> Presumably you've thought about the security issues, and you have a PDF application that has the particular feature you want without exposing you to security issues.
It's actually simpler and safer than you'd imagine. The plan would be to have the server pre-check the PDF, and outright refuse to put the field in if there's anything troubling (e.g. scripts). The grade field will be a normal text form field, and the whole PDF will have to be re-uploaded to the server to extract the value.
> But what if they say, "I need features x, y, and z that aren't in Foxit
Interestingly, we've been looking at moving users to Foxit because it has features we're looking for, and Reader 9 doesn't. Need to check Reader X...
The bigger problem involves trying to train everyone to use Foxit. We've got a lot of staff who are very, very nervous about technology...
Yeah, I went away and read the 1.2 spec. Hadn't realised how much stuff they added later to PDF. I suspect a lot of the problems are that it's been substantially over-expanded since original design.
2. That's really cool, and prints a lot better than I would have expected, but... this is for coursework submission. That means training 9,000 students to produce HTML presentations. I don't see that going well for us...
3. Appearance of professionalism, and not being quietly killed in our sleep by the corporate identity peeps. We'll get rid of paper letters before we get rid of the demand that letter layouts aren't done to an extremely strict set of requirements.
There's a few contexts we use PDFs in, with varying advantages:
1. For archival purposes, we produce signed PDFs (and are working on producing PDF/A compliant documents, but the library we're using is being a bit of a pest). These can't then be changed without breaking the cryptographic signature.
2. For coursework submission... HTML could work for essays (although conversion from Word has always been "interesting"), but presentations wouldn't work. We're idly looking at adding.docx to HTML convertors as a step towards turning essays into.epub or.mobi files for Sony/Amazon e-readers, but that's long term stuff.
3. For formal letters (e.g. the same system can produce "You're failing your degree" letters), where layout is important (and easier to get right in PDF, mostly).
> Excuse me, but a document format used for storing printed documents on a system should represent the document as if it was printed when viewed again, _not_ suddenly switch the language or layout or whatever.
It sounds like what you want is PDF/A ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A ), which restricts the PDF to a simple non-scripted document. The fact that PDF is almost solely used to produce printed documents doesn't mean that's the intent of the format. DjVu ( http://djvu.org/ ) I believe would also be a good fit.
For example, we're looking at taking in student essays in PDF, attaching a form to the front that marks can be entered into, and the whole document returned to the submission system that then pulls the mark out (as opposed to having to track the mark independently of the material it applies to). I've seen presentations run from a PDF before. It would be a pity to lose these possibilities.
Actually only just realised this incidentally, but push notifications to mobiles are fairly much an ideal example of why a permanent IP is needed. Essentially,these mean the device may at any point need to receive information, with no client-side intervention to tell it to register against the network.
It's implied that the Android version at least uses an outgoing connection from the device ("However, it’s also tricky to implement a good push solution, and it isn’t free as there is some overhead in maintaining the required connection." - http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/05/android-cloud-to-device-messaging.html ). Presumably that does mean they're expecting the device to be NAT'd (otherwise it would just keep a UDP port open and get packets that way).
I was about to point that out; this is fairly clearly modifying the hardware outwith the manufacturer's intention. Maybe it works, maybe it turns out 2 months down the line that the chip overheats when run at a 6970 and burns itself out.
If you like meddling with hardware, this is going to be brilliant for you. Personally, I find myself just wanting it to work, these days....
For long term archival we're looking at PDFs (compliant to PDF/A-1b - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A for more information). Not quite sure what media will be... probably CD-RWs triple burnt and stored in different locations for redundancy.
Mostly, though, just try to remember to move stuff onto new media before the old becomes hopelessly old:)
IPv6 has been around since 1998 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460 ). That's Windows '98/NT territory. If Windows Server can't handle it, it's not because it hasn't had long enough to be tested in that configuration.
To address your ideas in turn:
1. Auditing by who? The first crisis with IPv4 allocation is the inability to allocate new chunks. Organisations with enough IPv4 addresses already aren't going to be bothered by this for a long time.
2. So... you're avoiding the cost of configuring networks to be dual protocol, by re-configuring servers... why is that necessarily cheaper?
3. Reclaiming IP addresses is akin to solving a lack of phone numbers for the NY area by claiming back some from a less populated state. It would rapidly lead to routing tables that are infeasibly complicated.
4. Again, you're suggesting an alternative way of investing time to solve a problem instead of solving it properly, and I'm not sure why this is inherently faster.
5. Possibly some variation on the SRV records, but... again, why is replacing every OS world-wide (absolutely nothing supports that, so everything will need upgrading) cheaper than enabling IPv6 on systems that are already out there?
Sticking with IPv4 means constructing an ever more elaborate set of workarounds on top of each other. For a while it will work, but I can't see the result remaining workable, or being cheaper in the long term.
I keep finding myself on Wikipedia for information that's readily available elsewhere, because it the first/second link in Google. It might be time for them to either see if they can get Google to help them down the rankings a little, or start trimming information that's easily found elsewhere (e.g., TV show episode listings).
I'm sure you'll be able to buy an unlocked version of the phone, but don't expect too much change from $1k from it (any more than you would from buying an unlocked iPhone 4 - I'm aware they're not available in the US, but the UK edition is £500/$800 or more inc tax).
The N-Gage was a badly designed device that was neither a good phone, or gaming device. Side-talking was absurd looking, and put many people off the phone. The needs to remove the battery to switch games also did not help it.
The Zeus may not be perfect (especially as the PSP is exactly new, any more), but at least should launch as a phone that looks like a phone, with a good sized game catalogue.
Essentially, in agreeing a line that will not be crossed, with well reasoned arguments for not doing so, anyone crossing that line makes an enemy of a lot of people at once. It might be harder to regulate worm/cracking tool development, but that doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done.
Presumable a variety of different cracking tools, worms, and related pieces of software. As much as the film/TV idea of people frantically tapping on keyboards during an attack is exciting, in reality it's normally about semi-automated systems attacking automated systems. A "cyberattack" from a government is most likely to involve pulling something suitable out of storage, giving it target details and clicking "Go", rather than trying to code something from scratch on demand.
I'm frankly terrified that the "solution" to this is not to fix the underlying issue, but instead to layer work-arounds on it.
Not to mention, unless I'm much mistaken a NAT can support 65536 connections at maximum (number of valid ports for outgoing connections). A/8 network might be okay, but putting a larger network behind NAT isn't going to help, and you can't layer them (because you still need a port free for the connection). We're going to run out, NAT just delays the inevitable by layering a giant administrative headache on the top.
Hopefully the brain dead idiocy that first name & last name is a unique identifier will die sooner or later. In the meantime, he would probably be well advised to do what those of us who do not Google well do, and make some mention of it in a covering letter. Admittedly, "I'm not a murderer" is probably a little weirder than "I'm not in a band, that's the other <first name> <last name>, nor do I have a PhD in Biology"...
If they linked it from their front page, and said "View the game here", that's implicitly authorising access. If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.
Leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...
Slashdot Mirror
HELL NO
NO.
No, no, no, no, no, NOOOOOOO NO.
NO!!!!
I'd argue against this, but it's just such a giant pile of fail I don't know where to start.
How about this; like hell am I handing Facebook access to every other account I own.
Did I mention... NO?
> Presumably you've thought about the security issues, and you have a PDF application that has the particular feature you want without exposing you to security issues.
It's actually simpler and safer than you'd imagine. The plan would be to have the server pre-check the PDF, and outright refuse to put the field in if there's anything troubling (e.g. scripts). The grade field will be a normal text form field, and the whole PDF will have to be re-uploaded to the server to extract the value.
> But what if they say, "I need features x, y, and z that aren't in Foxit
Interestingly, we've been looking at moving users to Foxit because it has features we're looking for, and Reader 9 doesn't. Need to check Reader X...
The bigger problem involves trying to train everyone to use Foxit. We've got a lot of staff who are very, very nervous about technology...
Yeah, I went away and read the 1.2 spec. Hadn't realised how much stuff they added later to PDF. I suspect a lot of the problems are that it's been substantially over-expanded since original design.
1. Yeah, suppose we could. What's the advantage?
2. That's really cool, and prints a lot better than I would have expected, but... this is for coursework submission. That means training 9,000 students to produce HTML presentations. I don't see that going well for us...
3. Appearance of professionalism, and not being quietly killed in our sleep by the corporate identity peeps. We'll get rid of paper letters before we get rid of the demand that letter layouts aren't done to an extremely strict set of requirements.
There's a few contexts we use PDFs in, with varying advantages:
1. For archival purposes, we produce signed PDFs (and are working on producing PDF/A compliant documents, but the library we're using is being a bit of a pest). These can't then be changed without breaking the cryptographic signature.
2. For coursework submission... HTML could work for essays (although conversion from Word has always been "interesting"), but presentations wouldn't work. We're idly looking at adding .docx to HTML convertors as a step towards turning essays into .epub or .mobi files for Sony/Amazon e-readers, but that's long term stuff.
3. For formal letters (e.g. the same system can produce "You're failing your degree" letters), where layout is important (and easier to get right in PDF, mostly).
> Excuse me, but a document format used for storing printed documents on a system should represent the document as if it was printed when viewed again, _not_ suddenly switch the language or layout or whatever.
It sounds like what you want is PDF/A ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A ), which restricts the PDF to a simple non-scripted document. The fact that PDF is almost solely used to produce printed documents doesn't mean that's the intent of the format. DjVu ( http://djvu.org/ ) I believe would also be a good fit.
For example, we're looking at taking in student essays in PDF, attaching a form to the front that marks can be entered into, and the whole document returned to the submission system that then pulls the mark out (as opposed to having to track the mark independently of the material it applies to). I've seen presentations run from a PDF before. It would be a pity to lose these possibilities.
Actually only just realised this incidentally, but push notifications to mobiles are fairly much an ideal example of why a permanent IP is needed. Essentially,these mean the device may at any point need to receive information, with no client-side intervention to tell it to register against the network.
It's implied that the Android version at least uses an outgoing connection from the device ("However, it’s also tricky to implement a good push solution, and it isn’t free as there is some overhead in maintaining the required connection." - http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/05/android-cloud-to-device-messaging.html ). Presumably that does mean they're expecting the device to be NAT'd (otherwise it would just keep a UDP port open and get packets that way).
> No country has close to 100% of its residents connected via multiple mobile Internet connections at the same time
My Android phone syncs to Google while I'm not paying attention. If I had an iPhone, it would do similar thing for handling push messages.
> many countries provide a NATed private IP anyway.
Err... you mean company, right?
It's odd to see something this minor go to court, but... yes, why wouldn't it be illegal?
Really going to have to talk about the difference between "easy" and "legal".
I was about to point that out; this is fairly clearly modifying the hardware outwith the manufacturer's intention. Maybe it works, maybe it turns out 2 months down the line that the chip overheats when run at a 6970 and burns itself out.
If you like meddling with hardware, this is going to be brilliant for you. Personally, I find myself just wanting it to work, these days....
For long term archival we're looking at PDFs (compliant to PDF/A-1b - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A for more information). Not quite sure what media will be... probably CD-RWs triple burnt and stored in different locations for redundancy.
Mostly, though, just try to remember to move stuff onto new media before the old becomes hopelessly old :)
I've got my old Amiga HD's contents around somewhere. It moves with my from system to system. I probably left it on a thumb drive somewhere...
IPv6 has been around since 1998 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460 ). That's Windows '98/NT territory. If Windows Server can't handle it, it's not because it hasn't had long enough to be tested in that configuration.
To address your ideas in turn:
1. Auditing by who? The first crisis with IPv4 allocation is the inability to allocate new chunks. Organisations with enough IPv4 addresses already aren't going to be bothered by this for a long time.
2. So... you're avoiding the cost of configuring networks to be dual protocol, by re-configuring servers... why is that necessarily cheaper?
3. Reclaiming IP addresses is akin to solving a lack of phone numbers for the NY area by claiming back some from a less populated state. It would rapidly lead to routing tables that are infeasibly complicated.
4. Again, you're suggesting an alternative way of investing time to solve a problem instead of solving it properly, and I'm not sure why this is inherently faster.
5. Possibly some variation on the SRV records, but... again, why is replacing every OS world-wide (absolutely nothing supports that, so everything will need upgrading) cheaper than enabling IPv6 on systems that are already out there?
Sticking with IPv4 means constructing an ever more elaborate set of workarounds on top of each other. For a while it will work, but I can't see the result remaining workable, or being cheaper in the long term.
I keep finding myself on Wikipedia for information that's readily available elsewhere, because it the first/second link in Google. It might be time for them to either see if they can get Google to help them down the rankings a little, or start trimming information that's easily found elsewhere (e.g., TV show episode listings).
I was thinking that. Computer crimes aren't punished more severely, it's just easier to commit more severe crimes with them...
I'm sure you'll be able to buy an unlocked version of the phone, but don't expect too much change from $1k from it (any more than you would from buying an unlocked iPhone 4 - I'm aware they're not available in the US, but the UK edition is £500/$800 or more inc tax).
The N-Gage was a badly designed device that was neither a good phone, or gaming device. Side-talking was absurd looking, and put many people off the phone. The needs to remove the battery to switch games also did not help it.
The Zeus may not be perfect (especially as the PSP is exactly new, any more), but at least should launch as a phone that looks like a phone, with a good sized game catalogue.
Essentially, in agreeing a line that will not be crossed, with well reasoned arguments for not doing so, anyone crossing that line makes an enemy of a lot of people at once. It might be harder to regulate worm/cracking tool development, but that doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done.
Presumable a variety of different cracking tools, worms, and related pieces of software. As much as the film/TV idea of people frantically tapping on keyboards during an attack is exciting, in reality it's normally about semi-automated systems attacking automated systems. A "cyberattack" from a government is most likely to involve pulling something suitable out of storage, giving it target details and clicking "Go", rather than trying to code something from scratch on demand.
I'm frankly terrified that the "solution" to this is not to fix the underlying issue, but instead to layer work-arounds on it.
Not to mention, unless I'm much mistaken a NAT can support 65536 connections at maximum (number of valid ports for outgoing connections). A /8 network might be okay, but putting a larger network behind NAT isn't going to help, and you can't layer them (because you still need a port free for the connection). We're going to run out, NAT just delays the inevitable by layering a giant administrative headache on the top.
Hopefully the brain dead idiocy that first name & last name is a unique identifier will die sooner or later. In the meantime, he would probably be well advised to do what those of us who do not Google well do, and make some mention of it in a covering letter. Admittedly, "I'm not a murderer" is probably a little weirder than "I'm not in a band, that's the other <first name> <last name>, nor do I have a PhD in Biology"...
# zgrep -i phpmyadmin access_log-20101101.bz2 //phpmyadmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //PHPMYADMIN/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpmyadmin2/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin2/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpmyadmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmins/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.2.3/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.2.6/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.5.1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.5.4/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //PHPMYADMIN/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.2.3/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.2.6/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.5.1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.5.4/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" //phpMyAdmin-2.5.5-pl1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:41 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:43 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:44 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:45 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:45 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:48 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:48 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:49 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:49 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:57 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:58 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:58 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:00 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:05 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:07 +0100] "GET
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:0
Any reference for that? Googling the term primarily brings back references to here...
No.
If they linked it from their front page, and said "View the game here", that's implicitly authorising access. If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.
Leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...
I'm pained there isn't a "+1 Depressingly correct" mod option.