mind is the sign of a poor researcher, but that repeatedly changing one's mind in a short period of time is. I'd find it hard to believe that an honest researcher can formulate a well conceived, intelligent opinion three times in four months; to suggest that this is simply the result of new data is naieve in the extreme - if he's discovering new data that fast, then his opinions can't possibly be thought out very well.
ctrl-alt-del is a key-combo that no program can 'steal' from the OS
Thank you, that answers my question nicely.
Although it's kind of strange that the original poster attributed this behaviour to user-friendliness instead of security..
When developers try to make operating systems more user friendly by binding commonly used social security holes (alt-ctrl-del) to intutive items like log into computer, we sure know where everything is headed
OK, now here's something I don't understand, but you appear to, so I'll ask now..
How (exactly) does ctrl-alt-del make a computer MORE user friendly?
When you boot Win NT/2K/etc, you have to 'hit ctrl-alt-del' to log in - exactly what is being accomplished by doing that? Would it not be easier to simply present a login screen?
Exactly how does adding a step - which seems (to me, at least) to be a NOP - make the computer easier to use?
The dirty secret of big databases is that most people don't know how to program them, how to configure them
This is correct.
and don't need most of the features
This is where you're wrong.
They do need the features - they just don't know they need them... so they implement the features themselves in the apps..
I just don't get the appeal of mySQL.
Actually, most of the answer to this was two paragraphs above this..
Many people end up writing code to deal with various aspects of data management that the database is supposed to take care of because they don't know that the database is supposed to take care of the data.
This is the answer to your question. They simply don't know the database is supposed to do it for them.
The problem is that the 'web application programmers' have no knowledge of what SQL is or what it's supposed to do; they understand "insert" and "select", and assume that this is the be-all and end-all, never questioning all of the other stuff that makes SQL as powerful as it is.
They started writing apps in Perl, keeping data in flat files - once the project reached a certain size, they decide to give "sql" a whirl.. and because they already have all of this program logic dedicated to managing the data, they keep it around, and use the DB as a large flat file; since this is what MySQL excels at (what it was designed for), they believe it to be 'the best', and never question that there might be a better way to do it.
Benchmark rhetoric + $0.90 = Tim Hortons.
I'm confused.. first you say that you have "real-world case" saying something, then you say that it's not worth anything. (You posted benchmark rhetoric, then you posted that benchmark rhetoric isn't worth anything.)
FWIW, I've used both, and for simple inserts/retrieves (which seems to be what you're using it for) MySQL is faster (which it should be, as that's what it was designed for).. but for real world DB use - complex retrieves, views, many multiple users - Postgres blows it away.