Right, I went into a little detail on another post. When I said, "genetic," I mean genes - DNA. There are four main Nucleic Acid types in DNA: Adenosine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymidine. Abbreviated ACGT. So you could store a gene sequence as ACGCCTGCAATC. But in other populations, Asian for example, the same gene is more commonly found as ACTCCTGCAATC. (The third nucleotide is different) Exact string matches won't find matches between different population groups. So they create wild-card letters that represent either G or T -> K. So ACKCCTGCAATC would match either the both of sequences commonly found in western and eastern populations. Data of this nature has no business being in a relational database. For that matter, it doesn't belong in these pseudo databases either.
Genetic sequences are long strings alphabetic characters. One of the most common representations is the FASTA which deals with the most common type of nucleotide polymorphisms. You can't use exact string searching to find a match which makes BLOBS and CLOBS useless. That said, the meta-data of genetic data is reasonably structured and does load into relational databases fairly well.
What password masking does prevent is accidental password snooping. Let's face it. Unless you're quite hardcode and have pure random password, it is probably a word or phrase with some amount of dictionary thwarting added. It is all to easy for a coworker to catch a glimpse of that word and remember because it's Passive. watching keystrokes requires Active snooping.
Just as Doctor Who is bigger than any one actor who plays the role, many of the "Big Things" in life are always bigger than those who run them. Corporate Executives should do well to remember that.
This isn't the same thing as saying anyone can just replace anyone. Matt Smith has some large expectations to meet when Tennant turns over the TARDIS key.
Linux is a great example. Linus doesn't do as much day-to-day programming in the kernel - he hasn't for years. None the less, there are dozens of people who do. Linux will continue long after Linus stops working on it.
I think there is a great danger if there exists a Cult of Personality in an organisation. While I firmly believe that Apple can do well after Steve Jobs leaves, he has built a Cult of Personality that will immediately cripple whoever follows.
It's already being done.
I have two cars in my driveway - Ohio, US - and the both get 44 mpg and 47 mpg under our everyday driving habits. The EPA stats over estimated it a little. One is a '99 the other is an '06.
My Car with the geek license plate.
I feel there are two paths vendors can follow: Abandon backwards compatibility and embrace backwards compatibility. Both have their merits and problems.
But, the most perilous thing a vendor can do is a hybrid approach that doesn't do either well. That's just a disaster.
It is interesting, but is it relevant to this thread?
I tried to find a methodology of their statistics. If I recall, netcraft used to perform fancy packet inspection to determine what a site was running and if or when a site rebooted. Today, any site of substance is really a cluster of servers fronted by load balancers. You really have no idea when a server behind it reboots.
What their brief really shows is that there are groups of people who believe that Copyright exists as a copy protection system. For that matter, the same is true of Patents and Trade Marks insofar as they're often used to restrict how people use what they protect. In short, they believe that Copyright exists to make the works protected by copyright proprietary.
This isn't the first time this has happened. In the early days of the SCO/IBM lawsuit (Dec, 2003), Daryl McBride declared that the GPL was unconstitutional because it tries to make intellectual property non-proprietary which is contrary to the purpose of Copyright.
These people sincerely believe the only use for Copyright is a proprietary use. They also lobby governments.
What we need to do, is to assert and evangelize our belief that Copyright is the limited right to choose the terms and conditions under which anyone can copy, redistribute or derive our works. And we should defend our right to choose either proprietary terms, non-proprietary terms or something in between that balances the benefits of both. We should explain the benefits of non-proprietary licensing. We should also not be hypocrites and demand others respect a non-proprietary license, while at the same time, disdaining and circumventing proprietary licenses.
While that is a true statement, it is true only because Unix passwords are never encrypted - SSH not withstanding.
Other posters have gone on and on about hashing. Authentication systems should NEVER accepted a pre-hashed password because it then becomes a password equivalent. Password equivalents represent a common attack vector and are frequently under protected because many have the misconceived intuition that it's safe because it's "encrypted."
This isn't surpassing. Encryption is a two-edged sword. Encrypted data (including pin numbers) are useless until they are decrypted. When you have multiple vendors involved each vendor has it's own key. You can't have one key to rule them all because if that key leaks (and it would) then no data are safe.
I think the real implications are that an OS running under Virtualization can break out of its sandbox and attack other OS's running on the same system.
Never the less, you are spot on. Some quirky programmers are both, some are neither.
Perhaps it is conceited of me, but I've always thought of myself as brilliant. Enough people have made comments that reinforce that conceit. But, one of the most valuable pieces of advice I ever received was from another brilliant individual who once remarked, "You and I might understand this, but those who follow might not. We need to simplify it." From then on, I've always thought twice about getting "too creative."
Because he's really asking "how do I capture the stream to my hard drive." He just doesn't want the prosecuting to use his Ask Slashdot posting in court.
Nothing is immune from bugs. A "don't touch" comment is the result of irrational confidence that no programmer should ever have. I would suggest "If you think this is wrong, prove it!"
I agree. I've ranted about this before. 99% of languages implement multi-threading through function calls. Class method calls, in this case, are merely glorified function calls. Multi-threading should be handled at the same level as other flow control statements because that's what is most like.
I think a real outbreak of common sense would be to give the department a budget of $1 (or less) and fill the position once peace breaks out over the planet.
Some research institutes already have established IT infrastructures with biomedical domain knowledge. For example, the Cincinnati Children's Research Foundation. http://bmi.cchmc.org/
That may be. I certainly call into the category of "average citizens." But the fact that 150+ people sat on their butts while they were flown into a building was accomplished because everyone on board probably thought they were being taken hostage. Conventional wisdom had always said, "Cooperating with hostage takers is your your best chance for survival." No one will ever think a hijacking is just a hijacking again.
I wouldn't go so far as to say demand isn't vanishing. Obviously somebody, somewhere is keeping Brittney's career going. But my music spending habits have dwindled as my interest in today's have dwindled.
My chief complaint about loss figures is that they completely overlook pricing dynamics. No two people value the same music at the same price. Hard-core fans will shell out $50 for box sets of the same recordings another person might only pay the bargin-bin $3.99 for. So if the second person pirates that music, the loss to piracy isn't $50, it's $4. Of course, that doesn't stop the music industry from... um... "spinning" the facts. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Correct. If I recall correctly, they converted the digital audio to a video signal and used common video recorders to store the digital audio. At the time, some music "purists" criticized the process because it yielded a slight pitch change because NTSC tape decks at recorded at 29.95 frames per second from NTSC based PCM converters sampling at 44,056 samples per second. When played back at 44,100 samples per second it raised the pitch. PAL based PCM converters operated at 44,100 samples per second.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, I went into a little detail on another post. When I said, "genetic," I mean genes - DNA. There are four main Nucleic Acid types in DNA: Adenosine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymidine. Abbreviated ACGT. So you could store a gene sequence as ACGCCTGCAATC. But in other populations, Asian for example, the same gene is more commonly found as ACTCCTGCAATC. (The third nucleotide is different) Exact string matches won't find matches between different population groups. So they create wild-card letters that represent either G or T -> K. So ACKCCTGCAATC would match either the both of sequences commonly found in western and eastern populations. Data of this nature has no business being in a relational database. For that matter, it doesn't belong in these pseudo databases either.
Genetic sequences are long strings alphabetic characters. One of the most common representations is the FASTA which deals with the most common type of nucleotide polymorphisms. You can't use exact string searching to find a match which makes BLOBS and CLOBS useless. That said, the meta-data of genetic data is reasonably structured and does load into relational databases fairly well.
There is a time and place for SQL. There is a time and place to avoid SQL.
SQL is great for financial data. SQL is terrible for genetic data.
Make that former US Senator.
What password masking does prevent is accidental password snooping. Let's face it. Unless you're quite hardcode and have pure random password, it is probably a word or phrase with some amount of dictionary thwarting added. It is all to easy for a coworker to catch a glimpse of that word and remember because it's Passive. watching keystrokes requires Active snooping.
Just as Doctor Who is bigger than any one actor who plays the role, many of the "Big Things" in life are always bigger than those who run them. Corporate Executives should do well to remember that.
This isn't the same thing as saying anyone can just replace anyone. Matt Smith has some large expectations to meet when Tennant turns over the TARDIS key.
Linux is a great example. Linus doesn't do as much day-to-day programming in the kernel - he hasn't for years. None the less, there are dozens of people who do. Linux will continue long after Linus stops working on it.
I think there is a great danger if there exists a Cult of Personality in an organisation. While I firmly believe that Apple can do well after Steve Jobs leaves, he has built a Cult of Personality that will immediately cripple whoever follows.
It's already being done. I have two cars in my driveway - Ohio, US - and the both get 44 mpg and 47 mpg under our everyday driving habits. The EPA stats over estimated it a little. One is a '99 the other is an '06. My Car with the geek license plate.
I feel there are two paths vendors can follow: Abandon backwards compatibility and embrace backwards compatibility. Both have their merits and problems.
But, the most perilous thing a vendor can do is a hybrid approach that doesn't do either well. That's just a disaster.
It is interesting, but is it relevant to this thread?
I tried to find a methodology of their statistics. If I recall, netcraft used to perform fancy packet inspection to determine what a site was running and if or when a site rebooted. Today, any site of substance is really a cluster of servers fronted by load balancers. You really have no idea when a server behind it reboots.
What their brief really shows is that there are groups of people who believe that Copyright exists as a copy protection system. For that matter, the same is true of Patents and Trade Marks insofar as they're often used to restrict how people use what they protect. In short, they believe that Copyright exists to make the works protected by copyright proprietary.
This isn't the first time this has happened. In the early days of the SCO/IBM lawsuit (Dec, 2003), Daryl McBride declared that the GPL was unconstitutional because it tries to make intellectual property non-proprietary which is contrary to the purpose of Copyright.
These people sincerely believe the only use for Copyright is a proprietary use. They also lobby governments.
What we need to do, is to assert and evangelize our belief that Copyright is the limited right to choose the terms and conditions under which anyone can copy, redistribute or derive our works. And we should defend our right to choose either proprietary terms, non-proprietary terms or something in between that balances the benefits of both. We should explain the benefits of non-proprietary licensing. We should also not be hypocrites and demand others respect a non-proprietary license, while at the same time, disdaining and circumventing proprietary licenses.
While that is a true statement, it is true only because Unix passwords are never encrypted - SSH not withstanding. Other posters have gone on and on about hashing. Authentication systems should NEVER accepted a pre-hashed password because it then becomes a password equivalent. Password equivalents represent a common attack vector and are frequently under protected because many have the misconceived intuition that it's safe because it's "encrypted."
This isn't surpassing. Encryption is a two-edged sword. Encrypted data (including pin numbers) are useless until they are decrypted. When you have multiple vendors involved each vendor has it's own key. You can't have one key to rule them all because if that key leaks (and it would) then no data are safe.
I think the real implications are that an OS running under Virtualization can break out of its sandbox and attack other OS's running on the same system.
Damn, you beat me to it.
Never the less, you are spot on. Some quirky programmers are both, some are neither.
Perhaps it is conceited of me, but I've always thought of myself as brilliant. Enough people have made comments that reinforce that conceit. But, one of the most valuable pieces of advice I ever received was from another brilliant individual who once remarked, "You and I might understand this, but those who follow might not. We need to simplify it." From then on, I've always thought twice about getting "too creative."
It's my birthday too. Happy Birthday!
Because he's really asking "how do I capture the stream to my hard drive." He just doesn't want the prosecuting to use his Ask Slashdot posting in court.
Nothing is immune from bugs. A "don't touch" comment is the result of irrational confidence that no programmer should ever have. I would suggest "If you think this is wrong, prove it!"
I agree. I've ranted about this before. 99% of languages implement multi-threading through function calls. Class method calls, in this case, are merely glorified function calls. Multi-threading should be handled at the same level as other flow control statements because that's what is most like.
I think a real outbreak of common sense would be to give the department a budget of $1 (or less) and fill the position once peace breaks out over the planet.
Yes we do.
In computers have a static runtime (the CPU) and you change the instructions to get different results.
In biology, the instructions (DNA) are mostly static, but the runtime (cell cycle regulation and other pathways) changes to get different results.
Shameless plug warning ....
Some research institutes already have established IT infrastructures with biomedical domain knowledge. For example, the Cincinnati Children's Research Foundation. http://bmi.cchmc.org/
That may be. I certainly call into the category of "average citizens." But the fact that 150+ people sat on their butts while they were flown into a building was accomplished because everyone on board probably thought they were being taken hostage. Conventional wisdom had always said, "Cooperating with hostage takers is your your best chance for survival." No one will ever think a hijacking is just a hijacking again.
I wouldn't go so far as to say demand isn't vanishing. Obviously somebody, somewhere is keeping Brittney's career going. But my music spending habits have dwindled as my interest in today's have dwindled.
My chief complaint about loss figures is that they completely overlook pricing dynamics. No two people value the same music at the same price. Hard-core fans will shell out $50 for box sets of the same recordings another person might only pay the bargin-bin $3.99 for. So if the second person pirates that music, the loss to piracy isn't $50, it's $4. Of course, that doesn't stop the music industry from ... um ... "spinning" the facts. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
I am surprised that the number is a low as 25%.
Correct. If I recall correctly, they converted the digital audio to a video signal and used common video recorders to store the digital audio. At the time, some music "purists" criticized the process because it yielded a slight pitch change because NTSC tape decks at recorded at 29.95 frames per second from NTSC based PCM converters sampling at 44,056 samples per second. When played back at 44,100 samples per second it raised the pitch. PAL based PCM converters operated at 44,100 samples per second.
The ugly details at Wiki